Why the rare-earth elements deal lacks economic substance, and who needs it and why.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 27. It is now 07:42 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls.
Before moving on to the main topic of our discussion—this very rare, very “earthy” deal, if I may say so—I must say there are some very interesting facts about it.
The Detention of Călin Georgescu Link to heading
Now, I want to talk about what I believe is good news from Europe. The Romanian Prosecutor General’s Office has charged former presidential candidate Călin Georgescu with a series of criminal offenses. He was detained just before submitting documents for his re-election bid. The results of the first round of elections were annulled, and he has now been charged with activities against the constitutional order, spreading false information, and creating xenophobic and anti-Semitic groups, among other things.
He is currently banned from leaving the country and from posting on social media, which raises the question of who was being illegally promoted on behalf of the Kremlin. I consider this good news because Russian influence—not only Russian, but particularly Russian—aimed at advancing far-right politicians in European countries poses a real threat.
I fully understand the concerns, including among Romanian politicians. For example, his opponent, Elena Lasconi, also criticized the annulment of the election results. However, I believe this is significant because, even if not entirely, people in Europe are beginning to grasp just how dangerous Russian influence is.
For now, the threat of Romania becoming one of the focal points of this influence has been temporarily neutralized—or at least, I hope so. I also hope that the Romanian authorities’ resistance to Russia’s attempts to take control of the country will ultimately be successful.
The U.S. Has Declared the EU and Canada Its Enemies Link to heading
A bit of fresh Trumpism. Yesterday, Donald Trump attended a meeting of the government he himself had formed and announced his intention to impose a 25% tariff on all imports from the European Union. At the same time, he assured everyone that he loves European countries very much—he loves all countries, in fact.
But then Trump made a revelation: why was the European Union created? Some might have thought it was the realization of a dream of eternal peace. Others might have believed it was meant to foster economic prosperity and serve as a model for a borderless future without customs duties. Well, according to Donald Trump, they were all mistaken. He has uncovered the “truth”—the EU was actually created solely to undermine the United States. And, as Trump claims, it has done a great job at that.
But now, everything has changed. “Now I’m president,” said Trump, making it clear that the EU is doomed, since its “founders” were supposedly plotting against the United States. Truly, an extraordinary man, this Donald Trump.
On top of that, he warned that starting April 2, a 25% tariff will apply to all imports from Canada and Mexico. In other words, effectively prohibitive duties are being placed on imports from America’s key trade partners. Meanwhile, tariffs on China are set at just 10%. But Europe, Canada, and Mexico get hit with 25%.
So now, who are America’s allies, and who are its adversaries? You be the judge.
The U.S. Does Not Guarantee Ukraine’s Security Link to heading
In addition, Trump stated that the U.S. will not provide or offer Ukraine any significant security guarantees. Instead, he assigned the responsibility of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security to Europe—essentially giving an order, as if he were in charge. But don’t worry, everything will be fine, he said.
At this moment, the whole thing started to smell a lot like the Budapest Memorandum.
Now, I want to move on to the main topic of today’s discussion—this very deal on rare-earth resources. Ukrainian President Zelensky has stated that the current version of the deal is ready to be signed—not by him personally, but most likely by the Prime Minister or another government official. In any case, Ukraine is prepared to sign, and the Verkhovna Rada is already making preparations for the agreement.
Notably, this deal does not include security guarantees from the United States. And here’s something crucial for our discussion: in addition to rare-earth metals, the agreement also involves Ukraine’s oil and gas fields. The more I look at it, the more it seems like the rare-earth elements are just a distraction, much like the famous “stone soup” story. I’ll explain why in a moment. If the deal is really about oil and gas, then it makes some sense—though even there, questions remain about their locations and whether their development is viable right now.
As for rare-earth elements, most known deposits are in occupied territories, which raises further concerns.
But now, let’s get to the most important part. We still don’t know the final text of the agreement that will be sent for Zelensky’s approval. However, there is one phrase in it that, in my opinion, directly echoes the Budapest Memorandum. According to Reuters, which claims to have seen the document, the text states:
“The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain the security guarantees necessary for establishing a lasting peace.”
That’s it. Period.
This reminds me of the key phrase in the Budapest Memorandum, where the main “guarantee” for Ukraine’s security was that in the event of an attack (as long as it wasn’t a nuclear attack), the guaranteeing countries—the U.S., the U.K., and Russia—would… appeal to the United Nations to address the aggressor’s unacceptable behavior. A very, very “reliable” security guarantee, indeed.
