The apocalypse seems to be postponed. But that's not certain

Table of Contents

Trump stated that the war is over and thanked Iran for the delicate strike on the military base. Iran continues to strike Israel.

News Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. It’s 7:41 AM in Kyiv. Today is June 24, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.

Ceasefire in the Middle East Link to heading

And now to the events in the Middle East. Last night — well, let’s say closer to midnight — Donald Trump made a statement that in the conflict between Israel and Iran, a complete ceasefire would be established within the next few hours. I’ll quote his words: “Israel and Iran have fully agreed to a total, complete ceasefire within 12 hours, after which the war will be considered over.” Trump also wrote that Iran and Israel approached him seeking a peaceful resolution — that is, they both came to him almost simultaneously with a request for peace. He then made triumphant declarations that peace and the Middle East are the true winners. Both nations, he said, will see great love, peace, and prosperity in their future.

In addition, Trump thanked Iran for warning the United States about its planned attack on a military base in Qatar. This is, essentially, the same tactic Iran used in 2020 after the killing of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, when Iran struck a military base but deliberately gave prior warning — clearly to avoid accidentally killing any American servicemen or Americans in general. In this storyline, we actually see the caution with which Iran’s leadership operates. Despite its seemingly reckless and demonstrative rhetoric, Iran’s leadership is very careful to monitor its own security and avoid crossing certain lines. So even though there are many diverse statements about the U.S. being the “Great Satan,” Iran clearly doesn’t want to provoke serious conflict with the “Great Satan.”

In fact, this is now the second time Iran has launched strikes and warned where it would hit. So these strikes are actually symbolic — they’re not true attacks. To put it simply, they’re more like slaps in the face than real strikes. What’s notable is that Trump made his statement at the exact moment Iran launched another round of rockets at Israel. This was practically the moment when an Iranian missile struck a seven-story building in Ashkelon, killing at least three people. As of now, I don’t know the total death toll, because at the time I noted the news, people were still trapped under the rubble. So the final number of casualties remains unknown.

Meanwhile, Trump was making his statement as Iran continued shelling Israel. This morning — Tuesday morning, just ahead of this broadcast — Iranian state television announced the beginning of a ceasefire. Iran’s foreign minister also said that the Iranian army had ceased hostilities at 4:00 a.m. local time. However, attacks continued, and the Israeli army reported that around the same time, Iran launched a sixth wave of missiles. Just to note the timeline: at 7:00 a.m., the Israeli side reported that Iran had violated the ceasefire. So, within two hours of Iran announcing a ceasefire, it had fired a total of 11 rockets at Israel.

That said, with some caution, we can still assume that the 12-day war may now be over.

Preliminary Conclusions on Iran Link to heading

Now, some very preliminary conclusions. Of course, they are drawn in the heat of the moment, but nonetheless, there are some points worth noting. Regarding Iran: the Iranian nuclear program has been set back by several years. It’s hard to say exactly what happened at that underground facility, and it would likely be irresponsible to speculate too soon. But it is clear that there was destruction. That’s the first point. Second, trucks can be seen in satellite images, which indirectly confirms that something was removed from the site. And most importantly, there has been no detected increase in radiation levels. This likely means that the nuclear materials were not destroyed — either they were removed beforehand or for some other reason survived — so some amount of enriched uranium still exists.

This means that, while Iran’s nuclear program has undeniably suffered serious losses due to strikes on scientists, physicists, and other nuclear facilities, it would be irresponsible to speculate exactly how many years it has been set back. Still, at this moment, there is clearly no immediate threat of a nuclear strike from Iran. However, it is also clear that Iran retains the resources to resume its nuclear program, and it will likely do so. Iran’s military potential has been significantly weakened, but not eliminated. Iran still has the capability to launch missile strikes on Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. So Iran undeniably remains an existential threat — not just to the Middle East, but to the entire world.

And lastly, the regime change that many, including Trump, the Israeli leadership, and many analysts, have talked about — that regime change has yet to materialize. There are no visible signs of serious protest; no one can name any real protest leaders inside Iran. As for the Shah’s son, who is living in the United States, he likely doesn’t enjoy any significant support within Iran. So for now, regime change isn’t on the horizon. That’s the situation. In other words, the beast of the apocalypse is seriously wounded, but far from dead.

