Before Zelensky’s visit to the U.S., Trump found out that the President of Ukraine is, in fact, not a dictator. Tomorrow, a march of the Russian opposition is planned in Berlin.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. It is 07:40 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and in our souls.

Elon Musk and Government Employees Link to heading

Well, here are some more news from America. Once again, Elon Musk has threatened mass layoffs of U.S. government employees. Two million employees of various U.S. federal government agencies received letters from his organization demanding that they list five achievements from the past week within 48 hours.

Moreover, he reiterated that if they fail to send these five achievements within a short period, they will be fired.

The FBI, the State Department, and the Pentagon have already responded by ordering their employees not to reply to these letters from the organization led by Musk. It is quite evident that there is a serious confrontation between what we might call the American oprichnina and the American zemshchina. Well, in fact… we shall see. We shall see the outcome of this clash.

Zelensky and Trump Meeting Today Link to heading

Now, on to more important topics. Today, Ukrainian President Zelensky will be in the United States—or is already there—where he is set to meet with Donald Trump.

First and foremost, the meeting concerns the signing of what was previously called an agreement on rare earth elements. Though it will likely not be signed personally by the two presidents but rather by their authorized representatives, the text of the agreement has already been published. And from what we can see, the rare earth elements aspect is essentially just a “stone soup” scenario, as the role of these minerals has been reduced to almost nothing. The agreement is really about the extraction and development of Ukraine’s mineral resources, as well as revenues from ports and other sectors of the Ukrainian economy.

So, all the noise around rare earth elements turned out to be nothing more than PR. It seems Trump liked the term that President Zelensky used, got inspired, and started talking about it. But since this agreement is entirely a framework deal, with the real weight and consequences to be laid out later in specific annexes, I don’t see much actual significance in signing it. However, it will be signed as a symbolic gesture that relations between Trump and Zelensky are being restored, smoothing over the wild tensions caused by the American president’s sensitivities and whims.

Also, I’m not sure what to make of reports from a French TV channel claiming that Trump wanted to cancel Zelensky’s visit to Washington but was persuaded otherwise by Macron. I don’t know how reliable that is. Even though I’ve studied French media in my analyses and books, I never really paid much attention to that particular channel. So, I can’t say how trustworthy this information is.

Trump Changes His Rhetoric Toward Zelensky Link to heading

But in any case, the most important thing is that, on the eve of Zelensky’s visit, the President of the United States dramatically changed his rhetoric. And I just want to quote some of Trump’s remarks—this time in a positive sense—because they indicate a significant shift in his position.

For example, during the visit of the British Prime Minister, Trump was asked by journalists: “Do you still believe that Zelensky is a dictator?” To which he responded: “Did I say that? I don’t believe I said that.” In this case, Trump, being a man of his word, first called Zelensky a dictator and then claimed he never said it. While it’s easy to laugh at this, I still think it’s a positive development. Since Trump is a reality we have to deal with, even in the most unpleasant ways, the fact that he now refuses to call Zelensky a dictator is good news.

There were also plenty of amusing moments. For instance, when asked whether he would discuss the U.S.-U.K.-Australia military alliance—a widely talked-about topic—Trump replied: “What’s that?”

When questioned about tariffs, with reporters pointing out that tariffs are paid by American importers and consumers, Trump said: “I think other countries pay them.” That gives you an idea of how he views economics.

And then there was another revealing exchange about the drug trade. A reporter pointed out that less than 1% of fentanyl entering the U.S. is intercepted at the Canadian border, so why use it as a reason to raise tariffs? Trump’s response was fascinating: “They should be catching much more. You’re right, only 1% is intercepted, but much more comes through Canada.” This really makes you wonder how Trump envisions the world. If only 1% is caught at the border, how exactly does “much more” still come through Canada? I stared at a map for a long time trying to figure it out, but I couldn’t make sense of it.

Regardless, this softening of rhetoric toward Zelensky is encouraging. That’s why I believe today’s meeting is of great significance. We will certainly follow and analyze it closely. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the acute phase of confrontation between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents is, hopefully, a thing of the past. At least, I really hope so.

Upcoming Russian Opposition March in Berlin Link to heading

Now, let’s turn to a topic I wanted to discuss in more detail today. Tomorrow in Berlin, there will be a united march—or what is being called a united march—of the Russian opposition. The organizers of this event remain the same three people: Ilya Yashin, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Yulia Navalnaya. These are individuals who clearly aspire to a collective leadership, a kind of triumvirate at the head of the Russian opposition.

