The White House’s new sincerity: the U.S. leadership invited a journalist into a closed chat where military plans were discussed. Following the talks in Riyadh, Moscow remains silent, Washington is talking, and Kyiv is outraged.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 26. It’s 7:41 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
About Maria Klein Link to heading
I want to share something personal. Yesterday, Maria Klein passed away — she was the longtime director of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service, a very bright person. To me, she was the epitome of intelligence and humanism. I’m grateful. Grateful to fate for bringing me together with this person. I spent several years working with the team she led. And you know, I did it in such a way that there was no sense of hierarchy, no feeling of a boss. Eternal memory. I don’t know to what extent one can speak of symbolism here. The fact that Maria Klein passed away at the very moment when, essentially, Radio Liberty is being destroyed by Trump’s will. You know, as one very disrespected person says in such cases: coincidence? I don’t think so. Well, now on to events of truly global scale. Although, from my point of view, the passing of such a person is an event. A very important one.
Comments on the Talks Link to heading
What happened after the talks in Riyadh — Russian-American, American-Ukrainian — gave the impression, judging by how different countries commented on them, that we’re talking about entirely different events. It just doesn’t seem possible that the same event could be interpreted in such drastically different ways by three sides. Apparently, something happened where the Americans were involved in one set of negotiations, the Russians in another, and the Ukrainians in some third one. Although according to reports, they supposedly spoke to each other.
So, Russia. The Kremlin refused to comment on the talks at all. Peskov spoke yesterday and said there would be no public information whatsoever. I’ll quote what he said. Open quote: “These were technical negotiations with a deep dive into details. Therefore, of course, the content will definitely not be published.” But the Americans, on the other hand, quite calmly started publishing information. They released a statement on the outcome of the U.S.-Russian delegation meeting. It stated that the United States and Russia agreed to ensure safe navigation, exclude the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial ships for military purposes in the Black Sea.
Moreover, a lot of “carrots” were offered to Russia. The United States, it turns out, intends to help restore Russia’s access to the global market for agricultural exports and fertilizers, reduce marine insurance costs, and generally improve access to ports and payment systems for such operations. So, actually, from that point of view, the outcome of the talks was quite favorable for Russia. Why Peskov refuses to comment publicly remains unclear — as he himself put it.
Now, regarding the Ukrainian side. On the one hand, Ukrainian President Zelensky stated that he gave the Americans a list of facilities considered strategic infrastructure. And he opposed the easing of sanctions against Russia. In response, the Kremlin stated that a ceasefire would begin only after sanctions are lifted from Rosselkhozbank and Russian producers of food and fertilizers. Moreover, Kremlin representatives, starting with Putin, Lavrov, and others, continue to publicly insist that recognition of the annexed regions within their administrative borders is a precondition for any truce.
Trump, for his part, said that Washington is considering these several conditions — five or six of them, supposedly. In short, after a 12:00 meeting, everyone emerged with completely different understandings of what actually took place. The Kremlin claims it will cease fire only if sanctions on Russia and Rosselkhozbank are lifted and Russia is reconnected to SWIFT and so on. Notably, for Russia to regain access to SWIFT, not only U.S. decisions are required, but also European ones. So it’s unclear why, based on talks with the U.S., the Kremlin is demanding the return of SWIFT, knowing the U.S. alone can’t make it happen.
And beyond that, they demand a full lifting of all sanctions on Russian ships, agricultural exports, and so on. Additionally, Zelensky noted that Washington proposed yet another version of a mineral resources deal to Kyiv — which goes beyond the scope of security talks. On top of everything else, President Zelensky said that Russian representatives had begun manipulating the ceasefire agreements in the Black Sea. But it’s not even manipulation — there was a firm agreement, at least that’s how it seemed after the March 18 phone call between Zelensky, Putin, and Trump, during which Putin claimed he was already issuing orders to stop strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure.
Yet now, updated data shows that over 100 people have been affected. The statistics clearly show that after the Putin-Trump call, the number and intensity of strikes increased. That is, even before the talks, Russia was constantly striking Ukrainian infrastructure and peaceful cities. But after the start of this active negotiation phase, the strikes became more frequent and more destructive.
