The U.S. and Ukraine are offering Russia a 30-day ceasefire. The U.S. is resuming aid to Ukraine and continues to provide intelligence. How will Putin respond, and what will Trump do if Putin refuses?
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 12th, in Kyiv. It is now 07:43, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls. Well, before moving on to the most important matters, I want to say that the most important thing, of course, is the negotiations and the outcome of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia.
Strikes on Moscow Link to heading
And just a few words about what happened the day before. We’ve already gotten used to starting our conversation with the strikes on Ukraine carried out by Russian occupiers. But last night, the Armed Forces of Ukraine launched the most massive drone attack on Russia in all three years of the war. I will now rely not only on data from the AFU, which generally does not widely report on its strikes, but also on a brief analysis of Telegram channel reports and the Russian Ministry of Defense.
It is clear that we are talking about approximately 350 Ukrainian drones, with a significant portion—around a hundred—targeting the Moscow region. According to figures from the Ministry of Defense, 126 were directed at Kursk. In addition, Belgorod, Ryazan, Kaluga, Lipetsk, Oryol, and other regions were affected. In Moscow and its surroundings, Ukrainian drones also hit residential buildings. This refers to drone debris—drones were flying towards strategic targets, but as they were shot down, their fragments fell on residential buildings.
All airports in Moscow ceased operations. Perhaps the most important development is that in Kapotnya, the largest oil refinery in the Moscow region, was hit. This refinery processes over 11 million tons of oil per year, covering 50% of Moscow’s gasoline and diesel fuel needs. A drone struck the facility. The extent to which its operations have been disrupted or paralyzed is still unknown. However, it is clear that such attacks can cause significant damage to the aggressor.
As for casualties, at the time I was preparing for this discussion, two people had been reported dead. I don’t have more precise figures, but without a doubt, this is the most serious strike in all three years of the war. In other words, the war is gradually shifting onto Russian territory.
Results of the U.S.-Ukraine Negotiations Link to heading
Well, the most important event, of course, is the eight-hour negotiations in Saudi Arabia. I have identified five key points for myself. The main one is that the United States and Ukraine have agreed to propose an immediate 30-day ceasefire to Russia. It is clear that if Russia accepts this joint proposal from Ukraine and the United States, there will be an immediate 30-day cessation of hostilities.
The second important point—perhaps even the most crucial in terms of outcome, since it remains uncertain whether Russia will accept the proposal—is that the U.S. will immediately lift the suspension of intelligence sharing and resume military aid to Ukraine. Also discussed was the issue of prisoner exchanges and the return of deported children—another critical point, though it still requires discussions with Russia.
Another significant outcome is the formation of negotiation groups that must immediately begin talks with Russia. And finally, the last point, which I see as largely symbolic, is that Presidents Trump and Zelensky will sign the much-discussed agreement on natural resources as soon as possible. Again, I emphasize that the practical significance of this document seems close to zero, but its symbolic value is enormous. For Trump, this may be one of the few achievements of his first 50 days in office. Establishing a working relationship with Trump is now extremely important for the Ukrainian president.
So, in my assessment, this is probably the best possible outcome. It might even be better than expected. At the very least, nothing bad happened. In fact, this is the most favorable scenario among all possible ones. And I completely agree with U.S. Secretary of State Mark Webber, who said that the ball is now in Russia’s court. That is crucial. So, now… now, essentially, what?
The Ball Is Not Only in Putin’s Court but Also in Trump’s Link to heading
So, what are we left with? We have seen how Trump is pressuring Ukraine—how he is using a “stick” to push Ukraine toward peace. This was all visible in real-time, and frankly, it was quite an unpleasant spectacle. But now, we need to understand how Trump will use his resources in dealing with Russia—whether in a similar manner, a different way, or not at all. This is where things get really interesting.
