Why Ali Khamenei, Like Putin, Got Lucky with the 47th U.S. President, and What Prevents Israel from Eliminating Iran’s Nuclear Program.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 16th, and we continue our morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Parade in Honor of Trump Link to heading
Yesterday, the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, turned 79 years old. In connection with this—well, formally it seemed to be connected to the 250th anniversary of the United States Armed Forces—but in reality, everyone understands that this parade was organized in honor of his birthday. Let’s take a look at how it actually appeared. Well, let’s just say, here you see the soldiers of the world’s most powerful army marching. To be honest, they’re not really marching, they’re just dragging along. They’re not stretching their toes, not keeping step properly. Overall, it’s a terrible sight. Some aren’t even in step. All in all, it’s a complete disgrace. And, frankly, judging by Trump’s facial expression, it was clear he was also not entirely satisfied with the way his soldiers were marching in the parade. Compare this to the troops of North Korea—well, not only North Korea, but also Russia, China, and several other countries—which truly set an example. Let’s take a look. Here’s a magnificent scene from a North Korean parade that Trump obviously envied at that moment. See? This is how it should be done. Just look—look at how they stretch their toes, march, keep precise step. All this is perfectly synchronized. So, I think Trump was deeply jealous of the way Kim Jong Un accepted that parade. You see, everyone lined up, everything is perfect. Uniforms are completely different—white tops, black bottoms, or khaki, which also looks good. Basically, this is one of the reasons why Trump looks up to dictators. But could the United States Armed Forces provide Trump with such a parade? No, of course, they could not. Hence the envy he feels towards dictators.
Trump Clings to Israel’s Arms Link to heading
Now let’s move on to current events. The main event of recent days is the Iran-Israel war, which has now been going on for four days. But in general, the overall conclusion I must draw from observing this war is that Iran—and in particular its leader Ali Khamenei—was incredibly lucky that during this war Trump was in the White House. Trump the appeaser, Trump the peacemaker. For instance, just recently, U.S. President Donald Trump called on Israel and Iran to sign a peace agreement. And he did this right now, as Israel is trying to finish off Iran’s nuclear program. Trump is literally clinging to Netanyahu’s arms and demanding he stop. Let me quote his latest statement: “Iran and Israel must reach an agreement, and they will, just like I got India and Pakistan to agree.” In this case, he talked about using trade with the United States to bring reason, unity, and sanity into negotiations with two outstanding leaders who were able to quickly decide to stop.
So either the man doesn’t understand—or he’s pretending not to understand—that there is a fundamental difference between what’s happening in the Middle East and that conflict between India and Pakistan. In conclusion, he said, “We will soon achieve peace between Israel and Iran.” So from the very beginning, Trump has been hanging on to Israel, doing everything possible to prevent the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program.
And beyond that, there are many other factors that show how fortunate Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei is that Trump is currently in the White House. In particular, Trump announced that he does not rule out Russian President Vladimir Putin’s mediation in the peace talks. Quote: “He’s ready. He called me about this. We talked about it at length,” Trump said. So you understand, it’s being seriously suggested that Putin might be a mediator. That’s Iran’s ally, who just recently formed a major military-political alliance with Iran. It’s about the same as suggesting negotiations with Mussolini and inviting Hitler as a mediator. I can imagine the role of Putin as a mediator between Iran and Israel.
And to further complete the picture of Trump’s role—there are still, though fewer now, hardcore Trump supporters in Israel, Trumpists who curse the Democrats, especially Biden. I just want to remind you: under Biden, during the massive attack on the night of April 13–14, 2024, the U.S. organized the interception of Iranian missiles with their aircraft. And back then, under “cursed” Biden, there were no fatalities. The only serious injury was to a 7-year-old girl near the city, and about 30 people needed psychological or medical help due to injuries while heading to shelters. That was under Biden. Now, under the “heroic” Trump, no fewer than—well, the count is still ongoing—but no fewer than 12 people have died, and around 400 have been injured. Among the dead are five Ukrainian citizens, including three children. That’s the difference.
As for the latest developments related to Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear program: yesterday the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intelligence organization, General Mohammad K., and his deputy—another general—were killed. I can’t name the total number of high-ranking IRGC officials eliminated, but clearly, it’s quite a few—about 10 people at the general level. According to Netanyahu, one of the goals of Israel’s operation is regime change in Iran. He said this could indeed be the outcome, since the Iranian regime is very weak.
This raises a number of questions. First, I want to reference Reuters, which reported that Trump forbade Israel from killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This information was immediately denied. Reuters stated that Israel had informed U.S. authorities of a potential plan to kill the Iranian Supreme Leader, but President Trump forced the Israelis to abandon it. This came from two anonymous sources. I checked Israeli media—this report is also published in a number of outlets. But it was denied by the head of Israel’s National Security Council, who said that the Reuters story was fake. Meanwhile, an Israeli official told The Wall Street Journal two days ago that Khamenei is not off-limits and that Israel is not excluding any potential targets in its mission to eliminate the nuclear threat. Netanyahu also declined to comment on the Reuters report.