So, obviously, for any negotiations or agreements to work, there needs to be at least a minimal level of trust. And here, there is absolutely none — none at all, among any of the participants. That’s why I want to once again express my conviction that Ukraine is essentially a hostage in this situation, forced to maintain relations with the United States. It can’t afford to make the relationship as bad as it was after the infamous Oval Office incident. But in any case, I’d say this is just going through the motions. It’s pretty clear that Ukraine now needs to rely on its own strength and on its contacts with Europe.
Signalgate Link to heading
A few words about the incident now being referred to in Europe and around the world as “Signalgate.” This is a well-known episode that, in my opinion, says a lot about what’s happening in the United States, in U.S.–Europe relations, and about the role of the new U.S. administration in general. It concerns an episode involving Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who was added to a private Signal messenger chat where military plans for strikes on the Yemeni Houthis were being discussed. The day before yesterday, this information was published. Goldberg released a piece in his magazine detailing what happened. He was added to a group chat in Signal where airstrikes on Houthi positions in Yemen were being discussed.
Goldberg says that at first, he couldn’t believe the chat was real, since he saw the presence of people like U.S. Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Woolsey, Harvard, Treasury Secretary Scott, and so on. The CIA director was there, the defense secretary, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and so on. So here was the editor of The Atlantic in this private chat. And he realized it was real once everything that had been discussed started materializing into actual strikes on Houthi positions in Yemen.
What’s remarkable about the chat? Well, obviously, Goldberg was added by mistake. He left the chat immediately after realizing it was real. He behaved like a law-abiding American citizen, someone who didn’t want to harm his country — so no one’s blaming him here. The question is: what if someone else had been in his place, someone less loyal to the United States? That person could have easily warned the Houthis, and they might have shot down planes or done something else that would have seriously harmed the U.S. Could they have done it? That’s a military question. I’ll be discussing it today at 8:00 PM in a conversation with military expert Fyodorov. I’ll definitely ask him how damaging such a leak could have been. If someone like Assange or Snowden had been in that chat, it could’ve had very serious consequences for the United States.
Here’s what else matters in this episode: during the chat, since it was private and among insiders, there was this sort of “new sincerity” — like the candid talk people have in a sauna, where they say things that aren’t meant for public consumption. And Vance expressed doubt about the necessity of striking the Houthis, saying he thought it was wrong because it mainly served European interests. His point was: why help Europe? Vance said, “I just don’t want to save Europe again.” As if he spends all day saving Europe — when, exactly, is unclear. The Pentagon chief replied: “I fully share your disgust with European freeloaders.” Which sounds pathetic. These kinds of remarks reflect open disdain and negative attitudes toward Europeans.
In short, the incident drew wide coverage in Europe — and not just there. A major scandal broke out in the United States. According to legal experts, if the people involved had been junior military personnel, they’d have been court-martialed. Trump took a pretty soft stance, saying that Goldberg’s presence in the chat was a misunderstanding — that Mike Watts got his number from a subordinate, and everything turned out fine. The operation against the Houthis was a success, and Mike has learned his lesson. And most importantly, he’s a good guy.
But what really happened is, first of all, a serious problem. British officials and politicians have said that now it’s unclear how they can continue sharing secrets with the United States, since the U.S. leaks them to the whole world. But the main issue is that the participants in that Signal chat clearly broke the law and may have jeopardized the lives of U.S. troops in the Middle East. And they didn’t seem to care.
Let’s not forget: during the 2016 campaign, Trump had a meltdown over Hillary Clinton using her personal email for official correspondence while Secretary of State. His campaign was built on the idea that Clinton couldn’t be trusted because she sent official emails from her personal account. And now we find out… this.
But the most important takeaway is that this chat and its contents reveal — without conspiracy theories or guesswork — how the Trump team views Europe: with open contempt, disregard, and an unwillingness to help. Yesterday, we discussed this with Vitaly Portnikov, and I want to expand a bit on what I was trying to say then. When we have a guest on the channel, they do most of the talking, and I just chime in briefly.
