Trump is pushing scientists out of the U.S., while Europe, Canada, and China are welcoming them with open arms.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 6th. It’s 07:41 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Another Wave of Strikes on Ukraine Link to heading
Putin’s unwavering commitment to peace continues. In particular, it manifested in the fact that at 2:00 AM, Kharkiv was under a massive attack by Russian combat drones. More than 20 strikes were carried out on the city. There are casualties, including fatalities. Strikes were also carried out—Russian strikes—on Odesa and a number of other cities. Ukraine responded. In particular, there were drone strikes on Moscow. Here, I can only refer to Sobyanin’s statements, as he continuously reported throughout the night how many drones were shot down, and also mentioned that debris from a Ukrainian drone fell on a residential building on Kashirskoye Highway, which is quite significant. And also on the Kremlin route. So basically, all of Russia’s most important strategic sites are currently under threat. The Ukrainian drone attack led to the closure of airports—first in Moscow during the night, and later in Kaluga, Volgograd, and Saratov. So this is just the breath of peace. You can practically feel it more each day.
Trump Back in His Fantasies Link to heading
It turns out that Trump saw something. That is, he seems to have some special vision—he saw great potential in this three-day truce-for-talks, or rather, for victory—this promised three-day ceasefire. Trump saw great prospects here. He stated the following: “I think we’ve come a long way, and maybe something will happen. We hope it will.” As you know, Putin announced a three-day ceasefire. Sorry if that doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a big deal. If you know where we started, and we had—well, as always, he finished with a crushing blow against the absent Biden. “We had a president who didn’t talk to Putin for three years. Now we have a president who promises to talk to Putin but never gets around to it.”
By the way, about the portrait in papal garb. On Friday, Trump posted this portrait to his own social network. The portrait was then published on the White House website. And yesterday, Monday, Trump said the following: “I have nothing to do with this.” On his own site, on Trump’s own page on his social network, he didn’t clarify further. He said he had nothing to do with the image. “Someone created a picture of me in a Pope outfit and posted it on the Internet. I didn’t do it,” Trump said regarding the image that appeared on his own account. “I don’t know anything about it,” he added. “But last night, actually, my wife thought it was cute.”
In addition, Trump claims that Catholics liked it, and the fake news media just can’t take a joke. Furthermore, Trump said there might be a meeting with Putin in mid-May in Saudi Arabia. Immediately, Peskov stated that there is no such trip on the Russian president’s schedule. A classic reference to that humorous old song—“We were both waiting, I was at the pharmacy, you were at the movies.” So, in short, that’s the story: Trump is waiting to meet Putin in Saudi Arabia, but Putin isn’t planning to go there—at least for now.
The Beginning of the Brain Drain from the U.S. Link to heading
And finally, the main topic is that tectonic changes are truly taking place. In fact, the chaos Trump has created is producing tectonic—so to speak—brotherly changes. A miracle that no one could have expected has occurred. It is now clearly visible: the brain drain from the United States of America. And let’s start with the fact that some countries did not miss the opportunity to take advantage of this. Because scientists, researchers, professors, and professionals in the fields of science, education, and medicine are the most important capital. When Trump talks about making America great again, it’s important to remember that America was made great primarily by immigrant scientists who came to the U.S. from many different countries—first from Europe, then from China, India, and beyond. That is what made America great. Because at the core of America’s greatness lie science, education, technology—all the foundations of the modern economy.
And now, at this very moment, the European Commission is gleefully rubbing its hands together, preparing to allocate an additional €500 million to attract scientists from the United States. This is part of a new program called “Choose Europe for Science.” This was happily announced yesterday, May 5th, by Ursula von der Leyen. So it’s quite clear what the cunning plan is—von der Leyen wants to turn American chaos into opportunities for Europe. It’s a remarkable story: American chaos is creating opportunities for many—certainly for China, and for Europe. And just yesterday, in a conversation with Serhii Grabskyi, we even discussed the potential opportunities for Ukraine. If NATO is falling apart, some kind of new European security structure might emerge—in which Ukraine could find its place, unlike in NATO.
Back to the issue of the brain drain: Macron, also gleefully rubbing his hands, believes Europe should provide refuge for American scientists amid threats to academic freedom in the United States. Here’s what he said yesterday: “No one would have thought that this great democracy, whose economic model is so dependent on scientific freedom, would make such a mistake.” Indeed, in Trump’s first 100 days, he launched a real offensive, a true attack on science and education. First, he froze $1 billion in federal grants intended for education and science. And this is already having results. For example, the journal Fitch recently conducted a large-scale survey among American scientists: 75% of those surveyed expressed a desire to leave the United States.
