Behind the votes on UN resolutions regarding the war in Ukraine, a new alliance between the USA and Russia against Ukraine is emerging. Trump explained that Zelensky is a dictator, while Putin is not, and Putin decided to lure Trump with rare earth elements.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 25. It is now 07:41 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and in our souls.
Report on the Exposure of Stalin’s Cult of Personality Link to heading
First, a small historical rhyme or, rather, a historical resonance, I would say. On this day, February 25, 1956, during the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev delivered a report exposing Stalin’s cult of personality. Many believe—many analysts, many historians consider—that this was the most groundbreaking and influential report of the 20th century. Indeed, these were truly pivotal events. Of course, today, all of this is covered by the dust of decades. But at the time, it was a truly monumental event.
Because, first of all, if we look at the situation not with today’s perspective, not from above, gazing into the past, but from within the reality in which Soviet society found itself in 1956, then, of course, it was an explosion, a shock.
Today, it is commonly believed that the report was incomplete, that Khrushchev delivered it to conceal his own participation in Stalin’s crimes. All of this is true. But still, it was a decisive turning point. The shock experienced by the congress delegates has been described many times, and the shock felt by Soviet society is also well known. After Khrushchev’s speech, which was listened to in deafening silence, the presiding officer, Bulganin, proposed not to open discussions on the report or allow any questions. Understandably so—because that would have caused an unprecedented scandal. And, frankly, answering questions would have been difficult for Khrushchev.
The congress delegates adopted two resolutions—one approving the report’s conclusions and another stating that the report should be distributed only within party organizations and not published in open press.
It must be said that the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union—and later Russia—has never truly been completed. To this day, there is a renaissance, a return of Stalinism. Under Putin, this is happening very actively. But it actually began long before him. The Brezhnev era was a particularly favorable time for the flourishing of Stalinists of all kinds and degrees. I remember well from my university years—among the faculty, there were outright Stalinists who openly spoke out against Khrushchev’s report, calling it a betrayal.
So now, history is repeating itself.
Two UN Resolutions on Ukraine Link to heading
And now, to today’s events. The key event of yesterday. I understand that many believe the most important moment was Trump’s meeting with McCain. Some say it was the visit of a large European delegation to Ukraine. These are all significant events. But I would like to focus more on what happened at the United Nations.
This was the vote on three resolutions—one in the Security Council and two, I would say, diametrically opposed resolutions in the General Assembly.
I consider this an important event that has reshaped the political map of the world. I don’t think I’m exaggerating. Perhaps this new map is temporary and could change, but for now, this is the situation. My assessment is based on the voting results.
For those who may not have followed closely, let me briefly explain these resolutions.
The resolution initiated by Ukraine and European countries was fairly traditional. It condemned Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and demanded that Russia immediately, fully, and unconditionally withdraw all its armed forces from Ukrainian territory within its internationally recognized borders. In essence, this resolution reaffirmed basic facts—like stating a multiplication table.
The resolution proposed by the United States, however, obscured the reality of the situation. It referred to some “conflict” that had suddenly arisen in Ukraine—without identifying the aggressor or the nature of the war. It portrayed the situation as if Ukrainians were simply fighting among themselves and needed to be pacified.
One striking feature of today’s geopolitical landscape is that these two opposing resolutions—one clearly defining an aggressor and demanding its withdrawal, the other vaguely calling for peace without acknowledging an aggressor—received exactly the same number of votes: 93 in favor of each.
Now, regarding the vote on Ukraine’s resolution, the list of countries that opposed it is quite revealing. There were 18 in total, and I will read them: the United States, Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Israel, North Korea, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Mali, Sudan, Niger, Nicaragua, Palau, and the Marshall Islands.
This list unmistakably reveals an emerging alliance between Russia and the United States. The countries that voted against Ukraine fall into two main categories. One consists of explicitly pro-Russian states—Russia itself, Belarus, Hungary, North Korea (Russia’s military ally), Nicaragua, and others that are either Russian satellites or economically dependent on Moscow.
The other category includes nations highly dependent on the United States—most notably Israel. Israel’s position here raises serious questions, but it is understandable given its reliance on U.S. support.
It is well known that the United States exerted significant pressure on countries where it could. The effectiveness of this effort varied. For example, Israel was pressured into voting against Ukraine’s resolution, while South Korea—a country heavily dependent on the U.S. due to the American military presence there—chose to abstain instead.
