Putin’s posturing: the creation of a “security buffer zone” and the demand for Ukraine to change its president. More of Trump’s “exploits”: banning Harvard from educating foreigners and accusing the president of South Africa of white genocide.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 23, in Kyiv. It is now 07:41, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Just a Coincidence: The Humiliation of Brazil’s President and the Exposure of Russian Agents in Brazil Link to heading
First, two events a week apart. Of course, there is probably no causal link between them, but nonetheless, I want to try playing a bit of conspiracy theory. So, look. A week ago, last week, the President of Brazil spent four hours waiting on a plane at Vnukovo Airport when he tried to meet with Putin and convince him to go meet with Zelensky. He supposedly even tried to pass along a message from Xi Jinping. Well, the result is known. Putin told him, basically, “Listen, Mr. President of Brazil, you came here, but I don’t have time. Maybe come back in the fall and I might receive you. For now, if you want, let’s talk by phone.” Quite a—well, let’s say—not the usual reception. This is the president of a country that has one and a half times the population of Russia, surpasses Russia in GDP, and is a BRICS member. So, seemingly, a serious partner for Russia. But that’s how Putin treated Lula—like he was nothing.
And then this week—yesterday, in fact—The New York Times published an investigation revealing that Brazilian intelligence had uncovered a network of nine Russian agents. These were so-called “illegals,” agents being trained to build deep cover identities: abandoning their pasts, making friends, starting families and businesses, and so on. Their task was to operate in other countries. The investigation states that Russia essentially turned Brazil into a conveyor belt for producing deeply embedded agents—people acquiring Brazilian passports and new identities in Brazil, who could then infiltrate other countries.
So, these two events, just a week apart. Of course, there’s no causal connection here. Just a small fact. According to the Times article, Brazilian intelligence had been monitoring this whole operation since 2022. And since the spy network wasn’t intended to operate inside Brazil, it seems they were just watching. And then suddenly, quite unexpectedly—out of the blue—everything was exposed, the whole abscess burst open. And the dates? Just a coincidence. You know, one of those cases where I’m willing to agree with a certain much-respected propagandist who says, “A coincidence? I don’t think so.” That’s how Putin’s swagger ends up causing some problems for Russian intelligence.
Russia Demands a Change of President in Ukraine Link to heading
Now, perhaps, two main topics. This concerns what today’s Russian desire for peace really looks like. Aside from the constant strikes on Ukrainian territory, one can judge Russia’s commitment to peace by its concrete actions and statements. It turns out that Russia is simply demanding that Ukraine change its president. Granted, this wasn’t said by Putin himself—Putin has spoken a lot about Zelensky’s illegitimacy—but in this case, it came from the head of the legal department of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is such a person, Maksim Musin, who stated yesterday that Zelensky must be replaced. That is, according to Musin, the Ukrainian people must elect a new president who will possess the legitimacy to sign international documents.
Because, in Musin’s view, Zelensky has lost legitimacy and therefore cannot sign anything. Moreover, Musin authorized the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada to sign international documents. Well, at least there’s that. At least that. I mean, I understand that this all looks very much like what happened at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum—basically, a bacchanal of madness. But this was said. A Foreign Ministry official is essentially instructing the Ukrainian people on whom to elect and how to live going forward.
I won’t quote the reaction of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because it’s obvious. But you see, when such demands are made, it’s unlikely that Mr. Musin is speaking for himself, that he just personally decided to call for Ukraine to replace its president. Clearly, this was said as a signal, which means the following: Russia has no intention of signing anything with Ukraine, no intention of entering into real negotiations. It’ll all be for show again, more of the same attempt to stall and mislead. So, this is yet more proof.
Putin’s Buffer Zones Link to heading
And yet another piece of evidence that Putin intends to keep waging war—at least for the foreseeable future—is his statement yesterday announcing the decision to create a buffer zone, a security zone along the Russia-Ukraine border. The idea is to ensure the safety of Russian regions. But in reality, the sheer absurdity of this decision lies in the fact that until February 24, 2022, there were no problems in the Russian regions bordering Ukraine—neither Belgorod, nor Kursk, nor Voronezh, nor Rostov oblasts, nor anywhere else. Russia had no issues at all. Incidentally, even the Moscow region had no problems back then. Yes, now drones do occasionally fly into the Moscow region, but that wasn’t the case before.
And here, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between when these problems started and what happened just before that seems, to me at least—I don’t know, I might sound like a dilettante—but it seems that the overwhelming majority of mammals (and I’m not talking about Homo sapiens) could figure out such a causal link. I’m not sure about reptiles, but mammals, definitely. So this buffer zone, in my opinion, is just further proof that Putin intends to keep the war going—for as long as he remains in power. Another, perhaps redundant, piece of evidence.
And how could this problem be solved without this mythical buffer zone? Just withdraw the troops, and that’s it. Take the money earmarked and currently being spent on war and instead use it to improve the lives of people in those regions. That’s all. And the problems would disappear. Use it for reconstruction if anything was damaged. But instead, we get this absurd idea of a buffer zone, just as deranged as the demand that Ukraine change its president.
Trump Expelled Foreign Students from Harvard Link to heading
And now, since we are living in the aftermath of that phony negotiation process and the coexistence of the two “loving hearts”—the presidents of Ukraine and Russia—I’ll go on recounting the exploits of Donald, our Trump. Several feats have been accomplished over the past few days. First of all, the Trump administration has stripped Harvard University of the right to educate foreign students. This was reported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Harvard will no longer be able to admit foreign students, and those foreigners currently studying there will be forced to transfer to another university, or else they will lose their legal status to remain in the country.
Just to grasp the scale of the issue: last academic year, Harvard had 7,000 foreign students. That’s more than a quarter of the entire student body. It’s also important to note that Harvard isn’t the only university under attack by Trump. The current U.S. government accuses over 60 other universities of promoting left-liberal ideology. So what is this? A remake of McCarthyism. Without a doubt, there were some incidents of anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism, but Harvard expressed a willingness to address those problems internally. External interference, especially when the state forces its way into a university, always ends up producing what we saw in the Soviet Union—and even in the United States, McCarthyism left quite a sad legacy.
Although it’s clear that the underlying issue is serious, the methods being used to address it raise the question of whether the cure is worse than the disease. And now we are witnessing what appears to be a remake of McCarthyism—Trump-style.
Trump Insulted the President of South Africa Link to heading
And the second “feat” that cannot go unmentioned is the astonishing meeting in the Oval Office. The Oval Office, it seems, is becoming a kind of symbol—just uttering the words “Oval Office” now immediately conjures up a certain stigma. So, yesterday, Trump received South African President Ramaphosa in the Oval Office. And this meeting strongly reminded many of the encounter between Zelensky and Trump (with Pence also involved)—a similar conflict, a similar clash. Nothing had indicated that such a strange conflict would arise out of nowhere. And then, suddenly, Trump unexpectedly demanded the lights be turned off. The unsuspecting homophobe—presumably tense and fearing something awful was about to happen—did, in fact, experience something awful. Trump decided to show him a movie.