Yesterday, on Telegram, we had extensive discussions about the 10th anniversary of Boris Nemtsov’s assassination. Today, I’d like to focus on something else. It’s clear what happened: in many cities across Russia, people brought flowers to memorials, and some were detained. However, the number of arrests was not particularly high, nor were they excessively harsh. It’s not that the authorities showed any sort of humanity, but this type of protest clearly didn’t frighten them too much. Naturally, all these memorials were quickly dismantled, including the main one at the site of Nemtsov’s murder.

But what I really want to talk about is something different—what does today’s protest look like without these two figures, Nemtsov and Navalny, who were both killed? It’s fairly obvious that both assassinations were carried out on Putin’s direct orders. Yesterday, I posted a photo on my Telegram channel of Alexei Venediktov among those who came to the memorial, and it sparked a heated reaction in the chat. That’s important because Venediktov also considers himself part of the opposition. Yet, he has long tried to straddle the line—not just between two chairs, but rather serving as an agent of Putin’s influence among the opposition, including those now in exile. He has repeatedly claimed that Nemtsov and Navalny were victims of an “atmosphere of hatred”—as if some abstract force simply descended and killed them, rather than pointing to the real perpetrators.

Now, regarding this upcoming protest without Nemtsov and Navalny: the previous march in Berlin gathered around 1,800 people, according to police estimates. The core problem with organizing these demonstrations is that Yashin, Kara-Murza, and Yulia Navalnaya announced the event, set the date, and determined its ideological message and slogans entirely on their own. No other representatives of the Russian opposition, whether abroad or in Russia, were consulted. Granted, coordinating with activists inside Russia is difficult since they can’t participate in such an event, but this approach still amounts to a certain monopolization of the protest movement—one that inevitably creates division. That is the first issue.

Secondly, the goals of this march are not entirely clear. When Ilya Yashin says that such actions help the opposition maintain its political struggle skills, the question arises: who exactly is the opposition fighting against? In Berlin? Against whom? What is it proclaiming? It’s unclear whom they are trying to unite.

I am very interested to see how the Russian Volunteer Corps, which fights on Ukraine’s side, will participate in this event. Their involvement has already sparked a strong reaction from some potential participants who dislike the openly nationalist views of their leader—or at least their main leader. Last year, for example, Mikhail Khodorkovsky refused to take part in this march because he didn’t like the closed format of its organization. Three people—Yashin, Kara-Murza, and Yulia Navalnaya—decided everything on their own, without consulting anyone, essentially monopolizing the protest without coordinating the idea or timing with other opposition figures.

This march could have been held on the 10th anniversary of Nemtsov’s assassination, making it far more symbolic. Even better, it could have taken place on February 24, the anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. In that case, its anti-war stance would have been undeniable. Instead, by choosing March 1, the organizers have largely diluted the protest’s most crucial message—one that should have been not just anti-war, but explicitly in support of Ukraine. This undermines the only truly unifying goal of the Russian political exile community today.

At this moment, the Russian opposition appears disoriented. It cannot offer a clear, articulate agenda. Protesting against the Putin regime is understandable. But what comes next? What do they actually want? The biggest issue is their reluctance to take a clear stance on the war. The main event today is the war, and yet they hesitate to state unequivocally that they are on Ukraine’s side.

This is why the loss of Navalny and Nemtsov is such a profound blow to the protest movement. With Navalny’s murder, the opposition lost its only true leader—the only person who could rightfully claim that role. I am not discussing the reasons behind his leadership, his political identity, or his strategy; I am simply stating a fact. I doubt anyone would seriously argue against this reality.

When it comes to Boris Nemtsov, despite what many say, his role in the protest movement is often mythologized after his tragic and criminal assassination. In reality, Nemtsov played a very different role than the one now attributed to him posthumously.

Nemtsov was perhaps the only person who could unite a wide range of people within the protest leadership—not the masses of protesters themselves (that role belonged to Navalny), but the various factions among opposition leaders. He was the only one who could communicate with completely different groups. His unique openness made this possible. I don’t know any other politician who, upon meeting someone—like myself, for instance—would instantly switch to informal speech, breaking down barriers and personal distance right away. You wouldn’t even have time to process it, and suddenly Nemtsov was right there in your personal space. And yet, it never felt intrusive—it was a unique gift that allowed him to be an extraordinary communicator. No one has been able to fill this role since his death.

Another crucial point: Nemtsov never saw himself as the leader of the protest movement. He fully understood that his past government work, including unpopular reforms under Yeltsin and Putin, had left him with a huge negative rating. He was well aware of this and had a rare ability to laugh at himself. He openly deferred leadership to Navalny, recognizing that Navalny was the true face of the opposition.

The Nemtsov-Navalny duo worked because it combined a protest leader with a protest communicator—a synergy that created real potential for success.

Now that they are both gone, the Russian opposition lacks any semblance of a common vision. Communication between anti-Putin forces inside Russia and those in exile is essentially nonexistent—it’s in ruins. I have no idea how the upcoming protest will incorporate the only people who are truly fighting Putin’s fascism today—those who have taken up arms on Ukraine’s side. We’ll see.