What we are witnessing here is the formation of an anti-Ukrainian political bloc. It is not a military alliance, but it is starting to take on a distinct political shape. A UN resolution that refuses to name the aggressor and simply calls for peace, without acknowledging the reality of Russian aggression, is undoubtedly an anti-Ukrainian stance.
And one final note about this UN session—besides the General Assembly votes, there was also a Security Council vote in which the U.S.-sponsored resolution passed. Its wording was similar—acknowledging some vague “conflict” that needed to be resolved peacefully.
During the debate, Russia’s representative, of course, spoke—because how could he not? He claimed that Ukraine had provoked the conflict and established a “Nazi regime.” Meanwhile, representatives from Europe and Canada strongly countered, stating that Russia’s aggression was unprovoked and purely imperialistic in nature, emphasizing that Russia must withdraw from all occupied territories.
I don’t know what the long-term consequences will be, but this U.S. position is no longer just about Trump. A UN General Assembly vote is not just words—it is a concrete, serious action.
Trump Called Zelensky a Dictator but Refused to Call Putin One Link to heading
Many people believe that Trump should simply be ignored—but that’s a mistake. He must be listened to, because his words reflect his stance, which will eventually translate into actions.
Take his latest statement, for example. When asked whether he could call Putin a dictator—just as he had recently called Ukraine’s President Zelensky one—Trump responded:
“I don’t use that word lightly. I think we’ll see how things play out. I believe we have a chance for a really good settlement between different countries.”
Yet just moments earlier, the same Trump had outright declared that Ukraine’s president was a dictator because there were no elections. The position here is crystal clear—pro-Putin and anti-Ukrainian.
Returning to the UN resolution discussions, during the General Assembly debate, the UK’s ambassador to the UN, Barbara Woodward, stated that the terms of peace in Ukraine matter and must send a clear signal that aggression does not pay. She strongly opposed any attempt to equate the positions of the two sides. The UK’s stance was unequivocal: if we want a path to lasting peace, the UN must clearly define the origins of this war.
The contrast in positions is obvious. So is the emerging anti-Ukrainian bloc between Russia and the United States.
The Putin-Trump Alliance Grows Stronger Link to heading
Putin continues his efforts to recruit Trump. I remain skeptical—I’ve said before that we conducted a poll on our channel at the request of many subscribers, and I found myself in the minority. I don’t believe—or at least I’m not certain—that Trump is actually a Kremlin agent. Among the 5,000 people who voted at the time, the largest group—45%—believed that Trump is indeed a Kremlin agent. I was in the absolute minority among those who abstained, simply because I don’t have enough evidence to be sure.
But at this point, it undeniably looks like an alliance. Why? I think the reason is different. The key factor is that both Putin and Trump share the same fundamental stance—or rather, the same absence of liberal, democratic, and humanitarian values. And that is what drives this relationship. For Trump, it doesn’t really matter who he cooperates with. Dictatorship? So be it. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility of this evolving into a trilateral alliance between Putin, Trump, and Xi Jinping.
For now, Putin continues to “recruit” Trump—not necessarily in the sense of turning him into an actual agent, but in the sense of pulling him closer to his side. Realizing that Trump is suddenly interested in rare earth elements, Putin has started dangling bait. He recently announced that Russia is ready to offer U.S. government and private entities cooperation on rare earth elements. He also claimed that Russia has significantly larger reserves of these resources than Ukraine. Since Trump appears to be drawn to rare earth elements, Putin is using them as his lure.
Now, whether Trump will take the bait remains to be seen. But the attempt itself is clear.
Another area of growing cooperation is arms reduction. Both Putin and Trump responded positively to the idea, and there was even a proposal to bring China into the negotiations. This raises the real possibility that the three leading nuclear powers could form a political agreement of some kind.
To be clear, this is not yet a fully realized alliance—but the movement in that direction should not be ignored. The idea that words don’t matter, that Trump’s statements or UN resolutions are insignificant, is dangerously naive. How much more proof is needed? Do we have to wait until this alliance is officially formalized? Ignoring these signals coming from the U.S. and Russia would be reckless.
The only real counterbalance to this development is American civil society. The hope is that it can somehow prevent the formation of this new and fundamentally different “Entente”—a close partnership between Russia and the U.S., potentially with China joining in.
This doesn’t mean there won’t be conflicts between these countries. Economic tensions will remain—Trump is already putting pressure on Russia, trying to push it out of key markets, particularly India’s energy sector. That’s a fact. But this economic competition does not necessarily mean the political alignment between Putin and Trump will be broken.
These are developments that should not be overlooked.
