The consequences for the U.S. of anti-immigration orders, tourist detentions, and Trump’s rudeness. Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world – what’s wrong with it.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 17th. It’s 07:41 in Kyiv right now, and we continue our morning reflection on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls. Let me start with the news.
A New Argument from Putin in the Negotiations Link to heading
Negotiation news. Last night, a new remark came from Putin – drone strikes on Dnipro. As a result, three people were killed, including a child. Well, this is yet another so-called argument. As I understand it, one of Putin’s peacekeeping gestures. According to preliminary data, 22 to 28 people were injured, including four children. So, these are the kinds of peace messages Putin is sending.
The Rare Earth Elements Deal Is Moving Forward Link to heading
Well, apparently, the negotiations between the United States of America and Ukraine regarding this so-called deal of the century, the resource deal, are actually making some progress, because suddenly and unexpectedly, according to Bloomberg, the United States no longer wants $300 billion from Ukraine, but only $100 billion. Honestly, I never thought Ukrainian diplomacy could be this effective. At first, Trump was talking about $500 billion, then it was $350, then $300, and now it’s down to $100. I don’t know, maybe if Ukrainian diplomats keep pushing a little more, it might turn out that the United States actually owes something to Ukraine. In short, judging by this news, it looks like the deal might actually be heading toward some sort of signing.
The Closing of America Link to heading
The main topic I wanted to discuss with you today—well, actually, there are two—is what’s happening with Western journalism. And this broader theme of America closing down—what happens next? It’s not just about Trump’s anti-immigration orders, it’s about the overall change in attitude toward foreigners in recent months, ever since those anti-migrant executive orders and Trump’s openly hostile rhetoric toward other countries. U.S. immigration policy and law enforcement are increasingly detaining foreigners with valid visas. People arrive in the United States with proper visas and get detained, spending weeks in custody before returning home. According to statistics from March 2025, nearly 10% fewer people entered the U.S. compared to the same month in 2004. Those in the tourism industry say they’ve never seen such a decline in any region. Bookings for flights from the U.S. have dropped 20% since Trump’s inauguration. The tourism sector had been projected to grow by about 9%, but now it’s likely to decline by more than 5%. So the consequences of these anti-migrant orders for a globalized country like the United States have been overwhelming, because they affected real people—panic in multicultural families, chaos and despair at airports, where legal refugees, visa holders, and U.S. residents were being detained, removed from flights, and deported. Panic spread across universities and high-tech companies where thousands of citizens from Muslim countries study and work—people who suddenly became “illegal,” despite having valid documents. Google alone had to urgently recall nearly 200 of its employees to the U.S. There were even cases where Oscar winners were unable to attend the awards ceremony with their films. Another loud and scandalous story.
And you know, I keep hearing more and more often—even from respected people and my own interlocutors—when we discuss the issues surrounding the 47th president of the United States, the same phrase: “Don’t listen to what Trump says. Don’t pay attention to his words; look at what he does.” This comes from both Trump supporters and opponents. And every time, I strongly object to this viewpoint. What do you mean, “Don’t listen to what the president says”? The president of the most powerful, most influential country in the world? How can words not matter? We’re speaking right now—I’m streaming live at this very moment—and my words matter. I assure you, Trump’s words matter a million times more. Once again, words have meaning, and tremendous meaning. In the beginning was the Word.
It’s very telling: an analysis was conducted on the reasons why people are canceling or not booking trips to the United States. A frequent reason given was the rhetoric coming from Trump and his administration toward other countries—hostile rhetoric toward Europe, toward Canada, toward numerous other nations. It’s already clear who has benefited from Trump’s anti-immigration orders: Islamic radicals, first and foremost. Because, in essence, the president of the United States has confirmed the narrative they’ve been pushing with their terrorist acts for years—that a state of emergency is justified, and that the Islamic world is hostile to the United States. That’s two billion people who have now been declared enemies. And this is exactly the radical response terrorists were hoping to provoke from Western governments after numerous attacks in Europe—a tightening of the regime against all Muslims. It’s collective punishment, the same tactic used by fascists and Bolsheviks right after the revolution, after the October coup. Two billion Muslims received the message that they are considered hostile.