I immediately have a question. I have no doubt whatsoever that the elimination of Iran’s highest political, religious, and theocratic leader was part of Israel’s plans. It just can’t be that commanders of the IRGC, the intelligence chief, and several leading scientists were eliminated—while the man who is truly the source of this nuclear threat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was left untouched. He is, by status, the actual head of the IRGC, the Supreme Leader—while all others are simply executing his will. The heart, brain, and decision-making center is Ali Khamenei, along with other ayatollahs who make up the theocratic leadership of Iran. It is utterly pointless to eliminate Iran’s military leadership or the scientists developing the nuclear program while sparing the person who is the central source of the nuclear threat and the idea of Israel’s destruction.
I’m not questioning what Israeli officials are saying, nor am I doubting the denial of the Reuters story—but I’m absolutely convinced that such ideas could not have failed to arise among those planning the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program. Given the nature of what is happening, it’s obvious that the root of the threat is personally in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
So, one way or another, Trump continues to cling to Netanyahu. And I just want to say—this notion that Iran’s generals are the ones who matter, while Ali Khamenei is just some old man mumbling something harmless, is entirely false. In fact, the essence of the Iranian regime is its theocracy. The head of that theocracy is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His elimination could be the crucial turning point that might start regime change in Iran and possibly contribute to the destruction of its nuclear program.
I also want to highlight how drastically Trump’s position has changed—from last week’s outright efforts to block Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to now trying to use the attacks as leverage in new negotiations. In Trump’s mind, there’s only one word: deal. And while Netanyahu keeps saying he and Trump are on the same page, it’s clear that for Netanyahu, the word “deal” is completely unacceptable in this context, as it is for Israel as a whole.
Just last Sunday, June 8, Trump announced his intention to persuade Israel’s Prime Minister to abandon the bombings, because now his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is conducting diplomatic negotiations with Iran. We still remember Trump’s statement that Israeli strikes on Iran would “ruin everything.” That was his line. And the very first comment after it became known that Israel had launched strikes on Iran came from Marco Rubio: “Israel is acting on its own initiative, the United States has nothing to do with it.” And literally the next day, Trump began urging Iran not to withdraw from negotiations or from the deal. And so on.
Futility of Sacrifice if the U.S. Doesn’t Help Israel Link to heading
Israel is currently trying to persuade the United States to join this war. Why? What is actually preventing the complete elimination and destruction of Iran’s nuclear potential and program? Simply put, a number of Iranian nuclear facilities are located at a depth of about 800 meters. And for that, Israel needs American bombs. And also delivery systems for those bombs, which Israel doesn’t have. That is, bombers and bombs—this is what’s needed. American bombers and American bombs. That’s what Israel requires to destroy those Iranian sites that are deeply underground.
How successful Israel may be in convincing the United States to provide such American military resources is hard to say. But, by all appearances, Trump—the peacemaker, the deal-maker—will once again demonstrate what he has shown in relation to Putin and Putin’s war against Ukraine: appeasement of the aggressor. It’s obvious that Trump leans more toward the stance of Daladier and Chamberlain than Churchill. So the likelihood that Trump will actually help Israel to decisively eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat is extremely small.
As things stand today, yes, Israel has achieved a significant result. It has undoubtedly pushed Iran’s nuclear weapons progress back quite a bit. But if Trump does not accept Israel’s proposal, does not create the conditions for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not eliminated—though it pains me to say it—it may turn out that all the sacrifices Israel has already made will have been in vain.
This so-called peacemaker Trump, who all this time has clung to Israel while obsessing over some kind of “deal,” may ultimately cause Israel’s entire brilliant operation to be in vain. Not immediately, of course. Yes, the Iranian nuclear threat can be delayed for some time. But clearly, if the underground factories aren’t destroyed, if the main source of the threat isn’t eliminated—meaning the political source who openly declares that Iran’s goal is the total destruction of Israel—then all of this might truly be for nothing. All these efforts could be entirely nullified.
Such is the role of personality in history. Such is the unprecedented luck that Putin and Ali Khamenei have. That 77 million Americans have unleashed Donald Trump upon the world. That, in my opinion, is what matters most today.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that today is Monday, which means that at 8:00 PM we’ll be having a conversation with Sergey Ivanovich Grabsky. I think there’s plenty to discuss with him—to align our perspectives on the situation in the Middle East and the situation in Ukraine. Now I’ll move on to answering your questions.
What if the SBU starts printing rubles Link to heading
Question from Denis Boris, please tell me, if the SBU starts printing 1,500 and 10,000 ₽ banknotes, will this be discussed by Western allies? The serial numbers of the banknotes could duplicate existing ones. This money could be used on the front lines to buy armored vehicles and ammunition. Few would turn down 1,000,000,000.
Dear Denis! In general, state counterfeiters as a means of warfare are well known in history. That is, well, I can say right away that this has always been known—it was, it was a tradition. Since ancient times. Professional historians, unlike me—a layman—could give a whole series of lectures on this topic. I will not do that. I can only say that as of today, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal classifies such actions as war crimes. That is, well, there it states looting of public or private property, devastation not justified by military necessity, and other crimes. So, in international law, there is precedent for such actions being classified as war crimes. We’re talking about the Paris Peace Conference, where, among the list of German war crimes, there was mention of such a war crime as devaluing currency and issuing counterfeit money. Well, this was actually quite common. Before the development of international military law and the introduction of the concept of war crimes, such state-sponsored counterfeiting was widely used. That is, so to speak, the Swedes and the Poles during wars with Russia minted Russian coins. And the Russian Empire made extensive use of counterfeit currency of other countries, particularly during the war with Turkey—these were the years 1808–1809. Counterfeit Turkish coins were minted, and this greatly, greatly undermined the budget of Poland. Napoleon also did this. Well, of course he did—with his systematic approach to warfare, he financed practically all his wars of conquest with counterfeit money. That is, the forging of Prussian small coinage and Austrian paper notes, especially during his offensive campaigns, he very successfully used counterfeit English banknotes. And, of course, not to mention Hitler, who industrialized the entire process. The famous Nazi Operation Bernhard brought the Hitler regime enormous profits. So, in fact, all of this is very well known. Therefore, I can say right away: Dear Denis, of course, I am absolutely sure that the Ukrainian military and political leadership would not resort to such measures. This is, as they say, extremely dangerous.