This film, according to Trump, contained evidence that Ramaphosa was orchestrating a genocide of the white population in his country. The movie was pieced together from two clips. One featured a fringe South African politician calling for the killing of Africans—i.e., white descendants of Boers. The second showed rows of white crosses set up along a rural roadside.
Now, when it comes to idiots in politics, I believe they exist everywhere. So the presence of idiots in South African politics hardly proves there’s a genocide occurring. As for the crosses, which Trump claimed marked the mass graves of white farmers—he lied once again. In fact, there were no graves under those crosses. It was a protest action. Back in 2020—five years ago—two farmers were indeed murdered. Two people were convicted and punished for the crime by the police. Those crosses were part of a demonstration meant to draw attention to the crime, not an actual cemetery.
I don’t know—maybe Trump didn’t have any clips on hand showing Ku Klux Klan activities or more recent, though isolated, incidents of racism in the U.S.? He could have pieced something similar together. But he was unprepared. In general, a meeting with Trump really does require serious preparation—get the video ready in advance, turn off the lights, and then… who knows how it’ll go from there.
Russian Libraries Are Buying Books About Trump Link to heading
In conclusion to this part of our conversation, I can only say one thing: alongside the fact that a Taliban representative spoke at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum—lecturing others on how to live—there is another so-called life coach on the scene. After all, one can’t learn life lessons solely from the Taliban or from North Korea.
A rather curious phenomenon has emerged recently. Journalists have noticed on Russia’s government procurement portal that state libraries have started purchasing books by and about Trump—his biographies and books written about him. So, we now have another teacher. Taliban, Trump, North Korea—and more to come.
That’s the kind of news that has just come in. The direction is clear: Putin has no intention of ending the war. Trump keeps causing chaos. And this is a very convenient atmosphere for Putin to keep waging war.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to mention that today, as usual on Fridays at 7:00 PM, we’ll have a conversation with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. As for the later evening programs, I’ll need to check how packed my day is. If possible, we’ll release another episode of the “Mediafrenia” program. Now, on to your questions.
George Soros Link to heading
Question from Elena – These are questions from a Telegram channel chat. What do you think about George Soros and his foundation, and specifically about him as a person? Can he be considered good and virtuous?
Well, you know, I don’t, I don’t really want to speak in such categories. You see, George Soros… George Soros made over 40—well, this is approximate data, it’s what I remember—he made over $44,000,000,000 from financial operations. Of that—again, this is incomplete data, I’ll say right away—but what I remember is that he donated over $33,000,000,000 to charity. And if we’re talking specifics, then he really is a person who—let’s take Russia, for example—in the 1990s, he saved science there, because over 33,000 scientists received grants at a time when science was simply not being funded. And 30,000 to 35,000 scientists—that’s a huge group, essentially teachers, doctors, scientists. 33,000 scientists received grants to continue their research. That’s very significant. The amount of aid Soros provided to educational institutions, public organizations, and the UN is enormous. Also to media organizations, meaning his programs in all these countries—in many countries—really did help, helped civil society survive, helped independent media, helped scientists. So I think he’s a philanthropist in the very best sense of the word.
Soros was undoubtedly hated. He was accused—you know, Soros’s haters range from Viktor Orbán, who, by the way, also studied in programs funded by Soros, to Russian patriots. There are many. Some believe he’s the head of a global Zionist conspiracy, others think he’s the main driver of color revolutions. As for the Zionist conspiracy, that’s, of course, complete nonsense. As for the color revolutions, well, he did provide some level of support, but it’s unlikely he can be considered the main cause of those revolutions. He helped financially, but that support was probably not decisive. So overall, if I were to try to answer your question, dear Elena, I believe Soros is, without a doubt, a positive figure. Can he be considered “good”? He has played and continues to play a very positive role. Yes, there are some drawbacks—due to support for certain politicians, for example—one can look for negatives here. But I believe the good he has done far, far outweighs any potential downsides.
How Justified Can the Killing of Gaza Civilians Be? Link to heading
From YouTube – Question from Anton: If we take, for example, Israel’s current fight against Gaza militants, could you please share your gradation of the justification of actions? In your view, where is the line drawn in a scenario where militants are eliminated safely for the army but at the cost of hypothetically non-existent Gaza civilians? For instance, is it acceptable to kill 10 militants if 100 civilians also die? What if it’s 1,000 civilians? Where do you think the line is? There’s also a terrible scenario for Israel: deploying Israeli soldiers, five of whom may die along with 20 civilians. I would really like to hear your quantitative assessment of what is morally acceptable by your standards.
Dear Anton, First of all, I won’t be giving quantitative assessments—unfortunately, I must disappoint you. I will not be naming numbers, but I will try to answer your question. That said, I won’t evade the answer—I’ll respond not with quantity, but with quality, with analysis.
So, where did Hamas come from? Let’s look at the situation based on some axioms that are hard to argue with. Point one: who is the source of terrorism? Who attacked Israel, killed over a thousand Israeli civilians, took hostages, and continues to repeatedly infiltrate Israel’s territory with new and ongoing terrorist acts, whether by individuals or groups, constantly? Who does this? Hamas does. Right?
So who are Hamas? Where did they come from? They didn’t come from outer space. They’re not aliens. They are a government that the residents of the Gaza Strip chose in relatively free elections.
Now, how is the Gaza Strip organized and what is Hamas’s role there? It is essentially a stronghold supported by Hamas. I don’t have up-to-date sociological data, but over a long period—more than 20 years—residents of Gaza have supported Hamas, elected them, stood behind them. You could argue that Hamas hides behind civilians, or that it is fueled by the sentiments of those civilians.
It would be very interesting to know, in that massive terrorist attack in which over a thousand Israelis were killed—how many of the participants were militants, and how many were just young people who decided to join in. I’m absolutely convinced it wasn’t all Hamas militants. It was also those so-called peaceful civilians who gladly took part in killing Jews—gouging out eyes, taking hostages, torturing, murdering, etc.
Now, I’m not saying we need revenge—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. No, of course not. But this is a problem. Israel is defending itself, trying to save its people, to prevent further massacres. How can Hamas be eliminated without also killing a number of civilians—conditionally “peaceful,” I emphasize conditionally? I don’t know.
That’s why it’s impossible to give a quantitative assessment here. One must know the situation, be in the military, understand the context—you would have to invisibly stand beside each Israeli soldier carrying out specific combat operations. I don’t have those resources, and I don’t think anyone can assign numbers here.
Take, for example, the collateral damage during the capture of Berlin—how many civilians died? But those civilians were people who bore some responsibility for the Third Reich.