It’s clear that Trump’s relationship with Zelensky remains, to put it mildly, very complicated. However, the recent toxic atmosphere that had been present in recent days—hindering negotiations—now seems to have dissipated. At this point, Trump no longer has immediate reasons to make statements or take actions against Ukraine’s president. So now, the most important thing remains.
I don’t know how these negotiations on the deal will unfold further, but in my opinion, Zelensky is likely to sign it in any form, simply because it does not carry any real significance. The most important developments have already taken place.
Before summarizing, I want to highlight how different parties have reacted to the negotiations. In Europe, the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. In Russia, from what I observed while preparing for this discussion, Telegram channels have reacted extremely negatively to the possibility of a deal, arguing that it should not be signed—specifically, the proposed 30-day ceasefire, which they strongly oppose. I didn’t find an outright categorical position from Solovyov, which is understandable since a staunch Russian propagandist like him cannot take a definitive stance until Putin makes a decision.
As for Putin himself—there has been no reaction at all. However, we have seen his position repeatedly. Let’s take a look at what Putin has previously stated: that Ukrainian forces must fully withdraw from the four occupied regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. According to him, this withdrawal must be complete, within the administrative borders that existed when these regions were part of Ukraine. Once Kyiv announces its readiness for this and begins a real withdrawal of troops from these territories, as well as officially renounces plans to join NATO, then, as Putin said, Russia will immediately issue an order to cease fire and begin negotiations.
This statement was made before Trump took office. After Trump assumed the presidency, Putin made another statement directly related to what happened in Saudi Arabia. In it, he emphasized that any resolution to the situation should not be a temporary truce, a mere pause for Ukraine to regroup and rearm, but rather a long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all people in the region. He reiterated that Russia will continue fighting for its national interests, which, according to him, is the essence of the so-called “special military operation.”
So, based on these statements, we can roughly predict Putin’s response. But regardless of what he does, this is why I titled today’s discussion “The Ball Is in Putin’s Court.” However, to some extent, it is also in Trump’s. The key question now is how Trump will react if Putin refuses the proposal. And Putin certainly won’t simply accept the joint U.S.-Ukraine offer at face value—he will either reiterate his demands regarding Ukraine or justify his refusal differently.
So, what will Trump do? Will the “stick” he used against Ukraine be applied, even in some form, to Putin? This is the big question. It will be the moment of truth for Trump. We’ll see. The coming days will reveal a lot.
Poll on the Possibility of a Truce Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention something—I started a poll on our channel’s website. The question was: Do you think there is a chance that Russia will accept the proposal for a 30-day truce?
Now, in just 15 minutes, around 700 people participated in the poll. Unfortunately, I can’t display the results on the screen, but I’ll announce them verbally. The responses were as follows:
- 28% believe there is a chance.
- 55% think there is no chance.
- 17% were unsure.
This is one of those rare cases where my opinion aligns with the majority. I also believe that, in a straightforward sense, the chances are virtually nonexistent.
And one more important message…
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before I start answering your questions, I want to mention that at 17:00, we will have a very important and interesting guest on the channel—Taras Valeriyovych Berezovets. He is a Ukrainian political analyst, journalist, and a “fighting political analyst”—a major in a special forces brigade.
I think he is the perfect person to discuss everything that happened today in Saudi Arabia and to compare perspectives with someone who is both a well-known Ukrainian political expert and actively serving on the front lines.
Now, moving on to your questions.
How Will Trump’s Relationship with Putin Develop? Link to heading
Question from Margarita:
“In your opinion, how will this alliance—Trump and Putin—end? Could the U.S. president suddenly fall out of love with the Russian guy and turn toward Ukraine? After all, Trump is truly unpredictable.”
Yes, you’re right—this is possible. But I would say it largely depends on Putin. The question is whether Putin wants to play this embrace game with Trump. Historically, we’ve seen how two dictators can fall out, as in World War II. However, back then, their interests clashed sharply because they were competing for the same territories. That is not the case here, so there don’t seem to be objective conditions for a major fallout.