About the residents of Kharkiv living under bombardment Link to heading
Mariupol. Why do you think some residents of Kharkiv still haven’t left the city, despite constant shelling? I, from Mariupol, once escaped with my children from encirclement, risking my life to save them. Kharkiv is not encircled, there is an opportunity to leave. But what is most incomprehensible to me is how people who are under daily fire from Russia can hold on to the same political views. How can anyone still be waiting for someone, when it’s them who are shelling you—especially when there are children nearby? Where is the breaking point? The one that makes a person wake up? It’s even stranger to see former fellow citizens from Mariupol, who miraculously survived the same shelling, but now somehow live happily under the rule of those who bombed and killed their families. How is that even possible?
Dear colleague, there are several issues here. Let’s take them one by one. First of all, regarding Kharkiv. The key difference between Kharkiv and Mariupol is that Kharkiv truly is not encircled, and the majority of Kharkiv residents are confident—and rightly so—that Kharkiv will not fall under the control of the occupiers. And I just want to say that, well, as it seems to me, one of the clearest reflections of Kharkiv’s public sentiment is in the videos and writings of the remarkable Kharkiv writer Anna Dugin, who has been a guest of ours. And by the way, it’s a big oversight on my part that I haven’t invited her back periodically—perhaps now my colleagues and I will reconsider and invite her again, because Anna Dugin answers your question far better than I can. Why don’t Kharkiv residents leave? Because they find the idea repulsive. They are repulsed by the thought of running away. It’s their city. They love it. They are convinced the city will not surrender. And they are right to believe so.
Now, regarding the traitors from Mariupol. You know, there’s a lot going on here. First, there’s the Stockholm syndrome, a well-known phenomenon. And secondly, yes, there really are traitors—there’s no getting around that. So, one explanation is, without a doubt, the Stockholm syndrome.
What will happen if Iran does develop nuclear weapons Link to heading
Ivan Goncharuk What do you think—if Iran does manage to build a nuclear bomb, will it be used as a deterrent, or will they launch it at Israel right away?
You know, I’m not sure what “deterrent weapon” would mean in this case, because no one is planning a nuclear attack on Iran—so that scenario doesn’t exist. I think it’s the second option. The goal of the lunatics currently leading Iran—its theocratic leadership, particularly Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—is the destruction of Israel. So I believe that most likely, the nuclear weapon would be used to strike Israel.
Why didn’t Trump make a deal with Iran Link to heading
Question from Anna. Trump said he would undo everything. But why didn’t Trump make a deal with Iran? Trump is supposed to be a great dealmaker.
Well, Iran refused—Iran simply walked away. The so-called great dealmaker Trump failed in every deal he took part in.
Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons, but Iran isn’t Link to heading
Question from Roman I’m really curious about your opinion—why was it okay when Israel got nuclear weapons? But if Iran wants them, it should be bombed? Also, what if Ukraine starts developing nuclear weapons—will America bomb us too, only this time with Russia? Would that be considered normal?
Dear Roman, I don’t know if you’re aware, but Israel obtained nuclear weapons in the late 1960s. Since then, not only has it never used them, but there hasn’t even been any thought of doing so. You see, a gun in the hands of a policeman is normal. A gun in the hands of a criminal is not. That’s the difference—it depends on whose hands it’s in. So when Iran declares that one of its main goals is the destruction of Israel—while Israel has never declared or taken any measures to destroy a people—and Iran’s goal is the destruction of Israel along with everyone living there, well, there is clearly a difference. Just like there’s a difference between Hitler and Churchill, between the Third Reich and Great Britain or the United States. So to draw such parallels, one would have to be somewhere on Alpha Centauri, completely unaware of the situation on Earth. This situation gives context to the processes—it’s not just about formalities, like “some can, some can’t.” Yes, some can, and some can’t. A policeman is allowed to carry a weapon, a criminal isn’t. That’s all I can say. The wolfhound is right—the cannibal is not. It’s a very simple matter.
How did Hamas “get through” on October 7 Link to heading
Lipsits and forever. That’s all. Given the main question of how, on October 7, 2023, in the territory of a perpetually warring country, a horde of Hamas terrorists managed to break in—are you sure they weren’t “let through” as a provocation to maintain power? I think that might be the case.
So, dear colleague, you’re essentially suggesting—if I understand your question correctly—that the Israeli leadership deliberately let them through, gave the order? That Netanyahu personally, or someone from his military and political leadership, deliberately allowed terrorists to enter Israeli territory in order to provoke and retain power? Well, you know, that’s a hypothesis. But I think it doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny. Because in fact, all the criticism afterward was directed straight at the Israeli leadership—Netanyahu took it all on himself. So, you know, I think that hypothesis simply doesn’t stand up to serious examination.
