How did it happen that a dictator leading a country with 1.5% of the world’s GDP once again managed to bend to his will countries that surpass Russia dozens of times in economic and military terms?
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 16th. It’s 07:43 in Kyiv, and we continue our now morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
What’s in Trump’s Head Link to heading
To start with, I suggest watching a very short video that, in my opinion, best explains everything that is happening in the world today.
I didn’t expect that. I was basically saying, why would he go if I’m not going, because I wasn’t planning to go. I had no plans to go. I would have gone, but I wasn’t planning to. And I said, I don’t think he’ll go if I don’t go. And that turned out to be true. But we have people there. Marco, as you know, is doing a fantastic job. Marco is the Secretary of State there, and we have people there. But I didn’t think Putin would be able to go if I wasn’t there.
I don’t fully trust my brilliant knowledge of English, so I decided to double-check with some native speakers. Yes, the translation is accurate. And this video, in my opinion, is the key to everything happening in the world today. At least to that part which is involved in the whirlwind of events surrounding the bloody war in Europe—the only war in Europe after World War II. Well, this video, this little window into the inner world of the most influential politician in the world, the 47th President of the United States of America. As I see it, this is now the key to the events unfolding around Istanbul.
Summary of Previous Episodes Link to heading
Well, let’s go over everything in order. Here’s a summary of previous episodes. So, Trump, along with European leaders and Ukraine, issues Putin an ultimatum for a 30-day ceasefire starting May 12. Otherwise, sanctions and arming Ukraine to the teeth. Putin responds at night. No ceasefire. Talks in Istanbul on May 15. It seemed like that’s it, game over. Putin rejected the ultimatum. Logically, Western politicians and Ukraine should now take the measures they promised to take. But suddenly, out of nowhere, Trump declares, “This is a great day for Ukraine and Russia.” He urges Ukraine to rush to Istanbul, completely forgetting what he said the day before. Naturally, in such a situation, Zelensky, understanding that ignoring Trump’s statements would be like replaying that scene in the Oval Office, makes a strong move, in my opinion, by declaring, “I’m waiting for Putin in Istanbul on the 15th.” Waiting for Putin.
Of course, Putin doesn’t go to Istanbul. Instead, he sends a sort of box filled with office clips instead of a negotiation delegation, led by the main “clip” himself, so to speak. We should probably elevate the rank—head of the delegation Vladimir Medinsky. These are third-tier officials and experts. Medinsky’s appointment is a clear signal that, essentially, they want to resume negotiations from where they were interrupted back in 2022. Ukraine, at first, announces a delegation two levels higher than the Russian one. Then Zelensky lowers the level of the delegation but still keeps it above Russia’s, as the Ukrainian Defense Minister heads the delegation. Nevertheless, he tries to even things out and declares that the Russian delegation is a sham.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry responds in its usual manner. Lavrov calls Zelensky a pathetic person. Zakharova claims the Ukrainian president has an unknown education. Well, the “unknown education” happens to be a law degree with honors. Fine, a red diploma, okay, unknown education. Zelensky insists on a personal meeting with Putin. In that case, Trump, who is currently on a trip to the Middle East, would certainly join the negotiations. So, after receiving the latest news from Istanbul, Trump makes that very substantial, logical, and consistent statement you just heard: “If I don’t go, Putin won’t go. If I go, Putin will go.”
In short, to adequately assess and comment on Trump’s statement would require great literary talent. For example, of Daniil Kharms or Saltykov-Shchedrin level. I don’t have such talent, so I simply give you the chance to hear it from the original source. It is quite obvious that Russia is preparing for a major summer offensive. Another question is whether Russia has the strength for it. That’s a separate issue. But they are definitely preparing. Putin is in a certain informational cocoon, made up of those red folders filled with boastful and very optimistic reports. Therefore, he is not ready to discuss anything today. He might be ready when and if the summer offensive happens and is successful. Then, Putin will be ready to accept Ukraine’s complete and final capitulation.
So today, he is organizing the process in such a way as to avoid discussing the initiative of Trump, European leaders, and Zelensky about a 30-day ceasefire. And he is staging this absolutely meaningless meeting with his office clips, who are only capable of talking real negotiations to death. They will put forward some demands, probably dust off that same yellowed piece of paper from 2022, where they proposed Ukraine’s actual capitulation. Ukraine was supposed to reduce its army to 80,000 troops, limit tanks to 300, and so on. Essentially, it was about capitulation.
For Putin, it is important to keep up these so-called negotiations, mainly to show Trump that, look, we are negotiators, we are negotiating. So, let’s sum up the interim results, after which we’ll think together about what’s going on. Putin has clearly bent all of Europe, the United States, and, of course, Ukraine, which had no intention of yielding, but under Trump’s direct and unequivocal pressure, after Putin’s statement and his nightly appearance, Trump declared it a great day for Ukraine and Russia, so Ukraine also caved. Well, how could they not, when Trump, the most influential politician in the world, is pressing them?
How a Dictator from a Country with 1.5% of Global GDP Bent Everyone to His Will Link to heading
And now the question. The question is: how? How did it happen that a dictator of a country with just one and a half percent of the world’s GDP—a war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court—once again managed to bend to his will countries that surpass his in economic and military terms by dozens of times? Here, I want to talk about a phenomenon we discussed a lot in the 2000s and 2010s, especially the 2000s—the famous “Putin’s luck.”
I understand that coming from someone who has repeatedly said they don’t believe in any supernatural circumstances, this might sound strange. But still, there is such a thing as luck that has accompanied Putin for not just one or two decades. Let’s just analyze. After 1990, Putin, holding the modest rank of KGB lieutenant colonel, is transferred to the reserve. By that time, since 1991, the KGB is no longer all-powerful, no longer able to do whatever it wants with anyone. It’s no longer a sign of power—it’s a sign of disgrace. Especially in St. Petersburg and Moscow, the mood was palpable, like when the monument to Dzerzhinsky was toppled, and the inhabitants of that yellow building with hundreds of curtained windows didn’t dare to poke their noses out.
Those who know that time well understand that, unlike the Soviet era, when belonging to the KGB meant being part of the elite, after 1991, it was the opposite. KGB officers scattered like cockroaches, trying to land security jobs wherever they could and complaining about their hard lives. Putin was in the same situation. After his relatively comfortable assignment in Dresden, where he had KGB and Stasi credentials and some local influence, everything collapsed.
