Russia is on the list of the most unfree countries, while the U.S. media freedom rating is declining. Putin and Trump demonstrate a unified style – boorish. And this style is finding followers all over the world.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 5th. It’s 7:40 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Longstanding Absence of a Free Press in Russia Link to heading
On May 5, 1912, the first issue of the newspaper Pravda was published. In this context, the Soviet Union celebrated Soviet Press Day. In general, when it comes to media-related holidays, over the past—well, let’s say the last 30 years—there has been a certain multiplication of entities in Russia. Because, look, January 13 is Russian Press Day, since on that day in 1703 the first issue of Petrovskie Vedomosti came out. May 3 is World Press Freedom Day. As for the Russian press, its true symbols are two newspapers: Vedomosti and Pravda. Both were created not as information outlets, not to satisfy the needs of the population, but as propaganda organs—one state-run, the other party-run, which essentially, after about a decade and a half, turned into a state propaganda tool due to the merger of the party and the state.
In connection with World Press Freedom Day, I’d like to take a couple of minutes to discuss the latest index from Reporters Without Borders. This is a ranking compiled annually by this international organization, assessing the state of press freedom in different countries. Well, this year, for the entire history of these assessments, Russia took the worst place it has ever held in these rankings: 171st out of 180 countries. That is, it dropped nine positions compared to last year. Its neighbors in the ranking are countries like Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Eritrea.
What’s also noteworthy in this ranking is that the United States dropped two positions and now holds 57th place. This is due to serious problems in regional journalism, as well as Donald Trump’s stance, which includes using economic pressure on the press. The latest actions of Trump have not yet been included in these results. But it is clear that the attacks on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the loss of access to reliable information for more than 400 million people around the world represent a significant blow to press freedom. We’ll see what the next report brings.
I must say, I’m not an absolute adherent of all these rankings. They certainly reflect a certain reality, but in a rather conditional way. Because the organizers of these rankings, who are undoubtedly well-deserved human rights defenders, are also prone to what I’d call human rights deformation. This manifests in the tendency of a human rights activist to defend the rights of anyone who presents themselves as media, regardless of what they actually represent. I’ve repeatedly encountered cases where such human rights defenders tried to defend the rights of, say, Margarita Simonyan’s outlet or someone like Solovyov, arguing that “they’re journalists, after all, and shouldn’t be mistreated.”
This bias is also evident in the ranking, where, for example, Latvia and Lithuania took 15th and 14th places respectively, and dropped in the rankings due to bans on Russian media. These are national security measures, since such media clearly pose a national threat. This human rights deformation on the part of Reporters Without Borders leads them to perceive such bans as violations of press freedom. Ultimately, these are issues that still don’t entirely undermine the objectivity of the rankings.
History of Lithuania According to MGIMO Link to heading
Among the events of the past few days, I’d like to highlight something that might not seem particularly significant against the backdrop of war and current global developments. Nevertheless, it’s a very telling event: a rather sneaky publication has come out under the MGIMO publishing house Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya (International Relations). It’s one of many so-called histories—this one titled The History of Lithuania. Notably, the author of the foreword to this piece is none other than Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov himself. The group of authors is headed by the international criminal and war criminal Maksim Grigoriev, who took part in the war against Ukraine.
As for the actual content—both of the foreword and the book itself—it essentially denies the existence of the Lithuanian nation and the Lithuanian language. It claims that the Lithuanian national state was created by Russia and Russians. Though it doesn’t specify exactly who created the Lithuanian state—Lenin or Stalin—given recent developments, perhaps even Trump might be included, for that matter.
The Stylistics of Neo-Fascism Link to heading
We now move on to the main topic of our conversation today, and it will become clear what we are talking about. The topic is the stylistics of neo-fascism. Last week, both Trump and Putin made several moves and statements that reveal their deep-rooted kinship. Here I rely on the idea that style is the man. In fact, stylistic similarities and differences have a deeper foundation than political or economic ones. That phrase itself—style is the man—belongs to the naturalist Georges Buffon, who expressed it during an award speech. And I believe this idea reflects something very fundamental, because style is the stylistic foundation of a person, or the stylistic framing of their activity. It’s a much more stable and fundamental thing than political or economic views, which can change. Style can change too, but it’s much more difficult. And it’s no coincidence that the famous writer and dissident Andrei Sinyavsky, while in political exile, said that he had stylistic disagreements with the Soviet regime—thus emphasizing their depth and irreconcilability.