I always emphasize that my worldview is probabilistic. If we talk about the likelihood of the Trump-Putin alliance breaking down, the Ukrainian issue is undoubtedly a major point of division between them. However, I still believe that this alliance will persist.
Trump, of course, could introduce sanctions or take other actions, but overall, the restoration of diplomatic missions and his statements about good relations suggest that this partnership will continue. Could this impact his support for Ukraine? Trump is capable of taking contradictory actions—supporting both Putin and Ukraine at the same time.
At this point, the chances of Trump completely cutting off aid to Ukraine seem low. After all, the Ukrainian delegation has already made significant concessions. Initially, as Andriy Yermak and President Zelensky stated, Ukraine proposed a different approach—ending military operations at sea and in the air while continuing the war only on the front lines. However, during negotiations, this proposal met resistance or disagreement from the U.S. delegation, leading to the acceptance of a full ceasefire proposal. This was a major concession from Ukraine.
Given this, Trump has little room to escalate tensions with Ukraine—though we know he can create conflicts out of thin air. For now, I believe this alliance will hold.
About Shlosberg Link to heading
Question from Alexander:
“If, 10 years ago, the unnamed paratroopers had not been from Pskov and Ryazan, would we still know about regional politician Shlosberg today?”
Yes, of course. I think we definitely would. His investigation into the Pskov paratroopers brought him additional prominence, but his reputation was already forming before that. His public presence, solid oratory skills, and engagement with liberal circles—especially within the Echo of Moscow community—helped establish him as a strong alternative to Yavlinsky.
I remember when Grigory Alexeyevich’s term as Yabloko leader was coming to an end, there was a whole campaign around who would succeed him. Today, in hindsight, given the major events of recent years, these debates may seem insignificant, even microscopic. But back then, the issue of Yabloko’s leadership was taken quite seriously. Many key figures in the democratic movement actively discussed how to secure Yavlinsky’s support for Shlosberg as the party’s new leader.
I won’t hide the fact that I, too, requested a meeting with Yavlinsky at the time. We met, and I spent quite a while trying to convince him to back Shlosberg for the leadership. However, Yavlinsky was unwavering, and as a result, Slabunova became the party’s leader instead.
So, yes, the Pskov paratrooper investigation boosted Shlosberg’s popularity, but he was already well-known before that. As for what’s happening now—you all know it well. Shlosberg has essentially become part of Kremlin propaganda. By the way, as far as I understand, Yabloko is now under some sort of threat. One of the international organizations it was part of has been labeled “undesirable” in Russia. Yabloko quickly withdrew from it, but given the state of Russian lawlessness, the party could still face trouble. At this point, though, that likely no longer holds much significance.
About Trump. Does Trump Want to End the War? Link to heading
Moreover, the question is somewhat conspiratorial, but still:
What if, in the context of U.S. policy toward Russia, Trump is not an immoral fool, but a politician following a certain line that benefits both the U.S. and Europe? A line that is not about ending the war but, on the contrary, prolonging it—making Trump’s declared desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize nothing more than a lie, a smokescreen, as Thomas believes or assumes. After all, it is impossible not to understand what Putin truly is, not to have studied him over the years, not to have analyzed his psychological profile. Any concessions are perceived by him as a sign of weakness, which means that everything Trump is doing and saying now is nothing more than an invitation to continue the war. The point is that as long as the fighting remains on Ukrainian territory and Putin’s army is bogged down there, Russia will not be able to launch aggressive actions against NATO countries. What is your opinion?
Well, you know, there’s a common phrase that has now become a meme—“this joke is too subtle for our circus”—which, in my opinion, fits this situation. I think things are much simpler. I believe it’s simpler. Trump doesn’t have, well, we can see what’s happening. Trump doesn’t have, as they say, the mood, appetite, or interest to defend Europe. In other words, the rescue of the drowning is the responsibility of the drowning themselves. Trump’s stance toward Europe is clearly not that of an ally.