What’s more, the Muslim population in the West—officially now seen as outsiders—becomes fertile ground for radicalization. Even worse for the United States is the collapse of its reputation. The decline in the number of foreigners shows that the U.S. is losing its soft power, its influence that once came from openness, friendliness, and cultural leadership. Speaking of the economic impact of tourism decline—it may not be massive overall, although about 15 million Americans work in the tourism industry, so they will be affected—but the bigger issue is something else. The bigger problem is not just the drop in tourists, but in the number of people who, because of Trump’s hostile rhetoric and aggressive immigration enforcement, no longer want to come at all. Teachers, scientists, artists, entrepreneurs—they will start choosing other destinations. So far, the U.S. is still seen—mostly out of inertia—as the dream destination by many of my friends, relatives, and acquaintances. America is still viewed as the land of opportunity, the strongest country in the world where a person can come and fulfill their potential.
But now, that perception is changing before our eyes. So the U.S. isn’t just losing tourists—it’s losing its competitive edge. It’s losing prestige and turning into a closed society without prospects for development. I don’t know if four years of Trump will be enough to completely close America—I don’t think so, I’m sure it won’t—but he’s certainly doing everything he can to move it in that direction.
The Agency for Combating Foreign Information Interference Is Being Shut Down Link to heading
Another event that, in my opinion, is simply a gift to Putin is the closure of the unit responsible for combating foreign information interference. This was the State Department division that fought against disinformation, including Russian disinformation. Marco Rubio announced that he is shutting down this unit—the office for combating foreign information interference—because he believes it’s, so to speak, an issue of free speech. That it was somehow infringing on freedom of expression. So essentially, he’s saying it was censorship. What censorship? This was a fight against Russia Today and Sputnik. In effect, Marco Rubio is now speaking the language of Margarita Simonyan, who also believes that combating Russian disinformation is a violation of freedom of speech. So yes, this is pretty much a personal gift to Margarita Simonyan. I don’t know, I think her birthday already passed, but Marco Rubio decided to give her a belated present.
TIME’s List of the 100 Most Influential People in the World Link to heading
And finally, one more topic I want to talk about—a clear example of the journalism crisis. The example is the 2025 TIME magazine list of the 100 most influential people in the world. In the past, the publication of such a list always generated enormous interest—people paid attention, analyzed it, and it carried a certain prestige and weight. This time, I looked closely at the list, and you know, I realized it’s a clear sign of a deep journalistic crisis. Look at what’s happened. Many of my colleagues and like-minded people are celebrating the fact that, this time, there isn’t a single Russian on the list—not Putin, not any of his opponents. A great result. But by the way, Zelensky also isn’t there.
So first I’ll list some of the names that are included and not included, and then we’ll reflect on what that might mean. I’ll start with the “Leaders” category, because that’s something I can at least partially evaluate. There are other categories too—Titans, Pioneers, Icons, Artists, and Innovators. But let’s begin with leaders.
So who’s missing? Obviously, Putin is not there—he’s considered not one of the world’s 100 most influential politicians. OK. But pay attention—Xi Jinping is also missing. Xi Jinping is apparently not an influential politician. India’s Prime Minister Modi? Also not there. Meanwhile, practically Trump’s entire cabinet is featured: Commerce Secretary Howard Putnick, J.D. Vance, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Elon Musk, and so on. Zelensky is not there. Is Zelensky really less influential than dozens of others? The logic of the list’s creators, as far as I can tell, seems to follow the worldview of far-left human rights activists, who believe that an opposition figure in Venezuela is more influential than the Venezuelan dictator.
This approach is understandable, but then the list should be called something else—not the most influential politicians, but perhaps the most progressive politicians. That would make the absence of Xi Jinping understandable. But as it is, we’re being asked to believe that Xi Jinping is less influential than, say, Howard Ludwig or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or leaders of countries not even part of the G20. A man who leads a massive empire of 1.5 billion people and is currently in direct confrontation with the United States is not considered among the most influential politicians? Then call the list something else. And I’m not even talking about Putin—despite my revulsion toward him, his influence on the world is enormous and destructive. If the list is only for those with “positive” impact, then we have to define what “positive” even means.