So, Trump and Putin clearly have political differences, which are evident, for example, in Trump’s attempts to persuade Putin toward a ceasefire and ultimately to stop the war. And Putin, of course, as we see, treats this with a kind of condescending indifference and keeps deceiving Trump. But despite these obvious political disagreements, their deep stylistic unity constantly manifests itself.
I’m not even talking about their pathological dishonesty or authoritarianism—what recently came to light is that both suffer from “victory-ism.” In the American version, last week Trump claimed that the United States essentially won not just the latest war, but also World War II and even World War I, saying the U.S. made the greatest contribution to those victories. This kind of “victory-ism,” American-style, looks just as foolish and distasteful as the Russian version, because it diminishes or denies the contributions of other countries. While it may be less bloody—since American “victory-ism” doesn’t include the slogan “We can do it again”—it is still troubling.
Another example: on the White House website, there appeared an image of Trump dressed as the Pope. Some may consider this a joke, but Trump recently stated that no one in the world has done more for all world religions than he has. So, Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Muhammad are all apparently in the shadow of the great Donald Trump. His papal attire is, I would say, a step down the hierarchy ladder.
Meanwhile, another film about Putin has just been released. It’s essentially based on a large, extensive interview that Putin gave to Pavel Zarubin. Honestly, when preparing for today’s conversation, I thought about discussing this film in more detail—but after watching it, I realized there’s nothing to talk about. The film is completely empty, just a rehash of things already said a thousand times. But one thing that struck me—and demonstrated the stylistic unity that is the foundation of neo-fascism—was the depiction of his Kremlin apartment, including a home church. The man currently obsessed with the shedding of blood, whose main occupation is the production of death, apparently has a home church. He constantly demonstrates his piety—just like Trump, who claims he’ll make America the most religious country, bring faith back, and so on.
This too reflects stylistic unity: pathological hypocrisy, pathological lying, and an atrophy of empathy. These are the core elements of the neo-fascist stylistics shared by Trump and Putin. This style—of always “winning,” of crude swagger—is highly contagious and quite successful. And this must be acknowledged. One can say that Putin is ultimately going to lose, that his success is debatable. But the fact is, 25 years—on May 7, the day after tomorrow—it will be 25 years since Putin’s first inauguration. Twenty-five years in power, and he still dictates the global agenda. The same goes for Trump. You can say all you want—every expert I’ve spoken to recently on this channel has said that Trump’s first 100 days were a total failure. And yet, he dictates the global agenda. Even before becoming president again, he was already setting the tone for the world—taking the entire world for a ride on his political rollercoaster.
So we can say that neo-fascism in its stylistic form—the style of boorish triumphalism—turns out to be quite successful. You can assess their achievements and failures however you want, but the fact is: it works. They hold the agenda in their hands, they dictate it. Not us, not liberals or democrats, not Europe, not even China. For now, it’s Putin and Trump, from both sides, who dictate the agenda. That’s just a fact. For all their inevitable historical downfall, at this moment the levers and control sticks of global politics are in their hands.
And this neo-fascism, with its style of brash dominance, is highly contagious. And it leads to success. The latest evidence of this is the preliminary election results in Romania, where the right-wing, Euroskeptic populist George Simion is leading. Right after the initial results, he declared his loyalty to November’s populist candidate Colin Georgescu. I’ll remind you that Georgescu is a staunch Trump supporter, an advocate for Romania leaving the EU, and essentially a follower of both Trump and Putin. I’m no expert in Romanian domestic politics, but looking into the platforms of Georgescu and Simion, I found very few differences between them. Both openly support Trump and Putin—basically, they’re like a Hungarian-style dictator variant.