Israel has protected its security and pushed back the immediate threat to its safety, albeit at the cost of its citizens’ lives. The price for Israel has been extremely high, but nevertheless, it can be said that it has fulfilled its goal of pushing back the direct threat to its security. Trump returned to power in his second coming as a man who declared that no wars would begin under him — he would only end wars, not start them. Yet in the very first year of his presidency, he started a war. This, in fact, caused a serious split both in the United States and within the Republican Party, even among Trump’s core base — the faction within the Republican Party known as “MAGA.” It’s difficult to say how the public will ultimately respond to all of this, but in any case, anti-war protests have swept across America — protests against Trump.

And finally, Russia. Putin has confirmed his reputation as someone who betrays at the first opportunity. Iran now joins the long queue after Armenia — whom Putin was obligated to support during its war with Azerbaijan as a fellow CSTO member but did not. Naturally, Putin also abandoned his ally Assad. And now Iran. Putin has shown the world that he is not a reliable partner. How long-lasting or relevant this reputation will be is hard to say right now, but the reputational and image losses are clear.

As for any major changes in the war against Ukraine, which some may have expected — I think the events in the Middle East haven’t had a significant impact on the battlefield situation in that war. So that’s how things currently stand. It’s not over yet. It’s too early to draw final conclusions, but for now, we can preliminarily say that — most importantly, from Israel’s perspective — the immediate threat from Iran has been pushed back. That’s probably the main takeaway.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that today at 7:00 PM we’ll be having a conversation with Caesar — the call sign of a fighter from the Freedom of Russia Legion, with whom we’ve had several meetings before. I think today we’ll once again sync our watches and get, as they say, firsthand information about what’s happening on the front lines. So, at 8:00 PM — Caesar, Freedom of Russia Legion. Now, moving on to your questions.

If a Russian Is Dissatisfied with Russia, They Can Leave. But If They’re in Europe, They Often Don’t Want to Return. Why? Link to heading

Dolce Poncho asks: Here’s a question that’s been growing for a while. If a Russian living in Russia is dissatisfied with the country, the regime, the situation, they can leave. But if a Russian lives in Europe — having once left Russia or the Soviet Union — and supports today’s Russia, they still don’t want to go back. Why is that?

Dear colleague, I think the answer is obvious — it’s best to love Russia from a distance. There are some self-evident things here. It’s clear that life in Europe is safer, more comfortable, and overall better. That’s why people living in Europe who display their loyalty and love for Russia are, in this case, obviously in a state of hypocrisy or double-dealing. And you could find even stronger words. It’s clear that if you truly believe Putin is right and everything in Russia is fine, then you should return — but no one is in a hurry to do so. They prefer to love Russia from afar while living in Europe.

Another key trait of this kind of behavior is the constant criticism of Europe. And yet, they live and “suffer” in this very cursed Europe — with no intention of leaving.

Information About Ukraine Extraditing Fighters from Volunteer Units Link to heading

A question from Yakov Abramov: Igor Alexandrovich, various Telegram channels are currently spreading information that Ukraine, as part of a prisoner exchange, is handing over to Russia fighters from volunteer formations — the Russian Volunteer Corps, the Siberian Battalion, and so on. The first such report about the extradition of a Siberian Battalion fighter came after the 1000-for-1000 exchange at the end of May. Yesterday came a second report that an RVC fighter was handed over in a new exchange. Have you heard about this? Could you maybe ask someone from Ukrainian official circles — perhaps on TV — to confirm or deny it?

Dear colleague, this is the first I’m hearing of it. And I am 100% certain that this is, of course, fake. Because what does it even mean to hand over someone from the RVC, or the Siberian Battalion, or the Freedom of Russia Legion? It’s absolutely impossible. First of all, even imagining such a thing — what would it mean to “hand someone over”? It would mean forced extradition. Because each of these individuals faces a life sentence in Russia. Literally — life imprisonment.