Then luck struck again, this time named Sobchak. A man who was mockingly called “Cigarette Butt” in his circles became, first, an advisor, then vice-mayor, effectively the boss of a major city. I’m not going to tell Putin’s entire biography here—this is a conversation about his luck, which undoubtedly played a role. Sobchak picked up someone who was headed for personal oblivion.
Then came 1996. Sobchak lost the election. Luck seemed to run out. Putin was out of work. He even mentioned in interviews how terrible it was, how he supposedly had nothing to live on—which, of course, was a lie. But then another stroke of luck arrived, this time named Borodin. The all-powerful Kremlin property manager, on Kudrin’s recommendation, brought Putin to Moscow, giving him a substantial post.
From there, being close to the Kremlin, luck’s name changed to Yeltsin—or more precisely, “The Family”: Berezovsky, Tatyana, Valya. They noticed Putin and saw him as a successor. And once he became president, a new stroke of luck appeared—oil prices. It had nothing to do with Putin’s personal merit. People often say, “Well, look at the 2000s, the 2010s—times of plenty, huge cash flows from oil dollars, Russia’s economic growth.”
It’s true. And I understand that for many listening now, it might be hard to accept when I say that never before in history did Russians live as well on average as they did in the 2000s and 2010s. Of course, wealth distribution was very uneven—some stole billions, while others lived in poverty. But the average level was undeniably higher. A huge flow of petrodollars allowed Putin to leave a portion for the people.
Specifically, from March 2002, oil prices began a sustained rise. Experts attribute this to several factors: the Iraq war, decreased oil production in Mexico and Indonesia, growing global oil consumption, depletion of easily accessible oil reserves in the Persian Gulf, and so on.
In February 2008, Brent crude oil surpassed $100 per barrel for the first time. By July 2008, it reached an all-time high of nearly $144 per barrel. That massive influx of petrodollars created a stable economic situation in Russia, allowing Putin to maintain power and even grow his influence.
And yet, today, we see a country with just 1.5% of global GDP confronting a coalition of 50 countries—countries that together account for around half of the world’s GDP. Militarily, NATO’s superiority over Russia is overwhelming. And still, he imposes his agenda.
Today’s situation is another stroke of luck—this time named Trump. Trump’s unique behavior—constantly contradicting himself, first supporting a 30-day truce, then ignoring Putin’s refusal and calling for immediate negotiations—creates chaos. That chaos is a perfect cover for Putin, who produces corpses.
Trump manufactures chaos, while Putin manufactures death. They are a perfect match. And that is the whole story of Putin’s luck. Today, it looks like the world is dealing with a well-organized global criminal group made up of just two people: Putin, who wages war in Ukraine, and Trump, who stands lookout, creating distractions and chaos with his statements, like the one we started with today.
That’s the essence of Putin’s luck. I understand that many might be disappointed because luck isn’t a scientific concept. But still, it’s a fact. When will it run out? I don’t know.
Only the Battlefield Link to heading
I believe the current situation is such that this can only be countered on the battlefield. Ukrainian naval drones, which are taking down Russian aircraft, present quite convincing arguments against it. Ukraine’s enormous superiority can also play a role—firstly in motivation, because Ukraine has nowhere to retreat, and secondly in intelligence. Because nowadays, war is no longer about blunt force, like Stalin’s steel and tank-to-tank battles, but rather a competition of technologies. And in technology, Ukraine is winning. Another matter is that it needs support. Trump is Putin’s accomplice—this is obvious. Therefore, the hope lies largely with Europe.
So, this is the picture that emerges—my non-scientific yet deeply analytical conversation about Putin’s luck. But this is a fact. And what can be opposed to facts? The nature of Putin’s luck? Well, let’s just say that history always leaves room for coincidences. But they eventually run out. So Putin’s luck will end too, and with it, the history of Putinism.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I would like to say that at 7:00 PM we are scheduled to have another joint livestream with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky. I think it will be interesting. If there are any changes, I will definitely let you know. And now I am moving on to answering your questions.
Trump’s $400 Million Bribe Link to heading
Alex Ivanov, Please comment on Trump’s desire to accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar. This is rock bottom. A direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, a breach of the most basic security protocols for Air Force One. Plus, it’s pure greed. The man wants to keep this plane for personal use after his term in office. Are responsible American officials out of their minds, not reacting—let alone ordinary Americans? This is total lawlessness, betraying the entire institution of the Founding Fathers. And then there’s the agreement with Trump’s assessments of the plane.
Well, there’s nothing much to comment on here. It’s truly an outrageous fact. I can only say this: the current situation with Trump’s support is that those who support him will support anything. It’s practically a huge cult. Cult members back their spiritual leader—or guru, or whatever you want to call their führer—no matter what he does. Trump once said that if he went out on the street and shot someone, people would still support him. And he’s right.
At one time, sociologists called Putin’s rating “Teflon”—nothing stuck to him. His fans kept supporting him regardless of his actions. Similarly, Trump’s core supporters remain loyal no matter what. Now, Trump’s overall rating is falling, but that’s because among his supporters there are not only cult followers but also people who were simply unhappy with Biden’s and Kamala Harris’s policies. As these “temporary allies” drift away, the rating drops.
However, Trump still has a solid core of around 40 million Americans who will support him no matter what. Given that his administration was filled with hardcore loyalists or people who find it profitable to be loyal, nothing Trump does will trigger any real reaction. So he accepted a $400 million gift—so what? Who doesn’t? No big deal. The main thing is, “he’s a good guy.” What we’re dealing with here is a cult.
Should Deceased Soviet Criminals Be Tried Link to heading
Question from Lemeshev Do you believe that Soviet criminals like Khat—Colonel Khat, Lieutenant Matveyev, and others like them—should be tried today?
Well, this refers to those NKVD officers who tortured people. The notorious and horrifying story of Colonel Khat torturing and abusing Academician Vavilov comes to mind—not for the faint of heart. Truly monstrous criminals. I think yes, they should. The whole question is who would try them. Under Putin, such trials would be purely ceremonial, symbolic in nature. I believe these individuals are no longer alive, so right now this isn’t a pressing issue. Today, it’s more important to bring the living to justice.