So now, the U.S. simply “supports Ukraine’s efforts” to obtain guarantees. Well, nothing to worry about then—just sign the deal and don’t stress. After all, Trump said everything will be fine. And the text says the U.S. supports Ukraine’s efforts. They’ll keep supporting those efforts… for as long as Ukraine exists.
Naturally, a special fund will be created, where Ukraine will deposit half of its future revenues from extracting natural resources. For now, the agreement is only a framework deal. And the actual details? Well, those will be worked out after it’s signed.
In other words, Ukraine is expected to sign a contract without knowing the final terms—how much, when, and under what conditions. Quite an interesting arrangement, to say the least.
Putin Has So Many Rare-Earth Elements That They’re Not Even Rare Link to heading
Now, let’s talk about Putin, who couldn’t stand watching Ukraine sign some kind of deal with the U.S. and immediately declared, “We have them too! We have so many rare-earth elements that they’re not even rare!”
I want to take a moment to explain what rare-earth elements actually are in Russia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics. Not everyone may know this about my past, but I worked for two years at the Fersman Biological Museum in a division called the Bureau of Minerals. During that time, I traveled across nearly every Soviet republic collecting minerals for university collections, research institutes, and geology departments. One specific type of collection we prepared was of minerals containing rare-earth elements.
Now, it has been 50 years, but the memories are still vivid. I visited most of the deposits myself, walked through them, and collected samples with my own hands, pickaxe, and hammer. I even had a small personal collection, though unfortunately, it remained in Moscow. Some of these minerals are strikingly beautiful, almost alien-like in appearance, with intricate crystalline structures.
So, why do I call this whole rare-earth deal a scam? Let’s take a quick tour of the minerals used for rare-earth extraction in Russia and Ukraine.
One of the key rare-earth elements is indium. It does exist in Russia—I’ve personally collected it. It’s mainly found in the Terskoye deposit in the Murmansk region, deep in the tundra and permafrost. Other notable deposits include the Kodorskoye deposit (Murmansk region), the Tungusskoye deposit (Yakutia), and the Luganskoye deposit (Krasnoyarsk Krai)—all located in remote, frozen territories.
Ukraine also has rare-earth deposits, typically near uranium ores—like in Zhovti Vody, where uranium mining occurs.
The minerals themselves vary widely. Some appear as brownish-gray sand, while others, like the reddish-brown xenotime, are more distinctive. The most common rare-earth-bearing mineral is apatite, with large deposits in the Khibiny Mountains on the Kola Peninsula. However, apatite contains so little rare-earth content that extraction is highly inefficient.
There are deposits in the Baikal region, as well as in Khabarovsk Krai, but here’s the key issue: Russia never had significant rare-earth refining capabilities. Extracting rare-earth elements from these minerals is incredibly difficult, akin to extracting elements from seawater—technically possible, but entirely impractical. Even during the Soviet era, when these minerals were found, they were not enriched or processed in any meaningful way.
As for Ukraine, the situation is even more straightforward. Despite having rare-earth minerals, there is no industrial production of rare-earth elements. The reason? Extraction and refining are simply not profitable. The deposits are small and low-grade, making the cost of extraction far exceed the potential profits.
Now, let’s go back to Russia. Theoretically, Russia has more rare-earth resources than Ukraine, but they are in difficult locations, making extraction extremely costly. But the bigger issue is who would invest in processing these elements in Russia? No sane company would. Unless Donald Trump himself decides to set up a rare-earth refinery, I can’t imagine any investor willing to navigate Russia’s hostile business environment. The legal framework is deeply anti-investor, and Russia has a long history of breaking deals and deceiving partners.
This is why I believe these rare-earth negotiations are not real commercial discussions. There will be no actual deal—unless, of course, rare-earth elements are just a cover story. If the real focus is on oil, gas, or even critical infrastructure like Ukrainian ports and railways, then this whole thing is nothing but a “stone soup” scheme—where the rare-earth elements serve as a flashy distraction while the true prize remains hidden.
Trump Has Plenty of Activity but No Positive Results Link to heading
Overall, I think—and in fact, I’m almost certain—that all this hype around the deal is just a performance. It’s an arrangement between Trump and the Ukrainian political leadership, with Putin jumping in uninvited to stir the pot. But all of this matters for only one person: Trump and his image.