What else could be expected after Trump demanded Congress cut spending at the National Institutes of Health by 37% and at the National Science Foundation by more than 50%? Another study showed that reducing government R&D funding by 25% could shrink U.S. GDP by an amount comparable to the drop during the Great Depression. This same study also showed that Americans would, on average, be $10,000 poorer than they would be otherwise.
One could go on and on about Trump’s war against American universities—especially the Ivy League. Institutions like Yale, Columbia, Harvard, and Northwestern have all suffered. The U.S. Department of Education announced that $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard would be frozen. In addition, another $1 billion in grants would be frozen across the board. As a result, many scientists have already started actively looking for new jobs. For example, Oxford University in the UK has reported receiving over 20 inquiries from American researchers. A Swedish research university is also in talks with American scientists. Canada, too, has stated that its research centers could become a welcome home for talented American scientists.
In the end, I think Trump is succeeding. He has managed to damage the U.S. economy, and I believe his many efforts to make America poorer—and, I would say, dumber—are bearing fruit. Because this kind of brain drain is not only irreversible, but it’s also fundamentally changing the national atmosphere. So yes, I think Trump is succeeding. Whether this is good for the world remains to be seen. After all, nature abhors a vacuum. The exodus of scientists to Europe, Canada—and to some extent China—will reshape global science. Though I believe China will attract fewer of them, since science and education require freedom, and China is no place for that. So most scientists will likely go to Europe, maybe to Canada, and perhaps to some other regions that offer freedom.
As for the U.S.—well, I don’t know. Of course, you could say four years will fly by unnoticed, but some processes are irreversible. I think the brain drain is one of those. The United States once became the greatest country in the world thanks to immigrants—thanks to the relocation of brilliant minds to a land that offered freedom. Today, the situation has changed.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Today is a very… I want to say right away that I didn’t have time to gather all the questions to answer them for a number of reasons, including the fact that today is a very busy day, and I simply don’t have time—don’t have time to respond. And it’s a busy day partly because we have several interesting conversations lined up, which I want to tell you about today. Before I start answering your questions, I want to mention that today at 13:00 we’ll have a conversation with Vladimir Osechkin, at 17:00 with Abbas Gallyamov, and at 20:00 with Mikhail Sheitelman. As you can see, it’s a diverse lineup of speakers, a variety of experts. I believe we’ll be able to thoroughly discuss the pressing issues—many of which I myself don’t know the answers to. That’s exactly why we have people who can seriously complement my monologues, because real thinking can only be done together. So today at 13:00 we’ll be thinking together with Vladimir Osechkin, at 17:00 with Abbas Gallyamov, and at 20:00 with Mikhail Sheitelman. Now, let me move on to answering your questions. So.
What Could Make the Author Believe in God Link to heading
So, a question from Lenin A.—actually two of them. What is the value of life if you believe that humanity is the result of a plasma discharge formed about 14 billion years ago? And every person will rot in 200 years, the Earth will fall apart into elementary particles in another 1,000,000,000,000 years, and be plunged into eternal darkness. Have you ever thought about what would have to happen in your life for you to believe in the Lord God?
Well, I’ll start by answering this question. First of all, dear colleague, you’re using a sophistic trick—what’s called a straw man. You’re attributing views to me that are actually your own. I’ve never said that humanity is the result of a plasma discharge and so on. That’s a caricatured understanding of an atheistic or agnostic worldview. I’ve never said anything like that, so it’s pointless.
But if we set aside the form and address the essence of your question, then I can say this. What is the value of human life? Its value lies in life itself. You know, if we compare my views on the value of life with the views of people who believe in an afterlife, I think my views are actually more substantiated. Because I believe we have one life—our first, only, and last. And that’s what gives it value. That’s why I think the value of human life, for people who think the way I do, is quite high. But if you believe that you have a backup afterlife, then the value of this worldly life is reduced. Why cherish it if you have another one in reserve?
So, if we think in those terms, I believe that my perspective on the value of life is much more grounded than that of people who believe in the afterlife. As for what might happen in my life to make me believe in the Lord God—well, I think a different life would have to happen. In order for me to believe in God, I would have had to be born into a religious family. Probably. Even then, not necessarily. But in any case, it would have to be a different life, a different biography, a different person. Could something happen in my current life to make me believe in God? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think anything could make me believe in the Lord God. So I think that belongs more to the realm of science fiction.