Should Criminals Be Re-rehabilitated Link to heading
And a second question from Lemeshev. Is there any mechanism for re-rehabilitating people like Tukhachevsky, Yakir? Memorial raised such questions even back in my school years. In history textbooks, such figures were portrayed as great, talented military leaders—God forgive me—who fell innocent victims of Stalin’s terror. At this rate, in 20 years, they might rehabilitate Girkin as a victim of Putin’s regime too.
Well, the second question seems very simple to me. Basically, I think it’s just not relevant right now. And, you know, currently, there’s simply no one to do it. I think the mechanism of rehabilitation, considering the uncertain future of the Russian state, will not be a legal procedure but rather a task for historians. Historians will analyze, evaluate, and so on. It’s about changing public opinion.
As for some legal procedure, I’m not sure. Here’s the thing: if you strictly follow legal procedures, then of course, each of them—Tukhachevsky, Yakir—was certainly a monster. That’s clear. But they were tried not for what they actually did. Strictly speaking, if we’re being completely accurate, even Beria would have to be rehabilitated because he wasn’t an English spy. The fact that he was a monster—he should have been tried for something else entirely.
It’s like if Chikatilo had been tried for espionage, you’d have to rehabilitate him for that false charge and then try him properly for being a serial killer. So, from a legal standpoint, re-rehabilitating Tukhachevsky or Yakir is problematic because they weren’t guilty of what they were accused of. They should’ve been prosecuted for something else. So technically, it would be a case of exhuming and then reburying them, so to speak.
These kinds of procedures require a very different environment. For now, I think this remains a matter of shaping public opinion. And frankly, public opinion is currently focused on other things.
What to Do with the Graves at the Kremlin Wall Link to heading
And the last question from Lemeshev, as he puts it: a banal yet ambiguous question for future generations in Russia—what should be done with the corpse in the Mausoleum and the corpses by the Kremlin Wall? Are they historical artifacts, or should they end up in some landfill near Moscow?
Well, I don’t think landfills are the answer. I believe the problem is that we don’t fully… If you’re asking for my opinion, then my view is that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin fully deserves to be buried somewhere near his mother. There’s a spot at the cemetery for that. As for having a corpse on Red Square, it’s not exactly a pleasant detail. The same goes for the Kremlin Wall.
But I think this is not the most pressing issue right now. In the future, it will be resolved as part of the broader process that will take place in Russia. I believe Russia is facing very serious changes—both geopolitical and geographical. Therefore, this question will be settled according to what regime exists in Russia or its parts. In general, people should, of course, be buried properly, rather than being turned into pharaoh-like relics.
Vyacheslav Shestakov Link to heading
Yura, what is your opinion of Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Shestakov? He hasn’t been heard from in a long time. Understandable, he’s 88, but still—your take? One library describes him as a staunch communist, an orthodox who later turned into an enfant terrible.
Dear Yura, To my great sorrow, Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Shestakov passed away in 2003. Why do I say “to my great sorrow”? Because, first and foremost, he was my friend. I very rarely call anyone my friend—I don’t throw around such words lightly. But with Vyacheslav Nikolaevich, I had the honor of being his friend.
He certainly was not some convinced orthodox communist. Yes, he did head the Moscow Higher Party School of the CPSU Central Committee, but he was a person very receptive to new ideas. That is precisely why he sacrificed his party career, becoming first a co-chair of the Democratic Platform and later of the Republican Party. He was expelled. In fact, we were expelled from the CPSU together, fired, and unemployed for a while.
Indeed, he sacrificed his career and everything that came with it. Since he passed away before reaching retirement age, the end of his life was, frankly, lived in poverty. It’s very bitter because he was a truly dignified person who also dedicated himself to academic work. He even hired people known as “nonconformists” at the time—very unorthodox individuals—into the Higher Party School, where staunch Stalinists and rigid ideologues had long been entrenched.
I vividly remember an incident when one such nonconformist, a bearded man named Malyutin who always wore a stretched-out sweater, was almost stopped at the entrance to the school. The staff thought he was some kind of terrorist. He tried to explain that he worked there. Shestakov was a person of absolute courage and open to new ideas.
Yes, perhaps once he was an orthodox communist, but he outgrew communism—like many others did. And this happened not when the communist regime had already collapsed, but when it was still holding strong. I remember that time well. When we were being fired, there was a sense that it was a leap into the void. Nobody in the late ’80s imagined that this regime would soon collapse. Nobody.
Vyacheslav Nikolaevich was a very dignified man, both as a scholar studying social relations and as a person. It is a great pity that he died so early.
Why Plekhanov Is Better Than Lenin Link to heading
Oleg Pavlenko Today you briefly mentioned Plekhanov. It reminded me of my second year at university. We had a very young associate professor teaching Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Almost every lecture, regardless of the topic—whether it was ancient philosophers or another of Lenin’s works—she would end by saying: “If you want to understand this topic in more detail, read Georgy Valentinovich,” and would reference a specific work. Yet, in the 1972 Konstantinov textbook, I never saw references to Plekhanov. What was the reason for such reverence toward Plekhanov by our professor?
Dear Oleg, You know, I think that if we’re talking about committed communists who were genuinely interested in philosophy, this reverence is quite understandable. Among Russian communist theorists—those who actually thought, not fanatics—Plekhanov was always considered far more authoritative than Lenin.
Purely in terms of theory, Plekhanov was undoubtedly a head above Lenin as a Marxist theoretician. Lenin was a rather weak economist and, frankly, a mediocre philosopher, more of an apprentice-level thinker. Plekhanov, on the other hand, genuinely attempted to develop Marxist theory. So this respect is justified.
Another matter is that, as a politician, Lenin was several heads above Plekhanov. He didn’t care much for theory and would discard Marxist dogmas whenever they stood in the way of his pursuit of power. So it’s all quite clear: as a Marxist theorist, Plekhanov was undoubtedly number one in Russia, at least within the Marxist tradition, despite it being a dead-end path.
Attitude Toward Zatulin Link to heading
Question from Konstantin Zatulin is an ideologist of separatism, an obvious enemy of Ukraine alongside Glazyev. But quite unexpectedly, at a propagandist gathering, he stated that Ukraine would survive as a state, causing a quiet murmur among those present. Despite being an enemy, I feel a certain respect for him as a worthy, far from stupid opponent. What is your attitude toward this figure?
