Trump declared a trade war on the entire world and called it America’s Liberation Day. It turned out that for the past half-century, the U.S. had been robbed, offended, and exploited. Most of all by Lesotho, Cambodia, Madagascar, and the penguins from uninhabited islands.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 3rd, and it’s 07:44 in Kyiv and Moscow. We continue our morning reflection on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, in the United States of America, and in our souls.
The Emancipation of Serfs in Russia Link to heading
On this day, March 3, 1861, Alexander II issued a manifesto titled “On the Graceful Granting to Serfs of the Rights of Free Rural Inhabitants.” In short, serfdom was abolished. This is perhaps the most remarkable and positive event in the centuries-long history of our country. No one had ever before freed so many people from slavery with a single stroke of the pen. However, Soviet and Russian historiography is full of indignant reactions to this event. Chernyshevsky wrote a lengthy text criticizing him, calling him a scoundrel, a villain, saying that he liberated people poorly, the wrong way — without land. In general, the Russian intelligentsia, not only the raznochintsy, were extremely outraged, saying it was a bad emancipation. And exactly twenty years later, on March 13, 1881, he was killed. You can’t say he was killed solely because of the emancipation, but still, there is a connection between the decree and his assassination. It’s not a direct link, but it exists. Overall, these were reforms aimed at liberating people — including the censorship reform, and so on. I won’t retell a history textbook, but this is a very telling fact. That is the fate of reformers and liberators in Russia. Just something to keep in mind.
Netanyahu Is Harming Israel by Promoting the Idea of Relocating Gaza Link to heading
Before moving on to the main topic of our conversation today, there are a few things that seem important to me. Last night, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived for a visit to Hungary. Most of the commentary around this event focused on the fact that Hungary, being a signatory and participant of the International Criminal Court, made the decision to receive Netanyahu, who, according to this mandate, should be arrested under a UN warrant. But that’s not the main point. Plenty of people have disregarded the decisions of the International Criminal Court. As the saying goes, the number of countries that have scoffed at the ICC’s rulings could easily rival the number of countries that tell Donald Trump to go to hell. But again, that’s not the main issue. The main point is why Netanyahu came to Orban. His goal is to convince Orban of the legitimacy of relocating residents of the Gaza Strip somewhere else. No one knows exactly where, but still. Netanyahu is trying to form some sort of coalition of countries that support Trump’s idea. This is very telling, because in reality, this is a completely insane decision. Practically none of the more or less significant countries support Trump on this. And now Netanyahu is trying to build such a coalition. Just recently, Netanyahu once again declared that Israel remains committed to Trump’s idea of relocating Palestinians from Gaza. Despite my support for Israel, I believe that backing Trump’s insane ideas severely worsens Israel’s position and is, in fact, one of the most anti-Semitic actions imaginable today. Supporting this idea — the relocation of Palestinians from Gaza — is one of the most anti-Semitic moves one could imagine, because it essentially turns the Arab world against the Jews. Why is this necessary? Well, it’s understandable — Netanyahu’s support for Trump is more or less clear. After all, Trump has been very active in backing Israel. But overall, this is undeniably a very bad development for Israel and for Netanyahu.
Dmitriev’s Visit to the USA Link to heading
So, yesterday Kirill Dmitriev arrived in Washington. Several foreign publications and the global press reported that a meeting with Steve Witkoff had already taken place. It’s more or less clear what this is about. It’s an attempt to create economic incentives — possibly personal ones — for Witkoff and perhaps even for Trump himself, in cooperation with Russia. Dmitriev, fully aware of his own credit history and of what he represents, will undoubtedly be opening up Russia’s natural resources to American partners, showing how vast, abundant, deep, and rich they are — how we have the rarest and most valuable earth elements, and so on. In essence, the goal is to push Donald Trump toward an alternative — a second option — for resolving the Ukraine issue, from which Trump is clearly trying to find a way out. This is an attempt to resolve the Ukrainian issue at the expense of Ukraine itself. We’ll see how successful this will be. Russia’s current hardline stance toward U.S. proposals also became evident in recent days through a statement by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, who said that Russia cannot accept the U.S. proposals because they do not address the root causes. I’m quoting here directly. And what’s behind this quote is also clear. Ryabkov said that these proposals don’t eliminate the root causes of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. And we know perfectly well that the root cause of this conflict — to put it plainly, this war — is the very existence of a Ukrainian state independent of Moscow, a Ukrainian president independent of Moscow, a Ukrainian government independent of Moscow, a Ukrainian people independent of Moscow. That’s the root cause that needs to be eliminated. How is that elimination being attempted? Just last night, there was yet another attempt to eliminate these root causes through a missile attack on peaceful Ukrainian cities.