My question to you, dear Anton: do you think the residents of Gaza bear responsibility for Hamas’s actions? For me, the answer is clear—yes, they do. They elected Hamas, they supported the killing of Israelis.
So it’s a complex story. I am against civilians dying, but I also don’t understand how Hamas can be destroyed without affecting the lives and safety of civilians. That’s why I have no numbers—just these qualitative reflections.
Why Does the Author Sound Terrible on Other Channels? Link to heading
And Viktor Krupnov? Please explain why on some broadcasts on other channels your sound is just awful. Some phrases are completely unintelligible. If I hadn’t watched your personal streams with excellent sound, I’d blame the microphone. Can this be fixed?
This is a relatively recent issue. It’s tied to the fact that many of the channels that invite me for interviews use Zoom exclusively. I’ve noticed that, for example, when YouTube was widely used, the sound was excellent. When it’s StreamYard—the platform I use for my own streams—the sound is great. Like right now, I’m in a StreamYard studio, and the sound is excellent—or at least normal.
The issue is that they always ask me to sit as far from the camera as possible. I warn them the sound will be bad. They say, “No, it’s fine, we’ll fix it. Just sit farther away so your face isn’t too close-up.” Well, their show, their rules. I sit farther away, and the sound gets worse. What can I do?
Every time, I ask if they can switch from Zoom to something else—to StreamYard or another platform. There are quite a few options available. Unfortunately, I’m not the one who decides. The hosts of the broadcast decide how to connect.
I think that to ensure decent sound even under such conditions, I’ll need to buy a large studio microphone and headphones. I’ll do that, just to work with them regularly. Right now, my sound is fine, as far as I know—so nothing is needed here.
So I think we’ll solve this issue. Thank you for the feedback.
Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West Link to heading
Question from Detochkin – that’s the name this person uses. And I know you don’t do literary criticism, but still—what do you think of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West?
Well, well. Again, I don’t think—I’m not sure that The Decline of the West is purely literature. It’s more of a historical, philosophical work. So I’m ready to give some sort of assessment here.
Look—on the one hand, this work contains a completely unjustified forecast that didn’t come true. The book was written in 1918, as we know. It predicted that Europe was about to fall into decline and perish, amid the rise of youthful, foreign conquerors. As you can see, more than 100 years have passed since 1918, and Europe has not perished.
And if we look at Spengler more broadly, not just this book—he had a rather complicated relationship with the Third Reich. In his book Years of Decision, Oswald Spengler openly supported the idea of a National Socialist revolution in Germany. He said he had long awaited this national revolution and welcomed it.
On the other hand, in 1936, he wrote a letter to Hans Frank in which he predicted that Nazi Germany might cease to exist within the next ten years. Reminder: that was in 1936. Nine years later, the Third Reich ceased to exist. So some of his predictions did turn out to be accurate. He was fascinated by Nazism at one point, and later became disillusioned with it.
What troubles me, I’d say, is the meta-historical antisemitism present in Spengler’s work. He portrays this “magical soul” of Babylonian and Germanic culture—he famously claimed that Jews were fossilized remnants of an earlier magical civilization, stuck in urban ghettos. Overall, he viewed the role of Jews as rather destructive.
Life has completely disproved that. They are anything but fossilized—just look at Israel and the enormous contribution of Jews to global culture, especially to Western culture. So many of Spengler’s claims…
He’s interesting, though. He’s an author who made a huge contribution to the creative ferment of human thought. The Decline of the West certainly provoked intellectual reflection—but the author himself, and his analysis, doesn’t particularly inspire me.
His descriptions of the “soul” of a culture and such—they’re more like poetry than strict science. But undoubtedly—well, like Nietzsche, for example—his philosophy is filled with imagery, metaphors, and poetry. So I think overall, Spengler did something useful, because he sparked discussion, awakened a certain creative energy in historical scholarship and philosophy.
So it’s good that he wrote this book. And it’s good that none of the predictions it contained came true, so to speak.
On Comparing Rubio with Kasparov Link to heading
There were several questions about that episode when I compared—compared Rubio with Kasparov, and these questions convinced me that some subscribers, so to speak, kind of listen. I don’t claim that my streams should be perceived as some kind of, let’s say, lecture that needs to be listened to, consulted, and so on. But some questions are asked in such a way that it’s obvious the person asking them was, well, listening to what I was saying while simultaneously engaged in some very important task of their own, and they’re reacting to some isolated phrases. They’re not catching the essence—why do I think so? Because… Evil. As I understand it, Evil, Evil, Evil Beaver asks: Why did you call that scoundrel Rubio some kind of Kasparov? Then Medunitsa: Why did Igor bring up Kasparov when discussing Marco Rubio in 2017? What for? Then Iris from the Telegram chat also protests: Why are you comparing Rubio with Kasparov?
Here’s my answer: Dear friends, this was a segment of the stream where I was analyzing Marco Rubio’s changed position. Just recently, literally the other day, he was answering a congressman’s questions, and he was asked six times, “Do you consider Putin a war criminal?” And all six times he talked about how they’re planning to lead the matter toward peace—instead of simply saying, “Yes, he’s a war criminal,” and calling him out. And I mentioned the 2017 situation, when the same Marco Rubio angrily chastised someone being appointed at the time, saying that person couldn’t bring himself to call Putin a war criminal. And back then Rubio said, yes, of course—it’s obvious to everyone that Putin is a war criminal. And I just joked. I said, “Well, listen, what a Rubio that was—practically a Kasparov.” That is, Kasparov in this case is a kind of ideal of a politician who calls things by their names, calls what’s happening in Russia fascism, says that Putin is a war criminal. And I simply compared—and in that respect, in a way, I joked—compared Marco Rubio to Garry Kasparov. I could have compared him to myself, because I say the same things. But that would be kind of awkward. So, that was kind of a joke based on the fact that, indeed, in 2017 Marco Rubio behaved rhetorically almost like Garry Kasparov, but by 2025 he’s completely different. That is, now he’s kind of evasive. An evader—someone like Ksenia Sobchak, maybe. I won’t directly compare him to Ksenia Sobchak, but it’s something like that.
Russia will not be free until it ceases to be an empire Link to heading
Is that so? A question from Pavel: Don’t you think that the slogan “Russia will be free” is fundamentally unachievable? Russia will not only not be free, it won’t even be normal. Only Muscovy can become normal.
Dear colleague! That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for at least 15 years. But it’s not only Muscovy that can become normal—there’s also the Ural Republic, the Siberian Republic, Free Ingria, and so on. That is, the imperial spirit that poisons everything in Russia can disappear only in the case of a breakup. I believe that Russia, in its current borders, will continue to reproduce this very empire. And continue to reproduce this imperial spirit, which poses a threat not only to the surrounding world but also to its own citizens. So I agree with you. But not only with you. Why limit ourselves to Muscovy? There are many points of normality here. I’m convinced that a normal life can be built in Siberia too—if there’s no longer this Muscovite brain center. And also in other regions—in the Urals, in Kuban, and so on.