Pozner Added to Canada’s Sanctions List Link to heading
And now, in the spirit of “And now, the weather”, I’d like to turn your attention to Canada’s newly announced sanctions list. Yesterday, Canada released a list that includes 33 individuals and 44 companies.
Reading through this list, you can’t help but find it amusing—though that doesn’t mean I disagree with it. Quite the opposite, I fully support it. But the way it’s structured is funny. Among those sanctioned are Russia’s Aerospace Forces, the country’s Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister, Putin’s niece Anna Sheveleva, and—on top of that—109 tankers from Russia’s shadow fleet. And then, after the tankers, separated by a comma, comes… Vladimir Pozner. That’s right—109 tankers, and the 110th tanker is Vladimir Pozner.
Pozner absolutely deserves his place on the list. I spent about 10 minutes last night trying to find the exact reason given for his inclusion in Western or Canadian media, but I couldn’t find it. The only explanation I found was in Komsomolskaya Pravda—not the most reliable source, to say the least. But according to them, Pozner was sanctioned simply for being a Russian TV host.
In any case, there’s no doubt he deserved it. For years, he tried to sit on multiple chairs at once. His whole approach has been one of strategic fence-sitting, making use of what you might call a unique anatomical feature—the ability to spread himself across several seats simultaneously. But this time, even Pozner’s legendary flexibility didn’t save him.
I can only imagine his face when he heard the news. His entire lifestyle has been built on keeping one foot in the West while benefiting from his position in Russia. And for decades, he managed to pull it off. Of course, being on Canada’s sanctions list isn’t a catastrophe for Pozner—he holds three passports and has enjoyed the freedom to travel the world. That was part of his whole game: playing along with the Putin regime while still maintaining access to the West. But now, it seems he’s finally been caught in the crossfire.
I sincerely hope that the U.S. and perhaps even France follow Canada’s lead. That would be truly significant—it would actually change Pozner’s life. And that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Of course, there’s also the separate issue of Ksenia Sobchak and her husband, who have now fully crossed the line into the absurd. But that’s a topic we’ll cover in Mediafrenia. We also have Trumpofrenia running now, so it’s important not to mix up which character belongs in which category.
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that we have a packed schedule today. At 14:00, we’ll be joined by sociologist Igor Eidman—his first time on our channel. And at 20:00, we’ll have Mark Feygin.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
On Zelensky’s Legitimacy or Lack Thereof Link to heading
Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.
A question from Sergey Ivanov:
“If Zelensky, according to Trump, is illegitimate, then with whom and how does he plan to sign agreements regarding Ukraine’s resources? And secondly, Putin has said the same thing about Zelensky’s legitimacy, yet he is willing to negotiate with him. How does that work? Where’s the logic?”
Dear Sergey,
I believe I’ve already mentioned this multiple times—both in Trumpofrenia and in previous discussions. There’s a well-known quote often attributed either to Hitler or Goebbels: “I free you from the chimera known as conscience.” The same principle can be applied to both Trump and Putin. Except they free themselves not only from conscience but also from reason and logic.
Trying to find logic in Trump’s or Putin’s statements is a futile effort—you won’t find it there.
Just look at the absurdity: Trump calls Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” despite the fact that, under wartime conditions, elections simply cannot be held. Zelensky has been in office for five years, fulfilling his constitutional term. Meanwhile, Putin has been in power for 25 years, has completely rewritten the constitution to suit himself, and yet—according to Trump—he isn’t a dictator.
If Putin isn’t a dictator, then who is?
So, if you’re trying to analyze Trump’s or Putin’s statements using logic, you’re wasting your time. They operate in an entirely different dimension—one where they are free from both conscience and logic.
Proposal to Invite Illarionov Link to heading
A question from Viktor:
“Please listen to Illarionov. Unfortunately, I can’t provide the link, but on his channel, on February 20, there was a video titled ‘Three Versions of This Nonsense.’ Maybe it’s worth talking to another Trump supporter? I don’t think he’s any less intelligent than Pinkus. And in that video, he presents a very clear pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian position.”
Dear Viktor,
As I’ve already mentioned, unfortunately, we haven’t been able to produce a comprehensive, all-encompassing analysis of Trumpofrenia in one go. Instead, it will be a recurring series, much like Mediafrenia. We’ll keep returning to this topic, and I sincerely hope that in the next episode—our second—Illarionov will be one of the figures discussed.