On public debates between Kasparov and Kara-Murza Link to heading
Pan Stepan! Question Why do you think that, say, Kara-Murza and Kasparov might not want to participate in public debates? Isn’t it necessary for the opposition to try to reach agreement, to persuade one another, to search for common ground, if their goal isn’t grabbing leadership positions but liberating Russia? It’s sad to watch all this behind-the-back criticism.
Dear Stepan! First of all, regarding behind-the-back criticism—you know, 99.9% of all critical analysis happens behind someone’s back. And I always find such accusations strange. “Behind-the-back criticism.” Excuse me, I engage in critical analysis. I critically analyze what’s happening in Russia, I criticize Putin behind his back, as you put it. I criticize Solovyov, I criticize Donald Trump. Yes, I don’t invite Solovyov to our broadcasts every time to respond to criticism. I don’t invite Donald Trump to answer either. In exactly the same way, 99.9% of criticism, as you say, happens behind someone’s back. So I’ll just set aside this strange reproach, which unfortunately keeps popping up.
Now, dear Pan Stepan, regarding a common path. I don’t know—you see, from the beginning, I actually agree with you that public debates between, say, Vladimir Kara-Murza and Garry Kasparov probably wouldn’t hurt. It might indeed be useful. I agree with you. I just doubt they’d want to do it. That’s all. As for the common path—you know, I have serious doubts that Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kara-Murza—or, say… well, Kara-Murza has chosen a common path primarily with Yulia Navalnaya. And I have very strong doubts that Yulia Navalnaya and Garry Kasparov could share a common path. And Kara-Murza’s path is aligned with Yulia Navalnaya. So, you see, based on this simple reasoning, I think that all the talk of “let’s be friends, let’s hold hands and unite” just isn’t going to work. It doesn’t work—because the goals are different. The visions are different. So—debate is possible, but a common path? I’m absolutely convinced there won’t be one.
On Europe’s indiscrimination regarding the Russian opposition Link to heading
A simple man asks, Alexander. We see that Europe is rather indiscriminate when it comes to the Russian opposition, and as a result, it ends up funding just anyone. Worse, it listens to their opinions, which are often false and harmful. So who can advise EU officials on whom they should engage with and support, and whose influence is best avoided? Obviously, the real opposition—especially the one actively fighting—won’t be inflating its own value or begging for grants.
Dear colleague, I don’t know who exactly can advise them, but to some extent, what we are doing—you and I, through this channel—is part of that. Yes, it’s relatively small and not very influential, but nevertheless, we’re trying to shape public opinion. And you know, by the six degrees of separation principle—and here there are even fewer—I think we are somehow influencing the broader mood. That’s the only way, really. But for some voice from the heavens to speak the truth to EU officials—no, that won’t happen. So this influence on public opinion—that’s the only path. We’re playing our modest part in that, together.
Two questions: about anti-corruption efforts in Russia and crime among undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Link to heading
So, there are two remarkable individuals here—Sergey Andryushchenko and Watson Zhenat. You know, for a variety of reasons, our program “Trumpophrenia” is, I hope temporarily, on hold. But we are, so to speak, cultivating Trumpists in our own ranks. And these two remarkable people—Sergey Andryushchenko and Watson Zhenat—are asking roughly the same question. I’ll read it in full first. So, from Sergey Andryushchenko:
Thank you for your response to my comment about the Anti-Corruption Foundation. As I wrote, I fully agree with your position on this organization’s work. However, I still wouldn’t go so far as to claim that the fight against corruption in the Russian Federation is widespread. Targeted arrests are more accurate. It’s unlikely any of these scapegoats will be killed over tea like Navalny. A real fight against corruption would mean them jailing themselves. But I have nothing to argue with you about on this.
Dear Sergey, I fully agree with you. I was simply talking about one basic thing: the Anti-Corruption Foundation’s investigations are, in fact, in the same category as… well, not scapegoats—excuse me, a deputy minister like Ivanov is not a scapegoat, that’s serious. At least eight generals were jailed—that’s not scapegoating. So I think Navalny has nothing to do with this point. I’m not talking about Navalny’s investigations—they were all before the war. I mean the Foundation’s investigations that continue without Navalny. And in fact, they are aligned—not in intention, but in outcome—with the investigations of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee. Both sides investigate corruption. That’s all I meant.
Now the next question, a very telling one, again from Sergey Andryushchenko:
Are you sure your information about crime among undocumented immigrants is from a reliable source? Could it be that the media you’re citing are controlled by the Democratic Party? How’s crime in New York these days? Were the riots in Los Angeles also organized by Trump—or paid for by the governor of California? Fascinating hypothesis. Especially since the mayor of LA supported the deployment of troops. I guess the “peaceful” protests got old.
Well, that’s a lie. Dear Sergey, I don’t know why you’re lying—but when there are no arguments left, lies start coming in.
Trump. Sure, he’s an idiot. But I think your coverage is too one-sided.