Unfortunately, there is no one today capable of overcoming this fragmentation. The so-called “party of the native blood” is pushing the protest movement in the wrong direction—toward implicit collaboration with Putin. I’m talking about Yabloko, Lev Shlosberg, Alexei Venediktov, and a number of journalists from so-called opposition media. For now, the protest movement seems to be heading down this path.

Tomorrow will be a test of sorts. We will watch closely and discuss it over the weekend. Tomorrow is an important day.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Today is a very important day for us and for Ukraine, as much depends on Zelensky’s negotiations with Trump. Meanwhile, tomorrow will be a major test for the Russian protest movement.

Before moving on to your questions, I want to remind you that at 19:00 today, we have a conversation with Yevhen Ivanovych Holovakha, the director of the Ukrainian Institute of Sociology. Then, at 20:00, we’ll be joined by Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky.

Once again:
19:00 – Holovakha
20:00 – Piontkovsky

It’s going to be an interesting evening, and I believe both guests will provide valuable insights on many pressing issues.

Now, let’s move on to your questions.

On Oreshkin’s Statement Link to heading

Alexey Fedor submitted a long question—really, an invitation for discussion, as he puts it.

Thank you for the interview with Dmitry Oreshkin. He expressed, in a much more professional and well-argued way, the same idea I was trying to convey in my question: Russian society is tired of war and wants peace. Putin has no resources to continue the war—not in terms of media, raw materials, or manpower. At the very least, he needs a pause. But regarding the ideological divide in Russian society, I tend to agree more with Abbas Gallyamov’s view—10% on each extreme and 80% in the middle. I feel that your disagreement with Oreshkin’s conclusions is based on certain biases. Here they are:

1. You believe this would be an unjust and unsustainable peace, therefore it is harmful and unnecessary. But an imperfect peace is better than the most just war. 2. With the start of the war, Putin transformed from a provincial crook who stumbled into wealth and power into a global villain on par with Stalin and Hitler, and now he must maintain that image in our eyes. But deep down, he may still be just a small-time grifter. 3. Three years ago, like many others, you considered this war impossible. Its outbreak was a painful shock. Now, you fear being wrong again and thus reject the possibility of peace. But history often unfolds this way. Even the Allied victory over Germany in WWII was unjust to Eastern Europe. Or am I wrong? Do I just desperately want the war to end and therefore interpret every signal as evidence of an impending truce?

I completely agree with your last sentence.

Let me clarify: in my conversation with Oreshkin, we agreed that both of our arguments have a right to exist. But ultimately, if we strip away all the context and noise, what remains at the core of our disagreement?

Do I believe that any peace right now would be unjust? Yes, absolutely. But does that mean I oppose peace? No, of course not. Alexey, in your attempt to read my mind, you seem to have misinterpreted my position.

I am firmly convinced that even the most unjust peace would be better than continued war—except, of course, for one crucial factor: the degree of injustice in this peace is something Ukraine itself will control.

Ukraine will never agree to a peace deal where, for example, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are ceded to Russia. That is simply not an option. Ukraine will block any “ultra-unjust” settlement. If the war stops along the current front lines, that would still be unjust, but if Ukraine is provided with real security guarantees, it might accept it. So, your argument about my rejection of peace is simply irrelevant.

The Core Issue: Putin’s Mindset Link to heading

If we remove all the rhetorical clutter, the main point of contention between Oreshkin and me was not about whether peace would be just or not. Our real disagreement was about Putin’s level of delusion.

For me, two factors matter:

  1. The extent of Putin’s detachment from reality.
  2. His ability to calculate consequences.

I still believe that for Putin’s Russia, ending the war is a bigger problem than continuing it. I believe Putin senses this, which is why peace is unlikely in 2024.

So no, my skepticism isn’t because I think peace would be unjust or because I’m afraid of being wrong. Of course, I would prefer to be right—but I have said before, and I’ll say again: I would love to be proven wrong.

I want Oreshkin to be right. I want this war to end. But I can’t wish reality into existence. Some people take the approach of “manifesting” a better future—saying what they want to happen in the hope that it will influence reality.

I don’t think the world works that way.

How to Explain the Success of Alternative for Germany in Two Cities in Western Germany Link to heading

Nadya from the Cinema asks:

“You said that the success of Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the former GDR can be explained by its difficult Soviet past. But how do you explain the party’s success in two cities in Western Germany—Gelsenkirchen and Kaiserslautern?

Alright, Gelsenkirchen is a terribly dirty city in a depressed industrial region with a large population of refugees from Muslim countries. But what happened to Kaiserslautern? It’s in Rhineland-Palatinate, a state known for its liberal tolerance in the good sense of the word, home to many Americans, with military bases nearby, and a city that actively supports Ukrainian refugees.