On the Extent of Russification in Ukraine Link to heading
So, Andrey? A question about the Russian language used by Ukrainians in Europe. In 2021, I taught a Ukrainian language course in Finland. When the full-scale invasion began, many refugees arrived from Ukraine. Finns would ask me, “Andrey, why, when I speak to Ukrainians in Ukrainian, do they respond in Russian?” I know Russian, but I came to learn Ukrainian because Russian… The Russian language can evoke negative associations with aggression. But they answer in Russian. What has to happen in people’s minds for them to understand this? They were ‘rescued’—in quotes—‘liberated’—in quotes—by this war that’s enforcing the Russian world on them. How does the policy of Russification work so persistently, do you know?
The extent of Russification in Ukraine. Well, before the war began—before the aggression—I visited Ukraine many times, in the post-Soviet, independent Ukraine. And I have to say that the level of Russification in Ukraine in the period from independence to 2014, and even after 2014 as well, was very high. Of course, 2014 was a turning point, after which the level of Russification clearly declined significantly. But you know, more than 9%… I mean, the Opposition Bloc was completely pro-Russian. That’s a serious indicator. And before that—it was, you know, I’ve often cited the example of arriving in Ukraine and seeing that the first 10 channels on the remote were Russian channels. Russian channels, Russian films. Russian was simply—well, in Kyiv, if you take it—in everyday conversation, again before the aggression that cleared people’s heads—Russian was the language of daily communication in Kyiv. When you walked the streets, generally, it was Russian speech. So the situation changed completely. When the aggression began, of course, the situation began to change. But before that, listen—there are public opinion poll data according to which the two most popular people in Ukraine were Putin and Lukashenko. What can you say about that? Because only after the aggression, of course, everything—attitudes changed sharply. Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians began switching to Ukrainian. But of course, that… that legacy remains. The traces of Russification will be felt for a long time, although it is definitely decreasing.
On Continuing the Trumpophrenia Series Link to heading
Oleg, I’ve been meaning to ask—will there be more episodes of the Trumpophrenia series? It’s been a while since the last one.
Yes, that’s an issue. I’ve just been a bit behind, a bit behind. It requires a certain time commitment. I agree it’s not great to announce something and then… I think I’ll try to resume it after all. I consider it very important.
Wolf Messing Link to heading
Galina. Galina Chertkova asks: How do you assess some of Wolf Messing’s prophecies?
I don’t know which specific prophecies you’re referring to. But the thing is, he was certainly a very talented, talented illusionist—talented. You could call him a magician, maybe, or maybe not—I don’t know. But Wolf Messing consistently avoided any attempts to verify his talents or abilities, those illusionist skills. He always refused every offer of a lab experiment that could have confirmed or debunked his supposed superhuman or supernatural abilities. He never agreed—not once—to have those paranormal powers tested, for the very simple reason that he didn’t have them. He had no gift of foresight. He was someone who had extremely… well, for one, he was definitely a hypnotist—that’s a fact. And hypnosis is a known phenomenon. I studied at a psychology faculty, and I saw how it’s done. So it’s a widely practiced thing. Wolf Messing was a very powerful hypnotist. That’s the first thing. Second, he really had a high level of sensitivity. He could, through some kind of tactile contact, understand a lot about how a person was feeling—how nervous they were, and so on. He could observe the tiniest details of a person’s facial expressions. So he had all that. As for his supposed supernatural abilities—he certainly didn’t have them. In fact, many of the so-called facts from Messing’s autobiography, which he himself wrote, were never confirmed. In particular, his alleged prophetic encounters with Stalin and so on—none of it was confirmed; it never happened. So—I don’t know, dear Galina, which specific prophecies you’re referring to, but from what I know, none of it holds up.
What Gives the Author Strength Link to heading
Igor. Igor, my namesake, in a word. Right. Every morning, with such persistence, you bring us increasingly grim news. And not just about the war in Ukraine. Justice, freedom, human rights, culture, tolerance—all these concepts seem to be drowning in an ocean of aggression, lies, money, and obscurantism. That’s the feeling—not just from your streams. Don’t you think your morning broadcasts could be boldly renamed “Chronicles of the Apocalypse”? So where do you get the strength? Or do you seriously believe? Do you see light at the end of the tunnel?
Dear namesake, I’ll answer very briefly. About strength—this is my job. And I don’t see it as some kind of shift you clock in and out of, but as a mission. And that’s not just words—it’s reality. As for the light at the end of the tunnel—well, you see, times vary. The Stalin era, the Third Reich in Germany, the rule of Pol Pot in Cambodia—horrible times, perhaps even more horrifying than what we’re going through now. But everything ends. Everything ends. So the light at the end of the tunnel—what its contours or structure are, I certainly can’t predict. But that it will appear—I have not the slightest doubt.
On the Taliban and Russia Link to heading
Several questions about the Taliban—very indignant ones. A question from Raikh: How many years does the Taliban have, and how many years does Orthodox terrorism have? Over 1,000 years in favor of Orthodox terrorism. How many years does Catholic terrorism have? Over 2,000 years. Who invented terrorism as a method of struggle? Russian Narodniks. So—either tell the truth or don’t raise the topic of terrorism at all.
Well, we’re only missing the classic “Look me in the eyes” line—otherwise, it’s all there. So, dear sir, I am telling the truth. And that’s exactly why I can’t follow your order not to raise the topic of terrorism. I will continue to raise it if I see fit. Naturally, if it’s relevant—we’re talking about today’s reality. Now, please tell me, you said something about 2,000 years of Catholic terrorism. Tell me—how is Catholic terrorism manifested today? Specifically? Sure, you can bring up Americans killing Native Americans, hanging Black people—but what does that have to do with the Taliban? Very simply: I was talking about a legal forum that just wrapped up the day before yesterday. I mentioned yesterday on air a legal forum where the Taliban was present—as a teacher. As a teacher, demonstrating their misanthropic practices as a model to be emulated. That’s why I talked about the Taliban. You see, if the Narodniks had risen from the dead and started lecturing us, I’d be talking about the Narodniks. But the Narodniks weren’t at the legal-economic forum. The Taliban was. So I’m talking about the Taliban.
In a similar vein, though with a different tone, Maxim Lapshin also commented on the Taliban. Here’s what Maxim wrote: What does the Taliban have to do with it? Especially since it’s literally the only legitimate power currently in Afghanistan. Besides, Russia is actively fighting terrorism—groups like ISIS are banned in our country, while the U.S. actively sponsors them.