You know, I agree. Still, the only word I would probably avoid using, given Konstantin Zatulin’s background, is “respect.” Though I admit, it’s possible to respect an enemy too. Yes, I agree. First of all, he is a very educated person. He is indeed very well-educated. I can personally confirm this, as I’ve had quite a few interactions with him.
I clearly remember when the electoral bloc led by Yavlinsky was being formed—Zatulin was involved, and there were attempts to bring him in as well. I remember his participation well because I was the head of that bloc’s campaign headquarters and later became a deputy in that faction. I vividly recall the preliminary discussions about the program, allies, and so on.
It eventually became clear that Zatulin was heading down a different path. He would have been a foreign body in that faction, so he chose to align with others. In general, I believe that yes, he is an enemy, an absolutely rabid nationalist, and a fierce enemy of Ukraine—truly a fierce enemy.
Therefore, my attitude toward him is as an adversary. However, what cannot be taken away from him is his level of education—he is far more educated than the vast majority of Putinists and, unfortunately, than a significant number of Putin’s opponents as well. That’s an undeniable fact.
About Arkady Babchenko Link to heading
Tucker asks: I would like to know your opinion about Arkady Babchenko. Maybe you’ve already talked about it on air, but I missed it. Personally, I used to find his views interesting. Then it turned into endless doom-mongering and constant accusations that Ukraine does everything wrong. I’m curious what you think, if you think anything about him at all.
Dear colleague, I have answered questions about my attitude toward Babchenko many times, so I’ll be brief. Unfortunately, he is a very talented journalist who has traded his talent for rabid propagandistic hatred—specifically towards Volodymyr Zelensky. He has undoubtedly broken down.
We all witnessed this breakdown of a talented journalist when he played that game with his “assassination,” and that was the turning point. After that, he was endlessly grateful to then-President Poroshenko and took Poroshenko’s election loss as his personal tragedy. Since then, everything fell apart.
Now, in almost every one of his appearances, he pours dirt on Zelensky personally and Ukraine as a whole, while also claiming to help the Ukrainian Armed Forces—which, to his credit, he does. But whether he brings more harm or good is hard to say, as he actively shapes public opinion against Ukraine, not just against Zelensky.
Astronomy as a Science Link to heading
Arkady Mikhailov asks: According to the laws of perspective, we shouldn’t be able to see stars, objects hundreds of light-years away. They should be many orders of magnitude smaller than a molecule. What do you say? Astronomy is a bluff.
Well, first of all, there are quite powerful telescopes. Secondly, astronomy is certainly not a bluff—it is a vast field of knowledge based on extensive research. These studies involve not only trying to see something through telescopes but also detecting objects that aren’t even directly visible, using mathematical calculations. So no, it is not a bluff.
Should You Listen to Katz Link to heading
Volker Igor Aleksandrovich, it seems you too have not avoided the unfortunate tendency of the Russian opposition to fight among themselves and make mutual accusations. What has Katz done to you?
Right away, I can say—nothing bad. We’ve met in person maybe a couple of times, perhaps exchanged views a couple of times remotely. He hasn’t done anything bad to me. Then the question is:
Why should we listen to you or Katz?
I’ve never said you should listen to me or Katz. In fact, if I had an extra life to spare, I’d listen to Katz too. I just don’t have the time. That’s all. Otherwise, yes, listening to Katz is probably interesting. His educational programs are widely praised, and I believe deservedly so. So I don’t understand where this question even comes from. Moving on:
If I listen to both of you, is that wrong?
Of course not. Then comes a very debatable statement:
Every commentator has only part of the truth. To get the full picture, you need to listen to everyone.
Well, you know, you could also listen to Solovyov—he’s a commentator too. Again, the question is where to draw the line.
That’s why I used to listen to Podolyaka. And then Podolyak with I. Feygin…
Well, you see—not everyone. Apparently, you’ve stopped listening to Podolyaka. And rightly so, because Podolyaka is now a traitor. You can, of course, listen to him to gauge the scale of his betrayal.
…and Feygin, Berezovets, Tsymbalyuk. Once I listened to Arestovych and Latynina. To stop following someone, I need a clear argument that the person has clearly gone off track. Like Podolyaka, who exposed himself instantly, and Latynina and Arestovych, who spoke reasonably for a long time, then suddenly started advocating for the Russian Empire. But Katz is clearly on our side. He just emphasizes different things, ignores some issues, but that’s no reason to break ties with him.
First of all, I’m not suggesting to befriend or unfriend anyone. People ask me, “What do you think of this or that statement by Katz?” or “What’s your opinion of this public figure?” And I answer.
I believe Katz undoubtedly does important work in terms of educational programs. I don’t have time to watch them, but I trust people who say they’re good—so they probably are. However, the real issue arises when assessing the fact that Katz still…
For me, the main event today is the war. Any political analyst inevitably takes a side: are they for Ukraine or for Russia? Katz is still for Russia. He openly says he’s not ready to help Ukraine. He remains stuck in an electoral mindset. Recently, this fall, there were yet another round of so-called elections in Moscow, and Katz was motivating people to participate, calling to vote for certain candidates for the Moscow City Duma.
He still lives in an electoral reality where the pool has long been drained, but Katz keeps teaching people how to swim in it. He invites them to dive headfirst onto the concrete bottom and gives swimming lessons. There have been no real elections for a long time—no sense in participating in them. Yet Katz still tries to rally people to this cause.
In this sense, I believe Katz is leading people the wrong way. Or rather, it has been clear for a while that his path is irrelevant now. But Katz does what he knows and loves—organizing municipal elections—even though nothing resembling elections exists anymore.
So, I think there’s no need to “break up” with him, no need to “befriend” him either. Just look at things with open eyes. That’s it. I see no alternative like “watch me or Katz.” For heaven’s sake, manage your time as you see fit. Certainly, some of Katz’s content is worth watching if you have the time.