There was a criminal case opened against Georgescu, which prevented him from running, but Simion has stepped in to take his place—and, effectively, won the election, or at least is leading. This is just the first round, but he has a good chance in the second. We’ll see what happens—it’s unpredictable, but a first-round lead is still a serious advantage.
Why do I emphasize this? Because George Simion supports ending military aid to Ukraine—just like Fico, like Orbán, and like other devoted Trump followers. If he wins the second round, it could isolate Romania and destabilize NATO’s eastern flank, seriously weakening Ukraine. Military aid flows through Romania, and in general, this would be a significant blow to European unity—well, what’s left of it, since Euro-Atlantic unity, as you know, is no longer a reality.
Neo-Fascism Is Winning Link to heading
Now I’d like to briefly express my view on this triumphal march of neo-fascism across the planet, particularly in Europe. As we know, Le Pen’s political career has been halted by a court decision. In Germany, the far-right political party Alternative for Germany has officially been recognized as an extremist organization. In Romania, Georgescu was removed from the elections due to a criminal case. But so far, these administrative and judicial measures have not led to a shift in public sentiment. Neo-fascism continues its advance across the globe.
Can it be stopped with such methods? I’m not sure. Should such actions be taken? Yes. But are they a guarantee of stopping neo-fascism? Again, I’m not sure. Hitler, after all, spent time in prison on his way to power—it didn’t stop him. In my view, the key issue enabling the successful advance of this neo-fascism in the form of boorish stylistics is that the political doctrine of modern liberalism, modern democracy, and contemporary European values—its stylistic shell—clearly loses out on the political market to neo-fascism and its style.
What to do about it? I don’t know. Well, not exactly—I do understand that a new concept of modern liberalism is needed. The core concept remains, but it has evolved over the centuries. And I think the time has come for a kind of renovation of this concept. And perhaps a renovation of its stylistics as well. Of course, during our stream or dialogue here, we won’t be able to develop such things in a test tube. These are born out of political struggle. Still, our shared thinking might be a small, humble contribution to the development of this renewed concept.
I’m not overestimating our potential—certainly not my own—but still, why else would we think about this? Ultimately, that’s what we’re doing—thinking about how to change the situation. So let’s continue our collective reflection. At the very least, I think, therefore I am. And we can only think together. That is the principle on which our channel stands.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions and my answers, I’d like to say that since today is Monday, as usual at 8:00 PM we will have a discussion on topics I don’t usually cover—namely, the main issues related to the war. I avoid these topics because I am not a military expert. But Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy, with whom we’ll be speaking at 8:00 PM, is a truly skilled and qualified military expert. So don’t miss it. Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy. Now, let me move on to answering your questions. All right?
On Morality and the Economy Link to heading
Now, let’s see if I can find those… Right. First, a few questions from the Telegram channel chat. Two questions from Pavel. The first question:
“Igor, in your reply to me regarding the role of morality in the economy, you mentioned several names, among whom only one—Stoyanov—was an economist. But scientists, with all due respect, don’t have a unified economic theory. The opinions of the others, including yours, reflect what kind of economy you would like to see, not how it actually works. The year 2008 showed that one can lie, cheat, and betray for years, becoming richer and richer. So I repeat my question: is the commercialization of thinking in terms of profit rather than morality a common trait among Trump supporters?”
Now, regarding Trump supporters—I agree with you. What I don’t agree with is another part of your thesis, which I’d call a bit of a romanticization of your own argument. You see, there are some obvious facts. Trust is an unconditional category. It belongs to the moral sphere, but it’s also an economic category. Countries with broken systems of trust do not prosper. Under the kind of bandit capitalism you described, yes, individual crooks might get rich—but not necessarily for long.
In countries where the institution of reputation works, where business is largely based on trust, the economy thrives. That’s all. It’s a very simple thing. There are countries where the level of interpersonal trust is zero—bandit-style countries—and they don’t have successful economies. In countries with a sufficiently high level of trust, the economy flourishes. Trust and other moral categories undoubtedly have economic dimensions. That’s all I wanted to say.