You know, Maxim, first of all—I’d like to ask you: where did you get the idea that the U.S. actively sponsors ISIS? Was that Solovyov who told you? Or someone else from Russian state TV? ISIS is a banned organization in the United States, officially designated as a terrorist group. That’s the first point. Second, about the Taliban’s “legitimacy”: the Taliban came to power by means of armed territorial conquest—plain and simple. So, is a regime that seizes power by force legitimate? Was Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia legitimate? You see what I mean? First comes the takeover—then, as they say in street football, “they’re now in play.” The Bolsheviks came to power through a coup, absolutely unlawfully—but later were sort of “in play.” Just like in pickup soccer. Eventually, everyone gradually recognized them. Yes, the Taliban now controls Afghanistan. But does that mean the Taliban stopped being a misanthropic regime? No, it doesn’t. The Third Reich was the government in Germany too. Does that mean it should be viewed positively? Of course not.
Now, regarding your statement that Russia is actively fighting terrorism—what really caught my attention is your framing. Russia is itself a terrorist state. It embraces terrorist entities and regimes—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen. And the Taliban, too, in the mix. So as for Russia’s supposed fight against terrorism—go tell that to the Israelis, whose enemies—Hamas—are Russia’s close friends. By the way, Hamas came running straight to Putin after their attack, looking for protection. So, honestly, dear Maxim, it seems to me that your views are still largely shaped in the Solovyov studio—judging by the nature of your questions.
Aesthetic Expression of Socialism Link to heading
Sokol Kukushkin: I watched a YouTube video about an ancient city in Guizhou Province, China—a place that looks more like Switzerland than the China we usually imagine. It feels like they wash the paved streets every morning with detergent. I started wondering why different peoples have such drastically different concepts of external beauty. You can see it in architecture, cemeteries, national cuisine, and so on. Sometimes a nomad’s yurt looks cozier and more attractive than a permanent dwelling—say, a Stalin-era barrack. We’re not even talking about the architecture of developed countries. Besides the level of culture, what do you think explains this? I’m not just talking about architecture. Surely it’s possible to make a Lada that at least looks appealing? Or is that no easy task?
You know, as I was reading your question—with its thorough preface and your thoughtful take on the issue—two quotes immediately came to mind. One from Sinyavsky, who at the time wrote under the pseudonym Abram Tertz: “My disagreement with Soviet power is purely aesthetic.” And the second is from Dostoevsky: “Beauty will save the world.”
So—substantively—this question, though it may seem casual at first glance, is actually quite serious. Why? Well, there was an old joke about a Japanese tourist traveling through the Soviet Union. Everyone kept asking him, “What do you like here?” He’d say, “Your children are lovely.” “Yes, but aside from the children?” “No, you have very lovely children.” But everything made by hand? No. That joke is very telling—perfectly on point.
Let me try not to turn this answer into a whole separate stream, though it might deserve one. I’ll answer using a now-unfashionable author—Karl Marx. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx wrote in detail about the phenomenon of alienation. Why is it that everything produced is bad? Why are Ladas so ugly? Why are buildings so hideous? Why is furniture so unattractive? Why is the clothing so poor? The reason is alienation.
Now, Marx wrote about alienation as a phenomenon of capitalism. But here’s the paradox: it turned out that alienation was actually at its peak under what Marx called socialism—and later, communism. It turns out that’s precisely when a person becomes totally alienated. Because none of it is “mine”—it’s all someone else’s. It’s alien.
Why is there so much shoddy work? Because it’s not mine. Why do builders produce ugly, unfinished buildings? Because it’s not theirs. Because it’s the state’s. It’s a completely alien state. A foreign country. A foreign courtyard. A foreign stairwell. It’s all not mine.
I’m not saying this is true in every case—but it is the dominant sentiment. When property becomes state-owned, it becomes foreign. That’s all. It’s a very simple story. That’s why. That’s why Sinyavsky had purely aesthetic disagreements with Soviet power—because it was ugly. It was an ugly system, that Soviet power.
About Names and Reverse Discrimination Link to heading
So, the question. Dear friends, I have just one request: if possible, please sign your questions, because there isn’t always time to find out your name, and I end up calling you by whatever name is on your avatar. For example, the author of this question is going to Paris — that’s how he’s listed.
The question is: what exactly is the so-called political correctness of the Democrats that caused them to lose to the Trumpists? Is it that the Democrats wouldn’t allow racists and homophobes to insult and demean people based on race or gender? Yesterday, during a stream, Artemy Troitsky expressed outrage about political correctness. As an example, he said that at an American university he was once rebuked for calling Roma people “gypsies,” because this is considered offensive, and that the correct term is “Roma.” He insisted that, in his view, there’s nothing offensive about the word “gypsy.” No one can tell him what he should or shouldn’t call them. Isn’t that racism? Or do you agree with Troitsky?
Dear colleague, let me begin answering your question with my usual story. I didn’t watch that broadcast. So, I can’t really comment on what exactly Troitsky said, but in general, I believe that people — and nations — should be called what they wish to be called. And what really convinced me of this was my teaching experience. Every time you walk into a student classroom, you see the roster, and introductions begin. You might call someone “IvanÓv,” and he’ll say, “I’m Ivánov,” and you must respect that. A person should be called what they want to be called. It’s just basic politeness. If I insist, “No, you’re IvanÓv,” that’s rude. Why do that?
That’s precisely why, if people prefer to be called “Roma,” then that’s what they should be called. So in this case, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said.
Now, the second — and more important — point is regarding the criticism of the Democrats. I am, of course, categorically against discrimination based on race or gender. But starting, perhaps, in the late 1960s, a process began that came to be known as “reverse discrimination.” That is, discrimination against members of the dominant group, or the majority, in favor of minorities.
There is also the issue of historical guilt — of white people, and of men toward women. In the 1960s, emancipation turned into a process of reverse discrimination, where the demands were not just for privileges, but for reparations. The majority was expected to “pay” — especially to oppressed minority groups.
For example, in the U.S., there’s an idea that white people, because their ancestors oppressed the ancestors of today’s Black people, should pay for that. This shows up in employment, where jobs and vacancies are preferentially offered to members of so-called oppressed minorities — i.e., non-whites, or those with other sexual orientations, etc. This happens all the time and is emphasized.
There’s another aspect: for the vast majority of the population, LGBT issues, for example, are not considered important. When the media and politicians constantly focus on them, it creates pushback. So where is the line between ongoing direct discrimination and reverse discrimination? That’s a separate question.
Because when it’s emphasized that someone from a sexual minority is appointed to a government position, or when, all other things being equal, a Black person has a better chance at a job — that’s reverse discrimination. And these cases exist. There have been court cases about this.
So this, combined with the huge media overrepresentation of these phenomena, really does create a backlash among a large majority of people. That’s essentially what this is about.