So this is all fake, because, first, it’s impossible to do without fierce resistance from the fighter themselves, who would do everything possible to avoid being handed over — and from their comrades as well. Second, there’s no clear interest in it for Ukraine. None whatsoever. These people are defending Ukraine. They’re fighting, risking their lives, side by side with Ukrainian Armed Forces — they’re part of them. Why on earth would Ukraine hand them over? That would be as absurd as handing over any Ukrainian Armed Forces soldier.

This is complete fake news. I’m 1,000% sure that nothing like this has happened or is happening. It’s utter nonsense — an absolute provocation.

On World Order: A Question About Iraq and the UN Link to heading

So, here’s another rather strange, strange question. A kind of rhetoric-verging-on-recruitment. I’ll read it aloud — it’s an illustration of a certain mindset: As a fierce supporter of liberalism, democracy, and the U.S., I’ve always struggled with the war in Iraq. Opponents, not without reason, pointed to American lies at the UN and violations of international law during the invasion. I justified it by how bad Hussein’s regime was, but deep down I knew much of it was wrong. That was the beginning of the collapse of the world order — not the Soviet Union’s actions, not the invasions of Czechoslovakia or Hungary, not even Afghanistan — but Iraq. And what was the result? Chaos. At least a million civilian deaths. No democracy or prosperity for Iraqis. And most importantly, it marked the beginning of the end of the U.S.-led world order. That’s where the Munich speech and the subsequent wars came from — because Putin saw what happened in Iraq and said “Enough,” took the stage in Munich and said what he said, and so on. And now you cheer for another round of international law violations, mock the UN General Assembly, treat any appeal to law as radical leftism, and deny your own intelligence reports from February that said there was no evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons. You don’t understand the consequences of these strikes — the chaos that could erupt in a country as large as Iran, the energy crisis it could spark, the wave of anti-Americanism it could unleash. And most of all, you don’t see that the world’s dictators, led by China, would rise. Russia would get full carte blanche for its aggressive plans. I’d like the ayatollah regime to fall, for Iranians to build a secular democracy, for political Islam to lose its stronghold — but don’t you understand how unlikely that is? History shows darker scenarios unfold. After the euphoria of success comes the hangover. Everything comes at a price. You can laugh at Gutseriev, Venezuela, and the rest — but even a broken clock is right twice a day. So on, and so on. Evil cannot be defeated by stooping to its level. The law — not vengeance — is the path to truth. To quote Sharapov: “The rule of law exists as long as it’s respected by all.” Law and justice are the West’s main pillars. But you cheer as they’re trampled. That’s how great civilizations die. Ulitskaya mocks her own foundations. The abyss opened in Iraq, and the fall has only picked up speed ever since. What do you say to that?

Well, we’ve just heard a peculiar version of Soviet-Putinist propaganda — a Soviet-Putinist narrative dressed up as commentary on today’s world. Let me start at the end: Iran is a monstrous terrorist regime that openly states its goal of destroying Israel and the United States. Iran is a terrorist regime that uses proxies to destabilize the region, constantly launches terrorist attacks, particularly on Israel, and undeniably poses a threat to that country.

Furthermore, there has been confirmation from IAEA experts that Iran was preparing nuclear weapons. So what we’ve just read is essentially a version of content you’d find on the Russia-1, Russia-24, or Channel One state TV — just with a few sprinkles of declared affection for liberalism and the U.S. added in. I think the picture is pretty clear. I don’t know how serious the author of this piece is about their commitment to democracy, but let me explain something:

Can international law be upheld against those who constantly violate it and refuse to follow it? The United Nations has ceased to function as a guarantor of international security — especially since Russia, which took the USSR’s place, has turned the UN into a parody of a security body. At least the Soviet Union tried, to some extent, to maintain a semblance of legitimacy — albeit poorly, as we saw in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan. But under Putin, Russia has made the UN Security Council a joke.

So what now? What do we do with a system where the main violator of international law is both judge and prosecutor? You can’t talk about the rule of law in such a scenario. In situations like that, actions must be taken to preserve one’s own security. Did the UN protect Israel during the October 7 attacks? That’s a rhetorical question. Could it have? It’s like asking if the League of Nations could have prevented World War II. And after that, what’s left to appeal to — whom, exactly?

So either the author of this text genuinely doesn’t understand what’s going on — or this is simply a provocation. Still, I always assume good faith, and I’ll proceed under the assumption that the person is sincerely trying to make sense of the world.