If Putin Can’t Be Taken Out Personally, Then Perhaps Through Intelligence Services Link to heading
Pan Stepan, I agree that killing Putin in a personal meeting with Zelensky is unrealistic. Though it’s not certain Putin refused to come himself. And Zelensky’s aides would be nearby anyway. But that’s an academic question—he didn’t come. Here’s a much more relevant one: if, as you say, Russia is a personalized regime and everything hinges on Putin, and the war won’t end while he’s in power, doesn’t that mean Ukraine is simply obliged to focus all its efforts and resources on physically eliminating Putin? Yes, it’s extremely difficult, but in the long term—possible.
Dear Pan Stepan, You know, I think that in Ukraine’s Security Service, and more broadly in Ukraine’s power structures, such discussions likely take place—just as they may be happening in the intelligence services of other countries. But I don’t see much point in publicly discussing this issue.
I’ve said more than once that it would be a good way to end the war. But to turn it into a public debate—well, I don’t know, I’m not sure that’s appropriate. Still, to reiterate: my position is that this would be a good and correct solution. Why? Because it would end the war.
But the political will to make it happen—that is what’s missing. And that is a separate issue, one I’ve already addressed before.
Why Do People So Readily Fall Morally Link to heading
Tatyana Regarding the atrocities and moral degradation in the Russian army, you said it’s due to years of systemic cognitive distortions and negative selection. Hard to argue with that. But what then explains the atrocities of the German army in occupied territories? After all, there were no communists in Germany, no wars of the German Reich fought by Russian noblemen, yet the most monstrous behavior surfaced. Klimov’s film Come and See is a vivid illustration. How do you explain this? Nadezhda’s question was very relevant. People really want to understand.
Well, actually, there were communists, though that’s not the point. The point is that by that time, they were no longer in power—that’s true.
As for the German atrocities, it is explained by the fact that Nazi propaganda and ideology instilled in people the belief that those before them were not quite human. That they should be treated accordingly.
I must say, if we’re comparing brutality—not between Germans and Soviets, but rather considering the phenomenon itself—separate studies would be needed to see who committed more atrocities.
But regarding the Germans, Nazi ideology and propaganda played a huge role. Turning an average, law-abiding bürger into a being without moral restraints through this kind of propaganda turned out to be surprisingly easy. The totalitarian nature of the propaganda truly transformed people into those very monsters who committed countless crimes.
First, you’re told there’s a superior race, and everything else is subhuman. Then you’re gradually relieved of the burden called “conscience.” This was a deliberate process. And Hitler succeeded in that.
Trump Humiliated Zelensky Link to heading
Question from Oleg Zelensky flew to Ankara, complained that the Russian delegation is a sham, but said nothing about whether he would meet with them anyway. I believe that if Zelensky meets with these Putin lackeys under any pretext and for any length of time, it would mean Trump simply forced Zelensky into a humiliating position alongside Putin.
I don’t understand where Putin comes into this. It’s not like Trump humiliated Putin. On the contrary, Trump bowed to Putin. The next step would be negotiating a ceasefire solely at Ukraine’s expense. That’s my opinion. As for whether Zelensky should have even flown to Turkey, knowing the level of the Russian delegation—and whether the Ukrainian delegation, clearly of a higher level, should attend the meeting—you’re asking a fair question.
Dear Oleg, First of all, as far as I know, Zelensky has already left Turkey. If I’m not mistaken, I believe he flew to Albania. In any case, he’s no longer in Turkey. So, in a way, he preemptively answered your criticism.
Regarding delegation levels—once Zelensky learned the composition of the Russian delegation, he lowered Ukraine’s representation accordingly. There was no foreign minister, no head of the presidential office on the Ukrainian side. Yes, he kept the defense minister, but otherwise, he roughly matched the Russian level. So, excuse the tautology, but he did align the levels. Everything is fine in that sense.
In this case, yes, Trump did allow Putin to “jump over” Ukraine’s position. That’s true. But your assertion that Trump humiliated Putin—I disagree. Quite the opposite, in fact. As for whether the Ukrainian delegation should attend the meeting—well, it would be absurd not to. Otherwise, why come at all?
Why Is Life Scarier Now Than in the USSR Link to heading
So, Captain, A simple everyday question: Aren’t you afraid to live in these times? Afraid of losing your mind? I’m 60. I’m personally grateful to fate for having a happy childhood. There were Little Octobrists, the Pioneer movement, Komsomol, the Party. There was upbringing, moral values, education, work. Now all of this is gone. Life has been reduced to satisfying basic needs. Any attempt to understand what’s going on, to express an opinion, is harshly blocked. People have become slaves serving the system. How to go on living? Hide in a burrow and live out your days?
Well, I’d say this: I’m about fifteen years older than you, dear Captain. But overall, I lived during the same period as you. I must say, yes, life in the Soviet Union in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, and even the ’80s was indeed the life of people who simply didn’t know much about what was going on in the country. We knew some things, but much was hidden from us. And that allowed us to live in blissful ignorance.
Unlike today, when we live in an overwhelming stream of information. Back then, there was no such thing. That’s why there was that “happy childhood” with the Pioneers, Komsomol, the Party, when we thought it was all wonderful and good.
You mention that today any attempt to voice an opinion is harshly blocked. But wasn’t that the case in the Soviet Union? If your opinion differed from the latest Party Congress resolutions, wasn’t it blocked too? Yes, today’s situation in Russia is much worse than in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. That’s true.
As for retreating into a burrow—well, that depends on your resources. If you have the means, leave. If not, then yes, internal emigration is the option. There’s little choice. But even today, it’s still possible to create a certain level of personal comfort. First, because the internet is still accessible. You can communicate, as we are doing now, find like-minded people, find some support, consolation. There are books, there’s movement, there’s physical activity, simple physical joys.
So life goes on. It’s not as hopeless as it seems. And if you have to stay in the country—well, you do what you can.