By the way, I didn’t bring up public opinion polls today, but in France and Germany, for example, three-quarters of the French do not perceive the United States as an ally. And that’s understandable. So when you say, “How can one not have studied his psychological profile over the years?"—well, you see, you’re looking at it through your own eyes, and to you, Putin’s psychological portrait is one thing. But Trump is looking through his own eyes. From his perspective, Putin is not something terrible; he is something similar to himself.
So when Trump says that in Putin’s place, anyone would take advantage of the pause in military aid to Ukraine, he is essentially confirming that he would do the same. In Trump’s eyes, Putin is a perfectly normal person. Moreover, he actually considers Putin not just a good person, but, let’s say, a “correct” one. The concept of a “good person” doesn’t exist in Trump’s worldview, but a “correct” one does. In Trump’s eyes, Putin is a “correct,” normal politician—someone he can and should do business with. Unlike, for instance, Zelensky, whom he sees as an “incorrect,” abnormal politician—someone without strong cards but still trying to fight.
That’s why I think the scenario you’re suggesting contradicts what we’re seeing. In this case, I believe conspiracy theories don’t help; they only lead us astray.
Proposal to Deport Latynina and Svetov Link to heading
Viktor Khrebtov
Do you think that people like Svetov or Latynina, as well as some others who have openly started supporting Russian aggression and Putin personally, should be deported from decaying Europe back to their homeland? And how would opposition representatives react to this?
Dear Viktor! I would react to this extremely negatively. Let me explain. You, of course, know—I know that you are a regular participant in discussions on our channel, which is why I am addressing you as someone who is well aware of my attitude toward Latynina and Svetov. My attitude is extremely negative, extremely negative.
But deportation to Russia? Both Latynina and Svetov? I would consider that… Well, I hope that this will not happen. I am almost certain that it will not happen. And that is very good. Because no matter how we feel about Latynina or Svetov, no matter what we think of them, the fact remains that a criminal case has been initiated against Svetov in Russia, and both of them have been declared foreign agents. And obviously, deportation—especially deportation specifically to Russia—seems simply impossible to me.
Because typically, in cases of deportation, if a country considers someone a threat, the person is usually asked where they should be deported to. This generally applies only to countries that have an extradition agreement with Russia, which could make such a thing possible. As far as I understand, Svetov is in South America, and Latynina is in the European Union, so the likelihood of their deportation to Russia is practically nonexistent.
But in any case, even if we imagine that such an opportunity existed, I am categorically against it. No matter how one feels about certain people, handing over someone who has a criminal case against them—for political reasons, in Svetov’s case—into the hands of a fascist regime is simply unacceptable. No matter how repulsive we may find what he is saying now. The same applies to Latynina. I am categorically against it. That does not change my negative attitude toward these two figures.
Why Orbán and Fico Won’t Leave the EU Link to heading
Alla Uvarova
Please explain why Orbán and Fico won’t leave the EU like the UK did if they are against everything? If they adore Putin so much, why are they still in the EU?
Well, you know, to be honest, I don’t remember the exact figures offhand, but we’re talking about billions. That’s how much they receive from the EU in direct subsidies. It’s billions, and that’s significant. Yes, they pay some contributions, but the overall balance is in their favor.
Secondly, EU membership means a borderless existence with no tariffs. In reality, this ensures the free movement of people, goods, and capital. That is, of course, a huge advantage, and without it, their economies would immediately start to decline. The populations of these countries would be extremely dissatisfied, even if they currently support their leaders. I know there are now large petitions calling on Fico to withdraw from certain agreements, and so on. But in reality, that’s just populism.
So, what are their real motives? These are people who, on the one hand, undermine the European house, but on the other, fully enjoy its warmth, hospitality, generosity, and all the benefits that come with membership. It’s a simple situation: they trash Europe but, of course, have no intention of leaving it.