Opinion on the Work of the UN Link to heading

To someone else asking in the same vein — though, in this case, I think it’s a sincere question. Komi asks: I’d like to hear your opinion on the work of the so-called UN, with its countless committees contributing to the political and mental degradation of the modern world since the end of the so-called Cold War. I, like many others, rejoiced at the collapse of the USSR, the evil empire, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. We thought there would be peace on earth — but things only got worse. All international relations have turned into meaningless, endless blah blah blah. It’s “concerned” and “deeply troubled,” and so on. So what’s the proposal? The UN and the rest of this sinecure of international bureaucrats should be disbanded. Countries should instead unite into interest-based groups around truly politically and economically independent states — no more than 10 to 15 in the world — and create a new office in place of the UN, one that would at least try to make some decisions. And ban all verbal nonsense altogether. Let the groups come to consensus and propose specific solutions and sanctions. The world must rid itself of endless lies and wordplay. No one is fooled anymore. Sane politicians understand perfectly well what’s going on. Well, I’ve read this question and proposal — it’s a clear expression of frustration with the current world order.

Well, it’s understandable. But we have to recognize that things like verbal nonsense, hypocrisy, and so on — they’re not fixable by decree. You can’t get rid of them with a ban. At one point, when I was involved in practical legislative work, I came to realize how widespread this kind of naivety was among many lawmakers — exactly the kind our colleague demonstrates here.

Many deputies had this mindset: “There’s a problem — let’s pass a law to make it go away.” There’s unemployment? Let’s pass a law to end it. Inflation? Let’s pass a law to stop inflation. In this case, there’s hypocrisy or meaningless talk — so let’s pass a law to ban hypocrisy and meaningless talk. Once, while commenting on a bill from the Duma’s podium, I said: “Responding to every problem with legislation is like trying to fix every flaw with a separate law. If some deputy is upset that girls don’t like him, should we pass a law to make girls love deputies?”

In that spirit, I think our colleague’s suggestion belongs to the same category — “ban verbal nonsense.” Go ahead and ban it. I can just imagine the international legal norm or charter: “Verbal nonsense is forbidden.” And the first thing that charter would do is ban itself.

And where is the evidence that Trump is a fascist-type politician? Link to heading

So, Rakhil? Spiegel And where is the evidence that Trump is a leader of general-type fascists? Aren’t you ashamed to accuse? For communists, Uncle Sam is always to blame.

Well, first of all, I don’t understand what communists and Uncle Sam have to do with this when we are talking about a specific case. No one is saying that the same Uncle Sam under Reagan wasn’t highly respected. That same Uncle Sam under Roosevelt was also highly respected. Even under Bush, no one accused them of fascism. So, that part is irrelevant. Now, let’s get to specifics. I’m not going to give a lecture right now on the signs of fascism in Trump. But I just want to say that a very large number of Western—absolutely not Soviet or Russian—political scientists and philosophers call Trump a fascist, and Trumpism as a political movement fascist. For example, John Bellamy Foster, a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, says that Trumpism is a type of fascism. The American philosopher Robert Kagan. Cornel West, another American thinker, also uses the term neo-fascism in relation to Trump. The French philosopher Boullion calls Trump a harbinger of the birth of a new fascism. The Italian philosopher prefers the term post-fascism to describe figures like Trump. So actually, a very large number of thinkers—not at all Marxist—call Trumpism a new form of fascism. Specifically, I don’t know, I’m not sure I need to dictate the title of an article where all this is written. So really, I can’t say that there is a complete consensus in global public thought, but at least a significant number of Western analysts see Trumpism as a version of fascism. So, in answer to your question, dear colleague—am I ashamed to accuse? No, I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed to say what I think.

What was promised by Trump in exchange for the release of political prisoners? Link to heading

So, Dr. Efrem, it seems extremely unlikely that Lukashenko agreed to release several political prisoners just because Trump or Whitkoff asked him to.

Well, by the way, it wasn’t Whitkoff, as far as I understand—it was a representative, a representative of Trump. But that’s not the point. So, the question:

Therefore, the big question remains: what was given or promised to Trump in return?