So I want to expand on my point: yes, of course, it was a mistake, a blunder. Mistakes happen. But what really matters is that this kind of governmental activity — a private chat among officials to discuss a major operation like a military strike on the Houthis — is essentially an act of war. For most of us, non-military people, it may feel a bit casual. But in reality, this kind of thing should involve institutions, infrastructure, and a government mechanism that ensures the confidentiality of such matters.
And what do we see? The so-called draining of the Washington swamp, initiated by Trump and his wonderful partner, has essentially dismantled the American state. Because what is the “swamp,” really? It’s the U.S. government — career public servants who work regardless of which party is in power. Democrats, Republicans — professionals serve in the military, in defense, in medicine, in education. Political appointees head departments, but the work is done by professionals.
And in this case, when it comes to protecting military secrets, it should be handled by qualified people. But Trump’s team — these “Red Guards” of his — have fired thousands of professionals and replaced them with people whose only qualification is loyalty to Trump. And this is the result. Not even 100 days have passed, and here we are. The metaphor of draining the swamp leads to very grim outcomes. Anyone familiar with what happened in the Moscow region when swamps were drained to build on expensive land knows the result — peat fires. The same applies here: draining the swamp leads to political peat fires. That’s what we’re seeing in the U.S.
You might ask, why do I care? I’m not a U.S. citizen. Let them sort themselves out. But the problem is that it affects the whole world. When a peat fire breaks out in the American state, the entire world suffers.
That’s why this concerns us too. And, you know, the fact that Elon Musk — with his evident madness — is involved in all this also has consequences. It affects the war in Ukraine, it enables Russia, and it means, in the end, that they just went ahead and shut everything down. I really think what’s happening to Radio Liberty and Voice of America is irreversible. I’d like to hope that Europe will help. But it seems like one of those cases where, as the doctor says, “To the morgue it is.” Unfortunately, as always, I really hope my forecasts and analysis are wrong — just as I hope to be wrong about peace on Ukrainian soil.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
But before moving on to your questions, I want to say that today at 8:00 PM we’ll have Yuri Evgenyevich Fedorov joining us. As always, it will be interesting. And as you can see, we try to bring you different perspectives — although our main military expert is Sergei Maratovich, it’s certainly worthwhile to hear from Yuri Evgenyevich as well, since there are many questions for him too. I think today’s conversation will be an engaging one — don’t miss it. Now, let’s move on to your questions.
On the Borders of the RSFSR and the UNR Link to heading
A question from Serafim Lozhkin:
You were asked about the year 1919, and you started talking about the Russian Empire. But I think at that time it was the RSFSR and the UNR. That’s what the questioner meant when asking whose territory it was back then.
Yes, I realized that afterward. I just didn’t go back to the question. It was inertia — definitely a mistake. The year 1919, of course, had nothing to do with the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had ceased to exist two years earlier. It was, without a doubt, the RSFSR and the Ukrainian People’s Republic. And well — I’m not sure how to put it — it was the second version of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Honestly, I didn’t fully understand what the questioner meant. But yes, in 1919, the territories of present-day Russia and Ukraine were under the RSFSR and the UNR. And there was also a civil war going on — everything was constantly shifting. So what? I don’t fully understand the point of these historical arguments, what they’re supposed to prove or to whom. So yes, it was a mistake — in the rush of things, I gave incorrect information.
About Japan Link to heading
Yevgeny Dugin:
In the 21st century, all developed Western countries — at least the G7 members — are experiencing a migration crisis, with the exception of one country: Japan. Throughout Japan’s long history, there hasn’t been a single extended period of a relatively large, uncontrolled influx of foreigners into Japan, nor any mass exodus of Japanese citizens. What explains Japan’s immunity to migration crises, especially when even far-off Australia is affected?
Yes, that’s absolutely true. There’s a whole range of reasons behind this. First and foremost is strict legislation — Japan tightly controls migration. For instance, a foreign citizen cannot legally take an unskilled job, and unskilled labor is typically where most migrants aim to find work. Only foreigners of Japanese descent can access such jobs.