Another small example that demonstrates the flawed principle behind the list: Tucker Carlson is not included. A repulsive figure, I agree. But is he not influential? Does he not exert influence? Meanwhile, someone like Megyn Kelly is included—yes, she’s a well-known journalist who interviewed Putin. She’s influential, for sure. But if we compare objective influence—Tucker Carlson in the U.S. and globally, versus Megyn Kelly—it’s clear, to my great dismay, that Carlson is more influential by every metric.
So again, this list reflects the preferences and sympathies of TIME magazine, rather than actual influence. What we’re seeing is a serious decline, in my view. This applies across the board. What I’ve previously observed about the Russian émigré community is, unfortunately, not unique—it’s part of a global trend, where entire fields turn into social circles and cliques. Objectivity is being replaced with personal preference. This journalism crisis, so clearly reflected in what used to be a meaningful publication—the TIME 100 list—is a stark illustration of that decline.
Q&A Link to heading
Dear friends, before I move on to answering your questions, I’d like to say that we have two very interesting guests today. At 11:00, Artemy Troitsky will join us, and of course, we’ll talk about current events and trends in music, including youth music—which, frankly, is something I don’t really understand. But there’s definitely a demand for it due to a number of events we’ve discussed earlier. So, at 11:00 – Artemy Troitsky, and at 19:00 – Ukrainian political analyst Yuriy Kristensen. Now, moving on to your questions.
On the Prospect of Civil Wars in the Event of Russia’s Collapse Link to heading
So, Larisa Smirnova complains that I missed her question on YouTube. But here it is. By the way, I’m really grateful to our colleagues who have taken it upon themselves to collect questions from the Telegram channel chat for me. Because while I do read all the comments under yesterday’s streams on YouTube, I don’t have time to read everything in the Telegram channel. So now we’ve agreed on a system, and I hope I’ll be more consistent, thanks to their help.
So, Larisa Smirnova asks:
“Maybe I’ll get lucky here. I’m interested in your opinion on the possibility of civil wars in the event of the collapse of the Russian state. Before the formation of a unified state under Moscow, the Russian lands consisted of principalities that constantly fought with one another. Are we about to repeat history?”
Well, I think that version of events is quite possible. I’m not sure, though, that it would take the form of full-fledged civil war between regions. Probably not. But that there would be turmoil—this is very, very likely. If we look at historical analogies, it’s not so much a war between principalities as it is a period of turmoil—more like the Time of Troubles at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century. But in fact, this state of turmoil didn’t occur only then—it’s something that has periodically recurred in Russian society.
On the Author’s Eyesight Link to heading
So, here’s a question from a subscriber who goes by “Orange for Melancholy,” and it’s a very personal one:
“How’s your eyesight? You’re always on air without glasses. I know you’ve read a lot of books—surely that’s had some effect. Do you wear contacts, or is your vision still good?”
No, dear colleague, my eyesight is terrible. I’ve worn glasses since childhood. It’s just that my current lifestyle doesn’t require me to wear them, because I hardly ever go outside. And when I do, I stick to familiar routes. I only really wear glasses when I go to the store—because I can’t see well there. But for the stuff I do online all the time, my nearsightedness is enough to get by. By the way, I wouldn’t rule out that at some point I may have to do something about my eyesight—but that’s no big deal.
On Ilya Yashin Opening a Public Reception Office in Berlin Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who goes by “user”:
“Please comment on Ilya Yashin opening a public reception office in Berlin. Well, how can one comment on an event whose outcome we don’t yet know?”
The very act of Yashin opening a public reception office in Berlin pursues noble goals—helping compatriots who have ended up in emigration. What’s bad about that? Nothing—it’s all good. How he’ll go about it, we’ll see. We’ll draw some conclusions if there’s interest in it. For now, it’s just an initial organizational step. I think this deserves nothing but support, regardless of one’s personal opinion of Ilya Yashin. A person wants to help others—thank God.
On Operation “SIG” and the Activist Weitzman Link to heading
Monika from Lithuania asks:
“Could you talk about the KGB’s Operation SIG against Zionist states? And another question—have you heard of the activist Weitzman, an Israeli living in London?”