Yesterday, he attended a government meeting. He’s been in office for a month, working feverishly, making countless promises—yet he has achieved nothing. He keeps getting shut down. He desperately needs a victory, much like Putin, who has been waging war for three years and still hasn’t managed to capture a single regional capital in Ukraine. Instead, the Russian army celebrates seizing tiny villages, drowning them in waves of cannon fodder.
Trump faces a similar problem. He’s not fighting wars, but he talks non-stop, making ridiculous statements—but with no victories to show for it. He claimed he would buy Greenland—they sent him packing (both Denmark and the local Inuit population). He wanted to control the Panama Canal—rejected. He picked a fight with Canada—got ignored. He issued an ultimatum to Hamas—was laughed off. He proposed relocating Palestinians—Egypt and Jordan told him to get lost. Failure after failure.
So now, he desperately needs a win. And this rare-earth deal, an absolutely empty, meaningless agreement, is being fed to him as an image booster. Now he can proudly say, “Look at me! Biden wasted money and gave away weapons to Ukraine, but I, the great dealmaker, struck a business agreement! Now we’ll get those precious rare-earth elements—beloved by every true American!” A grand “victory,” indeed.
Well, I have a proposal for Donald Trump—one I think he won’t be able to refuse.
Since I’ve spent time studying the Earth’s resources, let me share an incredible fact: The richest gold deposits on the planet are in the ocean. According to the World Oceanic Service, the world’s oceans contain over 20 million tons of gold.
Listen carefully, Donald. 20 million tons of gold.
That’s worth $700 trillion.
Donald, why are you wasting your time on nonsense? Forget rare-earth elements—start mining gold from the ocean! It’s right there, surrounding your great America. The Atlantic Ocean? Full of gold! The Pacific? Even closer—dive right in!
And to wrap things up, I’d like to paraphrase Aesop:
“Drink the ocean, Trump. It will do wonders for your health—and for everyone else’s too.”
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before we move on to your questions, I have two announcements.
Poll Results on Ending the War Link to heading
First, as requested by several subscribers, I conducted a poll on our channel’s website. The question was: Do you expect the hot phase of the war to end this year? Here are the results.
Since the poll was conducted yesterday, 20,000 people participated within a few hours. Of them:
- 54% believe the hot phase of the war will end this year.
- 34% disagree.
- 12% were undecided.
Well, dear friends, as always, I find myself in the minority. I don’t believe it will happen. I think it’s highly unlikely. But it seems most of you are optimists. I’d be truly happy if the majority turns out to be right. That’s the result.
Today’s Schedule Link to heading
So, what’s on the agenda today?
- 09:00 – Gennady Gudkov. I expect an interesting discussion summarizing three years of war.
- 11:00 – Vitaly Mansky. It should be fascinating to see the past three years through the eyes of a filmmaker and cultural figure.
That’s today’s lineup. Now, let’s move on to your questions.
What Is Techno-Fascism? Who Controls Trump? Link to heading
A question from Tanya, who is a sponsor of our channel—thank you very much for your support! I read names exactly as they are presented. If someone goes by Tanya, I say Tanya; if it’s Tatyana, I say Tatyana. That’s just basic respect.
So, Tanya asks:
“Can you elaborate on Project 2025? Besides Vince and Thiel, who else is involved? What is techno-fascism? Could they be controlling Trump?”
I don’t think anyone controls Trump. He is certainly influenced by various figures and interests, but he’s not exactly taking orders. As for Project 2025, while Trump’s team officially distances itself from it, there’s no doubt that it was designed with him in mind. It’s essentially a blueprint for reshaping the American government along ultra-conservative lines.
Is it Trump’s official program? Hard to say. It seems more like a wish list compiled by people who share his ideology and anticipate the direction he might take. Whether Trump directly follows it or not, his actions largely align with its vision.
The Core of Project 2025 Link to heading
The main idea behind Project 2025 is consolidating executive power—essentially, creating a unitary presidential system where everything is subordinated to the president. This includes:
- Expanding the number of political appointees in federal agencies to replace career civil servants with Trump loyalists.
- Eliminating institutional checks on executive power, turning the government into a personal extension of the president.
- Dismantling key federal institutions such as the FBI, the NSA, the Department of Education, and the Department of Commerce.
- Massively downsizing the government and restructuring the remaining departments based on personal loyalty to Trump.
- Promoting Christian conservative values at all levels of governance and public life.
This is an ultra-conservative, authoritarian project—not full-blown totalitarianism, but certainly a significant shift toward authoritarian rule.