All right, let’s address this properly. I’ll also read Watson’s message, since it’s in the same tone. From Watson:
The author equates drug enforcement with the drug cartels. That’s called “being in touch with reality.” Then why can’t I compare drug cartels with war criminals? Did I ever say that no one in the U.S. creates ethnic enclaves? On the contrary, I said U.S. law almost encourages it. But it’s one thing when a legal immigrant earns a green card through years of hard work and quietly lives in their community. It’s another thing entirely when cartels ship people by the truckload across a porous border. Favelas are future mafia foot soldiers—they’re completely disenfranchised, often very limited, and easily exploited. How many crimes go unreported and unrecorded within these communities? Is there even any data on this?
And then the stunning statement, from someone calling themselves “Senate”:
So, I take it you support those who profit from smuggling illegal immigrants across the border?
Thanks for the suggestion.
Also, why are they fighting for California under a Mexican flag? Since when is the Mexican flag a symbol of California? That’s the current reality. And at the same time they burn the U.S. flag, demanding the return of California to Mexico. Clearly, some forces are just using Mexicans. One thing overlaps with another. I’d like to remind you of how you treat Palestinians and those who support them. But Mexicans—those are saints to you. Even though Mexico has had a cartel war for decades with no success. But Palestinians—those you criticize. Mexicans—saints. Again, hypocrisy. End of question.
Dear colleagues, first of all, I strongly urge you not to drag the level of this discussion down into idiocy. This includes the line “I take it you support those who profit from smuggling illegal immigrants.” All that’s left is to claim I’m getting a cut. That’s the logical conclusion of what you’re saying.
So, of course I’m against illegal immigration. But I’m also against using the military inside the U.S. against the will of state authorities.
As for crime—two books came out in the U.S. the year before last. “Immigration and Crime,” written by a professor of criminology at the University of California and a professor of political science and sociology at Virginia College. And the second, titled The Mythical Link Between Immigration and Crime, by a professor of economics at Stanford. Both are based on extensive statistical research on legal and illegal immigration, covering data collected over decades. The authors of both books came to the same conclusion: immigrants—including undocumented ones—are less likely to end up in prison than U.S.-born citizens. Immigration does not lead to an increase in crime.
This is directly comparable to Russia, where neo-Nazis—including those in uniform—often claimed that migrants from Central Asia were responsible for rising crime rates. In fact, statistics consistently showed the opposite: Central Asian migrants were generally more law-abiding, precisely because they felt insecure and knew they could be kicked out at any moment. So they were less likely to break the law. I encountered this same nonsense back in my parliamentary days and exposed it then too. This is nothing new.
So, these books were published in 2023, and they’re major works. Anyone who disagreed with their conclusions had more than enough time to respond—with their own research and statistics. But no serious rebuttals have appeared—and won’t.
Now to some of the claims by our domestic Trumpist colleagues. Sergey Andryushchenko writes: The mayor of Los Angeles supported the deployment of troops. I guess the peaceful protests got old.
Excuse me—where did you get that? Let me quote. A recent Friday statement by LA mayor Karen Bass in the Los Angeles Times. The journalist asked: What would you like to say to President Trump? Karen Bass replied:
“I want to tell him to stop the raids. I want to tell him this is a city of immigrants. I want to tell him that if he attacks immigrants, he’s going to destroy the economy of Los Angeles.”
So Karen Bass repeatedly stated that Trump was falsely claiming credit for the National Guard calming the city center, even though the troops hadn’t arrived yet.
So, Mr. Watson—I congratulate you: you lied.
In fact, what’s happening clearly shows that Trump completely failed in his attempt to impose order by force. After mass workplace arrests, undocumented immigrants—terrified—stopped going to work. And in industries where undocumented workers make up around 40% of the labor force, this pushed operations to the brink of collapse.
In California, the big farms and agro-industrial complexes—many of them owned by Republicans—suddenly realized something: sure, you can deport the illegals and “Make America Great Again,” but you’ll go broke doing it. Or you can bring them back into the fields and put greatness on hold. And farmers, predictably, chose the second option.
Just last Wednesday, Trump received a call from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Collins, who told him about growing anxiety in rural America. Farmers and agribusiness leaders were becoming increasingly concerned about his immigration policies. Trump was told flat out: agriculture depends entirely on immigrants who work day and night. Farming groups warned the secretary that if their workers stopped showing up, the sector could collapse.
And the very next morning, Donald Trump—this is just so Mr. Andryushchenko and Watson are aware—posted on his social media platform a message with a strikingly soft and respectful tone toward those very immigrants he’s spent most of his political career demonizing. He wrote that immigrants working in agriculture and hospitality are very good and longstanding workers.
So, as usual, Trump blunders first, then tries to clean it up. Just like he raised tariffs sky-high, then walked them back. In everything.
In fact, new orders to immigration and customs enforcement are that all workplace raids—especially in agriculture and services—must be suspended. Because such actions directly contradict the economic interests of the United States.
So I believe your attempt, dear Mr. Andryushchenko, Watson, and “Senate,” to defend Trump’s position has actually been refuted—by Trump himself. Unlike you, Trump has to deal with real life. And real life hits him in the nose and forces him to change his stance. Whereas you—well, paper will tolerate anything.
Comments on Trump Link to heading
The next question is from Serafim Lozhkin. Actually, it’s not a question—he’s simply asking to have a text read aloud. Dear Igor Ivanovich! Please read my text for the listeners. Don’t you understand that Igor Alexandrovich is not in favor of illegal migrants? He is against Trump breaking the laws of his own country. But you cannot use the U.S. Army on U.S. soil, and you cannot ignore the opinion of a state governor. And now even a senator has been handcuffed—that’s unacceptable.