Evaluation of the Literary Character Isaev Link to heading
And the second question is from Lemesh. I fully agree with your opinion on Zheglov. My question is about Stierlitz, also known as Maksim Maksimovich Isaev and Vsevolod Vladimirov—the hero of Semyonov’s novels. So, is Vsevolod Vladimirov a ghoul? I think yes. If we evaluate in black-and-white terms, working for the Cheka during the Civil War says a lot.
You know, I really don’t like giving evaluations of literary characters. These school-style mock trials of characters like Eugene Onegin—they’re not entirely meaningless, but they’re just not my thing. So, as for the character of Stierlitz—Isaev, Vsevolod Vladimirov—Semyonov created a whole gallery of characters. I don’t know... I just don’t think it’s fair to call him a ghoul or anything like that. In the image of Stierlitz, as a participant in World War II, he was, broadly speaking, on the right side of history. If we’re being objective, the Red Army—which Stierlitz was helping by fighting fascism—was, at that moment, on the right side. So, I can’t call him a ghoul.
As for the Civil War—well, again, I think this kind of black-and-white thinking, where the Whites were the truly “white” side, is also very debatable. So I believe that, especially when it comes to literary characters, it’s not really appropriate to judge them in such stark moral categories—particularly characters like those in Yulian Semyonov’s works. In short, I don’t support that kind of categorical judgment.
Is Russia Suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Link to heading
A question from Aldo Baran: Tell me, please—is the Putin regime suffering from Stockholm syndrome? Or after 25 years, is it already a different diagnosis?
Well, if I understood you correctly, the way you phrased the question is a bit off. I think you probably meant to ask not whether the Putin regime suffers from Stockholm syndrome, but whether the population of Russia under the Putin regime does. That’s how I interpreted your question—because otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense in the way it’s worded.
If I’m right, then yes—the Russian population is certainly suffering from Stockholm syndrome, just as it has in the past. Stockholm syndrome is when hostages start to sympathize with their captors, identifying with them and seeing themselves as part of the same whole. So yes, Stalin’s regime was a pure case of national Stockholm syndrome: the more intense the repression, the more people loved their executioner. And we’re seeing a similar situation under the Putin regime. Yes, I would say so. And I don’t think anything has fundamentally changed. This Stockholm syndrome among the population is definitely present. And I think that’s the correct diagnosis.
Bykov’s Attitude Toward Arestovych Link to heading
Alex, Alex: Yesterday I watched Bykov—Dmitry Bykov—on the air with Plyushchev. So, he made a statement about Arestovych—glowingly, saying he invites him to lecture his students in America, and that he simply loves him. I thought Bykov was a decent guy. But after such statements, I’m puzzled. Please explain—what is this?
You know, dear colleague, I’m not quite sure what “decent guy” means exactly, though I assume it’s a positive assessment. But you’re suggesting we evaluate Bykov as a political analyst. I think that’s a mistake—because Bykov as a political analyst is simply a zero. You can evaluate him in different ways as a writer—I’m not going to do that—or as a poet, and again, I’m not going to do that either. As a person who has been labeled a foreign agent and, to my knowledge, is now facing criminal charges in Russia, he is clearly, broadly speaking, on the right side of history. That’s obvious. But as a political analyst, he’s a zero.
I actually took an interest in your question, and last night I managed to watch that episode—albeit in fast-forward mode. He was there with Viktor Anatolyevich Shenderovich, as a guest of Plyushchev. And I want to correct you: he didn’t say he “loves” Arestovych the way bloggers or fans might say it. He said he loves him as a literary character—someone he’s sorry to part with. He used the example of Gogol, who loved Pushkin—not in a personal sense, but as a figure in literature. So I think that’s what he meant.
That said, it’s true that both Bykov and Viktor Shenderovich spoke rather leniently—and I’d even say indulgently—about Arestovych. That just shows, among other things, that Bykov evaluates people based on personal taste. He likes Arestovych as a character, invites him to his classes, etc. Again, this confirms Bykov’s value as a political analyst is zero. Bykov is an incredibly well-read person with many strengths—including his quick thinking. He has a strong associative mind—he writes fast, reads fast, thinks fast. These are the qualities of someone working in a certain creative realm.