Let’s start with Operation SIG.
You know, I don’t think I’m the best person to talk about this, because everything I know comes from books. There’s a guy named Ion Mihai Pacepa—if I’m pronouncing that correctly—a high-ranking officer in the Romanian secret service. Basically, Romania’s version of the KGB. He defected to the West and revealed various plans of the KGB. I’ve read one or two of his books and some of his articles. That’s my only source regarding Operation SIG. According to him, in 1968—and especially between 1970 and 1972—Andropov launched a large-scale operation to build a terrorist network, particularly in the Islamic world, targeting Israel and the United States. The idea, according to Pacepa, was that Andropov believed terrorist attacks could do far more damage to America than, say, missile strikes.
The aim of the operation was to ignite hatred toward Jews and Americans. This included massive distribution of copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and various stories about evil Zionists trying to take over the world, and Americans allegedly wanting to kill all Muslims, and so on. Again, all of this comes from Pacepa’s claims, and a lot of what he says—like the idea that Kennedy’s assassination was planned by the KGB or that the entire terrorist infrastructure of the Islamic world was created by the KGB—I can’t confirm or deny. There’s a lot there that I’m skeptical about. Yes, the KGB was a great evil—no doubt. But was it the sole evil in the world? I’m not so sure.
That’s basically all I know—or almost all I know—on this topic. Honestly, if we’re going to have a serious discussion about it, I’d prefer to do so in a dialogue format. If someone like Kondaurov were willing to talk, I’d be very grateful—but I doubt it. Maybe someone like Andrei Soldatov or Irina Borogan, researchers of the KGB, would agree? In fact, we’ll try to invite one of them for a conversation, and maybe then we can explore this Operation SIG topic more deeply. Again, all I have is what I’ve read in two books, and how reliable that is—I don’t know. Yes, such operations existed, but was the KGB the sole source of Islamic terrorism? I don’t think so. There’s a certain logic to the idea, but it’s also true that when Pacepa defected, the buzz his books created in the West depended heavily on how sensational they were. So it’s entirely possible that he exaggerated. I can’t guarantee otherwise. I need a conversation partner for this one.
As for Weitzman—well, he’s your classic far-left figure. An Israeli architect known for his anti-Israel stance. I’m not sure he’s an antisemite—I’d need to read his texts to be sure, and I haven’t—but he’s known for being extremely hostile toward Israel. He’s an Israeli who advocates for boycotts and sanctions against Israel, and so on. There are plenty like him. Israel has many Jews who speak out against the country, from both the ultra-Orthodox and the far left. In short, there’s no shortage of “fifth columns” in Israel. So, Monika, maybe you have a particular reason for your interest in Weitzman—but I don’t know why he caught your attention. He’s a pretty standard example of a type—not unique by any means.
Can Putin Win? Link to heading
A question from Cape Horn:
“Do you really believe Putin can’t win? Because when I see what the U.S. administration is doing, I’m honestly horrified. Igor, can you ease my fears?”
Well, I don’t know.
“Maybe Putin feels he has a chance with the current U.S. president, Trump, realizing he doesn’t have many levers over Russia. Or rather, he does, but Trump is too afraid to use them. He chooses to pressure Ukraine instead, but even there he meets resistance. So what can Putin do? He’s promised Trump peace, with the caveat that he’ll never, ever stop—unless he gets five regions. He knows a ceasefire is nearly in the bag; U.S. military aid is already nearly gone. Trump looks around—who’s still helping Ukraine? Who’s standing in the way of peace? Europe. So Trump snaps his fingers and starts pressuring Europe: tariffs, sanctions, media propaganda—all to isolate Ukraine. In essence, a Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The question is, will Europe resist?”
Yes, it’s already resisting. It’s already resisting. That’s why I don’t think there’s any reason for “all is lost” sentiments—no need to panic, no reason to say “the cast is off, the patient is leaving.” No, I don’t see that. I don’t see a panic situation for Ukraine.