And so on. Well, thank you. Thank you, dear Serafim. I mean, I basically just said the same thing.
Questions About “Street Talks” Link to heading
Alright. A few questions about street talks. Irina Rudnitskaya: Is it allowed to conduct a survey among friends and close acquaintances?
Yes, it is.
So, in Ukraine, is it allowed to conduct surveys in the Ukrainian language?
Well, it’s better, of course, to do it in Russian. You see, all Ukrainians without exception are bilingual. At the very least, bilingual. That is, everyone knows the Russian language. But Russians, as a rule, do not know Ukrainian, so it’s better to use Russian.
On the Position Regarding Iran and the Difference Between Israel and Nazi Germany Link to heading
So, there have been a few criticisms of me regarding my position on Iran. Valery asks, Is it really acceptable to bomb and kill a sovereign country without a declaration of war? Then how is the Jewish state different from Nazi Germany?
Now, I do have some doubts regarding Valery, about the next question. But still, since the question was asked, I’ll answer. You know, Valery, you’re probably unaware that the leadership of Iran has set as its goal the destruction of Israel. And that it was specifically the Iranian leadership behind the October 7 terrorist attack? Israel does not aim to conquer Iran. Israel does not aim to destroy Iran. That’s why the Jewish state differs from Nazi Germany in that it does not seek to annihilate any nation. If you don’t know this, well, just read a book or something. I don’t know—The Little Round Bun (Kolobok), for example, might be helpful.
About Former Communist Yakovenko Link to heading
A question from Viktor. I have a question for then-communist Yakovenko: why didn’t he condemn the deportation of the Baltic peoples by his party back then? And yes, I haven’t heard any calls for sanctions against the aggressor Israel. Moreover, he seems to justify the aggression. “This is different.”
You know, I—Dear Viktor, the deportation of the Baltic peoples took place in 1941, which is 10 years before I was born. And the second deportation was in 1949, which is three years before I was born. I am, of course, guilty of apparently having taken part in the destruction of a 14th-century chapel, but still, well, I’m not responsible for everything that happened before I was born, nor am I obligated to somehow condemn it.
About the FBK Investigation Link to heading
Gennady Konovalov: Igor Alexandrovich, if in your opinion the FBK investigation by Navalny could have helped strengthen Russia’s economy and military-industrial complex, then why was he killed? Isn’t that a contradiction?
Well, dear Gennady, I claim that the FBK investigation is pointless in wartime conditions. Navalny had nothing to do with those investigations. He had a valid reason—he was in prison at the time. So, there’s no contradiction here on my part.
On the Inconsistency of the Position Link to heading
So, Dmitry Alexandrovich? It seems to me there is some inconsistency in your position. You have repeatedly warned foreigners visiting Russia that they are potential bargaining chips for the regime and advised against traveling there, which is absolutely logical. Yet in the case of Lev Shlosberg, you express the hope that he would be exchanged if he is imprisoned in the future—a situation that won’t occur if he leaves Russia. As a result, he’ll be exchanged for another one of Putin’s bloodthirsty henchmen, and under the patronage of European politicians, after his release, he will—like the trio of opposition leaders—spread rather dubious ideas to Europeans, using the image of a martyr. Have you considered this?
Dear Dmitry! Just as with Europeans and Americans walking around Russia, there are two positions. On the one hand, warn them that they shouldn’t do it, but when they’re taken hostage, well, we have to free them. You see, if someone ends up in trouble due to carelessness, that’s not a reason not to rescue them. Understand that Lev Markovich Shlosberg’s views are deeply foreign and quite unpleasant to me. But depriving him of freedom is unlawful and unacceptable. And I’m absolutely convinced that Shlosberg must be free. That’s it. This position is perfectly clear. Just like that wonderful American basketball player who saw fit to sign a contract with a Russian sports club and pursue her athletic talents in Russia. Sure, you can say many unkind things about her, but when she ended up in prison, the United States had to rescue her, including exchanging her for a serious war criminal. That’s all. So condemning naivety or mistakes is one thing. But helping someone in trouble is something else entirely. I don’t see any contradiction here. Once again, what Shlosberg says is revolting to me. But Shlosberg must be free. That’s it. That’s all. I think it’s clear.
On Mutually Exclusive Narratives Link to heading
A question from MTS: How do two mutually exclusive narratives help bring us closer to the truth? One is that Putin won’t stop, he’ll go further into the Baltics and Europe, and the other is that a ceasefire and halting military action in Ukraine is disadvantageous for Putin because then there’s the problem of what to do with 600,000 soldiers.
I don’t see mutually exclusive narratives here. If you mean that Putin can’t simultaneously wage war against Ukraine and allocate, say, a 100,000-strong army—or even possibly a smaller force—to attack one of the Baltic states, then I don’t see any mutually exclusive premises in that.
On the Liberal Crowd, Parkhomenko, and Skobov Link to heading
Alright? A question from the kind writer: You don’t like the liberal crowd—and the feeling is mutual? Question mark. Here’s what I mean. In a stream dedicated to Skobov, you asked people who had the ability to translate his last words into foreign languages and publish them in Western media. I forwarded this request to Sergey Parkhomenko, as a journalist who knows languages and has contacts in the Western press. He responded literally with the following, quote: “I wouldn’t want to respond to any appeals from Yakovenko, no matter what he’s calling for—reputation matters, after all. And Yakovenko’s reputation is such that I don’t want to deal with him for any reason.” And so, the writer asks: Could this be something personal on Parkhomenko’s part?