Analyzing his position requires a more meticulous approach. It’s not as straightforward as with the subjects of the first episode. It was relatively easy to break down and understand the motives and rhetoric of people like Borovoy or Afanasenkov. Even Yuri Farber’s position is quite simple and clear, making it easier to analyze.
But Andrey Nikolaevich Illarionov is a different case. First, he speaks and writes a lot, which makes it more challenging to present his views accurately without resorting to lengthy, hour-long quotes. Summarizing his statements properly while maintaining their essence is a separate task in itself. However, I will do my best to address this in the next episode, possibly this coming Saturday. I believe Illarionov, along with Veller and several others we rightly classify as “Trumpists,” will be analyzed soon.
As for having a direct conversation with him—I don’t think Andrey Nikolaevich would be a suitable discussion partner right now, for several reasons. First, I highly doubt he would even want to talk to me. The history of our interactions doesn’t suggest that such a conversation would be likely. Second, I believe that at this stage, he is more of a subject for analysis rather than a direct interlocutor. He has already said quite a lot, so there is plenty to examine.
Would Trump Have Won the Election If He Had Openly Declared Support for “Hitler-Putin”? Link to heading
A question from Nelly Zelinskaya:
“If, during the election, Trump had openly stated that he planned to stop the war by supporting ‘Hitler-Putin,’ would he have won?”
Well, dear Nelly, I think the key issue here is how it would have been presented. If Trump had literally said, “I am going to support Hitler-Putin,” then yes, of course, that would have been bizarre.
But that’s not how things work. What Trump did say was that he intends to end the war. And now, analyzing the situation, we can see that what he actually means is ending the war by favoring Putin. But that’s not how it’s framed publicly.
So I think your thought experiment slightly bends the rules of the game. Trump never openly stated that he would support Putin—only that he would “bring peace.” The fact that this “peace” aligns with Putin’s interests is something we now understand in hindsight.
That being said, Ukraine is not the top priority for most American voters. I doubt this would have significantly changed the election outcome. And let’s be honest—campaigns are full of lies. If you’re expecting politicians to tell the truth during an election, well… that’s just not how it works.
The Role of Personality in the Works of Pitirim Sorokin Link to heading
A question from Dima Ivanov:
“Could you describe the role of personality in Pitirim Sorokin’s works and his contributions to sociology? I’d like to familiarize myself with his work.”
If we were to take this question seriously, it would require at least a couple of lectures. But I’ll try to summarize the core idea.
Sorokin was an incredibly prolific scholar and served as the president of the American Sociological Association. His contributions to sociology are vast, but I would argue—though I risk criticism from my sociologist colleagues—that he was perhaps the last sociologist to attempt to create a truly comprehensive sociological theory.
After him, scholars generally focused on developing specialized subfields. But Sorokin aimed to construct a holistic, integrative theory. His central idea was integralism.
According to this concept, which he elaborated in detail, sociology should develop toward a generalized theory of the structure and dynamics of different socio-cultural systems. The immense diversity of social phenomena, he argued, should be synthesized into a unified, integral socio-cultural framework.
In essence, Sorokin believed that sociology should not be a fragmented discipline but rather an overarching meta-theory that integrates all fields of the humanities into a cohesive vision of human knowledge.
His ambition was enormous, and frankly, I struggle to find a direct comparison. Some of my favorite theorists—Pierre Bourdieu, Niklas Luhmann—also sought to develop comprehensive theories, but not on the same scale. Sorokin truly attempted to build a system that encompassed all dimensions of human thought within a sociological framework. That is his most significant intellectual legacy.
That said, I personally view sociological and philosophical theories as tools—instruments that can be brought into one’s intellectual workshop and used to tackle specific questions. Sorokin offers many such tools.
His works contain a wealth of analytical frameworks that can help researchers interpret complex social processes. One of his most intriguing contributions is his attempt to rank and evaluate the influence of different thinkers throughout human history—a fascinating endeavor.
The list of his contributions could go on for quite some time. Sorokin was truly a giant. If you’re interested, just dive into his works. They remain relevant and will continue to be useful for a long time. Mastering Sorokin’s ideas is an investment that will pay off in deep insights.
Can Zelensky Be Tried Under U.S. Law? Link to heading
A question from Lyudmila Durova:
“Zelensky isn’t a U.S. citizen, so how can he be tried under U.S. law?”
Easily. The United States, like most other countries, prosecutes foreign nationals for crimes that, in their view, violate U.S. laws.