Why the British Crown Doesn’t Respond to Trump’s Statements About Annexing Canada Link to heading
Diana,
I’d love to hear your opinion—why doesn’t the British Crown publicly respond to Trump’s remarks about annexing Canada as the 51st U.S. state?
By the way, Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Canadian goods and once again made demands. Listen, that’s a whole separate, serious analysis of what he’s doing and how soon life in the United States itself is going to change.
So, Diana asks:
Why doesn’t the British Crown respond to Trump’s remarks about annexing Canada as the 51st U.S. state? After all, Canada—like Australia and New Zealand—is under the protection of the United Kingdom.
Dear Diana! Well, in general, the King of the United Kingdom is a British monarch—a very specific institution that does not involve political commentary. That is, the King does not make public political statements. He may make certain gestures—like, for example, hosting Zelensky. I believe he met with Zelensky for a second time, which is something he doesn’t usually do. That was clearly a gesture against Trump.
But the King does not issue political statements. The very nature of the British monarchy does not involve direct reactions to political events. That is the role of Parliament members and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should be the one responding to such matters, but not the King. The King does not lower himself to such things—he does not fuss and does not act hastily. That is simply the role and status of the British monarch. Kings do not pass judgment, nor do they rush into things. And, as far as I know, British monarchs do not make public political statements—at least not since the monarchy became a symbolic rather than ruling institution.
What Can the People Do to Change the Government? Link to heading
Nadezhda Kotik—Nadezhda is a sponsor of our channel, for which we thank her.
What can the people do to change their government, their lives? In my opinion, nothing. Yes, there have always been intelligent, brave people who resisted and fought. But what have they achieved? Yes, they are heroes, but power is stronger—it destroys, kills, suppresses, and dominates. History knows of Hitler’s fascism, Stalin, Putin, and now Trump with Musk. Many people understand what is happening, yet everything continues as it always has. The people can protest or remain silent—it still turns out that only the elites can change the government. Isn’t that the case? Even in democratic America, fascism is already in the air. What can be done? You might point to Ukraine as an example, but even there, change only happened because the elites wanted it. If it had come solely from the people, it wouldn’t have succeeded.
Dear Nadezhda, of course, there is some truth in your words. But at the same time—excuse me—who elected Trump? Who voted for him? Again, who chose him? Was it not 77 million Americans? Is that not the people?
The people, therefore, have the power to act in the next elections. You ask, What can people do? Well, they can already do something. Let me put it this way: people can vote for Democrats in 2026, leaving Trump without congressional support. That would create a completely different situation. People can also resist in tangible ways—by supporting governors who oppose Trump. And that is real.
The main barriers to Trump’s absolute power lie in federalism. In fact, by our standards, the way the U.S. is structured is more like a confederation than a federation. So there are many checks and balances.
Street protests are also important. And let’s not forget—America is an armed country. Unlike in Russia, where fighting the security forces is futile, here it is quite effective. And the security forces know this. So yes, there is a lot of truth in your words, but at the same time, I wouldn’t absolve people of responsibility—especially in the United States.
Does Trump Need a Psychiatrist or a Psychologist? Link to heading
Marat
Perhaps I am being overly categorical. Nevertheless, I believe that Trump’s words and actions should be analyzed not by political scientists and economists like Aleksashenko, not by former officials like Kokh, and not by ex-engineers like Solonin, but by psychiatrists and psychotherapists. At the very least, by psychologists. Do you agree? At least partially? And in this regard, shouldn’t we invite Andrey Bilzho or one of his former colleagues?
Well, perhaps it would be worth inviting psychiatrists and psychologists as well. I’m always in favor of diversity on our channel. But overall, I still believe that Trump is medically healthy—just as Putin is, medically speaking.
As for his political and psychological state—well, he’s a sociopath. And if we’re talking about Musk, that’s an outright diagnosis. But, you know, I don’t think a psychiatric analysis would reveal too much. It would certainly add something, but this is hardly a case where a purely psychiatric perspective could replace economic, social, sociological, or political analysis. I see it as an addition, but not a decisive one.