What Is Techno-Fascism? Link to heading
As for techno-fascism, the term generally refers to a system where authoritarian control is reinforced through technology—surveillance, AI-driven censorship, algorithmic governance, and corporate-state partnerships that suppress dissent. It combines traditional fascist elements (centralized power, suppression of opposition, ideological enforcement) with modern technological tools (mass surveillance, data control, digital propaganda).
Is this what Trump is aiming for? It’s debatable. His movement has strong authoritarian tendencies, but it lacks the technological sophistication of true techno-fascism—at least for now. However, figures like Peter Thiel, who is deeply involved in AI, surveillance, and data-driven governance, could push things in that direction.
Who Else Is Involved? Link to heading
Aside from Peter Thiel and Vince (likely referring to Vince Haley), Project 2025 is backed by The Heritage Foundation, a powerful conservative think tank. Other major players include:
- Stephen Miller – Trump’s former senior advisor and architect of many of his hardline policies.
- Russ Vought – Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, deeply involved in reshaping government agencies.
- Tom Fitton – President of Judicial Watch, a key figure in pushing conservative legal strategies.
- Various Christian nationalist groups advocating for the integration of religious principles into government policies.
Could They Be Controlling Trump? Link to heading
Not in a direct, puppet-master sense. Trump is driven by his own instincts and personal grievances, but he also thrives on validation from powerful conservative circles. Project 2025 aligns with his goals, but whether he consciously follows it or simply moves in that direction by nature is up for debate.
One thing is clear: If Trump returns to power, the ideas within Project 2025 will shape his administration—whether by design or default.
On the Methodologist Yevgeny Yuryev Link to heading
A question from Irina:
“I would like to hear your opinion on Yevgeny Yuryev’s methodology and theories—if you are familiar with them, of course. He seems like a fairly well-known figure. He is very persuasive and logical, but at the same time, his ideas feel like extreme conspiracy theories. After reading his analyses on Facebook, I am left with a sense of hopelessness, and all other analysts seem terribly naive in comparison.”
I can’t say that I closely follow this person’s posts on Facebook, but I do have a general impression. You already know my extremely negative attitude toward conspiracy theories, and yes, there is certainly an element of conspiracy thinking in his work. His analysis often operates on a presumption of hidden schemes, and, in my opinion, an exaggerated belief in Putin’s strategic genius.
Many people attribute an almost supernatural cunning to Putin and his team, as if they are capable of planning moves far in advance. While there is certainly some level of deceit and manipulation in their actions, I don’t see the kind of masterful long-term strategy that Yuryev and others suggest. Similarly, he overstates the West’s stupidity, which I also find questionable.
Why Yuryev’s Work Is Still Useful Link to heading
Despite my skepticism, I do think his work has value—as a warning. His writings often frame global politics as a series of intricate, well-coordinated plots, but even if this is an exaggeration, it forces readers to think critically about the risks involved.
The way his analyses feel reminds me of a classic street mugging scenario—something familiar to anyone who grew up in the Soviet Union. You’re walking down the street, a group of guys approaches, and one of them says, “Hey, got a cigarette?"—and we all know what happens next.
But in Yuryev’s analysis, this simple “gop-stop” (mugging) turns into a complex, multi-layered strategy, where each step was meticulously planned in advance. It’s as if the criminals had been strategizing for months about how exactly they would ask for that cigarette. In reality, it’s usually much simpler than that. His writing sometimes screams for Occam’s razor.
Yuryev’s Strengths Link to heading
That said, his detailed breakdown of the Budapest Memorandum is particularly valuable. Anyone who still wonders why it didn’t work should check out his analysis—it’s very well done.
As for the current rare-earth deal, the challenge is that no one has actually seen the full agreement yet. So any analysis at this stage is based on speculation—essentially judging a book without reading it.
About Vaipan Link to heading
A question from Mikheev:
“What do you think about Grigory Viktorovich Vaipan?”
Well, I don’t think much beyond the fact that he’s a foreign agent, a lawyer, and supports Ukraine. That’s about all I know. In fact, I only became aware of his existence after seeing his name pop up in the Friday updates to the foreign agent list, which I keep an eye on. I looked him up—seems like a decent person.
Now, being labeled a foreign agent isn’t necessarily a badge of honor, since the designation is handed out to just about anyone these days. But statistically speaking, the chances of a foreign agent being a decent person are well above zero—and probably above 50%.
Of course, there are exceptions (we all know Latynina is on that list too). But overall, he’s almost certainly an honest, good person—in other words, one of us.