On Nevzorov’s Activities Link to heading
From Ognevoy:
“What is your opinion on Nevzorov’s activities? Do you consider him a journalist? Does he have the right to judge and mock people working in Russia, those who are convicted or imprisoned, saying they didn’t resist enough, didn’t try hard enough? Especially considering that he himself is not exactly innocent—he once served the authorities, was their representative during elections against an opposition candidate. Also, he downplays things—he calls Trump simply naive, not a scoundrel.”
You know, I’ve spoken about Nevzorov so many times that I’m not sure there’s much new to say. Nevzorov was someone who could be considered a benchmark journalist in one particular aspect. Remember, I’ve often described journalism as a field made up of several layers, and its foundation—the bottom layer—is craft: the ability to string words into phrases, to structure a text properly, to position a camera correctly, and so on. In that sense, during the 600 Seconds era, Nevzorov was the gold standard. He is undeniably talented.
As for whether that talent has always served good—of course not. Nevzorov is a classic case of someone who once put on the mask of a cynic and eventually had it fuse with his face. He now proudly performs that cynicism, flaunts it. He presents himself as a kind of demon figure. Well, right now, he’s on the right side of history—he’s speaking out from the right side. But as I’ve said many times, I’d prefer my trench to be at a distance from his. I’ve expressed my views many times, and since I often get asked about the same people, I don’t want to keep repeating myself.
On Kara-Murza Link to heading
A subscriber who goes by “Just a Person” writes:
“Igor, Kara-Murza may never even hear your criticism. That’s exactly why it’s important to reach out personally—especially to someone so influential in the eyes of foreigners—and try to explain what he’s wrong about. Especially if he knows you and respects your opinion. This would be a step out of your comfort zone. It’s always better when mistakes are pointed out by friends or acquaintances. If a person doesn’t realize their own misconceptions, maybe Kara-Murza is exactly the person you should keep in closer dialogue with—especially if his reputation is still respected in the West.”
Dear colleague, it’s not about me stepping out of my comfort zone. I think you may not realize just how comfortable an environment Kara-Murza is in. When it came to that episode—the interview or conversation in the French parliament—a huge number of colleagues immediately came to his defense, ranging from Viktor Shenderovich to Vladimir Pastukhov, all shouting “Hands off Kara-Murza!” So he’s in a very supportive and comfortable situation.
That’s why I’m 100% certain that—even though yes, we are acquainted, and although I wouldn’t say I was friends with his father, we did have a cordial relationship—I doubt he’s ready to view me as a mentor, or even simply as someone whose opinion he should seriously consider. I think, most likely, he’s in a defensive stance right now—like a boxer with a closed guard. He’s not going to be open to hearing criticism; he’ll just fend it off again.
And I think I know people well enough to say that when you already know the outcome will be negative, it’s probably not worth the effort. I think it would be pointless. Especially since I don’t believe this is just a mistake—it’s the result of a political position. Not a pro-Putin stance, of course—certainly not—but more like an attempt to maintain a positive relationship with a Russian audience. So in short, I don’t think this is about an error.
About Journalist Vladimir Vado Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who calls themselves “Zhuchok”:
“If you know anything about the journalist Vladimir Vado, living in Vilnius, what’s his current situation? Any latest information?”
Yes, I’ve read about this person. He’s not young—he’s over 60—a journalist who lived in Vilnius for a long time but was deported last year, I believe in May. I think the last article I read about him was from May. He was deported from Lithuania because the Lithuanian authorities considered him a threat to the country’s security.
From what I understand, he lived in Lithuania for quite a while and repeatedly renewed his residence permit. One of the reasons for his deportation seems to be that his publications were fairly pro-Russian. In Lithuania, when you apply for a residence permit, there’s a questionnaire that includes several questions about the situation in Ukraine—such as the standard question, “Whose Crimea is it?”—and about attitudes toward the war.
As far as I know, Vladimir’s answers were such that the Lithuanian authorities interpreted his position as pro-Russian. That’s why he was deported. Afterward, he was in a refugee camp—or whatever they call it—in Kaliningrad, as far as I understand. I don’t know anything more about his subsequent fate.
But it’s clear that he lived in Lithuania, benefited from the country’s hospitality, and at the same time expressed pro-Russian views. Lithuania sees pro-Russian positions as extremely dangerous to its national security—which is very understandable. We know well what happens to countries that ignore pro-Russian sentiment among parts of their population. So I think the situation here is quite clear.