U.S. Liberation Day Link to heading
Now let’s move on to the main topic. Taking half a step back — I think we need a more serious conversation, one that steps away from immediate problems and looks at what’s going on with this war and what real possibilities exist for ending it. I think we’ll need to make a separate program about this, because we’re getting lost in the details and missing the forest for the trees. Now to the main topic. On America’s Liberation Day, Donald Trump, last night by European time, essentially declared a trade war on the entire world. This, as he sees it — and in fact it really is — is the key event of his second presidential term. In a very solemn setting in the White House Rose Garden, Trump proclaimed April 2nd as the day of America’s liberation. These are trade sanctions against — the number slipped my mind — 180, 186 countries around the world. Essentially, against nearly the entire world. There are exceptions, and we’ll talk about those — some quite amusing. But nearly all countries have been deemed guilty. And Trump believes this will lead to an unprecedented economic boom in the United States. “Today is a day of liberation,” declared Trump, “one of the most important days in American history. This is a declaration of American economic independence. We will make America great and wealthy again. Our country has been plundered for more than 50 years. That ends now,” said Trump.
I won’t go through a chart showing tariffs against each country. For China — 34%. And if you add the previous 20%, that totals 54%. A 20% tariff against the EU, 24% against Japan, 26% against India, and so on. Since this was enacted without congressional approval, Trump pulled a small trick. To implement these tariffs without Congress, he declared a state of emergency, expanded the interpretation of national security threats, and included the U.S. trade deficit as one of those threats. This allowed him to declare a state of emergency and gain the power to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The three main targets — the three main enemies — are the European Union, China, and Canada and Mexico, the closest neighbors and partners. Trump’s primary tariff fury was directed at them.
Naturally, I won’t go deep into the economic consequences — I’ll refer a bit to expert opinions, not public opinion. But mostly, I’ll try to offer a sociological analysis of what’s happening. Trump operates from the belief that free trade is a zero-sum game — that if someone earns, someone else loses. This is a fundamental error. It’s not a private misunderstanding — it’s a basic mistake. In reality, all participants benefit from free trade. If someone earns more, that doesn’t mean someone else loses more. The entire history of the global economy supports this. I won’t analyze the immediate economic effects in detail now, but just minutes after Trump’s speech, American producers and firms lost $2 trillion. Again, expert estimates suggest the global losses could total $33 trillion.
And the world woke up today in a new reality, where the richest and strongest country on Earth is walling itself off with tariffs, hoping this will lead to prosperity. This is a moment that calls for thorough analysis — not just economic. We’ll definitely have an economic discussion later this week. I’ll be just a participant, a listener like you. The general view among economists is that this is an extremely outdated approach to economics — one that proved unviable back in the 19th century and was definitively discredited during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Trump repeatedly showed a chart with foreign tariffs in one column and U.S. counter-tariffs in the other. It’s a very misleading and dishonest chart, because the U.S. trades not just in goods, but mostly in services — especially digital ones — and the balance is almost always in America’s favor. For example, the U.S. may export fewer cars to Europe than it imports, but it exports far more services, including digital services. So overall, considering today’s economic structure, the balance is in favor of the United States.
Moreover, through this trade war, the U.S., represented by Trump, is trying to gain not just economic pressure but also political dividends. Trump demands that allies spend more on defense than the U.S. does in percentage terms. He demands territories like Greenland and Canada. He’s outraged. He’s using the trade war to block European regulation of major American corporations — his sponsors — like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.
Despite a statement by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce advising the world to “stay calm and accept it,” warning that retaliation would lead to escalation — essentially saying, “You’ve been slapped, don’t hit back or it’ll be a fight” — responses are already coming. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Europe is ready to take countermeasures and that this is a serious blow to global business and consumers. Similar statements were made by representatives of Canada, Australia, and several other countries.
I haven’t had time to look into every detail, so I’ll highlight just two points: What do Americans think about Trump’s economic policy? A joint CBS News and public opinion agency poll — from a reputable research center — shows that over half of Americans disapprove of Trump’s economic policy. 52% disapprove. 72% believe tariffs will raise prices in the short term. Half believe it will in the long term. A fresh survey by the Marquette University Law School — many U.S. universities have their own research services — found that 58% of Americans think tariffs hurt the U.S. economy. 28% believe they help.
Now a few words about who’s not included in the tariff list. Not all countries and territories are there. If I recall correctly — I might be wrong — 186 countries and territories are included in this tariff blacklist. Who’s not? Russia is not. Belarus is not. Cuba, if I’m not mistaken, is not. Why? Naturally, journalists asked Trump. He explained that Russia’s trade volume with the U.S. is so insignificant that there’s no point in including it. Yes, the trade volume is small — just a few billion dollars — but in contrast, some of America’s “greatest enemies” face the harshest tariffs. These include Lesotho, Cambodia, and Madagascar — tariffs around 50%. Also, the U.S. declared Heard Island and McDonald Islands as enemies — uninhabited islands in the Indian Ocean that are external territories of Australia. Interestingly, there are no humans there — they are populated only by penguins. Yet Trump imposed 10% tariffs on those islands. I don’t have a video, but observers say the penguins are holding a general assembly and drafting an outraged letter to Trump demanding an explanation, and preparing retaliatory sanctions if necessary.