Dear colleague, I have no idea. I haven’t followed Mr. Parkhomenko’s work for quite some time. As for my own life—you mention something personal—but there’s nothing personal between me and Mr. Parkhomenko, nor can there be, since I’ve met and spoken with him maybe twice at most. Later there were some media contacts of a critical nature, yes, but they generally didn’t reach the level of silliness you just quoted. What’s happened to him lately, why he reacted this way to what seems to me a very reasonable suggestion—that’s a question not for me. I must say that with many members of the so-called liberal crowd, I have quite normal working relationships. My general attitude toward the phenomenon is negative, yes. But except, perhaps, for Venediktov, I have more or less human relationships with the rest. There are notable examples—Alexander Plyushchev, for instance, with whom I have good, kind, respectful, working relations. Or another prominent figure in the liberal scene—what’s his name, slipped my mind—oh, of course, Viktor Anatolyevich Shenderovich. Yes, I have quite normal friendly relations with him, despite the fact that I’ve criticized him more than once, and he’s criticized me. But nothing like what you described here. So what’s going on with Parkhomenko—I have no idea.
On General Vlasov Link to heading
So, a question from someone who calls themselves an enemy of the state: What do you think of General Vlasov? At the memorial in the church on the hill dedicated to the heroes of the Battle of Moscow, there was a commemorative plaque that included Vlasov’s name. His name was removed from the monument in 2020—that is, during the Pol Pot–style dictatorship.
Well, as for General Vlasov, he’s a very, very controversial figure. Speaking overall, I still tend to believe that—yes, he was undoubtedly a part of the Battle of Moscow, and the fact that his name was later removed is, of course—well, that’s a kind of historical retouching. Because, indeed, at that time he was one of the major commanders who defended Moscow. As for his collaboration with Hitler—first of all, yes, it happened. And you can’t just erase that from the story. It’s been somewhat exaggerated, because he wasn’t, from the very beginning, the head of what’s known as the Russian Liberation Army. But that’s not the main point. In general, I think that his collaboration with Hitler—it’s hard for me to fully assess his motivations, but most likely, the primary motive was the desire to save his own life. That is, having been captured as a general, he had a choice—either be executed, like many other generals who were taken prisoner, or go down the path he ultimately chose. Now, the claims that his actions were driven by disagreement with Soviet power—I think those were added in later to justify what he did. I understand that this is a rather controversial hypothesis, but nothing in Vlasov’s actions prior to his collaboration with Hitler indicated any disagreement with Soviet authority. And you know, when he was captured—by the way, before it became known that he had made contact with the Nazis, Stalin kept saying that Vlasov must be rescued at all costs. He gave orders to partisan units to try to retrieve Vlasov, because Stalin held him in very high regard. But again, for me, the key issue is motivation. I believe that the main motive behind Vlasov’s defection to Hitler was the desire to stay alive. And only afterward did all the ideological justifications emerge—that he supposedly opposed Soviet rule, and so on. That’s my view. And overall, I don’t believe that supporting Hitler—even if he had originally disagreed with the Soviet regime—was the right move. I don’t know what other options there were, but this was war—you’re either on one side or the other. And I don’t think choosing Hitler’s side, considering that the anti-Hitler coalition included not only Stalin, but also the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and other countries—I don’t think siding with Hitler was the right choice. In fact, I think it was completely wrong. So I don’t share the opinion of some of my colleagues, including those from the democratic camp, who try to turn General Vlasov into some kind of democratic icon. I disagree with that.
About Dina Rubina Link to heading
A question from Leonidovna: You were recently asked about your favorite books. Dina Rubina—you answered. But if we’re going to talk about Dina Ilyinichna, then right now her own stance is much more important than her books. How is it possible that such a talented person, an author of books about noble, kindhearted people, remains persistently silent on the Russo-Ukrainian war? She gave two interviews to the “Mu” channel, which has a clear anti-Putin stance, but chose to remain silent about her own position. Perhaps you know something about the reasons for her silence?
I have no idea. I honestly don’t know. I just haven’t followed her closely and didn’t know she hasn’t spoken out on the matter. So I have nothing to comment on.
About Galich Link to heading
Khren Tam quotes Galich: “Do not fear prison, nor poverty, nor plague or hunger; fear only the one who says, ‘I know how it should be.’” Igor Alexandrovich, I have no doubt you could share something interesting about the author of these lines. Please do.
Well, listen, I want to make it clear once again that I’m not a literary critic or a music critic. But since Galich is such a monumental figure, of course I can say something—though not anything exclusive. I never met him. This great trio—Galich, Vysotsky, Okudzhava—Galich holds a special place among them. He was the only writer, the only poet, who spent a long time at the top of the Soviet literary establishment, the nomenklatura, and yet found the courage to walk away from a comfortable life and choose freedom. In this, he’s reminiscent of Sakharov. Let me remind you that a number of scripts he wrote—let’s say, Galich before he became “himself,” before the late 1960s—include Faithful Friends, a film based on his screenplay. For his script for State Criminal, Galich received a certificate of commendation from the KGB of the USSR. Many believe the turning point came with his satirical song Lenochka. Galich himself marks that song as the beginning of a completely new phase in his work. And what’s very telling is that he never included his earlier songs for theater and film in his poetry collections.