There’s another reason. You mention Australia, and we could also talk about the UK or the United States. These are all political countries — or, perhaps better said, multinational nation-states. Japan, on the other hand, is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. I don’t have the exact figures offhand, but over 90%, likely around 98%, of Japan’s population is ethnically Japanese.
Japan’s main current issue is a lack of unskilled labor. Given the high standard of living, very few Japanese want to do jobs like dishwashing or vegetable sorting. These tasks are left to foreigners. But those foreigners don’t become Japanese citizens — they’re brought in under trainee programs, which are partially funded by the Japanese government. Migrants in Japan are trainees — part of these structured programs. It’s a unique phenomenon.
Is it a good thing? I think people in Japan already understand that something needs to change regarding migration. This rigid isolation brings negative consequences. Like in every highly developed country, Japan faces declining birthrates and an aging population. If migration policy doesn’t change, Japan’s population will sharply decline and age. That’s obvious.
But here I’m stepping outside my area of expertise — this requires a specialist in Japan’s domestic policy. How likely is it that Japan will change its migration policy? That’s not something I can assess. But what’s clear is that the population is aging and shrinking, and Japan will definitely need to revise its migration policy. So yes, Japan is indeed a unique country in many respects.
How the Author Watches Russian TV Link to heading
And Eduard Yanovich asked:
This is a personal question — how do you recover mentally after watching programs like “Evening Call-In” and others like it? I understand that your work requires you to watch them, but to me, it seems impossible to go through that without some psychological damage.
You know, actually, it is possible. You just need to… you know, when you can’t change the circumstances, you have to change yourself — and change your attitude toward them. I view this as an object of study. You see, in early childhood, before school, I dreamed of becoming an entomologist. My grandfather gave me a book by Fargo, a renowned entomologist, and I devoured it. Even before first grade, I was already immersed in it — I wanted to be an entomologist.
That’s the attitude I have toward all these creatures — the “nightingales of the new batch,” like Norkin, Kiselyov, Kabaeva. I treat them like certain life forms that I find fascinating. Like: look, this spider is venomous, this is its behavior pattern. Or how the female praying mantis eats the male after mating — that’s interesting! That’s how I approach it.
So you wouldn’t get upset, offended, or angry at a female praying mantis for doing what she does — it’s just her nature. And I find it interesting to observe. I’m interested in the dynamics, the genesis — what, how, and why. So, for me, it’s a researcher’s mindset.
How U.S. State or Territory Status Is Recognized Link to heading
So, a question from Alexandra:
This question isn’t really for you, but more for an American — although I suppose you might know the answer. What is the process in the U.S. for recognizing a territory as a state?
You know, since I don’t have an Americanist at hand this early in the morning, I’ll try to answer it myself. I think everything related to international agreements — because recognizing a state or a territory’s status essentially involves establishing diplomatic relations and appointing ambassadors, etc. And that is the prerogative of the President of the United States, who does so with the consent and cooperation of Congress. So the mechanism is the same as with establishing diplomatic ties: the President makes the decision, appoints an ambassador, and coordinates the nomination with Congress — if I’m not mistaken, by a two-thirds majority.
We know this quite well from history — for example, how long the U.S. refused to recognize the Soviet Union, and how that recognition eventually came about. What role President Roosevelt personally played, and what role senators played — that’s all been well studied. So, the mechanism is this: the President plays the central role, and Congress, if I’m not mistaken, must approve it by two-thirds.
About Channel Guests and the Author’s Varied Attitudes Toward Them Link to heading
So, Dr. Bobby II:
Before launching your stream series titled “Three Years of Full-Scale War,” you announced a lineup of past and new guests on your channel, toward some of whom you seem more positive, and others more negative. Could you share who among your guests you’re less fond of? I have a suspicion that, for some reason, my comments aren’t visible to the channel’s author.
They are visible, dear colleague — everything’s fine. But unfortunately, I won’t be able to give a substantive answer to your question. And here’s why. Of course, like any living person, I have different attitudes toward different interlocutors. I have the opportunity — and I’m actually grateful for it — to engage with many people. And of course, my feelings toward them vary.