On Israel’s Voting Link to heading
A question from Elena in Vancouver:
“In November 2022, Ukraine voted twice in favor of anti-Israel resolutions. Is this related to Israel’s recent refusal to support a pro-Ukrainian resolution? You previously stated that the main reason was Israel’s dependence on the U.S.”
Dear Elena,
Yes, Israel is currently dependent on the United States, and as fate would have it, the U.S. is now led by Donald Trump. There was credible information that Washington was pressuring its allies—especially those heavily reliant on the U.S.—to vote against Ukraine’s resolution. Israel was one of those countries, and in the end, it yielded to the pressure and voted against Ukraine’s proposal.
Now, could Ukraine’s past votes against Israel at the UN have played a role? Possibly. But the main factor here is undoubtedly Israel’s dependence on the U.S.
I want to address a common argument that frequently comes up in discussions: “Ukraine votes against Israel, Israel votes against Ukraine—so it’s fair game.” This kind of thinking reminds me of kids fighting in a sandbox, trading symbolic UN resolutions like playground insults.
At the end of the day, Ukraine and Israel have nothing to fight over. Both nations are targets of aggression, facing different battles in the same global war—a war against civilization itself. These are simply two fronts in the same struggle, and the real enemy is neither in Kyiv nor in Jerusalem.
Again on Israel. A Proposal to Invite Solonin Link to heading
A question from Lenin:
“Can real partners strong-arm each other into voting for political convenience? I believe Israel betrayed Ukraine. The same people who once called black ‘black’ have now flipped midair and are dancing to please Trumpists—bitter, hateful, petty villains. Shame. I’m embarrassed for Israel—or rather, for these politicians. Also, a side note: please invite Mark Solonin before we lose him completely.”
I don’t support this kind of rhetoric. Is it unpleasant for me to see Israel among the countries that didn’t back Ukraine’s resolution? Yes. Just as it’s unpleasant to see the U.S. there. With Russia, Hungary, Belarus, it’s expected. But Israel? That stings. Still, that’s my issue to deal with.
That said, I don’t intend to shame Israel or Ukraine when they engage in this ongoing exchange of unfriendly UN votes. It’s an unfortunate reality, but not a betrayal.
On Inviting Mark Solonin Link to heading
As for inviting Solonin—no, I don’t plan to. Just as I don’t invite the subjects of my Mediaphrenia series (e.g., Solovyov) or Trumpophrenia (e.g., Borovoy and others). It’s simply a different genre—not a debate format.
Besides, discussing things with hardcore Trumpists is pointless. Though, as an exception, I did invite Pincus—not for a debate, but so you could get a firsthand look at what’s going on inside their heads.
Was Josephus a Hero or a Traitor? Link to heading
Lenin also asks:
“Was Josephus Flavius a hero or a traitor to the Jewish people? And why?”
Look, I’m absolutely not going to hold a mock trial for Josephus Flavius right here, as if we were reenacting some Komsomol-style disciplinary hearing. This isn’t The Trial of Evgeny Onegin, and frankly, the Jewish people—and people in general—don’t tend to engage in such theatrical historical verdicts.
The Historian Link to heading
Josephus was an outstanding historian, and for that, we owe him a debt of gratitude—not just from the Jewish people, but from all of humanity. His works, The Jewish War (on the 66–71 AD rebellion) and Antiquities of the Jews (a history of the Jewish people from the Creation to the Roman conquest), were for centuries our main historical source on the events from the Maccabees to the fall of Jerusalem.
The Traitor Link to heading
As for his actions during the war—yes, he betrayed his people. He was deeply impressed by Rome’s power and believed that Jewish resistance was futile. He actively collaborated with the Romans, helping them identify strategic weak points, essentially pointing the way for their attacks. By modern standards, he could be seen as a traitor, much like a Medvedchuk-type figure in today’s Ukrainian context—someone who aligns with the enemy while claiming to act in the nation’s best interest.
The Righteous Man Link to heading
At the same time, he used his Roman connections to save Jewish lives. He intervened in Rome, securing the release of many captives. In modern terms, this would make him a “Righteous Among the Nations”—someone who actively rescued his people despite his collaboration.
The Verdict? Link to heading
So, was he a traitor or a savior? Both. His story is one of moral complexity, and he doesn’t fit neatly into a single category.
But in the end, what truly matters is what he left behind—his historical works, which remain priceless sources of knowledge. The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews still read like novels, and I highly recommend them to anyone interested in history.
As for putting Josephus Flavius “on trial”—I suggest we leave that case closed.