Accusation of the author of dishonesty Link to heading
Gloomy donkey. Note. The note expresses dissatisfaction with the absence of Sevastianov’s stream. But, actually, the question is much deeper and not about him at all. See the last paragraph. So, I just watched a video where a self-satisfied, well-fed rooster with an expressive face against the backdrop of the military is raving about victory in a war from a hundred years ago. It’s not hard to guess that we’re talking about a pathologically dishonest, cynical, and corrupt character named Trump. Today, a listener asked you a question about Sevastianov’s Trumpists. To which you replied that you haven’t had time to familiarize yourself with the material yet. I asked you the same question a couple of months ago, requesting a comment, to which you replied that you didn’t know anything about it. Familiarize yourself with the material and share your assessment. I will express a subjective opinion. No offense. You deal with this every week. Solovyov has his own barrel of filth. But in a few months, you still haven’t managed to look into the views of, as you called Sevastianov, a decent and respectable person? I’m almost sure you were being disingenuous when answering today’s listener because you’ll be forced to tell an unpleasant truth in the same vein as other insane Trumpists. Igor Alexandrovich, it doesn’t take dozens of hours to find out that Sevastianov is just as fanatically pro-Trump as Veller and Tabaki. Burov and others. Take any Sevastianov broadcast with Kiselyov from the last four months — in almost every broadcast, you’ll hear that all of Trump’s statements and actions are carefully calculated and thought out. That Trump is strictly following a set plan. That leaving Europe is a blessing for Europe. They should be grateful to Trump for that. That refusing military aid to Ukraine is normal. The story with the photo of Trump in papal attire. To this, Sevastianov replies that Trump wasn’t even aware, that it was all the bad boyars. Uh-huh. Yes, it’s indeed funny, of course, since Trump posted this in his personal, so to speak, personal social network. And so on. So, the question. It’s not even about Sevastianov or Trump. To hell with both of them. The question is much deeper. What happened to 1,000,000 seemingly not stupid people? What did they see in a being who openly sympathizes with the representatives of evil, with all the resulting primitive traits? What light, tunnel? What path to the temple?
First, I will still answer the part about your, well, let’s say, not even a question, I would even say, excuse my expression, an attack. Mr. Gloomy Donkey. You claim that I am being dishonest. Your assumption is false. I can tell you that I really did not have the opportunity and still do not have the opportunity to understand Mr. Sevastianov’s position. I’m just explaining. Not that I’m making excuses. Why should I? I’m simply explaining. Informing you, Mr. Gloomy Donkey, that today, for example, I have eight broadcasts, eight, you understand? Eight, each of which takes a damn, damn lot of time. For today’s stream alone, I worked all night, you see? Yesterday, I finished a broadcast with Portnikov, it started at 21:30. The broadcast ended at 22:15, that is, close to 11 p.m. And almost immediately, I started preparing for this broadcast. Today I have eight broadcasts, you understand? And so, with varying degrees of workload, almost every day. Therefore, your leisurely reasoning, like “why haven’t you checked on Sevastianov yet, I’ve asked several times,” well, I haven’t checked. I choose the most relevant topics. Some books I didn’t have time to read, some things I didn’t manage to watch. And yes, of course, in the next Trumpophrenia review, maybe not the nearest one that I hope to do, but in one of the upcoming reviews, I will certainly take a look. And if I find it necessary, I will say something about it. As for the question you finally asked at the end. What happened to 1,000,000 people? Populism happened. That is, in fact, Trumpism. I have actually answered this question several times. The same thing happened as with the Germans who were fascinated by Hitler. Well, it would seem, such a hysterical person spouting obvious nonsense. A cultural nation — the Germans, the nation of Kant, Schiller, Goethe. And suddenly, such fascination with a person declaring that all their problems are because of the Jews, that all their troubles come from liberal democracy in countries that, so to speak, oppress Germany. The reason is clear. The reason is the Weimar and Versailles syndromes. On one hand, a sense of historical injustice regarding the Treaty of Versailles, which was indeed quite harsh on Germany as the defeated side. On the other hand, a reaction to the Weimar regime, which they disliked and considered powerless and ineffective. The same story is happening here. On one hand, it’s a reaction to the post-industrial revolution, where a huge number of people became victims of this post-industrial revolution. First and foremost, the Rust Belt. On the other hand, it’s a reaction to a number of rather ineffective and clumsy actions by the Biden administration. That’s basically it. Trump offered simple and clear solutions, which, as always, are terrible. That’s the whole story. So what is this? This is the formation of a political cult. Not the first, not the second, not the third time in human history. The same situation was in Russia with the communist regime, with the Bolshevik regime. The same thing happened in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal. The list is quite long.
The insignificance of the Minsk agreements Link to heading
So, a question from German You speak about the legal insignificance of the Minsk agreements. Why has this insignificance not taken the form of a document in an arbitration court? Or is Bohdan right — they simply decided to blatantly cheat?
Well, I have already spoken in detail about the reasons for the legal insignificance of the Minsk agreements, because indeed they were signed under the conditions of a Russian military invasion. You see? Agreements signed at gunpoint as a result of the Russian army invading Ukrainian territory are, naturally, a violation of international law. You see, if a criminal breaks into your apartment and forces you at gunpoint to transfer ownership of your apartment to them, such a document is legally null and void. Period. As for your assertion that some arbitration court should have recognized this illegality — you perfectly well know the situation. Where, in which arbitration court, should this have been recognized? This is, in fact, also a matter of interpretation. Ukraine was ready to fulfill the Minsk agreements, but only in the sequence that would preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty. That is, first to close — well, it’s a simple story, repeated a hundred times — first to close the borders, first to ensure control of the Ukrainian borders by Ukrainian border guards, and only then to hold elections. But this is a simple matter. Isn’t it clear? The Russian side demanded that elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions be held while the borders were controlled by Russia. Well, what is this? Therefore, this is, of course, absurd. And where, in which court, should this all have been recognized as null and void? This is, so to speak, a matter of interpretation. Ukraine was ready to implement the Minsk agreements, but only under conditions that correspond to basic common sense. Russia believed that it was simply necessary to destroy Ukraine’s independence. That’s all. In which court should we establish the illegality of the invasion? You see, this is a political decision, right? The invasion is illegal, yes, it is a violation of international law, yes, it is an international crime. Which court should establish this now? There will be. There will definitely be an international tribunal that will establish it.
Why does Trump talk nonsense Link to heading
And Kac is your profile. Igor Alexandrovich, why is Trump’s speech so incoherent when translated into Russian? Is it a machine translation? Or does he really talk like that?
And there was a comment on this post from Grigoryan.
As a U.S. citizen, I confirm. Yes, he is a feeble-minded idiot, in love even with his own shadow. This condition is rarely worsened by Caribbean syndrome, Encirclement. I’ve asked this question several times. Native speakers have confirmed that Trump talks incoherent nonsense.