On Faith and Immortality Link to heading
A question from Yulia:
“In yesterday’s morning stream there was a discussion about immortality and faith. I also don’t believe in humanoid beings with cosmic intelligence. But don’t you think the question of immortality is more complex? I mean the vast number of indirect signs that can’t be ignored. After all, even in court, a verdict can be based on many circumstantial pieces of evidence. As I recall, in the theory of relativity, the effect of gravitational mass defect is also an indirect indicator. There are just too many accounts suggesting that those who have left this world somehow continue to exist.”
But I don’t know of such evidence. You see, my problem starts with the lack of a solid evidence base.
“I’m not talking about dreams or emotions, but there are many cases where a deceased person or animal clearly indicates future events, and so on. I’ve experienced this personally. Igor Aleksandrovich, don’t you think the question of immortality is not about belief, but about feeling? You can’t explain death to children—they simply don’t understand. And immortality is something a person senses, like sensing signs of an approaching storm. What do you think?”
Well, you know, I stick to my opinion. I think that after a person dies—there is nothing. A person simply ceases to exist; only the physical body remains, which then decays. That’s it. To me, this is obvious.
Now, when you say it’s not a matter of belief but of feeling—well, what’s the difference? There’s belief, there’s knowledge, there are feelings. Again, I don’t quite understand the point of making such distinctions. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to have a real debate here, you see. This reminds me of the famous debate between Lunacharsky and Vvedensky—the atheist and the believer. It demonstrated the futility of such discussions. Two prominent intellectuals staged a debate on whether God exists. I studied that debate carefully, and I made a firm decision for myself never to engage in arguments about faith. It’s pointless.
Suggestion to Invite Shvets or Svitan Link to heading
So,
“Will there ever be a stream with Svitan or Shvets?”
Dear colleague, no, there won’t. We’ve already said everything there was to say to each other—both to Roman Grigorievich and between Roman Grigorievich and Yuriy Borisovich—so I think joint appearances are out of the question.
On Kara-Murza and Anti-Colonial Motives Link to heading
Alexander—who is a sponsor of our channel (for which he deserves our heartfelt thanks)—writes:
“After your analysis of Kara-Murza’s statements, I agree with your position. The claim that people from the national periphery are more willing than those from Central Russia to kill Ukrainians is clearly absurd. But the question of anti-colonial motives remains—you didn’t address it. Let’s be honest: to Indians fighting British colonialists, it didn’t matter whether the person in front of them was English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh, Catholic or Anglican. Isn’t it the same here? Why would it matter to a Chechen or a Buryat whether someone is a backend worker or a creative type? To those who conducted deportations or came to destroy local ways of life, Russians and Ukrainians—even if not the same—are very close peoples who oppressed them for centuries. Or am I wrong? Just to be clear, I’m a layman and just expressing a layman’s view of justice.”
Dear Alexander, I think you’re mistaken on nearly all points. Let’s break it down.
First of all, the context of our conversation wasn’t some national liberation movement taking the form of armed resistance. We were talking about the war that Russia is currently waging against Ukraine. And in that war, brutality, sadism, and atrocities against Ukrainians are equally committed by representatives of all peoples of Russia. Russians are not uniquely guilty—certainly not the only ones.
So in this context, what does a national liberation movement have to do with it?
Now, regarding national liberation wars—look, you mentioned deportations. It wasn’t just Russians and Ukrainians who participated in them; people from all ethnic groups were involved. So if national liberation movements emerge—and I believe they will—they will likely include internal clashes too. For example, a conflict between Chechens and Kadyrovites. I emphasize: Chechens against Kadyrovites. And the Kadyrovites are just as much, if not more, the enemies of those Chechens seeking liberation from the Russian Empire than the Russians are.
That’s why I don’t think this is a racial or ethnic issue. You’re simply mistaken here.
Again, people of various nationalities took part in the deportations of Chechens, Ingush, Circassians, Kalmyks, and others. The Cheka, MGB, and other security agencies included representatives of many different ethnicities. So no, I don’t think any future movement will be aimed specifically against Russians and Ukrainians. Absolutely not. I believe you’re mistaken.