But let’s be honest: going into detail about who I like more or less would be a bit strange. Imagine inviting someone on and then saying, “By the way, I’ve just said a bunch of unpleasant things about you. Now let’s talk about Ukraine, America, and life in general.” That would be odd, wouldn’t it?
Of course, we shouldn’t be insincere. But at the same time, I try to approach things with what I’d call “client orientation,” using the language of business — though what I do on this channel is not a business at all. Still, I maintain a kind of audience-oriented approach. I mean that I focus on the interests of our subscribers, our viewers, our audience. Their interests come first — and also, of course, those of the experts.
That’s probably why some people feel I’m overly polite or too smiley. But I believe that an expert who agrees to appear, spends their time, and shares their insight on our channel deserves my gratitude in advance. And so I don’t want to publicly evaluate or criticize them. Yes, sometimes serious disagreements arise and we part ways. But even then, I try not to speak negatively about them right afterward.
So I keep my personal sympathies and antipathies to myself.
On the Standard of Living Under Putin Link to heading
Maks Maksimov:
Today you categorized fascist regimes by the balance of violence and lies. You mentioned that Putin provided Russians with a relatively high standard of living for a number of years. Could you explain what such an honest assessment of Russians’ well-being under Putin is based on?
Dear Maks, you know, you’re not the only one who’s asked this — there were several comments and questions along the same lines. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to group them all. But look, you and I both understand very well — at least I certainly do — how we feel about Putin. Yes, he’s a fascist dictator, an international criminal who belongs in prison. That’s a fact.
But beyond that — it doesn’t mean we should lie, right? The period from 2000 to 2008 in Russia’s history was a time of the highest material well-being for Russian citizens. Never before had Russians lived as well, materially, as they did during that time. Yes, it was a period of growing unfreedom, a period when the fog of fascism was thickening, absolutely. It was a time when more and more rights were being taken away, when a stifling atmosphere of repression was gradually building up. All of that is true.
But it was also the most prosperous period in terms of material conditions. Come on — there are numbers, there are facts. We all lived through that time, we all understood what was happening. Compared to the Soviet era, to the 1990s, to any period starting from the time of the Tsardom of Moscow — it was the fattest, richest, most materially comfortable era.
Economically — the 2000s are well documented. There were economic surges, with 2000 seeing 10% GDP growth. On average — not to bore you with numbers — GDP grew by 7% annually from 2000 to 2008, before the crisis hit. At the time, only China was growing faster. Russia outpaced all European countries, the U.S., and so on.
Then there’s the reduction in poverty. In the early 2000s, around 30% of the population lived below the poverty line. By 2007, that number had dropped to 13%. Income growth — I won’t bury you in statistics, but it was substantial. And by many indicators — I wasn’t very active in research during that time because I was serving as Secretary General of the Russian Union of Journalists — but even so, I saw across many metrics that prosperity was rising. Incomes rose, people were buying apartments, real estate prices were going up. All the indicators showed a time of abundance and relative material comfort.
At the same time, of course, citizens’ rights were rapidly eroding. Repressions began. So this was a period where fascism was gaining strength — against the backdrop of growing prosperity. That’s how it was.
On the “Transformation” of the Chechen People Link to heading
Ah, a subscriber with the nickname Tip 250. So, I’ve deciphered that. The question:
What do you mean by the transformation of the Chechen people, dear Igor Alexandrovich? I didn’t say anything about a transformation of the Chechen people. Fine, I’ll answer now why you draw such conclusions based on no more than 5–10% of the Chechen population and the openly feeble-minded leaders appointed by Moscow, artificially turned into an elite by pouring in tons of money — people who, under natural conditions, wouldn’t be trusted in Chechen society to even herd livestock. Let me remind you that 70 years of the communist regime’s genocide — euphemistically called deportation — in which 30% of the population was lost, still didn’t manage to remake the Chechen people, who, at the first opportunity, tried to escape the prison of nations and fought two brutal wars alone, one of which they even managed to win. Also recall that 30–40% of the population is in emigration, thousands are imprisoned in Rasha’s dungeons, and the republic is under an oppressive regime where any sign of dissent or criticism literally threatens one’s life. I’m sick of garbage like the “Chechenization of Russia” — this is just concept-twisting. What happened was the Putinization of Chechnya, which just occurred ahead of the rest of Rasha due to the war and the republic’s tiny size.