Yes, individual criminals and swindlers may thrive in certain cases—but again, if crime and fraud are at the core of an economic system, that country will fail. It’s that simple.
On Oligarchs in Ukraine — Was There a Maidan? Link to heading
Another question from Pavel:
“You replied to me that the oligarch class is not the author and not to blame for what’s happening in Ukraine. My question is: if they’re so blameless, why did they become so rich after 2014?”
You see, Pavel, I was answering a very simple question—or rather, responding to a simple claim. You had asserted that the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine was a protest against the oligarchs. That’s just factually incorrect. It simply didn’t happen that way. It was a protest against Yanukovych’s deception, as he attempted to turn the country away from European integration. There was no protest against the oligarchs in 2013–2014. It was a protest against a change in the country’s direction, against Yanukovych’s betrayal.
As for people ransacking his residence—that’s the usual thing that happens in such circumstances. So I was simply pointing out a factual error in your statement.
And yes, some people did become wealthy—that’s an obvious reality. But let me point this out: right now, the central issue in Ukraine is the war. That’s the main event. Everything else is secondary.
About Ruslan Leviev Link to heading
A question from Viktor An:
“If you ever invite Yuriy Yevgenyevich Fedorov on the air, please ask him what’s going on with Ruslan Leviev’s team. If you and the audience are interested—I might be interested too.”
I honestly don’t know anything about what’s happening with that team. Really, I know nothing. If in one of your future comments you could clarify or provide a link, I’d be grateful. I just don’t know.
How Much the Author Sleeps Per Day Link to heading
Don USA Poncho: “How many hours a day do you sleep?”
Dear colleague, may I skip this question? Not because it’s some kind of military secret—just honestly, it’s a painful topic for me. The truth is, we are now in a state of information warfare, so… it’s a tough situation.
On Sci-Fi Writers and Poets Link to heading
A question from Yulia: “Don’t you think that one reason for the world’s degradation is that sci-fi writers and poets have stopped looking to the stars? That used to elevate the human spirit. Think of 20th-century sci-fi authors like Robert Sheckley, for example. Later, science fiction shifted focus to things like Earth, medicine, longevity, and other nonsense. But our world develops according to the laws of synergy. What do you think about this?”
Dear Yulia, how beautifully you put it! But I’m not sure you’re right about the main point—that the world is degrading. You recall the last century, when sci-fi poets looked to the stars. But at the same time, fascism and Stalinism were flourishing on Earth. Hitlerism was a far more severe, bloody, and catastrophic form than even today’s versions of fascism. So looking at the stars does not guarantee that hell won’t unfold on Earth.
When Sheckley was writing his stories, Pol Pot was creating the most horrific dystopia imaginable. And in general, the very common idea that today’s world is degrading is simply incorrect, factually speaking. Yes, the world evolves in cycles, and at times it moves downward—that’s noticeable. But after that comes fairly rapid progress.
We need to ask: when you say “world degradation,” what exactly are you measuring? By what parameters? If it’s by technological progress—clearly not true. If by general well-being—also not true. If by levels of humanism, compassion, or environmental consciousness—again, not true. You have to look at a broad enough historical timeline to see that.
The days when people owned other humans as slaves are gone. The days when wars were entirely unrestrained by any norms are also behind us. Yes, today we are witnessing attempts to blow up the global order. But still, despite ongoing wars, there is no world war. The days of cannibalism are over. So, again, if we look at the 20th century—its mid-century horrors were far worse than today’s.
There is no general degradation, in all likelihood. Rather, there’s a romanticizing of the past. We all live with our heads turned backward, searching for a golden age. But in reality, there was no golden age. So, yes, your words were beautiful—but I can’t agree with your conclusion. Looking up at the stars, lifting our heads, doesn’t prevent hell from breaking out here on Earth.