There are plenty of non-U.S. citizens who have been tried in American courts. So if Trump were to seriously go after Zelensky, it wouldn’t be difficult. Given that the U.S. Justice Department is now largely under his control—with many prosecutors being handpicked and loyal to him—launching a case against Zelensky would be a trivial matter.
Of course, I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen, because if it does, it would signal a full-fledged alliance with Putin—on the level of Hitler’s pacts with Japan or Italy. Hopefully, it won’t come to that, because such a move would confirm that the alliance is already in place.
About the Interview with Pinkus Link to heading
A question from Pan Stepan:
“Regarding your interview with Pinkus—his position seemed rather weakly substantiated to me. However, isn’t it possible that he’s right when he says that Republicans—and American leadership in general—aren’t idiots? That they wouldn’t just suddenly abandon transatlantic cooperation, U.S. global leadership, and other obviously beneficial things that Trump is threatening? Why would they give all that up? And isn’t it likely that the Senate and Congress will rein in Trump on this issue, just as U.S. courts have already blocked some of his domestic policies? Surely, this is too obvious for rational people in power to ignore?”
Dear colleague,
Yes, all of this should be obvious. But let’s take a closer look at the political reality.
First, have you noticed how dramatically the current U.S. Vice President, J.D. Vance, has changed his stance? Initially, he compared Trump to Hitler. Now, he’s bending over backward to praise him, loyally defending every one of his moves.
How does this happen? Very simply.
We’ve seen the same transformation in Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He once strongly supported Ukraine, advocating for full assistance until victory. Now, he parrots Trump’s rhetoric without hesitation.
What’s happening here? Trump has completely taken over the Republican Party. Republican lawmakers understand that their political careers depend entirely on him. If they oppose him, Trump will personally ensure their defeat in the next election. He is vengeful, meticulous, and holds grudges. Any senator or congressman who crosses him will face a Trump-backed challenger in the next election, with all the financial and media resources of Trump and Elon Musk working against them. That’s all it takes for them to lose their seat.
Even Boris Pinkus’s position is shaped by this reality. Speaking on a Ukrainian channel and talking to me, he can’t fully embrace Trump’s policies—but he also can’t openly oppose him. If such remarks were to circulate further, it could cost him his position. So he, like many others, plays it safe.
At this moment, the Republican Party is paralyzed. Every single GOP senator and congressman knows that their political future depends on Trump. That’s the reality.
Now, regarding the courts—yes, it’s encouraging that over 70 legal cases have overturned some of Trump’s policies. But this battle isn’t over. Trump continues to file appeals, and many cases will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
And let’s not forget: the Supreme Court consists of nine justices—six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, and three directly by Trump. This court has already granted Trump de facto immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed while in office.
This is an extraordinary situation. The Supreme Court has essentially declared that Trump cannot be held criminally accountable for anything he does as president.
It’s one thing to argue about whether presidential decisions made within official duties should be immune from prosecution. But what about personal corruption—like Trump using campaign funds to pay hush money to a sex worker? Is that part of his presidential duties? Clearly not. Yet, the courts are bending the rules in his favor.
So no—I have no confidence that Congress, the Senate, or even the judiciary will effectively restrain Trump. That’s far from certain.
And when Boris Pinkus talks about a plan to “rebuild the Reagan wing” of the Republican Party, I remain skeptical. They might be working on something, but how effective will it actually be? I have my doubts.
Trump’s Motivation Link to heading
A question from Lana:
“The situation seems to be as follows—please comment. Trump envies authoritarian leaders, their total control, their ability to act without concern for democratic institutions or public opinion. He feels a natural kinship with them. Together with the oligarchy, he aims to transform the U.S. into an authoritarian system to secure permanent power. Europe—and Ukraine in particular—stand in his way as strongholds of liberalism and democracy, so they must be either destroyed or at least weakened with Russia’s help. Seen through this lens, Trump’s administration’s policies make perfect sense. What’s your take?”
I’d say yes—I largely agree with your analysis. Perhaps I’d phrase it slightly differently, but the logic you’ve outlined makes sense.
Could the Author Be Wrong About Trump? Link to heading
A question from Igor:
“Is it possible that you’re completely mistaken about Trump? And is this a repeat of the mistake you made about Harrison?”
Dear Igor, I’m not sure who Harrison is. If you meant Kamala Harris, the former Vice President of the United States, I don’t recall making any errors regarding her. I’m not really sure what you’re referring to.
As for whether I could be wrong about Trump—of course, I could. I can be wrong about anything. The possibility of error is something I always keep in mind. I constantly question and reevaluate my own beliefs, comparing them against facts, intuition, and my overall sense of the situation. So your question is somewhat rhetorical—yes, I can be wrong.