As for the economy — again, we have a serious conversation ahead. This is important, because this really shakes the economic foundations of the modern world. It will certainly have an impact — and most likely, first and foremost, on the United States itself. We’ll have a detailed discussion — probably more than one.
Now let’s touch on the social, political, and cultural foundations of what’s happening. All of Trump’s rhetoric — that we’re being robbed, insulted, we’ve been exploited for half a century — is pure resentment energy. A syndrome of grievance. And this precisely mirrors two historical phenomena from the 20th century — and even the 19th. It echoes Marxist ideology, especially as manifested in Bolshevism — where the most oppressed class, the proletariat, is the engine of history. In this case, the most oppressed “class” is the United States, which has been exploited and insulted by everyone. In other words — “Arise, you cursed of the Earth, the hungry and enslaved,” just inverted Marxism. An absurd, upside-down Marxism. The richest, most prosperous country in the world is portrayed as the most exploited and mistreated. And now the U.S. is rising up against the entire world. Eight billion people on Earth are supposedly living off 330–340 million Americans who feed everyone. “Stop feeding the world,” declares Trump.
The same energy of grievance existed in 1930s Germany — a mix of post-WWI resentment and anti-Semitic narratives about Jews oppressing Germans. The rhetoric is identical: the same words, the same rage, the same resentment energy — visible in both Bolshevik actions and Hitler’s Nazis. And now in Trump’s actions. That’s the rhyme — the kind of world Trump is trying to build. We’ll talk more about this in detail with economists and cultural experts. It’s a serious topic — and one I don’t think we’ll drop.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Now I’m moving on to answering your questions.
Could the EU Convince the Government of Kazakhstan to Conduct Joint Exercises with Ukraine Link to heading
Denis Lyubarev
You mentioned separatist sentiments in the “people’s republics” of Tatarstan. Tatarstan was never called a people’s republic. But okay, let’s not nitpick. Next, Denis Borisov asks: On Russian TV channels, there have been threats toward Kazakhstan. Do you really believe that Kazakhstan’s position in the CSTO is stronger than the U.S.’s in NATO? Question: Could the European Union, Australia, Japan, or Canada persuade Kazakhstan’s government to begin a dialogue with Ukraine about holding joint exercises? Or is this as unthinkable as a Muslim-Jewish alliance?
I don’t know. And what does a Muslim-Jewish alliance have to do with it? Actually, speaking of the Abraham Accords, they are essentially aimed at forming such an alliance between Muslims and Jews. So it’s entirely possible — perhaps even a realistic prospect over time. As for Kazakhstan conducting joint exercises with Ukraine, I think that’s impossible, simply for the straightforward reason that Kazakhstan is indeed a member of the CSTO. And drawing an analogy between Kazakhstan’s position in the CSTO and the U.S. in NATO — as you put it — hardly works, simply because the United States doesn’t share a border with Europe. As Trump said, they’re separated by a beautiful ocean. So there’s no dependency, let alone a threat, from Europe or the U.S. But the situation with Kazakhstan in the CSTO — I’ll use your shorthand — is defined by the fact that Kazakhstan shares one of the longest land borders in the world with Russia. And the threat from Russia in the event of deteriorating relations is very real. Kazakhstan is definitely under heavy geopolitical pressure from Russia. I’m not here to play the role of prosecutor or defender of the Kazakh leadership. But Russian pressure on Kazakhstan is absolutely, 100% a guarantee that joint exercises with Ukraine are not possible. Moreover, the logistics of such a scenario are unclear — how Ukrainian forces would even get into Kazakhstan. It’s theoretically possible, but again, I think it’s a fantasy. In short, I think the chances are zero.
On Netanyahu’s Visit to Orban Link to heading
Viktor Kuts
Mr. Yakovenko, I haven’t asked a question in a while. How do you interpret Netanyahu’s visit to the pro-Kremlin scumbag Orban — please don’t ignore this. By the way, regarding channel promotion, you don’t need a whole team of helpers — just translate, voice, etc. But that’s about the question of ideas from some subscribers about launching an English version. So, the question: I talked in the main part of the stream about why Netanyahu went to Orban. He’s trying to find allies for the idea Trump voiced — relocating Gaza’s residents to some uninhabited planets.