What Other Distractions Might the Kremlin Resort To? Link to heading
A question from Sokol Kruzhki:
“The Russian authorities don’t solve the population’s problems—they create new ones to distract their subjects from existing ones. In the ’90s, everyone talked about corruption. Instead of fighting it, they crushed freedom of speech, dismantled legal institutions, raped the Constitution, and eliminated elections. Now everyone’s forgotten about corruption, which under Putin has reached encyclopedic proportions and become a system-forming element of the economy. So this is a long lead-in, which I’ll partly skip, and try to extract the question: Sooner or later, no matter how much the costumed widows from the sunken ship of impunity praise the maniac, the silent irritation and accumulated rage will reach a breaking point. What, in your view—this is the question—what other distractions might the Kremlin resort to in the future to divert attention from what already seems to be the most monstrous of tragedies, beyond which lies only eternity, with no visible end or edge?”
Well, there’s a huge range of possibilities. For example, a new campaign could be launched—yet another one—to hunt for “enemies of the people.” There could be many such campaigns. There was, for instance, the campaign against the “naked partygoers”—very successful, in my view. Next could be a campaign against representatives of youth cultures or subcultures. And where does that lead? Obvious enough: the search for enemies by nationality. Why not? It’s very tempting.
As of now, people with Ukrainian surnames still feel relatively safe in Russia. But why not start a campaign targeting them? Of course, that would create complications with figures like Matviyenko and others with Ukrainian last names—maybe a poor example. But still, xenophobia is a reliable tool.
Look, I’m not going to invent nasty ideas on Putin’s behalf—for him and his cronies. But the truth is, there are plenty of options. When it comes to inventing cruelty, I don’t think the Putin regime needs any help. And we certainly don’t need to worry that they’ll run out of ideas.
On the Religion of “Animál” Link to heading
Zhenya Matuzov: “Have you read about the religion Animál?” “I mean Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael trilogy.”
Well, I don’t know—I’ve read his trilogy titled Ishmael. Maybe what you’re referring to is just your personal interpretation.
“If so, what do you think of it?”
Dear colleague, I won’t evaluate the literary merits of those three books—simply because I don’t engage in literary criticism. It’s very tempting, just like theater or film criticism—it’s a tempting pursuit. But I’ve set certain boundaries for myself, and I just don’t do that. Just like I don’t talk publicly about my own health—there are limits I maintain. I don’t think it’s useful. Similarly, I stay away from literary critique—it’s a very subjective field. There are people who do it brilliantly. I just don’t feel that it’s a space where either of us—certainly not I—would feel confident.
So I’ll speak to the ideas in the trilogy. They are worth attention, because at their core, Daniel Quinn highlights that our relationship with the world is based on anthropocentrism—the human-centered worldview. Just like a jellyfish might have a jellyfish-centered worldview, or a cow a cow-centered one, so do humans. An anthropocentric worldview.
I agree with the critique of anthropocentrism. It’s a long conversation, as it always is when we bring up relatively new topics on this channel. But no—I don’t believe that humans are the “crown of creation.” That’s a biblical myth, one of many. Like in the brilliant film Kin-dza-dza!, when a character lands on another planet and questions the locals’ right to rule over others—he asks, “Did someone tell you you’re the smartest, or did you decide that yourselves?” That’s it: humanity declared itself the crown of creation. Sure, it’s a myth.
But on what is that based? Personally, I align more with the view that no biological species has a greater right to life and development than any other. Of course, we do view the world from inside our own species. But just as looking at the world from inside one’s own ethnicity or nation can lead to nationalism—as you know—looking at the world from inside one’s species can lead to a kind of anthropocentric nationalism.
So when I’ve said that Animál is a research project, one direction of that research is to explore how to reject anthropocentrism while still acknowledging that, naturally, the interests of our species must also be considered. The question is how to build relationships with the other 2 million (or more) species on this planet.
Returning to Daniel Quinn’s books—I’m not a fan of the primitivist ideas or the anti-technological revolution they seem to advocate. I don’t believe that some kind of ecological Buddhism has a place as a political program. It doesn’t appeal to me. To me, the topic is one for research—not for rejecting technology, industry, cities, or progress. That’s a pointless pursuit. The real challenge is: how do we combine technology and progress with the preservation of biodiversity and the right of every species to exist? That’s a research problem—not one to be solved with declarations.