Was the Author Shocked by Russians’ Behavior After the Invasion of Ukraine Link to heading
Anastasia, please tell me, did you experience emotional shock after February 2022 when you realized that the vast majority of our compatriots are bloodthirsty, stupid orcs? Or did you already know this before me? For me, it was a shock. Or was it something else?
Dear Anastasia, Well, first of all, hand on heart, I’m not entirely sure that the majority are bloodthirsty orcs, as you put it. Because yes — using your terminology — a significant number of our compatriots are bloodthirsty orcs, others are tolerant of it and, one way or another, don’t see it as a problem. Now, here I think it’s true to say what I really believe: what happened did, indeed, shock me.
I’ve repeatedly admitted that I didn’t believe it would happen right up until the end. I didn’t deny the possibility of war, but I considered it unlikely. The main mistake I made wasn’t in misjudging the Russian population — it was in misjudging Putin. I didn’t imagine he would do something so stupid, because he had no rational motivation to do it — nothing besides the madness in his own head. I underestimated the scale of the madness in Putin’s mind.
As for the population… you know, the word “shock” probably isn’t quite right. Disgust — disgust is more accurate. I wasn’t very surprised by what was happening. But what I felt was disgust — the unwillingness to walk the same streets as a large number of my compatriots, the unwillingness to ride the subway with people who supported and still support this war. That desire to distance myself from it.
I understand that may be selfish or whatever else, maybe that’s some kind of escapism. But that disgust dominates — not shock, no — exactly disgust toward a huge number of compatriots. Yes, there are heroes like Skobov, yes, there are a thousand convicts, and that’s all great. But the bulk of people — I just can’t imagine myself returning to Russia, walking the same streets, and looking into the faces of passersby, wondering whether they supported this war or not. You see, that’s the tragedy. So it’s not shock — it’s revulsion, disgust.
Tamara Eidelman Link to heading
Margarita, what is your opinion of the historian Tamara Eidelman?
Well, and then Margarita goes on to talk about what Tamara Eidelman is. I can say only one thing — I respect what she does, because she presents her historical narratives in a very accessible and popular form. I regard her work with interest, respect, and sympathy.
Viktor Vakhshtayn Link to heading
Just like TASS, a person can probably be called that too. Once again, a sincere request — please sign your name, don’t make me butcher your names. I’m very interested to know your opinion of Viktor Vakhshtayn, his sociological work, approaches, and so on, as well as his political views.
You know, dear colleague, I’m not familiar with Vakhshtayn’s political views. I’ve never heard him comment on politics — I simply haven’t followed that. But judging by the fact that he’s not a government agent, and that he was forced to leave Russia, I’d say his political views are probably just fine.
As for him as a sociologist, I’m interested in the subject matter of his work — the sociology of everyday life, the sociology of games. It’s all very interesting, especially since his sociology leans toward psychology, which is also something I relate to. I once caught a discussion where he spoke about the limitations of sociological methods in the field of education and so on. I don’t quite share that view. But overall, he’s definitely an interesting author. And everything he does, it seems to me, is quite likable.
Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov Link to heading
So, Robert — Robert has a very long preface, it’s a quote from Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov. Not Rudolfovich, but Sergeyevich. He is, well, probably the most prominent religious thinker in Russian history — at least in the 19th century, certainly. Yes, probably. And overall, then, a very long quote. With your permission, I won’t read it out. It seems this quote is supposed to inspire me to engage in a discussion with Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov. But there will be no discussion.
Dear Robert, Mysticism is not something I relate to. I can take an interest in mystical films, though I don’t really enjoy them — but I understand them as an artistic device, in part. For example, one of the well-known mystics is Daniil Andreev, with his books. It’s all interesting as a kind of aid, an image, maybe even a metaphor.
As I’ve said before — and you’re probably familiar with my approach to various philosophers and authors — it’s about trying to extract tools for my own analysis, for my own research. And frankly, I don’t know what I could take from Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov. Naturally, I’ve read his “Three Conversations” and his other works. After all, a thousand years ago I studied at a philosophy faculty and taught philosophy for several decades — religious philosophy was, of course, part of the curriculum.
So yes, I’m familiar with Solovyov’s work, but it doesn’t speak to me. I don’t connect with mystical thinkers. And even if we’re comparing mystical thinkers — Solovyov pales next to someone like Jung, because there’s much more depth there.
You see, Russian religious philosophy, like all of Russian philosophy, is secondary — which is not surprising. It’s not surprising because we are, after all, a peripheral part of Western civilization. Despite all our “we are Scythians” talk, we are part of Western — not Eastern — civilization.
Gene Sharp Link to heading
So? Sergey, don’t you think that our way of thinking lacks the ideas of Mr. Gene Sharp?
You know, in our way of thinking — although I’m not sure whose thinking you mean — and since the question was asked in Ukrainian, I don’t know exactly. But I think that in Ukraine, too, Gene Sharp’s ideas were very widespread. And in Russia, especially, his 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action was practically a handbook for many Russian protesters.
But I must say, first of all, that for Russia — and for Belarus, by the way — these methods turned out to be absolutely meaningless, because totalitarian regimes are not overthrown through nonviolent actions. That’s the first point.
Second — and I say this as someone who was also part of the protest movement in Russia for a time — I naturally read all of this, and at least a number of his points were contradictory. Because while he talks about nonviolent action, one of the points, for example, was violent action — an uprising. Just an uprising.
The core content of these actions — the recommendations step by step — are a form of political and economic sabotage, which certainly works against backward, archaic regimes that are not totalitarian or dictatorial. But under the conditions of Russia or Belarus, none of it works — none of it works.
Why Do People from the USSR Speak Russian in the U.S.? Link to heading
Yevhenii Alekseev My wife and I live in New York. We speak Ukrainian with each other and with our friends. I’m writing in Russian because your channel is in Russian. We’re constantly surprised on the street when we see people of different nationalities — Uzbeks, Tajiks, Jews, Koreans, Kazakhs — speaking broken Russian with each other. Why do you think they do that? By the way, you often hear Ukrainian on the street in New York.
Dear Yevhenii, I think the reason is very simple — they are all originally from the USSR. The degree of Russification was extremely high. The spread of the Russian language — with perhaps the exception of the Baltic countries — was practically total. In fact, many people — I know, for instance, that many Kazakhs didn’t speak or hardly spoke Kazakh but spoke Russian instead. So this is a consequence of the Russification policy that existed in the Soviet Union. We haven’t moved on from it yet.
Can People Live Like Insects Link to heading
A question from Yulia As an amateur entomologist — of course, amateur — you surely know about the rules in ant and bee colonies, with their strict hierarchies. In those societies, everyone knows their place, and any deviation means death. Don’t you think humanity is moving in that direction? The rules of communal living increasingly resemble totalitarian control. On the one hand, it’s good — no more Chikatilo, because there are cameras and surveillance everywhere. But is such justice really satisfying? It feels like something’s missing. What do you think?