Was there no de-Nazification in these cities at some point? Or is there another reason? In East Germany, the Left Party used to dominate, but it was successfully replaced by AfD. How do you explain this shift from left to right?”

Why AfD Gained Support—The Security Factor Link to heading

Regarding the second part of your question (the shift from left to right), I think the answer is quite simple.

The main driver behind AfD’s rising popularity is security concerns. Multiple studies confirm that public perception of safety is the most decisive factor influencing political shifts in Germany today. The five terrorist attacks committed by individuals with migrant backgrounds significantly boosted AfD’s support.

In this case, left or right politics don’t matter as much—what matters is the fear for safety. This is a proven factor behind AfD’s rise.

Why Gelsenkirchen and Kaiserslautern? Link to heading

As for your first question—why these two cities became anomalies in western Germany—I don’t know.

I follow German sociological research very closely and analyze all major polling data. But I have not found a clear answer as to why these two cities specifically turned to AfD.

I might ask Yevhen Ivanovych Holovakha for his opinion during our discussion. Maybe he knows, though I’m not sure he will have an answer either. Perhaps some German sociologists have studied this phenomenon, but it’s outside my area of expertise.

On the Interview with Boris Pinkus Link to heading

Margarita writes:

“I finally watched your latest broadcast with Boris Pinkus. I had been meaning to for a while, and honestly, I didn’t quite hear what I expected. There has been a lot of negative information about Pinkus, and most importantly, he was always considered a Trump supporter. But I felt that some of what he said was reasonable.

After all, shouldn’t we trust someone who has lived in America for 35 years and presumably knows its political system from the inside? He did, after all, begin criticizing Trump after his recent senseless and foolish remarks. And although your discussion was very heated, I think Pinkus was right about some things—for example, that Trump alone couldn’t have frozen aid to Ukraine, and that a whole group of people was behind this decision. I think Trump merely voiced his opinion, but he wasn’t the sole decision-maker.

So my question is: Has your opinion of Pinkus changed after this latest interview? I got the impression that you were quite critical of him before.”

Has My Opinion Changed? No. Link to heading

To answer directly: No, my opinion of Boris Pinkus has not changed.

That said, I do appreciate that he continues to come on the show despite knowing my critical stance toward him. That takes a certain openness, and I respect that. But in general, I remain very skeptical of him.

To be honest, he would make a perfect subject for our new program “Trumpophrenia.” He fits the profile without a doubt. However, from a professional ethics standpoint, I don’t think it’s right to invite someone for an interview and then later make them the target of an in-depth critique. So I said everything I wanted to during our discussion. But yes—if we’re being honest—he absolutely belongs in “Trumpophrenia.”

Living in the U.S. for 35 Years Doesn’t Prove Anything Link to heading

As for the argument that Pinkus has lived in the U.S. for 35 years, I don’t find that convincing. We’ve seen plenty of people who have spent their entire lives in America yet still hold completely absurd political views. So that is not an argument in his favor.

Did Trump Act Alone in Freezing Aid? Of Course He Could Have. Link to heading

Now, about our debate on whether Trump alone could have frozen aid to Ukraine—the claim that he couldn’t is strange.

We know exactly how much control Trump has over the Republican Party. His influence is so total that Republican lawmakers constantly reverse their own views to align with his. So the idea that Trump “couldn’t have done it alone” misses the point—he didn’t need to do it alone because the entire party bends to his will.

Every Republican in Congress understands that their political survival depends entirely on Trump. We’ve seen how quickly they flip-flop on their positions:

  • Mike Johnson—completely obedient to Trump.
  • J.D. Vance—radically changed his views under Trump’s influence.
  • Marco Rubio—did a full 180-degree turn only because of Trump.

Even recently, when journalists asked Republican congressmen whether Zelensky was a dictator, the majority either refused to answer or said yes—just because Trump had said so. And the moment Trump changes his stance, they will follow.

When asked, “Is Ukraine responsible for this war?”, many Republican lawmakers who dared to answer said yes—because that’s what Trump was implying at the time. Tomorrow, if Trump says the opposite, they’ll repeat whatever he says.

Boris Pinkus Is No Exception Link to heading

Let’s not forget: Pinkus is not just some independent commentator—he is a Republican Party operative. His entire career is tied to the party. So, of course, his criticism of Trump is carefully controlled and highly calculated. He has to stay within the acceptable limits of party discourse.

In short: he wavers with the party line.

So, no—my opinion hasn’t changed.