Well, naturally, I wasn’t sitting there invisibly at the table when they spoke, and I wasn’t standing behind the curtain. So of course I don’t know the details, but I think Lukashenko is trying to create room for maneuver. He’s been doing that all along. He’s tried to establish some kind of contact with the European Union. At the moment, the EU is generally quite critical of him. But Trump is someone new—so why not? That is, he’s trying in every possible way to carve out some space for maneuver with Putin. It’s quite possible he received some guarantees from Kellogg. And he has a crazy number of political prisoners. So releasing a dozen and a half isn’t a big problem. Having received some—well, not exactly guarantees, but at least some hints that he might gain room for maneuver in his dealings with Putin.

About Sergei Tikhanovsky Link to heading

So, Viktor Khripun In connection with the release of Sergei Tikhanovsky, my question becomes more relevant. I tried to ask it before but didn’t get an answer. Do you regularly communicate with Andrei Andreevich? Can you ask him why he considers Sergei Tikhanovsky one of the Kremlin’s agents? I’ve heard him say this more than once.

Dear colleague, honestly, I just don’t know—I haven’t heard Andrei Andreevich make such statements about Tikhanovsky. Whom? I really don’t know anything about that. I’m not sure it’s essential in our conversations to clarify certain things about someone’s personal characteristics. Well, if there’s time, if there’s a reason, I’ll try to clarify—I’ll try to clarify. But I don’t really know. I trust you, dear Viktor—I completely trust that you are saying what you yourself heard. But maybe the context was different, I don’t know.

About the results of the investigation into the October 7 tragedy in Israel Link to heading

So, John Doe, do you know of any results from the investigation into the events of October 7? How was such a horror possible? There was a wall, a territorial control system, security, technology, cameras, machine guns. How did all of that fail? Is anyone even asking questions?

Well, you know, I… I only know that almost immediately after this tragedy, the IDF Chief of Staff made a statement on behalf of the army, saying, “We did not fulfill our duties.” The head of Israel’s General Security Service, Ronen Bar, also took personal responsibility for failing to prevent the terrorist attack. The head of Israeli military intelligence, Aharon Haliva, likewise acknowledged his personal responsibility and that of his agency for this failure. So, in general, everyone there, so to speak, is acknowledging their guilt. I don’t know what exactly the investigation is supposed to reveal—what specifically failed, which wall had a hole, which machine gun didn’t fire. But all the people personally responsible for the country’s security have admitted their guilt.

Broadcast Break Link to heading

So. Anna Winter. Tell me, please, will there be new episodes of “Unholy Opposition,” yes?

Right now, new episodes of MediaPhrenia are temporarily suspended. There’s also the program Trumpophrenia: Unholy Opposition. And there’s a new show we’ll be launching soon—it’s called Traitors. So I think all of this will move forward—it’s just a minor temporary setback, let’s say.

The problem with “vatniks” due to “excessive critical thinking” Link to heading

Sergey Gurevich The usual problem with vatniks is the lack of critical thinking. I’ve encountered a different problem with a comrade—excessive critical thinking, if I may say so. The comrade is skeptical toward everything: Europe, America, Ukraine, Russia, the West, Israel. Accordingly, he believes almost any criticism. For example, that America is at war with its own satellites, and that Ukraine is America’s satellite, which for some reason is fighting Russia on its behalf. That the Maidan was funded by America, and also that the Anti-Maidan in Donbas was orchestrated by Russia—and much more. Criticism of both sides. So, the question of the aggressor’s guilt doesn’t come up for him, since supposedly everyone is to blame. My question is: is it possible to persuade such people?

You know, dear colleague, what you’ve described is not critical thinking at all—it’s the exact opposite: conspiracy thinking. This is hardcore conspiracy thinking that has become a worldview. And that… what you described is precisely the absence of critical thinking. As you said yourself, they believe any nonsense, you see? So in fact, I don’t see a fundamental difference—not in terms of content, but in terms of how the mind works—between vatniks who believe any nonsense spewed from the TV and these kinds of conspiracy theorists who believe any rubbish as long as it has a conspiratorial tone, a whiff of some secret plot. That behind every phenomenon there’s some conspiracy, some hidden meaning. It’s a certain mindset. And it’s just as hard to break through as the vatniks’ belief in the TV.