In fact, in some cases, I wish I were wrong, because my current outlook on what’s happening is quite pessimistic. I’d love to be proven wrong. But so far, I see no reason to revise my assessments.
And as for Harrison—I have no idea what that’s about.
The “Bill” for Zelensky Link to heading
A question from Photon:
“To be honest, I’ve always wondered—when will they finally ask to settle the bill? In a restaurant, you get the check at the end of the meal. Same thing here. Did anyone really think that a billion dollars was given just for Zelensky’s, Yermak’s, and their team’s beautiful eyes? The bill turned out to be too steep. No one asked in advance how much this ‘banquet’ would cost. They thought they could just leave the restaurant without paying. I feel sorry for Ukrainians—because of their leadership’s foolish miscalculation, they won’t be able to escape accountability. Eventually, they’ll have to explain where all the money went.”
Your restaurant analogy is completely incorrect and misleading. Either you’ve been misled, or you’re deliberately misleading others by framing the question this way.
When someone goes to a restaurant, they know they will have to pay the bill. But this situation is entirely different. Imagine someone’s house is set on fire, or they’re being robbed in the street. In that moment, police officers and good samaritans rush in to help. Then, after the situation is handled, those helpers suddenly turn around and say, “By the way, I brought a fire extinguisher, carried some buckets of water, and I injured my finger while stopping the attacker—so here’s your bill for a million dollars.” That’s the real equivalent here.
All the aid provided to Ukraine was in the form of grants. There was never any discussion of this being a loan or something that needed to be repaid. Your entire argument has no basis in reality.
As President Zelensky himself has stated, the assistance Ukraine received was voluntary grants and donations. It was aid, not a debt that required repayment.
And once again, we hear the same repeated lies—this time from Trump—that the current deal being proposed is similar to the Marshall Plan. That is utter nonsense. The Marshall Plan consisted of 90% non-repayable grants.
So let’s stick to the facts. Distorting reality is not helpful.
Was Lenin a Philosopher? Link to heading
A question from Tamara Petrova:
“Was Vladimir Lenin a philosopher?”
Well, yes—he did engage in philosophy, and he wrote philosophical works. The real question is: what kind of philosopher was he?
Frankly, he was a mediocre one. As an economist, he was even worse. But as a politician—if we define a politician as someone skilled at seizing power—he was exceptionally strong.
When it comes to philosophy, I can say with certainty that his work was neither particularly original nor intellectually rigorous. Unfortunately (or fortunately—depending on how you look at it), I had to study Lenin’s philosophical writings in great detail, practically memorizing them, since I studied and taught philosophy during the Soviet years. And I can confidently say: as a philosopher, he was weak; as an economist, even weaker.
That said, he was a philosopher in the technical sense. His works contain some original ideas—though largely unconvincing, unproven, and often flawed. But he did engage in philosophical discourse, so yes, he qualifies as a philosopher.
Trump’s Statement: “A Beautiful Ocean Separates Us”—Why Do Europeans Keep Enriching the U.S.? Link to heading
A question from Mikhail Kostin:
“Trump’s statement that ‘a beautiful ocean separates us from Ukraine’ puts everything into perspective and fully confirms my belief that the U.S. is the main beneficiary of this situation. The unity and strength of Russia serve as a tool of fear for Europeans, which the Americans have been turning into profit for decades. But do Europeans have no brains at all? Don’t they realize that the same ‘beautiful ocean’ separates the U.S. not only from Ukraine but also from them? Why do they keep paying the U.S. for some ephemeral ‘protection’ from Russia? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build their own powerful, including nuclear, defense system and redirect at least part of their massive NATO contributions to Ukraine—forming a joint military force capable of countering Russia? This is in their own vital interest. Why are Europeans throwing their money across the ocean, where no one cares about them, while leaving their closest neighbor to face Russia’s military machine alone?”
Dear Mikhail,
I think we are indeed seeing some movement in this direction within Europe. The only question is how far it can realistically go.
Personally, I fully support Ukraine receiving the maximum possible assistance and strengthening its geopolitical status. I hope it’s clear that this is something I deeply want. However, I wouldn’t overestimate the current level of political readiness in Europe.
For example, Zelensky’s idea of creating an independent European military force—with Ukraine’s armed forces at its core—is, frankly, a utopia. Ukraine cannot replace the U.S. in Europe’s security architecture.