On Latynina Link to heading

John Nagiev writes:

“In your program Trumpophrenia, you played a clip from Latynina’s broadcast and suggested that she is on the side of evil. I don’t like her either, but to be fair, I listened to that segment multiple times, and aside from a scientific—or pseudo-scientific—observation, I didn’t hear anything that sounded like praise or support. Maybe you were too harsh on Yulia Leonidovna? Or was this taken out of context?”

Why I Used That Latynina Clip Link to heading

Dear colleague, I included that segment from Latynina as an example of where supporting Trump can lead. Was it explicit proof that she supports Trump? No. But I also didn’t want to drag out the program—it already runs for 40 minutes to an hour—by listing a dozen other quotes where she clearly does support him.

That particular clip wasn’t about Trump directly—it was about her shift from criticizing Putin to justifying him.

In the segment, Latynina essentially confesses that she had been unfair to Putin. She admits she used to think he was just a corrupt official, but now she has “looked into his soul” and realized that he is actually trying to restore a great empire.

Oh, well, in that case—problem solved! Now we’re supposed to admire Putin? That’s the logic behind her “epiphany.”

Why Now? Link to heading

Why did Latynina suddenly decide to “reassess” Putin at this particular moment? I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

It’s directly tied to the rise of Trump and his positions. Trumpism has pushed Latynina so far that she has now crossed over into Putinist narratives.

This is exactly what Trump does to people. Trumpism has led Latynina to openly take pro-Putin positions.

So no, I wasn’t too harsh. If anything, I softened my wording.

On Musk and Artificial Intelligence Link to heading

Miley Long writes:

“What do you think about AI analyzing reports? I mean, analyzing reports using AI. You’ve got an army of robots anyway. I feel like if Musk had the chance, he’d replace everyone with robots.”

That’s entirely possible. But I’d like to point out something:

Even AI, depending on how it’s configured, has already labeled Trump and Musk as the biggest fools. The point is, AI operates within a set of programmed parameters—it ultimately produces what has been embedded into it.

So yes, analyzing 2 million reports using AI may be technically feasible. But then what? It doesn’t change the fundamentally absurd and authoritarian nature of what Musk attempted to do—essentially issuing extraconstitutional demands to 2 million government employees. Naturally, this was met with justified resistance.

On top of that, a significant portion of these federal employees handle classified information. Imagine the CIA or FBI being told to submit a report on five good things they did—should an agent publicly disclose their top-secret work? Ridiculous.

Does the Author Believe in Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life? Link to heading

Question from a subscriber named Cosmic Wars:

“Do you believe in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life? This question was inspired by your comments on the appearance of certain rare-earth minerals.”

I used to collect rare-earth minerals from all over the country, and every time, I was struck by how alien some of them looked. Those tubular crystals really do seem almost extraterrestrial. But of course, that’s just a joke—they are completely earthly. Still, I was simply sharing my emotions from 50 years ago.

Do I Have an Answer? Not Really. Link to heading

To be honest, I don’t have a personal opinion on this question at all. Not even a tentative one. I can only repeat the same general facts everyone already knows.

There’s the Drake Equation, for example. As someone who, until fairly recently, taught in academia, I naturally studied it and tried to assess it. The Drake Equation attempts to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, based on around ten different factors:

  1. How many stars form in our galaxy each year?
  2. How many of those stars have planetary systems?
  3. How many of those planets have Earth-like conditions?
  4. How many of those planets sustain those conditions long enough for life to develop?
  5. How many of those planets actually develop intelligent life?
  6. How many of those civilizations are technologically advanced enough for us to detect them?
  7. How many of them exist at the same time as we do?

And so on.

The Real Problem: We Don’t Know the Variables Link to heading

The biggest issue I found while analyzing the Drake Equation is this:
We don’t have objective data for most of these factors.

How can we estimate the probability of an event if we don’t know the starting conditions?

When scientists attempt to calculate the probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life, they give wildly different estimates—ranging from a few thousandths of a percent to 1%. But where do these numbers come from? What data are they based on?

At this point, we simply don’t know enough to make a meaningful calculation.

Final Answer: Not My Field Link to heading

So, I apologize, but this question is not really in my area of expertise. As they say, “not my department”—or in academic circles, “not my paycheck.” 😊

On the Author’s Work in the Mineralogical Museum and Primorsky Krai Link to heading

Ruslan writes:

“During your time working in the Zoological Museum, did you ever visit Primorsky Krai, specifically the urban-type settlement of Vostok? There is a large tungsten deposit there.”

Ruslan also shares a touching description of his time in Primorsky Krai, specifically in the Dalnerechensky District, reminiscing about its beautiful nature and how wonderful it was to live there.

My Experience in Primorsky Krai Link to heading

Yes, Primorsky Krai is truly one of the most remarkable places in Russia.

As for Vostok, I believe you are referring to Vostok-2—but I could be mistaken. I have, of course, heard of it, though I never visited that specific location.