About Jeffrey Sachs Link to heading
A question from Irina (and thank you for your kind words!):
“What do you think about Jeffrey Sachs? What kind of figure is he, in your opinion? Yesterday, a video of his speech in parliament appeared on YouTube—‘The Speech That Shook the World.’ Is he a useful idiot or a Kremlin agent?”
There have been a lot of questions about Sachs’s speech lately.
The Economist Link to heading
Without a doubt, Jeffrey Sachs is one of the most famous economists on the planet—not just an academic but a practicing political economist. He has been repeatedly listed among the world’s most influential thinkers and policymakers. That’s undeniable.
His background includes:
- Developing the “shock therapy” model for Russia’s economic transition.
- Advising Gaidar’s team in Russia.
- Consulting on Leszek Balcerowicz’s reforms in Poland—which were relatively successful, unlike Russia’s.
Later, Sachs harshly criticized the way Russian authorities implemented reforms, essentially saying they botched the process.
His Political Views Today Link to heading
Now, as for his current political stance… How can I put this gently? He comes across as a useful idiot.
- From the very beginning, he blamed NATO expansion for Russia’s failed reforms and condemned the West for its policies.
- He openly supports China, yet says nothing about human rights abuses, like the persecution of the Uyghurs.
- He opposes military aid to Ukraine and is completely aligned with Orbán.
I haven’t followed his stance on Trump, but like Trump, Sachs doesn’t seem to care about values or principles—only geopolitical maneuvering.
On Musk’s “Soviet-Style” Reporting Link to heading
A question from Alexander, who is a sponsor of our channel—thank you for your support!
“Are you sure that the reporting requirements Musk imposed on government employees smell exclusively of Soviet bureaucracy? Maybe such a system was unheard of in American government structures, but it’s common in large corporations. My wife works in a hotel, and they’ve always written similar annual reports, which determine promotions, retention, or dismissals. I’m sure Tesla operates the same way. Otherwise, where would Musk even get the idea?”
Look, here’s the key difference.
Corporate vs. Government Reporting Link to heading
In private companies, reporting is structured, specialized, and manageable.
- It’s handled by professionals for professionals, meaning reports are written by people who understand the work and reviewed by those with the expertise to evaluate them.
- The scale is completely different—corporations don’t demand hundreds of thousands of employees to write reports in a week.
Now, when Musk and his modern-day oprichniki demand reports from intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and other government bodies, the situation becomes absurd.
The Pentagon Example Link to heading
Let’s take the Pentagon, where I’ve been multiple times—both on tours and in meetings with American policymakers. The Pentagon:
- Employs 26,000 people in its main office alone.
- Holds a Guinness World Record for the longest corridors in a building.
Now, imagine these 26,000 employees writing weekly reports on their activities—who is supposed to read and analyze them all?
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that the Pentagon didn’t dismiss Musk’s demands and actually complied. They would produce 26,000 reports in a single week—just from the central office alone. And then what? Who processes them? What decisions are made?
The Verdict Link to heading
This isn’t management—it’s bureaucratic chaos. In a corporation, reporting serves a functional purpose. In Musk’s case, it’s an impractical, Soviet-style exercise in control, producing mountains of useless paperwork.
Frankly, it’s just nonsense.
On Trump Stripping the Media of Freedom Link to heading
A question from Tamara Fetisova:
“As we can see, the new U.S. administration is rapidly stripping national media and social platforms of their independence. How soon will so-called American public opinion, following the lead of Fox News, start blaming Ukrainians for the war against Russia?”
It’s already happening. What do you mean “how soon?” Trump is already blaming Ukraine.
Tucker Carlson is blaming Ukraine. And Fox News? It has long been pushing this narrative.
As for all of American public opinion—it’s hard to say. But the shift in messaging is clear, and it’s definitely moving in that direction.
Closing Words Link to heading
My apologies, dear friends, but I have to wrap up for now. I’ve written down all your questions and will do my best to address everyone, but I must pause the Q&A session—I have an upcoming conversation with Gennady Gudkov, and I still need to prepare the announcement.
So, tune in at 09:00—we’ll be discussing three years of war and the current situation with Gudkov. Then, at 11:00, we’ll have Vitaly Mansky with us.
Again, sorry for not getting to all the questions today, but I promise to answer them tomorrow to make up for it. It’s just a packed morning, and I couldn’t cover everything in one go.
For now, we take a short break.
Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, all Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives!
See you in 20 minutes!
Source: https://youtu.be/CXyZsxI8Yhw