On the Disqualification of Le Pen and Georgescu Link to heading
Marat writes:
“In Romania, a court barred Georgescu from running in the election; in France, it was Le Pen. Commentators from across the political spectrum defended them. The main argument: a court conviction is not grounds to strip someone of the right to run—let the voters decide. It reminded me of the quote by the former leader of the world proletariat: ‘Any revolution is only worth anything if it knows how to defend itself.’ I think the same applies to democracy. But I seem to be in the minority. I only saw a similar opinion from Dmitry Shusharin. Still, I’m not sure these actions will be effective. What’s your take? Should convicted individuals lose their eligibility to run for office? Or should it depend on the severity of the crime? And if so, what’s the threshold?”
Well, let’s not talk in abstract terms—let’s focus specifically on Georgescu and Le Pen. I believe the actions taken to strip them of their passive electoral rights were completely logical and reasonable. In both cases. I don’t think there was any violation of democratic norms. In both cases, this was a legitimate act of state defense against the threat of a fraudster—male or female—gaining power. That’s it. So I fully support the actions of the Romanian and French authorities in these cases.
On NATO Link to heading
Margarita writes:
“It seems someone was triggered by my remark that NATO soldiers look intimidating. But what do you think about the alliance in general? What’s its future? There were rumors that its existence is in question altogether. With Trump, you never know what to expect—can European countries build an alternative?”
Well, they’re already trying. They’re already trying. As for how NATO soldiers look—I think what matters isn’t how they look, but how they’ve performed in actual situations. I’ve already mentioned this: there was a comment from a subscriber claiming that a regular Russian alcoholic could outmatch a NATO soldier because he’s used to hardship, while the NATO soldier isn’t.
Well, let me repeat—there was one of the rare instances when elite Russian troops, namely Wagner PMC, clashed with Americans in the Syrian desert. To this day, they’re still trying to recover the remains—and I’m talking about Wagner, not the Americans. It was over in an instant. Sure, maybe in some alleyway or bar, a drunk Russian might land a lucky stab with a crooked knife before an American can react—maybe. But a real combat engagement showed clearly who is who, and what’s what.
On Felshtinsky Link to heading
A question from a user:
“You keep saying that Felshtinsky is always a welcome guest on your channel, yet he still hasn’t appeared. We’re waiting and waiting. You promised to invite him. The last time Felshtinsky was on was to review 2024—that’s a long time ago. What’s stopping you from inviting him again? Couldn’t you make him a regular guest like Portnikov or others?”
There’s no issue here. Let me repeat: there are many people who are welcome guests on our channel. There’s absolutely no prejudice against Felshtinsky. I really enjoy talking with him—he’s interesting. Although we disagree on many points, he makes you think, and thinking with him is always a worthwhile exercise. Again, we approach things very differently—he tends toward conspiracy theory; I don’t. But that’s fine.
The thing is, scheduling guests, coordinating dates—it’s a whole job in itself, and that’s mostly handled by my colleagues. We agree on potential guests for the channel, but the detailed scheduling isn’t really something I do myself. So it’s a separate process. We’re not a TV company with a strict schedule and full-time staff whose only job is to publish content on time. Everything here is on a voluntary basis—people negotiate and work around their own calendars.
So, bottom line—there’s no bias against Felshtinsky. We’ll definitely invite him again. He’ll be back.
On Putin’s Argument Regarding Victory in World War II Link to heading
A question from subscriber S., who goes by “Despite Everything”:
“Igor, how do you think Putin explains the victory in the Great Patriotic War without Ukraine, Ukrainians, or the Ukrainian Front? And why don’t his defenders bother with this question? What explains that?”
You know, his logic is actually quite simple. It struck me too when he said that Russia—meaning the RSFSR—would have defeated Nazi Germany even without the other Soviet republics. That was more or less his message. And he backed it up with a staggering argument: that the RSFSR lost more people in the war than the others. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but that was the rationale.
So, in his view, the contribution to victory is measured by the number of casualties. That’s a classic element of the myth of victory. Under Stalin, the death toll was hidden—because it revealed how poorly the war had been waged. But now, the numbers are actually being exaggerated. At one parliamentary hearing on the war, a figure of over 40 million was quoted. The logic seems to be: the more casualties, the more valor. The more corpses, the greater the heroism.