I spent time further south, in the Krasnoarmeysky District, near the Tigrenok deposit (on the Tigrenok River, if I remember correctly). That area has two streams, between which are tungsten and tin deposits.

A Collector’s Paradise Link to heading

The mineralization in that region is rich and diverse—we found:

  • Tungsten
  • Molybdenum
  • Tin-bearing minerals

For someone like me, who was collecting samples for universities and research institutes, that place was a dream.

So yes, I completely share your romantic memories, Ruslan. I agree with you 100%!

What Do Security Guarantees for Ukraine Mean? Link to heading

Alicher asks:

“What do security guarantees for Ukraine mean? Russia ignores many internationally recognized obligations and laws. Does this just mean ’expressing concern,’ or is it something more?”

The Only Real Security Guarantees Link to heading

President Zelensky has already clearly outlined what true security guarantees for Ukraine would be:

  1. NATO membership
  2. Nuclear weapons
  3. Foreign military bases on Ukrainian soil

However, since none of these options are likely to happen in the near future, the only real security guarantee is a massive supply of advanced weaponry—including:

  • Long-range missiles
  • Fighter jets
  • Air defense systems
  • Ammunition in sufficient quantity

This is the only effective security guarantee for Ukraine.

We understand that:

  • Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO anytime soon.
  • There will be no permanent U.S., French, or British military bases in Ukraine.

Therefore, the only way to ensure Ukraine’s security is through a significantly larger and more advanced supply of weapons than what is currently being provided—both in quantity and quality.

That’s the reality.

Why Does Trump Support Israel but Not Ukraine? Link to heading

Irina (a sponsor of our channel—thank you!) asks:

“How is it that Trump supports Israel against terrorism from Palestine, yet aligns himself with the terrorist Putin against Ukraine? Is it simply because Trump hates Muslims, as I already suspected during his first term? If he didn’t like Jews, would he be on Hamas’ side? Or is there another reason?”

Trump’s Support for Israel: One of His Few Positive Positions Link to heading

Irina, you are absolutely right—Trump’s unwavering support for Israel is one of the few bright spots in his political record.

Unfortunately, because of the many dark spots on that same record, even his pro-Israel stance is often expressed in bizarre and counterproductive ways—like his recent call to relocate Palestinians “somewhere”, which, despite whatever good intentions he may have had, turned out to be an absolute disaster. That statement alone fueled massive protests in the Arab world and triggered a spike in antisemitism.

But still, his strong pro-Israel position stands.

Why Does Trump Support Israel but Not Ukraine? Link to heading

I won’t try to dig too deep into Trump’s personal sympathies and biases, but the key factor is political influence.

In the U.S., the pro-Israel lobby is incredibly powerful. It has significant political clout, financial backing, and a well-organized voter base.

Meanwhile, despite the large Ukrainian-American community, there is no comparable pro-Ukraine lobby in Washington.

Yes, many American politicians support Ukraine, but ethnic Ukrainians in the U.S. have never formed a strong political force—unlike Jewish-American organizations, which have deep-rooted influence in both parties.

In simple terms:

  • The Jewish-American community has successfully translated its influence into real political power.
  • The Ukrainian-American community, despite its numbers, has not.

This is not about any conspiracy—it’s just a political reality.

Canada vs. the U.S.: A Key Difference Link to heading

Interestingly, in Canada, the situation is different. The Ukrainian diaspora there is much more politically active and has real influence on Canadian policy.

But in the U.S., Ukrainian-Americans don’t have the same level of organization or lobbying power.

As a result, Israel can shape U.S. foreign policy decisions, while Ukraine, unfortunately, cannot—at least, not to the same extent. That’s why Trump finds it politically useful to back Israel, but not Ukraine.

On the Security of Personnel Involved in Rare-Earth Metals Extraction Link to heading

Sofia Vchera asks:

“Trump has stated that the U.S. will ensure the security of its personnel working on rare-earth metals extraction in Ukraine. This was something Russia feared, which is why Putin rushed to offer the U.S. his own services in this area. Does this mean that American troops could be deployed to Ukraine under the pretext of protecting American companies? What do you think about this?”

Will the U.S. Deploy Troops to Ukraine? Link to heading

It’s difficult to say what exactly Trump means by this, because:

  1. The agreement in question is a framework deal, and it seems likely that some form of signing will take place.
  2. It’s highly doubtful that Zelensky would travel to the U.S. just to publicly reject it.

However, when it comes to rare-earth elements, we already know this is a “stone soup” situation—the big announcement was made, but now the “stone” (i.e., rare-earth mining) is quietly being removed from the discussion.

In reality, no U.S. companies will be extracting rare-earth metals in Ukraine.