Dear colleague, none of what you attribute to me is actually what I said. What does exist in reality is this: yes, there are effectively two Chechnyas right now. One is under Kadyrov’s rule. The other is the one that resists. What the ratio between them is — we don’t know, because it’s impossible to conduct real sociological research on the Chechen people at the moment. But I think that kind of study would be very insightful. What the Chechen people actually represent today is a separate topic altogether.
I wouldn’t simplify things the way you have. You say these leaders were appointed by Moscow. But you see, the Kadyrov clan wasn’t originally appointed by Moscow. Akhmad Kadyrov was one of the leaders of the Chechen resistance. The Kadyrov clan — they weren’t imposed by Moscow. Declaring that everything we dislike is purely a Moscow creation doesn’t help. Akhmad Kadyrov was a traitor from within the resistance — yes. But he was also its spiritual leader at one point, who declared jihad against Moscow during the second Chechen war.
So I don’t think we should oversimplify. This is part of the nation, too — you see? Just as there are those who like to “whitewash” the Russian people, saying Stalinists and Putinists don’t represent the Russian people, that the “real” Russian people are folks like Alexander Valeryevich Skobov — unfortunately, that’s not the case. Putin is also part of the Russian people. And likewise, Kadyrov is part of the Chechen people. Yes, the Kadyrovites are degenerates, and in many ways, they’ve betrayed the spirit of the Chechen people — but still, they are part of it, and you can’t get around that. Just like Stalinists were part of the Soviet, Russian, or however you want to define, people.
So — as for this idea of a “transformation” of the Chechen people — that’s something you’re projecting onto me. I didn’t say that. What exists today is two Chechnyas: one is Putin’s Kadyrov-controlled Chechnya, and the other is the one that resists — mostly located outside of Russia.
Is the Russian Federation a Fascist State? On Katz’s Statement Link to heading
Vesyoly Dachnik:
You claim that today the Russian Federation is a fascist state. I absolutely agree with you. But well-known figure Maxim Katz once said that Russia is not a fascist state, since a defining and essential criterion of fascism is ideology. In his view, Russia today lacks any such ideology. What do you say to that?
Dear colleague, you see, I’m not particularly interested in debates over terminology. When I say that Putin is a fascist and Russia is a fascist Reich, I often hear objections — not just from people like Maxim Katz, but from respected figures such as Mikhail Valentinovich Savva — that “fascism” refers strictly to Mussolini’s Italy, and that Hitler was something else entirely. Well, that’s a terminological argument.
Yes, there is a narrow definition of fascism: Italian fascism under Mussolini, complete with ideology, texts — Gentile, Mussolini, and so on. Then there’s the broader understanding of fascism, which includes Hitler’s National Socialism — also with texts and ideology.
But I don’t see why having a codified ideology should be considered an essential criterion of fascism. Why? Putin’s regime fully meets the main characteristics of fascism — and I’ve listed them many times. Yes, it lacks a formal ideology. So, okay — we can call it “ideology-free fascism.” Its ideology is replaced by mythology — the historical myth that Putin and Medinsky are pushing. It’s not ideology because it doesn’t create a vision of the future; it constructs an image of the past.
So this is a specific form of fascism. I don’t understand why the absence of ideology should disqualify it from being called fascism. You know, if someone is missing a leg, that doesn’t mean they’re not a human being — it just means they’re a one-legged human. Same idea here.
On Ukraine’s Participation in the Negotiations Link to heading
A question from Vera:
I don’t understand — is it even legal for Ukraine to participate in these negotiations? It feels like mockery. If the main broker is Trump — someone who, from the very beginning, has openly taken the aggressor’s side and is now forcing Ukraine to accept Putin’s false narrative — how is that acceptable?
Dear Vera, I believe Ukraine currently has no choice but to participate in the negotiations. Refusing to take part would mean open confrontation with Trump. And that would almost certainly result in Ukraine losing military and financial support, as well as intelligence — all of which are critically important for Ukraine’s survival.