Can Trump Force Ukraine to Observe a Ceasefire on May 9 Link to heading
Pan Stepan: “Can Trump—or anyone, really—force Ukraine into a peace deal that is fundamentally against its interests? Can anyone force Ukraine to observe a ceasefire on May 9? On this last question, I’m no longer talking about a strike on Red Square, since Xi will be there and no one would strike him.”
Well, that’s a debatable point. But alright—
“But any other strikes, as well as taking advantage of a temporary pause in Russian military activity during the ceasefire, in my view, should be both possible and advisable for Ukraine.”
Again, you know, dear Pan Stepan, I still hold the view that Ukraine’s military and political leadership are the ones who decide what is and isn’t possible. This is a case where I don’t want to adopt the role of adviser, even rhetorically or in commentary.
There’s certainly no obligation to accept the Kremlin’s self-declared “victory ceasefire.” As for how Kyiv wants to handle this—no idea. But judging by President Zelenskyy’s statements, it seems he doesn’t plan any major strikes on the Kremlin or Red Square during that time. That’s probably the right approach.
About Oliver Stone Link to heading
A question from Alexander in Nuremberg: “Dear Igor, do you have a theory about what goes on in the minds of people like Oliver Stone? How can successful, educated people continue to openly demonstrate loyalty to an inhuman figure like Putin, despite the internationally visible, extreme evil he has committed against a clearly personalized victim—Victoria Roshchina?”
Yes, the situation with Victoria Roshchina is truly a case of boundless evil—I fully agree with you. But your question was about Stone. You know, Oliver Stone in particular is quite understandable to me—like many others who embody what I’d call militant anti-anti-Americanism.
In Stone’s case, it’s not as pronounced, but a clearer symbol of this kind of focused, concentrated anti-Americanism among American intellectuals is Noam Chomsky. Still, with Oliver Stone, things are fairly clear. He served in the Vietnam War, and having lived through that experience, he was deeply marked by it. He became infected with what he—and others like him—call anti-imperialist sentiment toward the U.S. That is, he protests what they see as imperial U.S. policy.
In fact, this often translates into opposition to America’s support for democracy around the world. So Stone—since you brought him up—has always supported Assange, consistently opposed U.S. foreign and domestic policy, simply because, I think, the Vietnam War experience shaped his worldview to the point where he sees any American action in support of democracy as criminal.
Most likely, this is a kind of post-traumatic syndrome from the Vietnam War. At least that’s the impression one gets from his biography. And the result has been his extreme positions, which effectively amount to supporting Putin. That’s the consequence.
And, beyond all that—it also sells well.
Why Has the FSB Not Yet Been Declared a Terrorist Organization in Ukraine? Link to heading
A question from Agent Smith: “Simple question: why haven’t the FSB, SVR, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, etc., been officially declared terrorist organizations across all non-occupied Ukrainian territory and recognized as such by all relevant Ukrainian authorities, along with urgent counter-terrorism measures?”
Dear colleague, I don’t quite understand. First, I’m not sure what you mean—what urgent actions, exactly? What more is Ukraine’s military and political leadership supposed to do by declaring all of that terrorist organizations? What should happen next?
There’s a war going on—do you understand? A full-scale war. And slapping additional labels on the FSB or the Foreign Intelligence Service won’t change anything. There’s a war. The leaders and members of the FSB, the SVR, and so on are already legitimate military targets. What more is supposed to follow from applying those labels? I honestly don’t see what’s so revolutionary about it.
So I don’t know—will more missiles come from doing that? More shells? More artillery? There’s a war going on, and the fact that all these institutions of the Russian fascist Reich are criminal structures—that’s already obvious. And then what? What does putting up another label change? I don’t know. That’s all.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, those are all the questions I’ve seen for now, so we’ll wrap up our morning broadcast here. Once again, I remind you that tonight at 8:00 PM we’ll have a discussion with Serhiy Hrabskiy. Please take care of yourselves. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov, to all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian captives. All the best to you! See you at 8:00 PM.
Source: https://youtu.be/cHnu1M-RYBA