Well, first of all, cameras and surveillance don’t prevent another Chikatilo — that much is known. And secondly? I think, dear Yulia, that you’re exaggerating the degree to which human society resembles an ant colony. We’re very far from that — and likely always will be. There’s still a very high level of diversity, and no single direction or vector. So that kind of future, where everything is flattened and uniform — it won’t come. Fukuyama was wrong. There is no end of history, and there never will be.
Ukraine’s Sovereign Path Link to heading
A question from Oksana. In your last stream, you said that there’s no need to negotiate with Putin, but instead to launch 200 Tomahawks at Moscow.
I didn’t say specifically at Moscow. What I said was that 2,000 Tomahawks are needed. Well, in my opinion — again, I’m not a military expert — but the notional figure of 2,000 Tomahawks is needed, among other things, to destroy Russia’s military potential. So, the question continues: In that case, wouldn’t a nuclear war break out under an existential threat and all life perish — or not? Wouldn’t it be better for the West to stop using Ukraine as a tool? These are the words of the respected Bondarenko — in the confrontation with China and Russia, let Ukrainians (I’m Ukrainian too) learn to be self-sufficient and make their country strong and wealthy, friendly to everyone and neutral toward military alliances. The potential is there, and they should stop thinking about whom to join — the Russian Tsar, the Turkish Sultan, or the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
You know, dear Oksana, you mentioned Bondarenko and even called him respected. But I hear — maybe it’s just a coincidence — but I hear in your question the voice of Arestovych. That velvety voice of his that comes through in those words, that the West should stop using Ukraine as a tool in the confrontation with China and Russia. That Ukrainians need to become self-sufficient and build their country — strong and rich, friendly, neutral to all. The potential is there, and so on.
But these are idealistic thoughts — I’m not blaming you for anything — but they are just that, idealistic musings. Arestovych: we should stop fighting, make Ukraine strong, rich, and happy. Well, great. Sure. But what about Russian aggression? How exactly are you going to get Putin to stop killing Ukrainians? Surrender? Well, fine — then he’ll do it from within, cripple Ukraine, and keep destroying it.
So, when you say that there’s no need to negotiate with Putin, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t negotiate — I’m saying that it’s impossible to negotiate with him. It’s simply impossible, you see? A rabbit can’t negotiate with a predator that wants to eat it. It just can’t — you understand? That option doesn’t exist.
And everything I see, everything I try to tell you and share with you, is that Putin has no intention of ending the war, and it’s impossible to deal with him.
Just look — Putin now, well, not Putin himself, but through his lackey, has made a demand that Ukraine change its president. And now Ukrainians, barely having ironed their shoelaces, are running off to change the president. Next, Putin will demand something else — first, to dismantle the army before he even talks. Dismantle the army — that’s basically an official demand.
And to agree to that? How do you negotiate with Putin when his demands amount to nearly complete and final capitulation?
Why Ukraine Will Not Be Defeated Link to heading
Sanya from Ulyanovsk I recently watched your appearance on the show “Osoboe Mnenie” on the Ishchem Vyhod channel. It was an interesting episode. You say that we are probably living in peace. You briefly mention the possibility of black swans but absolutely categorically rule out Ukraine’s defeat in the war? Why such categoricalness? I don’t wish for Ukraine’s defeat, but I don’t rule it out. Even with aid, it hasn’t been enough. Now Trump is threatening to withdraw from the conflict. Can he do that? Well, yes, he can. He could stop supplying weapons and intelligence. If that happens, wouldn’t Russia just wear Ukraine down? It’s unlikely that the EU can significantly shift the situation without the U.S. It hasn’t managed to do so even with the U.S. involved. I haven’t heard a single expert opinion suggesting that Russia would be exhausted faster than Ukraine in a prolonged war. But Russians have infinite patience. They’re willing to stop eating. They’re generational slaves, if the rumors are to be believed, but they won’t stop fighting. So why do you refuse to even consider such a possibility? After all, we are still probably living in peace.
Dear colleague, in principle, I do consider that possibility — I allow for it. The problem lies in only one thing: why do I think this scenario doesn’t seem realistic? First, because in reality, we’re now in the fourth year of war. Putin, despite mobilizing all his forces, using all resources, turning to Xi, and involving North Koreans, has not managed to capture a single regional capital. Everything that’s presented as an achievement is the capture of a few small settlements. And for that, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers are buried in Ukrainian soil.
Ukraine simply has nowhere to retreat to, you see? It doesn’t have a backup Ukraine. So what would a victory look like? What does a Putin victory even look like? Putin capturing all of Ukraine? Putin destroying all of Ukraine? That option doesn’t exist either.
But another option does exist. Yes, it could become a war of attrition, after which events occur that change the regime in Russia — or Russia falls apart, which is possible, because it’s an empire prone to collapse. I’ve said this many times. Or the second option: the repressive imperial regime in Russia remains, and we get some kind of unjust peace — an unjust peace. That’s possible, but that won’t be a victory for Putin, you understand?
Again, there is a possibility of an unjust peace — meaning Ukraine ends up with a large amount of territory occupied. Around 20–25% of Ukraine’s territory remains occupied. That scenario is possible; it can’t be ruled out.
But Russia’s victory — meaning Ukraine ceases to exist — that scenario I categorically rule out.
Examples of Combat Sociology Link to heading
Ilya, In your Joint Reflections with Igor Eidman and Alexander Moroz, you mentioned combat sociology in political science. In response to a viewer, you cited Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky as an example — that he doesn’t make predictions but offers guidance for action. Could you elaborate on what results have been achieved in the past? Have there been cases in political science and sociology? Were these always positive results?
No, not always. I’ll give just two examples, because the topic is vast. I’ll mention only two: Pierre Bourdieu and Karl Marx.
With Pierre Bourdieu — his sociology, not always, but sometimes — served him as a way to step beyond science and try to do something about the issues he observed. In particular, something I’m familiar with: his attempts to reform television. He was categorically dissatisfied with the distortions prevalent on French television. He constantly attacked the dominant trends with harsh criticism.
The logic of television, he argued, leads to airtime being given to people who can speak briefly — because the format demands short soundbites. You begin a thought, and then suddenly your time is up. And on the other hand, it favors sensationalism. So — we’re familiar with this — to get high ratings, you need to say something like “Putin has been dead for a long time and lies in a freezer,” or “Zelensky is planning to kill Putin during a personal meeting.” If you say that, it’s interesting. But if you just offer proper analysis, it’s boring.
So Bourdieu tried to disrupt this. Thanks to his enormous authority, he managed to secure several spots on French television where he genuinely reflected in detail on current topics. I think that’s an example of combat sociology — Bourdieu used it to try to change something. How successful he was, I don’t know — I haven’t analyzed it. But the fact that thoughtful people appeared on French television as a result — that’s a good thing.