Well, what can I say? Why does a person have incoherent speech? Well, because in his head, in his head there’s confusion. A person who built his career, his financial career, thanks to six bankruptcies. Confusion in his head — what can you do? And? That is, he actually, you see, in his actions — not only in speech. Let’s say, Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin also had somewhat incoherent speech. However, in that incoherence there was a certain peculiar humor. But Trump doesn’t have that. Trump has chaos. Chaos in action, chaos in his head, chaos in speech. Well, that’s how it turned out.
Morality and ethics Link to heading
Robert. Since you were talking about morality, I want to ask a question. Some authors write that morality and ethics are far from identical. Morality implies an external evaluative factor; it is always corporate — communist, sharia-based, truly Aryan, and so on. But ethics is much more complex than morality. There are no ready-made recipes, dogmas, immutable principles, unquestionable authorities, sacred books, or professionals. Closer to conscience, it exists only inside. Do you agree with such a distinction? If we accept it, then I am an amoral person. I have enough conscience and knowledge of the law, which brings up related questions. Do you agree that if the state, instead of legal regulation, starts regulating moral issues, it becomes totalitarianism? Do you agree that a truly religious person, defending the eternal supervision of God, cannot have a conscience? That there can only be religious morality, accordingly?
Well, let me start with the last two questions. I completely agree that if the state, instead of law, takes on morality, then totalitarianism arises — that’s 100% true. No questions here. As for the last question, about a truly religious person having no conscience, I disagree. They simply understand conscience differently, not the way we do. They believe that conscience is some kind of alignment with God. Well, we have a different view. Therefore, I do not agree with your last thesis. Religious people, of course, of course, have a conscience. It simply has a different nature. That is, as these people understand it, it certainly exists.
As for the identity of morality and ethics, well, again, this is a terminological question. In some cases, it can indeed be perceived as synonyms, and it is sometimes perceived as such. Morality and ethics — synonyms. But there is an idea that morality is a set of norms by which a person is guided, while ethics is the feeling of this moral law within the soul, as Kant said. I don’t see a major contradiction here. Because you say that you are an amoral person, as you wrote, yes, an amoral type. You have enough conscience and knowledge of the laws. But tell me, dear Robert, where did this ethics come from in your soul? Is it innate, do you think? Or was it still formed as a result of you adopting some moral norms from your environment?
So, actually, I think there is no serious contradiction here. After all, these moral norms somehow appeared in your mind, in your soul, right? You weren’t born with them, or were you? These are different views. Actually, all of Kant’s books are about this. Therefore, I think that there is no deep chasm between morality and ethics. These are interconnected things. Although, indeed, in theory, in ethics, there is a distinction. Morality is a set of norms, and ethics is what resides in each person’s soul. But where do norms come from? They come from morality. And morality is not necessarily corporate. That is, after all, there are some universal human rules that are not just corporate, religious, or, say, communist, and so on. By the way, the communist understanding of morality is very sharply different from universal human values. So here, I think, you are not entirely right.
Timestamp request Link to heading
So, another demand from Robert Timestamps, please.
Yes, I agree, there are some issues. Members of our team are people too, they sometimes get sick. So, anything can happen.
Was Ukraine a CIS member Link to heading
So. Ira, please tell me, what did you mean in this stream when you said that Ukraine, strictly speaking, was never a CIS member? If that’s the case, what did Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich agree on in Belovezhskaya Pushcha in December 1991?
They agreed on the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And they agreed on… they agreed only on the creation of a certain Commonwealth of Independent States. But Ukraine never ratified this agreement. So yes, there was such an agreement, but it was an oral agreement. Ukraine, as a state, never ratified this agreement.
Inozemtsev did not confirm that the Far East was sold to China Link to heading
Sergey UN. Sergey Andryushchenko Thank you for answering my question. However, I listened again to S. Inozemtsev’s broadcast. The questions raised by Mikhail Savva regarding signed or unsigned documents concerning the Far East were not asked by you. Perhaps you wanted to, but you didn’t. China was discussed in a completely different context, no less important, but those were different topics.
I did not listen to our broadcast. I really wanted to ask exactly such a question, but I didn’t. Well, it happens, unfortunately, apparently. Well, since you say so — you’re right, I agree. I didn’t ask. It happens. It’s just that this is a live conversation. And sometimes you plan to ask a certain question during this conversation, then the discussion shifts in a different direction. And it happens, you see, I’m not such a rigid microphone stand that I have a list of questions and go through them. My interviews are somewhat specific. They are more like conversations, I even call them my conversations with guests. Precisely conversations. So, this is not a classic interview. And many people are outraged by the fact that I express my own opinion there simply because, yes, it’s a conversation. Here, I really wanted to ask that question but missed the chance.
Are all means acceptable in the fight against evil Link to heading
A question from Yulia I want to ask again about actions in the style of Shvets. Do you know there is an unwritten rule in the world not to kill heads of state — that it’s considered bad form? And what do we have today? Everyone understands that as long as Putin is in power, wars will not stop. Yet everyone pretends that negotiations will solve something. Ukraine’s hands are tied. But why not stage an attempt on Zelensky’s life, in the style of a lioness? An explosion, serious injury, a long hospital stay. Why would this be necessary? To untie Ukraine’s hands and hit back at Putin — in the eyes of the world, it would no longer seem like an incomprehensible act. Are such methods always evil? Right now, we see that on one hand, all norms of international law are being spat upon, while on the other, etiquette is still observed. Is this right?
Dear Yulia, I still think that gloss is always evil. And you see, everything will be investigated. Your idea of going down the path of provocation, as you suggest, I am very glad that Ukraine, I think, doesn’t even consider such scenarios. Because gloss always gets exposed, becomes known. Ukraine’s biggest advantage right now is the moral high ground. Ukraine is right; Putin is not. But going down the path you propose would mean that Ukraine becomes wrong — simply wrong in public opinion. That’s all. Therefore, I think Ukraine’s military and political leadership is doing the right thing. Most likely, such a scenario doesn’t even cross their minds. And that’s good.