Trump’s Statements: Detached from Reality Link to heading

Trump has repeatedly stated that no U.S. troops will be sent to Ukraine. So, no, this does not signal a military deployment.

But as always with Trump, his statements often contradict logic—this is the same man who claimed that only 1% of fentanyl is seized at the U.S.-Canada border, yet somehow “most fentanyl comes from Canada”… without crossing the border. How does that work? It doesn’t.

Similarly, here:

  • Trump says there will be no U.S. troops in Ukraine.
  • But at the same time, he claims that American personnel there will be “protected.”

How exactly will they be protected if there are no troops?

  • Will the American flag alone provide security?
  • Will the mere presence of American engineers deter attacks?

This is just another in a long line of Trump’s absurd contradictions.

Bottom Line: No U.S. Troops During the War Link to heading

As long as the war continues, no American troops will be deployed to Ukraine.

How Much Did the U.S. Save in Billions from Ukraine’s Nuclear Disarmament? Link to heading

Vladimir Zubkov asks:

“If there’s an answer to this question, please provide a link. If not, maybe one of your guests can estimate how much money the U.S. saved by decommissioning weapons after Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal?”

No Clear Answer—And Maybe No Savings at All Link to heading

Dear Vladimir, I don’t even have a starting point for answering this question.

  1. Can this even be estimated?

    • I’m not sure that anyone can reliably calculate the exact amount the U.S. may have saved.
    • I doubt such an analysis exists, at least in the public domain.

  2. Did the U.S. actually save money?

    • The key issue is that Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament did not eliminate those weapons—they were transferred to Russia.
    • Did this reduce the nuclear threat to the U.S.? Not necessarily.
    • If anything, it might have increased the danger, since those warheads remained under the control of another nuclear power—Russia.

So, I highly doubt that Ukraine’s decision to give up nuclear weapons led to the U.S. decommissioning its own weapons and cutting costs.

Could Anyone Answer This? Link to heading

To quantify such a hypothetical “savings” in dollar terms would be extremely difficult—if not impossible. Moreover, any related data would likely be classified.

I might ask Grabsky about this, though I’m not sure he would have an answer either.

Ultimately, I’m not convinced that an answer to this question even exists, because it assumes that Ukraine’s disarmament somehow reduced the nuclear threat to the U.S.—which, realistically, it did not.

Is the Author Left or Right? Link to heading

Sergey Berezhnoi asks:

“Igor Alexandrovich, are you still on the left, or not anymore?”

I always enjoy questions like this—it’s a bit like asking, “Have you stopped drinking cognac in the mornings?”

But I do see the meaning behind your question, so I’ll try to answer seriously.

Early Leftist Influence Link to heading

Since I grew up in the Soviet Union, I, like many others, went through a period where communist ideas influenced my views.

I was never a doctrinaire communist and always had a critical attitude toward the works of Marx, and especially Lenin. But yes, I did go through a phase of interest in Marx’s philosophy—particularly his early philosophical works rather than his political manifestos.

For example:

  • I was highly critical of The Communist Manifesto.
  • But I found his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 quite interesting.

One concept that particularly resonated with me at the time was Marx’s theory of alienation. Even today, I think some aspects of it remain useful when analyzing modern society.

Shift Away from the Left Link to heading

My transition away from leftist views happened gradually:

  • By the late 1970s, my philosophical views were already far from Marxism.
  • By the early 1980s, I had moved toward a clear liberal position—not left-wing, not right-wing, but moderate liberalism.
  • This has remained unchanged since the mid-1980s.

Academic Conflicts and Party Expulsion Link to heading

When I taught philosophy, I tried to think critically with my students, rather than just repeat party dogma.

This eventually led to conflicts—especially when I taught at the Higher Party School of the CPSU. Several student groups even filed complaints against me, accusing me of spreading anti-Marxist nonsense.

This played a role in my eventual expulsion from the Communist Party—though, of course, it wasn’t the only reason.

Where Do I Stand Now? Link to heading

Since the mid-1980s, my views have remained broadly liberal—though they have naturally been refined and developed over time.

Lately, however, I feel that the war has consumed so much space that it has frozen deeper intellectual work on these ideas. War overrides everything.

Message from a Namesake About the Nemtsov Memorial Event Link to heading

I just received an important message from Moscow.

My colleague—well, actually, my namesake, Alexander Yakovenko—reports that at around 12:30 AM, a young girl was detained on Nemtsov Bridge. She was wearing a small homemade badge in the form of a black rectangle with the inscription “No to War.”

She was taken down to the embankment, where white police vans and minibuses were parked. Then, she was taken away.

That’s the latest update from the Nemtsov memorial event.

So, I hope this also serves as an answer to Sergey Berezhnoi’s question.