Then came Lenochka, and from there it all took off. All his satirical songs began circulating via tape recordings. What I witnessed was Galich, alongside Vysotsky and Okudzhava, saturating all the courtyards of Moscow. In every courtyard, teenagers and young people would sit and play his songs on the guitar. There’s a popular view that Pushkin was the creator of the Russian language. I believe Galich, no less than Pushkin—alongside Vysotsky and Okudzhava—was a creator of modern Russian. That song about Klim Petrovich, who spoke at a peace rally: “The Israeli war machine is known to the world as mother. Speaking as a woman, I call her to account.”
Moreover, I think Galich, to a large extent, was a creator of the moral code—along with Vysotsky, Okudzhava, and Vizbor—of the modern intellectual. How easy it is to become an executioner? Just stay silent, stay silent, stay silent.
And so on. Simply put, he was one of the creators of the modern Russian language. Countless quotes from Galich— “Where did the cucumber go and end up in torment? Turned out our father wasn’t a father, but a bitch?"— this is, in fact, the fabric of contemporary Russian. Galich helped weave it. So this is someone who lives in our language.
About the Interview with Kozyrev and Albats Link to heading
Right. Next, Marik writes: I watched the interview of Andrei Kozyrev with Yevgenia Albats. He’s a decent man who’s always interesting to listen to. I don’t know if you have a chance to talk with him.
Well, probably the opportunity exists—we should invite him. We’ll try. We’ll try, yes. It would probably be interesting.
About Students Link to heading
Alright. A few personal questions here: Tell us about your students. Have any of them succeeded in journalism? What positions do they hold? Do you stay in touch with them?
At the moment, I don’t keep in touch with any of them. There are students I’m proud of, and there are students I’m ashamed of. I’ve spoken about both groups more than once. You see, for more than 20 years I taught at MGIMO. And as you know, that university trained personnel for the so-called Putin-era media. Yes, some of my students went a different way. I won’t name names now, because that feels inappropriate—like I’m trying to bask in their glow. But there are definitely people who were my best students, and now you see them on Putin’s TV screens spouting such nonsense it makes your ears curl. That’s how it goes.
About My Mother Link to heading
Question: You always speak about your mother with such tenderness—“Mom bought me this,” “Mom took me there,” and so on. Judging by the fact that she alone supported your grandfather after his time in the labor camps—was she Ukrainian?
No, well, by blood—yes. She really did support her father, Viktor. He had a very difficult personality, and supporting him was not easy. Nevertheless, yes, she supported him, she never renounced him, and that had a serious impact on her life. As for whether she was Ukrainian—well, as far as I know, she didn’t speak Ukrainian, although by blood she was half Ukrainian. But, well, that happens. She grew up in Russia and spoke Russian.
About Driving a Car Link to heading
Do you know how to drive? If so, what was your first car?
You know, it just so happened that due to several serious injuries, I try to—well, in short, I don’t drive. I assess the risks, given a few injuries I sustained in my youth. My peripheral vision isn’t very good. And that’s really important for driving. So I’ve concluded that the risk of causing an accident with serious consequences outweighs the benefits of driving. That’s why I’ve never driven a car, and I’ve firmly decided that I won’t.
About the Production of “Taurus” in Ukraine Link to heading
Lesya. Larisa: Regarding the Taurus—production in Ukraine is good, but when will there be a finished product, and in what quantity? Ukraine is already bleeding. This is pure theater on Germany’s part.
Well, I wouldn’t rush to judge the current German leadership so harshly. They’re helping as best they can. And for that, we should thank them.
On Fighting Corruption as a Fight Against the Inconvenient Link to heading
Guseyn Kerimov: You’re wrong about the fight against corruption. They’re just removing those who’ve gotten too greedy—greedier than the boss—and didn’t share.
You know, I don’t think Deputy Minister Ivanov ended up in prison because he didn’t share with Putin. Of course, there are elements of a redistribution of the corruption market—on that, you might be right. But overall, I repeat, there is some degree of anti-corruption effort carried out by the Putin regime, even though corruption is fundamentally its lifeblood. But when people say there’s no effort at all—that’s a mistake.
About Mikhail Tripolsky Link to heading
An ordinary person asks: I support the idea of a program with Mikhail Tripolsky. A journalist with over 30 years in the U.S., writes thoughtful articles, a democrat, and so on.
Agreed, I support that. We should look into it and invite him, if he agrees.
About Grigory Tamara Link to heading
Marina suggested: That Grigory Tamara start a “Svitano-phrenia” segment on his channel. He’s repeatedly exposed Svitan, directly calling him a liar and a provocateur. He’s twice suggested that you invite him for a conversation. It would be interesting to see the two of you together.
Thank you. We’ll definitely try to invite him, and I think there are no obstacles here. At least I hope there aren’t on his end either.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning stream for today. Just a reminder that at 8:00 PM we’ll have our usual Monday conversation with Sergey Grabsky. Lots of questions for him—regarding both the Middle East and Ukraine. So I hope it will be an interesting and substantive discussion. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov! And for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/jp0fchYUO8k