The second example is Marx. His famous thesis: all past philosophers have sought to explain the world, but the point is to change it. That’s classic combat political science, combat philosophy, and so on. And Marx’s efforts to change the world are well known. What came of it is also well known — mostly negative results, I would say.
So here are two polar examples. There are quite a few more cases like this one could cite.
Why Invite Feygin and Piontkovsky Link to heading
Question from a user. Mark Feygin. Andrey Piontkovsky — classic problem. Basically, our subscriber critically analyzes Feygin and Piontkovsky. And ultimately asks: why do you invite them? They have a completely different classical outlook, while the world has changed drastically, and their assessments and forecasts simply don’t work. Then there are some compliments directed at me.
Thank you very much for the kind words. But of course, I will continue to invite both Mark Zakharov and Andrey Andreyevich, despite the fact that yes, they have their own perspective.
My goal is to think together — to think with people whose views 100% match mine? Possible, sure. But first of all, such people don’t exist — everyone has their own take on things. Second, thinking alongside people who share my values but differ in some ways — that’s very valuable.
In general, dialogue is only possible with people whose worldview differs slightly from yours. That’s why I’ll continue to invite voices like theirs.
The Difference Between the Shifting Positions of Rubio and Zelensky Link to heading
Alright. And a few comments. A few comments. First of all, about Rubio. So, Yevgeny Burlakov writes about Marco Rubio. Meaning? He can be understood, he’s a politician, he has to adapt. And many people were negative at the start of the war. And now it’s full support.
Well, what can I say? Well, he’s a politician, yes. Well, in this case. But I believe that Rubio, to some extent, even regarding Ukraine, had a completely different attitude. He had absolute support for Ukraine. And after he sold his soul, let’s say, to Trump, his position changed. He became very critical. And he was in the Oval Office during that public dressing-down of Zelensky. So everything changes.
Attacks on Rubio. He did the right thing. Why burn bridges? He’s the second most powerful man in the U.S. If he didn’t respond, it means they’re hoping for a diplomatic resolution. It means the U.S. hasn’t yet walked away from negotiations.
Okay, so. And here is a very detailed critique of my position from Max regarding the curious nature of physical observation.
Really? Selling one’s soul to the devil. Sounds biased. Rubio’s answer to me sounds like this: Yes, he’s a war criminal. Crimes have been committed. There will be a time and place to condemn them. We are trying to end the war, so right now is neither the time nor the place. What’s unclear about that? Death, shifts in rhetoric without a change in position—this is a normal story for a politician. That’s exactly what Zelensky is doing now and for the same reason, and he didn’t sell his soul. Keating isn’t a fool, he understands all this, and asked the question not to get an answer, but to make a political opponent look stupid. Now, what’s relevant here are Trump’s words, that Putin won’t stop the war because he thinks he’s winning. Apparently, it’s understood that help in that form won’t be coming, but I hope Trump is ready to sell weapons to Ukraine.
Dear colleague, here is your comment. It’s quite substantial. But at the same time, I wanted to say a very simple thing. The fact is, I believe that all attempts to negotiate with Putin are useless and pointless. That is, the idea that was pushed—peace through strength—turned out to be false. Because peace through appeasement and peace through endorsing Trump’s statements that Russia should urgently be invited to the G7, turning it into the G8—none of these statements about Putin lead anywhere. But you see that Zelensky ends up being a hostage of Zelensky, so to speak. Zelensky is simply under pressure—Trump’s pressure—and he understands that he doesn’t need a second Oval Office moment. And in this case, the problem is that Zelensky is not a member of Trump’s team—Rubio is. So in fact, Rubio really did sell his soul to the devil. That is, he fully supports Trump now. Trump’s destructive policy is obvious to me. Not to you. So actually, these are different stories. One story is Zelensky, who is forced to act this way because he has a country behind him that would suffer. Zelensky cannot, so to speak, oppose Trump, because his country would suffer. Rubio, on the other hand, has a perfect opportunity not to support Trump, to remain in opposition to him within American politics. But Zelensky can’t do that, because he has a country behind him. He can’t go into opposition to Trump, because his country would suffer. That’s the whole difference. That is, again, from my point of view, the vice and deep, deep pathology of the politics of both Rubio and Trump—or Trump and Rubio—lies in the fact that they try to appease the aggressor, not to call him out, not to call him a murderer, not to call him a war criminal, to appease him. The practice of such appeasement in the last century is well known, and we know how it ended.
Comments on Ukrainians’ Use of the Russian Language Link to heading
Well, and there are quite a few comments regarding the language, and they all boil down to this: basically, it’s not a very accurate, not a very correct, not a representative analysis. That’s it.
Comments Regarding the Bible Link to heading
Alright. So, regarding the Bible. Here, well, our colleague Lemeshev again holds the belief that all the books of the Old Testament were written, entirely. Well, you see, dear friends, debating with people who believe—well, I’ve had interesting debates on these historical, including biblical, topics. But to debate with people who believe the Bible is a source of absolute truth—well, that’s a matter of faith. I don’t believe that. I believe the Bible consists of ancient Hebrew myths, in which miracles are described. Now, those who believe in these miracles, who believe that what is described there really happened, that all those miracles actually took place—well yes, that’s religious faith, and in what I would call its most orthodox form. It’s not even the kind of belief in some form of God, like Spinoza’s, for example, or belief in certain supernatural things, as many scientists hold. This is the most traditional form of church-based faith. As it’s written in the Bible, so it is. You see, if you truly believe that the creation of the world happened several thousand years ago over the course of six days—well, more power to you. I don’t think that way. If you truly believe that the story of miraculous salvation from Egyptian captivity happened through the parting of the sea—well, alright then. But I’m not a conversation partner for such discussions, you see? So?
Yes. And here’s a comment from Max—not a question, a comment. I think it may soon make sense to set up a poll on the channel and ask: Do you think it’s worth continuing this long-distance theological discussion, seriously trying to find arguments for people who consider a loose paraphrase of Flavius to be a historical source and proof of something, people who can’t be convinced and who, in turn, are also unable to convince anyone else?
Well, I’d say I agree. This time, I agree with Max—I think that unless there’s some new and interesting approach, and if the intention remains to convince or illustrate that everything written in the Bible is prophecy and truth, then I’d say I’m no longer really interested in continuing this discussion.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Alright, that’s it, dear friends—we’re wrapping up our morning broadcast for today. A reminder that at 7:00 PM we’ll have a conversation with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky. And possibly, if time and energy allow, there will be a Mediaphrania program in the evening. Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov and all Russian political prisoners! And to Ukrainian, Ukrainian prisoners of war! Glory to Ukraine! See you soon!
Source: https://youtu.be/Y6lJMPhwJCM