NATO is structured in a way that prioritizes strengthening national armies. The idea that Europe should stop funding the U.S. and instead channel those resources exclusively to Ukraine is not how NATO operates. Each member state is expected to bolster its own defense capabilities.
Furthermore, while there is growing support for Ukraine, expecting European nations to completely shift their security reliance away from the U.S. and toward Ukraine is unrealistic. The level of trust in Ukraine—though strong—is not absolute. Major European countries are simply not prepared to entrust their security entirely to Ukraine at the expense of their own national forces. Perhaps the Baltic states would support such an approach, but no large European power will take that step.
To demand that Europe make Ukraine its primary security pillar is, in my view, naïve. A strategic pivot toward Ukraine? Yes. But replacing the U.S. with Ukraine in Europe’s defense system? Not a chance.
And while Ukraine undeniably has the most battle-hardened army in Europe, it still lacks the strategic capabilities needed to assume a U.S.-level security role. Ukraine has no strategic air force, no space-based defense systems, and—most critically—no nuclear arsenal.
So while Ukraine is an invaluable military force, the idea that it could take the U.S.’s place in the European security framework is simply unrealistic.
Does Pinkus Believe What He Says? Link to heading
A question from Alexander Kravtsov:
“I really want to know your opinion—Is Pinkus just pretending to be an idiot, or does he actually believe what he says? I’m overwhelmed with emotions.”
Pinkus isn’t just an activist—at least, as far as I understand his role. This requires clarification, but from what I can tell, his position within the Republican Party is part of his life’s work.
Like many Trump supporters, Pinkus is a hostage of the situation. That’s all there is to it.
Speaking out openly against Trump—something many of us would like to see—would be personally and politically devastating for him. Taking a strong, principled stance against Trump would destroy his position within the party and his entire political reality.
That’s why he plays this balancing act. On one hand, he expresses frustration—because even he can see that Trump’s current actions are outrageous. But on the other hand, he clings to the idea that “we’ll fix this, we’ll steer Trump back in the right direction.”
What Institutions in the U.S. Can Limit the President’s Actions? Link to heading
A question from someone identifying as Russkiy:
“I’d like to hear what institutions or laws in the U.S. can and should continue to control the adequacy of the sitting president. In Russia, we’ve already seen that there is no safeguard against an unfit leader. But how does this work in a developed democracy like America?”
Dear colleague, this is an excellent question—right on target.
For decades, we’ve operated under a certain assumption:
- Russia never built institutions to protect democracy, which is why it keeps sliding into dictatorship. But if such institutions existed, things would be fine.
I used to think that way too. But as it turns out—not true at all.
I can list at least a dozen institutions in the U.S. that are supposed to control the actions of the president:
- The courts
- Congress
- The media
- The system of checks and balances
But here’s the problem: none of it works automatically.
These institutions are activated by people. And people can be manipulated, pressured, and influenced.
Take the media. Right now, Trump has an unprecedented level of media power. Social networks are a prime example. We all know how social media algorithms work. Even if I don’t subscribe to certain people, my feed is still flooded with content from Trotskyists, Elon Musk, and a whole army of Trumpists. That’s the algorithm at work.
The same applies to YouTube.
Trump and his billionaire allies own the digital landscape. They don’t need to outright ban opposition voices—they just suppress their visibility. The term for this is “pessimization” of search results. If your content is deliberately downranked in the algorithm, it becomes nearly impossible to find. Your subscribers start wondering, “Where did you go? Why aren’t you posting?” Meanwhile, you might be producing 100 videos or articles a day—but no one sees them unless they actively search for you.
And once a platform starts doing this to you—it’s game over.
Now, let’s talk about the courts and Congress. These institutions also rely on people—and people can be scared, pressured, or bought.
In theory, American institutions should be strong enough to check an unfit president. But in reality? They only work if the individuals within them are willing to stand up to pressure. And right now, fear and influence are doing their job.
Trump and His “Clever Strategy” Link to heading
A question from Alexey Alekseevich:
“Here’s something I’ve been thinking about—The U.S. president simply can’t be that much of an idiot. That’s impossible, don’t you think? Or is this a strategy? First, he pressures Zelensky, and if that doesn’t work, he turns on Putin—because it’s easier to apply leverage against a global pariah.”
Well, the problem is—those levers aren’t being applied. Yes, Putin is a pariah, but Trump isn’t exerting any meaningful pressure on him.
As for the “idiot” part—look, I’m not insisting on that specific characterization. But let’s just say that much of what Trump says and does aligns with that diagnosis. And there’s nothing impossible about that.