Reaction to the previous question about the “Freedom of Russia Legion” Link to heading

So, Gippius. This is a response to our previous exchange, when Gippius asked why the Freedom of Russia Legion doesn’t just overthrow Putin’s regime. Gippius: Igor Aleksandrovich, why not? Didn’t Prigozhin set an example? How many went with him? 10,000? In all these battalions and units, haven’t they managed to gather that many fighters over three years? They literally released a video a year into the war saying they were going home, that it’s not just a spirit. Is it just spirit? A military slogan or their thesis? As part of the AFU? Let it be so. It’s a shared problem.

Dear colleague, it’s impossible to compare them to Prigozhin, because Prigozhin was an insider. So why wasn’t he stopped? Because he was seen as a war hero. His Wagner PMC was, for patriots and Putinists, a heroic force advancing. They couldn’t be stopped because no one really knew whether they were stopping a mutineer or the new leadership. And that was a real problem for Putin. As for the Freedom of Russia Legion, if they were to move, retracing Prigozhin’s route, they’d be destroyed very quickly, because there’s absolutely no difference between any AFU unit and, say, the Freedom of Russia Legion or the Siberian Battalion. They would be met just as the Ukrainian Armed Forces were met in the Kursk region: they would be engaged, stopped, and destroyed. Advancing along the highway the way Wagner did would be a path to annihilation. This is fairly obvious. Wagner wasn’t destroyed because no one knew who they were really dealing with—possibly the future leadership, possibly the current one. So the attitude was completely different.

On collective responsibility of Russians Link to heading

Alex Ivanov As I understand it, you’re against collective responsibility of Russians for various support of the aggression. So the phrase “it was bad to be a German in 1943” is not something you accept.

Where do you get this from, dear friends? Where do you get these words and made-up positions that you attribute to me out of your own head? So, am I against the collective responsibility of Russians? I understand that it exists. And yes, it was bad to be a German in 1943—I completely agree with that. And in the same sense, it is bad to be Russian in 2023–2025. I don’t understand where you get all this from. I mean, I understand—you hear what I say, but in your head some completely different sounds are being generated. But in that case, go on communicating with those sounds in your head, not with me.

So, as a Ukrainian, I support total responsibility for everyone who didn’t repeatedly and publicly condemn the death of Ukrainian children and the destruction. I dream of revenge. I personally know people who lost children and want to see mass punishment of those who supported the death of innocent people in any form. Punishment through the collapse of Russia, so that the ‘90s feel like a paradise to those who didn’t protest against Putin out of fear of prison. Any other form of punishment. And in Ukraine, people lost children—so they hate fiercely. I hate Russians.

Well, again—you see, emotions. If you’re Ukrainian, if you’re in Ukraine, if you’re under the bombs, if you’ve lost someone—emotions are understandable. Ukrainians have the absolute right to hate Russians—no question about it. But once again, I fully support the idea that it was bad to be a German in 1943 and bad to be Russian in 2022–2025. For me, that’s an axiom. You’re clearly conflating guilt and responsibility. Responsibility can be collective. Guilt is always individual.

About Andrei Kozyrev Link to heading

A number of invitations. Will there be an invitation to the channel? So, Mr. Stepan asks: A week ago, you were asked to invite Andrei Kozyrev for an interview, which made me very happy. It would be very, very interesting—regarding the war in Ukraine. You and he, of course, share the same position on that. But he was a member of Gaidar’s government. Probably, on that issue of the distant past, you fundamentally disagree. Will that be an obstacle to inviting Kozyrev for a conversation, or will you have to avoid that topic in silence?

Well. Dear Mr. Stepan, I think inviting Kozyrev is not only possible but also desirable. A discussion with him about the 1990s, about, well, his work in Gaidar’s government—that’s probably interesting too. I don’t know. You see, there’s a certain process, a kind of roadmap for these invitations. First, you have to reach an agreement. Kozyrev is undoubtedly an interesting conversationalist. But we have to come to an agreement, he has to agree, and then—then if he does, I’ll plan out the conversation. And it’s quite possible we’ll touch on the 1990s. Again, I’m not 100% sure it’ll be interesting to talk about economic policy, but it would certainly be interesting to talk about foreign policy during his time as minister.