What was so terrible about the 2022 agreement Link to heading
So, Anna, Igor Medinsky showed the document that was supposed to be signed in 2022. What was so terrible there for Ukraine? Only no NATO membership. They didn’t even demand recognition of Crimea as Russian. They even promised to withdraw troops to the February 24 border. Why these three years of war? So many deaths, so much destruction. For what? To now lose four regions and Crimea for good? From the first day it’s clear that no one listens to Zelensky, Trump doesn’t take him seriously. Everything goes as Putin wants. These three years have only made us final enemies with Ukrainians. For me, this is a personal tragedy, since my relatives are in Kyiv and Chernihiv region, and they don’t want to communicate. I don’t blame them, I understand.
Well, apparently, dear Anna, you haven’t fully studied the document Zelensky referred to. That agreement, which was proposed by Russia in 2022, was essentially Ukraine’s capitulation. I emphasize again, reducing the army to 80,000. That’s essentially liquidation, you see? From 1,000,000 to 80,000 — that’s liquidation. That’s exactly what Putin wants — Ukraine’s demilitarization, the elimination of its army. Ukraine would be left completely defenseless, without any real guarantees, standing before Putin. And Putin would do whatever he wants. That was full and final capitulation. That’s why I think it was absolutely right to reject that agreement, you see? Peace is great. But you are basically suggesting that Ukraine should stop resisting. Well, fine, the entire Ukraine would be turned into one big Bucha. Great. Or Mariupol. That’s what it’s about. Otherwise, who’s against peace?
Lies — propaganda’s favorite weapon Link to heading
Vasyl? The worst fight in the army. This is a funeral world. Exclamation mark and smiley. And a cheerful question. Value judgments are the favorite weapon of propaganda.
No, dear Vasyl, the favorite weapon of propaganda is lies. Lies are the favorite weapon of propaganda. And value judgments are a normal component of analytics, yes. That is, analytics consists of facts and attempts to evaluate those facts. And those are value judgments. The favorite weapon of propaganda, dear Vasyl, is lies. Please, don’t confuse the two.
Do only atheists drive progress Link to heading
My name is Igor, I share your first name and patronymic. Very nice. Recently, I asked you a question mentioning Katz. Thank you for your answer. So, I have another question. Recently, I was involved in a debate where my opponent tried to argue that only countries dominated by atheism, unlike those with religious populations, can drive progress. Supposedly, religious citizens are too backward and limited for that. I objected that there are no such statistics and there cannot be, because, firstly, it’s simply not true, and secondly, such research would lead to xenophobia. What do you think about this?
Dear namesake, first of all, this is indeed not true. One of the most striking examples is the United States of America, where, well, listen, just read what’s written on the most popular bill in Russia — the $100 bill, right? It explicitly mentions God. So, the United States is a country where, of course, there is no state religion, but the attitude towards religion is quite respectful. Therefore, the United States, despite the current Trump distortion, is undoubtedly a country that drives progress. So, just as a fact, it’s not true.
As for research, I think such research can be conducted. I don’t know of any, but if they exist, I’d be interested to see them. I believe this is not a linear relationship. And then, you know, what does “dominance of atheism” mean? What can be said for sure is that countries with a state religion — a state religion, yes — do face problems with progress. Here your interlocutor is right. But to draw a straight line that religious populations are bad — well, Poland has a fairly religious population. I wouldn’t say Poland is a backward country. The United States has quite a lot of religious people. Nevertheless, progress is doing just fine there, despite my own skeptical attitude towards religion.
Guest suggestions Link to heading
So, Fausta. Gal UN a suggestion for guests who are very rare on YouTube but knowledgeable and interesting. Andrey Sinitsky, Bible translator, educator. There’s potential for a joint project. Alexey Kovalev, journalist.
So. Well, in general, a few suggestions. I agree, I will definitely discuss this with my editor, and we will definitely take your suggestion into account.
Why can’t Putin be killed like Bin Laden Link to heading
From Margarita. Why can’t Putin be killed? All countries and governments revolve around him. What could be worse than war if he refuses to end it? He needs to be ended. Don’t you agree? And why not? Bin Laden was killed.
Dear Margarita! We’ve gone around this question many times. Bin Laden did not have a country behind him with the second most powerful and deadly nuclear arsenal. You see, the difference is obvious. That’s the reason. The only reason. And Bin Laden was not the head of a state. So, even though I often bring up this analogy, I fully understand how flawed it is. So, the reason is clear.
Will Putin’s era end with Trump’s era Link to heading
Igor, another namesake. If we proceed from the premise that Putin and Trump are mentally and ideologically close, and Trump will not change in this regard, then the outcome of Putinism and the war seems clear. And it is as follows. Trump is replaced in America. In his place comes a politician who is not a Trumpist, who hates Putin, Putin’s enemy. Then he organizes a coalition against Putin and finishes him off, using methods that Trump does not currently employ, and new ones. Only this option seems politically realistic. The replacement of Putin’s friend with his enemy in power in the U.S.
Dear namesake, that’s all great! But what if instead of Trump comes someone worse? Yes, a realistic option. I don’t know, maybe that’s why. You see, after all, we probably live in a world where your option is possible. And by the way, Biden was the person who called Putin a killer. Nevertheless, the coalition that was indeed created, including with Biden’s participation, did not lead to the destruction of the Putin regime. Therefore, unfortunately, your scenario is, let’s say, very, very optimistic. But I’m not yet sure that it will come to pass. Other options are possible.
How to sign shells Link to heading
A question from Elena. In today’s broadcast, you mentioned Alexander Stoik, who is at the front. Alexander is indeed there now, just in a different sector, much further south, and is currently thinking about what message to write on behalf of Skobov. He would be glad if you could suggest something.
Well, we once had the experience of communicating with Alexander directly. I mean, through chat correspondence on the YouTube channel. I think the same option that was shown back then would be appropriate. I would be very grateful to dear Alexander if he writes another shell message for or from Alexander Skobov. I will definitely pass it on through Skobov’s wife. He will be pleased.
Closing remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, we are finishing our morning stream for today. Before we wrap up, I’ll say that at 19:00 we’ll have a conversation with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky. If there are any changes, I will definitely inform you. Glory to Ukraine! Please, take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov and Darya Kozlova and to all Russian political prisoners, Ukrainian captives. See you soon! All the best! Have a good day!
Source: https://youtu.be/dEzYFiVyXY8