Why do you say, “The U.S. president simply can’t be that way”? Why not? Is there some law of physics preventing it?
The Germans once elected Hitler. The Italians chose Mussolini. Why should Americans be immune to bad choices? They elected Trump—they tried it out.
So no, I don’t see any contradiction here. The question of who and how people voted for Trump is an entirely separate discussion. There’s plenty of solid sociology on that.
Can Russia’s Economic Exhaustion End the War? Link to heading
A question from Dmitry Kalugin:
“Many analysts suggest that one possible scenario for ending the war is Russia’s economic exhaustion—when it no longer has enough resources to sustain the war effort. Is that even realistic? And if it is, what would actually force Putin to acknowledge defeat? He could just reduce combat operations to a minimum while keeping the country in a perpetual state of war. No one can conquer an economically devastated Russia as long as it has nuclear weapons. So doesn’t that mean the idea of ending the war through economic collapse is unrealistic?”
Dmitry, I’ve been saying this for almost three years now—ever since the full-scale war began. I also believe that expecting the war to end simply because Russia’s economy collapses is highly unlikely.
I don’t think the war will end due to economic ruin. The reasons for its conclusion will be different.
On the Longevity of Fascist Regimes and North Korea Link to heading
A question from Yulia:
“You once said that fascist regimes are usually short-lived. Can North Korea be considered a fascist state? If so, what explains its unusually long survival?”
First, North Korea is not entirely a fascist regime. Some argue for terms like “Red Fascism”, applying it to Stalinism and similar systems. But this isn’t entirely accurate. There are fundamental differences between classic fascist regimes and totalitarian communist states like North Korea, Stalin’s USSR, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
Of course, one could broaden the definition of fascism to include anything authoritarian that we dislike—but then the term loses its precision and usefulness.
As for why North Korea has lasted so long, the key reason is external support—primarily from China. North Korea is not a truly independent entity; its survival depends heavily on Chinese backing.
The same logic applies to modern Belarus, which can endure indefinitely under Putin’s wing. In both cases, we’re dealing with regimes that are artificially sustained by a more powerful patron.
About U.S. Intelligence Agencies Link to heading
A question from Ilya:
“Regarding the poll on your channel about whether Trump was recruited by the KGB—I’m curious, where are U.S. intelligence agencies in all this? What are they doing?”
Well, first of all, Ilya, I’d prefer if this question were directed at those who are certain that Trump was recruited by the KGB. I am not certain. As I’ve said before, I don’t have definitive proof either way—I can’t prove that he is an agent, nor can I prove that he isn’t.
As for the substance of your question—right now, U.S. intelligence agencies are undergoing a brutal purge to ensure loyalty to Trump. That’s the reality.
Trump is restructuring these agencies to align them with his personal interests. The selection of new personnel is no longer based on professionalism, but on personal loyalty.
I’m citing the opinions of experts in American politics here—but the key takeaway is this: if Trump were revealed to be either a serial killer or a KGB agent, the intelligence agencies under his control would likely view that very favorably.
Will Trump Go as Far as Militarily Supporting Russia? Link to heading
A question from Tak Clark Sr.:
“Could Trump eventually provide military support to Russia? I wouldn’t put it past him. What do you think?”
I don’t think so. At least, I find that scenario hard to imagine. I hope he won’t go that far. I believe he won’t.
That said—Trump has only been in power for a month, and just look at how much has already happened. We’re living in a time where every day brings new, interesting developments. This is just the starting point for whatever comes next.
Dear friends, I must admit—I haven’t had time to go through all the questions. I spent a lot of time reading the comments—there were over 1,000 on the Friday stream alone. I did manage to get through all of them and responded to every question from Friday’s stream. However, I haven’t yet answered all the questions from yesterday’s. So I’ll keep paying my debts—as Trump would say. Except, thankfully, these debts are to you, not him.
That’s all for today’s morning stream.
A quick reminder:
📌 At 14:00, we’ll have Eidman on the channel.
📌 At 20:00, Feygin. Don’t miss it—I’m sure both discussions will be insightful.
Glory to Ukraine! Take care of yourselves!
By the way, right after this stream, I’ll publish Skobov’s speech at the trial on my Telegram channel. I had tried earlier, but it didn’t fit due to character limits. I’ll split it into two parts and post it immediately after we finish here.
Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to Russia’s political prisoners, and to Ukraine’s captives!
Wishing you all a great day. See you later!
Source: https://youtu.be/I75JOKeoAhc