About Valery Shiryaev Link to heading

So please invite, for contrast with Hrabskiy, to hear another well-argued opinion without jingoism—the military expert Valery Shiryaev. I’m sure you know who this person is? Treat him as an object of study.

Well, of course, I know he’s a military expert. He worked at Novaya Gazeta, if I’m not mistaken, and served either in the FSB or in some other Russian special service. He’s retired. Currently, as I understand it, he’s been sentenced—he even received a sentence in absentia. I don’t see any obstacles to inviting him. But really, before inviting someone, you need to listen to them. He’s a public figure, after all. So I think it’s worth seeing what to base the conversation on—what we’ll be thinking about together. So overall, the idea is not a bad one.

About Oleg Kashintsev Link to heading

The author of the question identifies as “Real Estate.” I suggest inviting Oleg Kashintsev, host of the channel “Major in Retirement.” A former police officer dismissed from the force, subjected to repression, but who went abroad and is actively exposing the system.

Again, I have no objection. I’ve heard of him, but I just need to read up— not because of any suspicion, but in any case, it’s necessary. I just need to understand what the person is talking about. Thank you for the suggestion.

About inviting an astrologer Link to heading

So, Berem—or is that your name or a pseudonym? The question: Do you plan to invite an astrologer to your channel “Thinking Together”? An educated specialist in this field could provide information and expand the worldview.

Well, dear colleague, thank you for the suggestion, but no, I don’t plan to. I don’t plan to invite astrologers, alchemists, numerologists, sorcerers, and so on. They have their own channels, and by all means—let them use them. But I don’t see the point. There’s no subject matter, you see, to invite for discussion. It’s in the category of, let’s say, inviting—I don’t know. Anyway, in short, no. No, not interested.

About Leon Weinstein Link to heading

Question from John AI Could you invite the esteemed Leon Weinstein? It would be an interesting conversation. He’s the best Russian-speaking American combat analyst. He and Andrei Andreevich have different views, but we need that kind of diverse analysis.

Dear colleague! You know, that’s quite a remarkable suggestion. You see, Leon Weinstein is a hardcore Trumpist. I don’t know the exact degree of his Trumpism, but it’s roughly on the same level as inviting Veller or Panasenko. I mean—well, yeah. So yes, one could invite him and have a debate. But first of all, I’m not sure it would be possible, because a debate is a very different format altogether. But just to invite him as an expert—no, of course not. Especially since he wouldn’t come on my show anyway. They all know me, you see? So no, not even close.

About air defense missiles for Ukraine redirected to Israel Link to heading

So. And here’s a comment under the stream. This is the commenter—not sure that’s their real name. I’ll quote: I’d like to say that the claim that supposedly air defense missiles for Ukraine were redirected to Israel is blatant disinformation and a provocation. What missiles could it possibly be? The Patriot system has long been decommissioned in Israel. No, it’s not being reinstated. The only American air defense missiles in use in Israel are NATO types, which Ukraine has never had and won’t have in the foreseeable future.

Here’s what happened. Dear colleague, thank you for your comment. Apparently—though I don’t recall exactly how I worded it—there was a misunderstanding about this issue. The point wasn’t that air defense missiles for Ukraine were redirected to Israel. The idea was that they were redirected to the Middle East, but not to Israel. I was referring to President Zelensky’s repeated statements, where he said that the United States had redirected missiles originally intended for Kyiv to the Middle East. These were deliveries agreed upon with Biden. I know for certain that Zelensky said this in an interview with ABC, where he expressed frustration, saying that 20,000 missiles agreed upon with Biden had been redirected to the Middle East. They weren’t sent to Israel—they were sent to U.S. Air Force units in the region. So perhaps I created a false impression, or perhaps you misunderstood. In any case, thank you for the clarification.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

So that’s it—we’re wrapping up our conversation for today. Dear friends, once again, a reminder that at 7:00 PM we’ll have a talk with Caesar, a representative of the Freedom of Russia Legion. See you at 7:00 PM. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, for all Russian political prisoners, and for Ukrainian POWs! See you at 7:00 PM!

Source: https://youtu.be/JG2tOsE1mRA