Well, what can I say? It’s bad — it’s really bad. This is the kind of Trumpist alliance we’re seeing now, unfortunately, with the participation of the Israeli prime minister.
What If Ukraine Becomes a Nuclear Power Link to heading
Cat Thomas,
You rightly note that Ukraine has every right to establish itself as a nuclear power. As usual on the channel, let’s do a thought experiment. In your opinion, how would the war unfold if the President of Ukraine one day declared that they had, one way or another, obtained nuclear weapons? And could this be played as a bluff — could Ukraine pretend to have nuclear weapons to scare Russia, even if it doesn’t? I’ve heard an expert opinion that Israel obtained nuclear weapons in large part thanks to French assistance. Israel, however, has never officially acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons.
Well, once again I want to firmly state my deep conviction that Ukraine would benefit greatly from launching a nuclear program — a program to obtain its own nuclear weapons. I fully understand all the complexities of this process. I disagree with those experts who claim there are technical obstacles. I believe Ukraine has extensive experience in nuclear energy development and was involved in the creation of Soviet nuclear weapons. That knowledge hasn’t vanished. Yes, we fully understand that nuclear weapons were transferred to Russia and that the nuclear infrastructure — all those silos — was destroyed. But all of that existed, and it can be restored. The technical culture still exists in Ukraine.
Now, the real problem is obvious: there would be strong opposition from nuclear powers — not only from Russia, but also from the United States, and possibly the UK and France. Right now, Ukraine is in a situation where U.S. assistance is uncertain, so it’s clearly not a good time to provoke other nuclear powers like the U.S., France, or Britain. But at some point in the future, this is something that should be pursued.
As for your idea, dear colleague, about bluffing — I don’t think it would be effective. Modern intelligence tools would expose such a bluff very quickly. So I wouldn’t recommend it. But when it comes to actual development — I’m a strong supporter.
On Elections in Ukraine Link to heading
Valeriy Chuvashov
Thank you. Those were kind words toward me — thank you for them. I heard that in Ukraine they are considering holding parliamentary elections first, followed by presidential elections. What’s your opinion on this? Or should this be asked of some Ukrainian expert?
Dear Valeriy, 100% — this is exactly the kind of internal Ukrainian issue that I will absolutely not cross into, and I don’t even want to think in that direction, because this is definitely a matter I’m not qualified to speak on. Maybe someone like Fesenko, or Portnikov, or any of the advisers from the Office of the President of Ukraine — for example, Podolyak — could answer this. You can ask any of them, but not me. That said, I’ve made a note of it, and if we have any Ukrainian experts or political analysts on the program soon, I’ll pass your question along to them.
On Trolls Link to heading
Captain Obvious? asks Alexander.
Do you often get questions from trolls trying to catch you in some inconsistency or contradiction in your views? I’ve noticed that not only do you read their questions, but you also answer them — calmly, composed, and I’d even say kindly. How do you manage to keep your emotions in check? Have you always been able to do this, or did it come with age and experience?
Well, you know, it’s — well, that’s quite a question. I can’t say I’ve always been this way. It’s definitely a matter of experience — a fairly long one, in fact, over half a century of teaching, which involves encountering all sorts of students. And also working, let’s say, in the political sphere — there have been many episodes that help you develop a thick skin, so to speak, which lets you handle all sorts of jabs and stings with composure. So yes, it’s definitely a kind of training.
What If Lukashenko Had Become Head of the Union State in 1999 Link to heading
Question from Duke
A thought experiment — where would we be now if, in 1999, Lukashenko had become the head of the Union State? That is, if he — not Putin — had become the successor.
Dear colleague, I think that a thought experiment like this is so fantastical that it’s very hard to even consider. It’s a scenario completely detached from reality. I mean, imagine the Yeltsin family, for example, putting forward Lukashenko — with his reputation and image — as the chosen one. Why would Yeltsin do that? Why would the Yeltsin family? Why would the oligarchs who actually propelled Putin to the presidency? Why would they want to put Lukashenko — someone who would throw them all in jail — over their heads? This is such a fantastical scenario that I honestly struggle to see the point of the thought experiment. Sure, it would be some sort of dystopia. Just another alternate history. I don’t know. I really don’t think — I know well that in the 1990s, Lukashenko’s figure was promoted by communists. Not the Communist Party of the Russian Federation specifically, but the broader communist-leaning masses. Yes, they saw in this Belarusian dictator a kind of potential, because unlike Putin, he was genuinely trying to restore some Soviet-style order. But I saw no real basis for such a thought experiment back then, and I still don’t. It would just be a different kind of dystopia.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So, dear friends, that’s where I’ll wrap up today’s stream. Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov! Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to all political prisoners, both Russian and Ukrainian POWs! Take care of yourselves! See you on our channel! Goodbye.