But that doesn’t mean we should take his political commentary seriously or treat his opinions about politicians as valuable. He’s capable of making absolutely idiotic statements rooted in his nostalgia for the Soviet Union. In short, he’s just not someone who belongs in the category of serious political analysts. It’s a mistake to view him that way.
So I wouldn’t assign any serious weight to Dmitry Lvovich’s comments. Arestovych is undeniably a traitor. And by the way, one particularly telling phrase stuck out to me—Bykov said that by imposing sanctions on Arestovych, Zelensky was “elevating him to his level,” making him equal. That’s just nonsense. More Bykov foolishness. Because think about it: when the West imposes sanctions on war criminals—do Britain, France, or the EU raise those criminals to their level? When Macron or Biden imposes sanctions on war criminals, are they elevating them to the level of the U.S. or France? Of course not. That’s utter nonsense.
The entire program was more literary in nature. Both Dmitry Lvovich and Viktor Anatolyevich are deeply cultured, widely read people—not only in Russian culture, but in world literature. So for some, their literary conversation may have been interesting. But when it came to political topics, I think the value of their dialogue diminished considerably. Again, that’s my personal opinion. And you asked for it.
Should a Journalist Be Sincere or Just Honest? Link to heading
Elza Pen: Should a journalist be sincere, or is honesty enough? And second question: is a black-and-white worldview a sign of weak cognitive abilities, or do you see it differently?
Dear Elza, to be honest, I don’t quite draw a fine distinction between sincerity and honesty. I’m not sure what the difference is. I’m trying, as I speak, to think it through—I copied your question from the comments but didn’t have time to reflect on it beforehand. Now, as I read it, I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between sincerity and honesty—but so far, I don’t see one.
As for whether a black-and-white worldview is a sign of weak cognitive ability—not always. I believe that sometimes it’s simply a position. A person can have strong cognitive abilities and still, in times of war, deliberately choose to abandon the full spectrum and narrow their evaluation to black and white. That’s possible. It’s a matter of choice. A conscious decision to discard nuance and reduce everything to black and white.
It’s not a perspective I personally share—I’m not a supporter of such an approach—but I do understand it. So I don’t think it necessarily indicates diminished cognitive capacity.
The Religion of Animal as a Unifying Liberal Idea Link to heading
Question from Yulia: Yesterday you raised the issue of a new concept for modern liberalism, a new style, new ideas that could gain support. I know the answer to that, but will it find support? Yulia asks. There is both an idea and a style that can unite people. Strangely enough at first glance, it is the Religion of Animal. But let’s be realistic. For now, it will remain a research project. No one is going to defend a snail’s rights in court just yet. That’s for future centuries. But we do have a foundation to build on. Why not base it on Dutch legislation and form a coalition of countries united by their animal laws? The goal would be minimal involvement—maximum involvement of other countries. You said we can hardly influence anything—but we still can. But first, this needs discussion, and we should invite an economist, jointly draft a set of rules, and only then present it for consideration. I’m sure we will find support among many people. What do you think?
Dear Yulia, I’m absolutely convinced that the very idea of a religion—or rather, a worldview—centered on a departure from anthropocentrism can indeed unite a significant, though undoubtedly minority, portion of people. As a counterbalance to Trumpism—well, that clearly won’t work. Because the idea itself, this movement, yes—it unites people with a humanistic, modern view of the world, people with a high level of tolerance and empathy. But such people will be a minority.
So, as a counterweight to Trumpism, it’s not suitable. It might form part of a broader movement, but as a core idea for renewing liberalism or liberal democracy, I don’t think it fits. Personally, I find the idea very appealing. But that’s not a reason to expect majority support. I’m absolutely convinced of that. It’s too avant-garde—too ahead of its time. Which means it’s not an idea for building a majority.
Why Are Neo-Fascists Winning in the Modern World? Link to heading
Aleksei Kabanov: It’s hard to disagree with your words about the spread of neo-fascism, vulgarity, and their appeal to a significant portion of voters—mostly uneducated, immature, or resentful people seeking simple solutions to all problems. But we live in the 21st century. Such people shouldn’t still make up the majority of voters. I’d like to hear your opinion on why figures like Simeon win elections so easily and frequently. I’m referring to the Romanian elections. From his platform, I only understood that he wants to be a Romanian Trump, annex Moldova, grab part of Ukraine, and stop funding Ukrainian refugees. And parties like Georgian Dream, which won under the strange slogan “Vote for the Dream or Georgia will be like Ukraine.” Are the majority of voters really so easily swayed by threats or persuasion? Do they believe any insane promise? Or is the problem that liberal and democratic forces, running in opposition to vulgarity and neo-fascism, have become too relaxed and don’t understand the importance of intensive campaign work and real political struggle?