So because the RSFSR suffered the most losses, its contribution is considered the most decisive—and, by this logic, it supposedly could have won alone. That’s how it’s explained. That’s the narrative.
On the Decline of Critical Thinking in Societies Link to heading
A subscriber with an unrepeatable name—let’s just go with “Friend of the Chekist,” as that’s the only censored part—asks:
“Do you also see what I feel is a catastrophic decline in the level of critical thinking in societies? Or am I just imagining things? Has it always been like this?”
No, dear colleague, you’re not imagining it. I think you’re absolutely right. This catastrophic decline in critical thinking is very real, and it’s directly connected to war. War promotes black-and-white thinking—us versus them. It activates the “friend or foe” recognition mode. In times of war, that mode becomes dominant. And yes, war makes everything worse.
I truly believe that. I know many people will disagree, they’ll talk about heroism and valor. But war makes everything worse—and everyone dumber. I realize this statement may anger a lot of people, but it’s like what Shalamov once said: “The camp makes no one better; it only makes everyone worse. The camp experience is a bad experience.” It’s the same with war.
War deepens this binary mindset. It turns thought into a black-and-white mechanism of “friend or foe,” and in that environment, critical thinking becomes deeply unpopular.
If There Were No Consciousness, Would Life Have Less Value? Link to heading
“A question in your field. If there were no consciousness, would the value of life be significantly less?”
Dear colleague, in cases like this, a thought experiment is very useful—like a test question in grammar. You’re asking: if there were no consciousness, would the value of life be less? Let’s run a thought experiment. Imagine there’s no consciousness. What does that mean? Well, let’s say we’re in the era of the dinosaurs—giant ferns, massive reptiles roaming around, eating each other—then a catastrophe wipes them out.
If there’s no consciousness—no reflection, no awareness, no framework to assign value to life—then there’s no one to determine what life is worth. From today’s perspective, we might feel sorry for the dinosaurs. But back then, who would do the pitying? Who would assign value?
So if there’s no consciousness, there’s no one to define or recognize the value of life—whether human or non-human. There’s no one to mourn the loss of dinosaurs, because there’s no one with the capacity to mourn. That’s it.
So I think it’s actually a pretty simple question—if we apply this kind of test. In that era, there was simply no one around to feel sorry for the dinosaurs. Right?
On Lying Link to heading
Vitaly Gudkov writes:
“What is your view on lying in principle—its permissibility in various forms and degrees, and what’s often called ‘lying for good’? Personally, I find lying very difficult. Even when I choose to lie, it weighs heavily on me. The harmony between my inner and outer self disappears.”
Well, this question seems very simple at first—“lying is bad,” and so on. And yes, that’s true. But as always, the devil is in the details.
Take my profession. I have two main ones—leaving aside the many side roles. Journalism and sociology. Both of these professions, by definition, require the exclusion of lies.
But now let’s pause. Because there are professions where lying is not only tolerated, but necessary. For example, spies, intelligence officers, people in security roles. Or take advertising. There’s a professional code in advertising that forbids speaking negatively about the client. The same goes for PR. These are also needed professions, but they operate under different rules—where truth isn’t always the top priority.
Then there’s lying “to save,” which also happens. So yes, ideally, we should tell the truth. But in politics? Take political reality—if you want to achieve a result, sometimes you can’t tell the whole truth. Imagine going to Trump and saying, “Trump, you’re an idiot.” That might be true, that might reflect what you think—but Zelensky tried something along those lines. What was the result?
So, once again, yes—generally speaking, lying is evil. But as soon as you start unpacking that idea, all kinds of nuances begin to surface.
Closing Words Link to heading
Dear friends, we’ll end our conversation here. I’d like to remind you that today at 11:00 we have Artemy Troitsky. I’m looking forward to a very interesting and important discussion. And at 19:00, Ukrainian political analyst Yuriy will join us. With that, I wrap up our morning talk. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian captives! All the best to you! See you at 11. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/rrWwGFNgR5Y