So naturally, Ukraine is participating in this falsification, this operational smokescreen for war that Putin and Trump are orchestrating together. Making a grand gesture — saying, “We see through this,” and telling Putin and Trump where to go — yes, that would be noble. It would be beautiful. But it wouldn’t be in the interest of the Ukrainian people.
On the Fate of Belarusian Political Prisoners Link to heading
Irina Shvets:
I wanted to ask if you happen to know anything about the fate of Belarusian political prisoners, such as Ales Bialiatski and others?
You know, I know exactly as much as you do. I don’t have any exclusive or insider information about their situation. I know that Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison and is currently incarcerated. A Nobel laureate — Ales Bialiatski. The same goes for the others. I know just as much as you.
On Nikolai Levashov Link to heading
Valentina Volkova:
I’d like to know your opinion about Nikolai Levashov — it’s hard to write much in a comment. He revealed a lot to me.
Dear Valentina Volkova, you know, I really don’t want to disappoint you — but you did ask my opinion. This touches on the earlier question about why truth matters. The truth about Chernobyl was painful, but hiding it led to countless deaths and many more people suffering from radiation for years. That’s what lack of truth causes.
So I understand you probably won’t like what I’m about to say. But here’s that same kind of Chernobyl truth about this figure. Nikolai Levashov was — let me put it plainly — one of those small-time antisemites, xenophobes, and frauds I try to stay informed about. And that’s exactly what he was.
He authored a kind of “teaching” that combined Slavic neo-paganism, esotericism, mysticism, racism, and blatant antisemitism in its most grotesque forms. He spoke of some sort of cosmic star war between bright, creative forces — the white race, including Aryans (i.e., Russians) — and dark parasitic forces, primarily the “gray race,” meaning Jews. He claimed Jews were parasites, the result of genetic experiments gone wrong.
Shall I go on, or is that enough? He declared himself a presidential candidate in Russia and headed a movement — I think it was called “Golden Age.” This was a textbook totalitarian cult. He lived in the U.S. for a while and tried to “heal” people there. I’m not sure why he wasn’t arrested — but he claimed he could heal diseases remotely with his mind, even over the phone. He said he was saving humanity, and Russia in particular, from countless disasters with the power of thought.
So in short: a charlatan, a conman, an antisemite, and a xenophobe. I’m very sorry to have disappointed you — but that’s the Chernobyl truth. Following this man is dangerous. He was a very bad person.
On the Status of Nagorno-Karabakh Link to heading
And Natalia — a familiar name and a sponsor of our channel, for which we’re very grateful — writes:
You always emphasize that the status of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be disputed because international law recognizes it as Azerbaijani territory. But what if Crimea is recognized by the U.S. or the UN as Russian territory — would that settle the issue of Crimea’s status?
Dear Natalia, I’m 100% certain that the status of Crimea will never be recognized by either the United States or the UN as Russian territory. And if, just hypothetically, that were to happen — if Crimea were recognized as Russian — I think that would break the entire system. It would simply collapse. There would be no more UN, because if such a precedent were set, European countries and the vast majority of the world’s nations simply couldn’t remain part of it.
In short, it’s not going to happen — it just won’t. And if, by some miracle, it did, the UN would cease to exist. It would simply cease to exist.
How to Determine if Material Is Fake Link to heading
Moscow Migrant asks:
I asked this question on the previous stream but was probably too late. How would you recommend determining the truth or fakeness of a given piece of material? The Trump administration sent me their military plans.
I think you’re probably referring to the material that was the subject of our detailed discussion — the so-called “Signalgate,” right? That seems to be what you mean.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, it looks like I’ve gone through everything I found in your comments and answered all the questions, so I’ll wrap up today’s conversation here. Once again, a reminder: at 8:00 PM, we’ll be joined by military expert Fedorov. It will be interesting. I believe some of the questions raised during today’s discussion will be passed on to Fedorov, and I hope we’ll get expert insight on them — and not only on those.
Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian POWs! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/u2LZHDiUcaM