You know, dear Aleksei, as for the elections in Romania—why this happened—well, one candidate was removed, and another just like him took his place. That tells us that a significant portion—if not the majority—then at least 40% of Romanian voters, as shown by the results, support these positions. I must say honestly: I don’t have an answer about Romania, simply because I don’t want to spout clichés. One has to really understand the internal dynamics of Romania, and I don’t. So maybe we need a specialist or expert who knows the situation from the inside.
By the way, we have a wonderful expert—Oazu Nantoi, a member of the Moldovan parliament. I think I’ll ask our colleagues to invite him so we can better understand what’s going on. I think he would be the ideal person to assess the situation in Romania. As for what’s going on there—I can’t say for sure. You have to know the internal levers of the Romanian situation.
As for Georgian Dream, we’ve more or less figured that one out together. The problem is that Georgian Dream managed—first, quite literally—to buy the parliament. And second, and more importantly, they managed to play on fear. Russia’s menacing breath—the toxic presence of the Russian empire—poisons everything. The message was: if you don’t vote for Georgian Dream, you’ll end up like Ukraine. The constant threat of bombed-out buildings and murdered civilians worked. That narrative worked.
So with Georgia, it’s more or less clear. With Romania—not so much. And by the way, thank you, Aleksei, for prompting the idea that we should invite Oazu. Because what’s happening in Romania is important and interesting. It’s a very significant development.
What Are Liberals and Democrats Doing Wrong That They Can’t Defeat Populists? Link to heading
A question from Andrey: So what are mainstream liberals and democrats in Europe and the U.S. doing wrong if such a huge percentage of the population ends up voting for their rivals—often with criminal inclinations? Don’t people fear becoming rightless under such new leadership? Why can’t the establishment learn from its mistakes, address key grievances, and, most importantly, explain who their opponents really are, with all their serious flaws? Why can’t they show that supporting Ukraine and democracy benefits ordinary people, helping them weigh the pros and cons rationally? Are they just incapable? Or are they too proud to speak directly to voters and explain things?
Well, as for Europe and the U.S.—it’s more or less clear what’s going on. First and foremost, it’s about the game. You see, populism is attractive. When people are promised a sweet life for free, essentially—well, how does Trump campaign? “Vote for me and I’ll end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Vote for me and I’ll eliminate unnecessary spending—you’ll be richer right away.” That’s populism. And unfortunately, it works.
Especially when Trump managed to win over some of the biggest media corporations—like the one now controlled by Elon Musk. To a large extent, Facebook and YouTube also bent to him. That gave him strong backing from the most influential media platforms.
What else is at play? A large part of the American public has grown deeply irritated by certain elements within the Democratic Party. The party has often followed the lead of its far-left wing—small in number but very active. This resulted in disproportionate attention to issues that the vast majority of Americans simply don’t care about—like gender theory and the proliferation of identities. These are fringe concerns for most voters, yet they were given excessive prominence.
And then there’s the classic idea: “Stop helping everyone else—we’re struggling ourselves.” I remember how popular that sentiment was in the Soviet Union. In America, people aren’t starving, of course, but the feeling that “we shouldn’t help others because we don’t have enough” is still quite popular.
So this appeal to base instincts—“Don’t help others,” “Focus on ourselves”—plus the simplicity of populist promises, all of it works.
And yes, elements of xenophobia play a role, too—especially around uncontrolled migration, which has become a major issue in Europe. The backlash against it has fueled right-wing populist victories.
In the U.S., another critical factor is the Democrats’ choice to cling to a clearly unelectable candidate—Biden—who, frankly, is physically no longer capable of competing with someone like Trump. Even though Trump isn’t young either, he comes off as energetic—he dances, he moves. Biden, on the other hand, comes across as lacking vitality. And that, too, has made a real difference.