About the Religion of Animal Link to heading
Question from Lemeshev
Religion implies the rejection of medical and other experiments on animals. This is a matter of religion. Animal implies the rejection of medical and other experiments on animals. If not, then where is the line? If it’s okay to experiment on a mouse, but not on a dolphin or a gorilla, where is the boundary? Personally, I support only livestock breeding for the purpose of feeding oneself—chickens, sheep, cows, and so on. Do you think humanity will ever come to prohibit hunting wild animals? I’m not talking about emergencies, cases where rabid wolves or foxes pose a threat. But how can licenses be issued for the killing of completely defenseless moose, lynxes, deer, boars, and others? This is pure perversion.
Dear colleague,
You see, the religion of Animal is one of the projects that is very important and dear to me, something I would gladly engage in if not for this war, if not for what is happening right now. And there is a certain psychological difficulty for me in thoroughly answering this question at the moment. It’s like being present at a fire and someone asking, “What do you think about Goya’s works?” or “What do you think about Karajan’s music?” I have opinions; I am interested in art and culture, though I don’t consider myself an expert. I would be happy to have a broad, thoughtful discussion about it. But right now, it’s hard to switch focus. That said, the question has been asked, and I preface my answer this way because I ask for some understanding: I am answering it under fire, in a state of war.
Now, a short answer, because I definitely don’t have the energy for a long one. I believe that what I call the religion of Animal is the further development of humanism and its extension to all living beings, primarily animals. This is something to be realized in the long run. Some things, however, should be implemented immediately. First and foremost, sport hunting must be banned. I consider it an atavism, something that should disappear just as cannibalism has. Sport hunting must vanish as an activity for civilized people. That’s the first point.
I also think that using animals for entertainment—such as in circuses—should gradually be phased out. Progress in this direction is already happening. In Britain, as far as I know, fox hunting—a traditional but extremely cruel pastime—has been banned. Bullfighting is also gradually fading into the past; in some places, it’s already prohibited, while in others, it is on the verge of being banned. Even though it has been an important part of Spanish culture, I believe it will also eventually disappear.
As for other aspects you mentioned, such as experiments on animals, that is a more complex issue. Ultimately, I believe that such experiments will also gradually be prohibited. Right now, an immediate ban would be difficult to implement. However, there is an ongoing reduction in the types of animals that can be subjected to experiments. Determining where to draw the line, at what level of development human empathy extends to different species, is a challenging process.
Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another’s place. Can we empathize with a dog? Absolutely—dogs and cats live alongside humans in close emotional contact. Can we empathize with primates, especially great apes? Yes. Dolphins? Yes. But as we move further down the evolutionary ladder, the ability to empathize becomes more complex. For example, it is harder to relate to an arthropod. This also involves understanding which species are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Some living organisms do not feel pain at all.
Religion Animal was never conceived solely as a humanistic or advocacy project—it was also meant to be a research project. Some aspects remain underdeveloped. I believe that in the long run, humanity will abandon livestock farming. But this won’t happen through rigid bans; rather, it will come through the development of alternative ways to produce meat and protein without killing animals. This field is being actively researched, particularly in Israel, although lab-grown meat is still very expensive.
So, this is a long process—one of expanding humanism to include animals. That is the best way I can briefly answer this big question, which somewhat falls outside the current agenda.
Closing Words Link to heading
Dear friends, that concludes our morning stream for today. A reminder that at 17:00, we will have Berezovets—a political analyst and a serving major in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I believe it will be an interesting discussion. Take care. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom for Alexander Skobov! By the way, Alexander Skobov’s wife mentioned that there are already some prison notes written by him. I will publish them with great interest and respect. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives. See you at 17:00! All the best!
Source: https://youtu.be/FWLXCAcj1AI