On Autocracy and the Crisis of Western Democracies Link to heading

Question from Denis:

“Dear Igor Alexandrovich! Can liberal democracy, which allows any voice—even those actively working to destroy it—effectively resist the evil of autocracy and internal destabilizing forces?

From my perspective, this will inevitably lead to the defeat of Western democracies. Truth alone is no longer enough to counter their lies. We live in a post-truth world, where the enemies of the West flood us with so much falsehood that we can’t possibly keep up. It’s time to respond harshly—playing by the rules won’t work.

Look at Romania: they did the right thing—not democratically, but correctly.”

Was Romania’s Decision Undemocratic? Link to heading

First of all, I disagree that what happened in Romania was undemocratic.

A corrupt, extremist politician—who was supported by foreign powers, promoted antisemitic and fascist slogans, and acted as an agent of an aggressor state—was removed from the electoral race.

What exactly is undemocratic about that? He was caught red-handed. There is nothing improper about preventing someone like that from running.

Can Democracy Defend Itself? Link to heading

Denis goes on to say:

“We need to expose these agents. Where are the Western intelligence services? Their chancellor is on payroll. The AfD is being financed. How does Europe plan to win this war? Or maybe it doesn’t—and will simply follow the path of the Roman Empire?”

Denis, here’s the thing:

Democracies win over the long run.

Yes, dictatorships often seem “effective” in the short term. But let’s take a longer historical perspective:

  • The Third Reich appeared efficient. Where is it now?
  • Stalin’s USSR seemed unstoppable. Where is it now?
  • The Soviet Union itself once looked like a permanent superpower. And yet, it collapsed.

If you had observed Germany in 1938 or the USSR in 1937, it might have seemed like evil was invincible, while democracy was helpless.

But history shows that in the long run, authoritarian regimes collapse—precisely because their efficiency is an illusion.

Democracy as a Marathon Runner Link to heading

Let me offer a sports analogy:

  • Evil (dictatorships) is a sprinter. It gains an early lead and seems dominant.
  • Good (democracy) is a marathon runner. It falls behind at first but ultimately wins over the long haul.

And in history, there are almost no exceptions to this rule.

On the Author’s Limits of Competence Link to heading

Tatiana from Baku (thank you for your kind words!) asks:

“Is there any topic you don’t understand at all? A conversation you wouldn’t be able to engage in?”

I’ve already mentioned a few topics I don’t understand while answering other questions.

To be honest, 99.9% of the subjects people are interested in are things I know nothing about.

There are two categories of topics I don’t understand:

  1. Subjects I don’t understand and don’t care to learn about.

    • Some things simply don’t interest me, so I don’t make an effort to explore them.

  2. Subjects I don’t understand but would like to.

    • There are many areas where I wish I had more knowledge, but, unfortunately, I don’t have multiple lifetimes to study everything.

If I can justify myself in any way, it’s by saying that at least I know what I don’t know, and I try not to talk about things I don’t understand. 😊

Proposal to Invite Alexander Genis Link to heading

Ilya asks:

“Would it be possible to invite Alexander Genis to your channel?”

Yes, it’s possible—it would be an interesting conversation.

Can the Middle East Become a Global Power? Link to heading

“I’d also like to hear your thoughts on Saudi Arabia’s role as a platform for negotiations and diplomacy. How soon can the Middle East, as a whole, claim global leadership alongside the U.S., the EU, and China—or has it already?”

For now, the Middle East is not a unified geopolitical entity in the same way that the U.S., the EU, or China are.

  • Europe is a political subject—despite its internal divisions, it has coordinating institutions and recognized leaders who can speak on behalf of the region.
  • The U.S. and China are unquestionably global actors with clear political identities.

But the Middle East lacks a unified voice:

  • Can Saudi Arabia speak for the entire region? No.
  • Can Israel? No.
  • Can Iran? No.
  • Can Syria? No.

There is no single organization or leader that can represent the Middle East as a whole.

So, to answer your second question—no, the Middle East is not yet a global power bloc, and I don’t see that changing in the near future.

Back to Genis Link to heading

As for Alexander Genis, as I said—it would be an interesting discussion.

I don’t know him personally, and we have no direct contacts, but there are many people I’d like to invite.

The challenge is that there are only 24 hours in a day, and with our tiny three-person team, we are constantly trying to expand the range of guests. I hope you’ve noticed that effort. 😊

Closing Remarks Link to heading

My friends, before we wrap up today’s conversation, let me remind you once again:

  • 19:00 – Yevhen Ivanovych Holovakha
  • 20:00 – Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky

That’s all for our morning discussion. I’ll say goodbye until 19:00.

Glory to Ukraine!
Take care of yourselves.

Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian POWs!

See you at 19:00. Goodbye!

Source: https://youtu.be/6MmDfdcnAcg