List of Russian Companies to Boycott Link to heading
And now a question from Ubludok Jones—questions and suggestions: Do you think the resistance and opposition need a unified database of all the brands and companies run by the ghouls who’ve taken over our country? Maybe if there were such a Wikipedia-style database, anyone could look it up and decide which brand to boycott. Because remembering every clip from every opposition channel with Stalin codes, or trying to dig up the business of a particular scumbag, is nearly impossible. But here—bam!—a site exists. You can use it to work with friends and family, open some eyes, and in case of a major scandal, you don’t have to dig—you rely on a trusted resource. Please talk to Kasparov—maybe he can raise the topic and find experts. We won’t get Khodorkovsky-level funding, but still…
The issue isn’t just funding—though yes, that’s a problem too. The main thing is this: there are already a large number—well, a significant number—of projects working in this very direction. If I understand you correctly, what you’re proposing is essentially a Russian version of Ukraine’s “Myrotvorets.” And here’s the catch: many such initiatives already exist.
For example, there’s the “Putin’s List” project—several different versions of it, in fact—with detailed justifications for why certain “bad actors” who support Putin are included. The Anti-Corruption Foundation has its own version. The Free Russia Foundation and the Forum of Free Russia have had similar initiatives. At one point, Mark Feygin was involved in such a project—then he fell out with the Forum and launched his own. The Forum kept running its own version—again, something like a “list of bad people,” Myrotvorets-style.
The problem is always subjectivity. I clearly remember discussions like, “Should we include this person in the list or not?” This always comes up. Sure, some names raise no questions—brands made by individuals already sanctioned by the U.S. or EU can be added without hesitation. But then come the gray areas. For instance: is simply working in Russia and paying taxes enough to justify boycotting a person’s products?
If that’s the logic, then you’d have to suggest that Russians stop buying anything from Russian stores and live off fresh air. There are a ton of methodological issues like this. And that, I think, is the core problem.
A second, very important argument: who is your audience for this project? People who’ve emigrated already don’t buy Russian goods. So the target is people inside Russia. But how effective is that? For example, if you suggest boycotting Sberbank—a company that 100% fits the criteria—or Alfa Bank, how many people would actually go along with that? How many pensioners will support you? I think the number would be so negligible that it’s not even worth the effort.
That’s my view—but think about it too.
Does Putin Know About the Crimes Being Committed? Link to heading
A person calling themselves “Zad i Rot” writes the following: In your opinion, what kind of information bubble does Putin live in? Is he at all interested in what’s happening around him, or does he form opinions solely based on folders handed to him by loyal aides? Even if he doesn’t use the internet, surely someone close to him—Alina, for example—does. Or has he simply decided not to trust this “internet of yours,” seeing it as a tool of the Western world? What about the shaman Sasha’s march to Moscow—do you think Putin knew about it? Was it his order to torment Golyshev, or does he live in a world where no living beings exist? That leads to the next question—could this situation be seen as a mitigating factor for Putin’s personal responsibility at a hypothetical trial? Or is being an ignorant person in the 21st century already a crime—and being head of state makes it doubly so?
Dear colleague, I don’t think it can be considered a mitigating factor at all. It doesn’t matter whether someone commits a crime out of ignorance or conviction. As for Putin, the theory that he “doesn’t know something” seems to me to have zero credibility. So yes, Putin undoubtedly has folders that include information about Golyshev and everyone else.
Now, is there distortion in the information he receives? Yes, absolutely. If he had full, accurate information about Ukraine—about Ukrainian public sentiment and the capacity of the Ukrainian Armed Forces—he might still have invaded, but he would have done so differently: concentrating all forces in one direction, not launching a scattered offensive on nine fronts. That mistake clearly stemmed from bad information.
But that in no way softens the charges. These are two separate issues. One: yes, he lives in an information bubble. Two: that does not reduce the seriousness of the accusations that will inevitably be brought against him.
Does Sport Replace War? Link to heading
A question from Marat: This question was inspired by your broadcast with Kirill Nabutov. There’s a common opinion that sport, to some extent, replaces war, and that playing or watching sports lowers aggression levels in society. I used to agree with that, but later began to doubt it. There are quite a few counterexamples—football hooligans, the organized sports scene, the Football War between El Salvador and Honduras, and so on. I read somewhere that studies have been conducted refuting this theory, but I don’t know the details. Are you familiar with any research on the impact of sport on society? If so, could you describe their methodology? How reliable are they?
Well, let’s start with the war between Honduras and El Salvador—the so-called Football War of 1969. It’s important to note that this conflict was not truly a “football war.” There was a long-standing conflict, a prolonged standoff between the two countries. There were territorial disputes, tensions around migration, and other deep-rooted issues. Yes, there were three football matches that triggered an outburst of outrage among fans, but they served more as a pretext than a cause. The real reasons were much deeper and definitely not related to sport.
As for the research—you know, I’m not familiar with any serious studies that thoroughly evaluate the role of sport and its impact on society. I mean deep, comprehensive studies. There are plenty of rather obvious studies—the kind you’d file under “Captain Obvious”—that say things like “exercise is good” and so on.
There are studies showing the negative impact of sport on society, certainly. These include commercialization, the role of doping which harms health, and, as you rightly mentioned, organized hooliganism around sports. There are specific studies focusing on specific features. But I haven’t seen or read any comprehensive analysis. So this is actually a question, in my view, that’s still waiting for the right researcher.
Maybe such work already exists. My problem is that in recent years, caught in a kind of hamster-wheel routine, I simply haven’t had the time to read professional sociological literature. So I’m sure I’ve missed something. But unfortunately, that’s how it is.
As for the so-called Football War—it’s football in name only.
Is AfD the Only Protection Against Migration? Link to heading
So, Maxim from Kirov—who is a sponsor of our channel, for which I’m very grateful—asks: Igor Aleksandrovich, I’ve long wanted to ask: do you really believe that the categorical unwillingness of more and more people in Europe to let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from Islamic countries into their nations—to be forced to live side by side with them, to endure the distortions of their specific culture—is, in your view, fascism?
Dear Maxim! First of all, I want to point out that the strawman tactic you’ve used against me here is, well, a sophistic trick. You’re attributing to me views I’ve never expressed. So, please—if we want to have a real dialogue—ask concrete questions, not create a caricature of some idiot and then ask, “Do you really think this way?” No, of course I don’t.
If we get specific, I assume you’re referring to the German government’s decision to classify the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) as extremist. Let’s be clear: they haven’t labeled it fascist—although it does have certain fascist features. Now, let’s look at the grounds for that decision.
Here’s what the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said: The party’s core concept of “the people” is based on ethnic origin, which is incompatible with a democratic system. It excludes certain population groups from equal participation in society and thus takes a nationalist, racist, or xenophobic stance—or outright rejects ethnic or cultural minorities.
So the issue isn’t that someone has to “endure the distortions of a specific culture.” The problem is that AfD doesn’t recognize as full Germans people who have roots in other countries—especially Muslim-majority ones. Someone who immigrated long ago, obtained citizenship, lives in Germany—AfD still wants to treat them as a second-class citizen. That’s the issue.
We should be evaluating people by their actions—not their origin. The moment you judge a person by where they come from, you’re a xenophobe or a racist. No way around it. If someone came from Turkey (a Muslim country), and you say that this person, even though they’re a citizen—or second or third generation born in Germany—is not a “real” German, that’s textbook racism. That’s the very same Nazi logic from 1930s–40s Germany: “You’re Jewish? Then you’re not a proper German.”
This is exactly the stance AfD takes. And it’s why German politicians and analysts consider the party a threat to democracy. And they’re right. It is xenophobia. Because no one is arguing against tightening immigration policy—that’s a separate discussion. But dividing people by their roots? That’s outright Nazism.
And yes, I call that fascism. It’s a collective term in this context. So please don’t attribute to me views I’ve never held. Imposing order on immigration policy is one thing. Dividing people by their ancestry, as AfD does? That’s racism and fascism in pure form.
By the way, a recent poll showed that 61% of Germans—including both western and eastern regions—agree with classifying AfD as extremist. Even in East Germany, where AfD has strong support. So nearly two-thirds of Germans support that classification. They clearly don’t define fascism the way you do.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, with great regret, I must once again admit that I didn’t manage to answer all the questions today. I’ve taken note of where we left off, and I promise to make it up to you tomorrow—that is, I’ll respond to all the questions you’ve asked. With that, I conclude our conversation for today. Once again, a reminder: today at 13:00 we’ll have Vladimir Osechkin, at 17:00 Abbas Gallyamov, and at 20:00 Mikhail Sheitelman. Each of these people, I believe, is interesting in their own way, so stay with us. Take care of yourselves. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Alexander Skobov and all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian POWs! See you at 13:00 with Vladimir Osechkin. Goodbye!
Source: https://youtu.be/yo76uqLOx-4