Under the cover of negotiations, Russia is preparing a new offensive. The CDU/CSU-SPD coalition will increase support for Ukraine. Trump declared that all countries kiss his ass, while China and Canada proposed the reverse procedure.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good evening, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 9th. The time is 7:40 PM. We continue our evening reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, and in our souls. This morning’s 7:40 episode has crawled into the evening due to technical issues, but I hope this is a one-time occurrence. Nevertheless, it does not affect the content of our program.
Under the Cover of Negotiations, Russia Is Preparing New Offensives Link to heading
Under the cover of negotiations—in fact, all these negotiations—it’s entirely clear that this is just a smokescreen. It becomes more obvious with each passing day. Russia is clearly preparing new offensives. That doesn’t necessarily mean these offensives will actually take place, but the preparations are quite evident. In particular, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stated that Russia’s offensive on the Sumy region has effectively begun. That Russia has launched an offensive on the Sumy and Kharkiv regions of Ukraine—something that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had previously warned about. General Syrskyi stated that the number of offensive actions—based on our consultations with military experts, I would prefer to speak not of a full offensive, but rather of offensive operations. He chose that terminology as well and said that the number of offensive actions in recent days has nearly doubled. Again, we are witnessing Russia’s aggression increasing exponentially. If previously the number of offensive actions and assault attacks had increased by 20%, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces now notes a doubling. In addition, statistics show that the number of missile, bombing, and other attacks on Ukrainian cities has increased by more than one and a half times. One of these attacks tragically resulted in the deaths of nine children in Kryvyi Rih.
The size of the Russian occupation force is also constantly growing. According to the Commander-in-Chief, since the beginning of the war—specifically, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022—this force has increased more than fivefold, reaching over 620,000 personnel as of early April. Additionally, Syrskyi announced that the planned joint exercises between Russia and Belarus this fall could very well be a preparation for a new invasion of Ukraine from Belarus—just as it happened in February 2022. So, this whole story about negotiations is increasingly obviously just a cover operation.
As for whether Donald Trump is consciously participating in this cover operation—I don’t know, I’m not sure. I don’t think so. I think Putin is simply using him for his own purposes.
The U.S. Is Reducing Its Presence in Europe Link to heading
At the same time, the United States is reducing its military presence in Europe. Here are the numbers: initially, the U.S. force currently stationed in Eastern Europe consists of 80,000 troops. This deployment is intended to directly counter the Russian threat. Of these, 20,000 troops are part of a forward-deployed force. That number is now being cut in half to 10,000. Ten thousand American service members are set to be withdrawn. This is part of Trump’s broader global plan, in which he intends to turn away from Europe and redirect the main focus of U.S. foreign policy toward Southeast Asia and the Pacific region. That’s where the primary forces will be redeployed. And Europe, as the saying goes, is left to fend for itself.
Europe Is Twiddling Its Thumbs Link to heading
So, in Europe itself, literally in the past few days, even hours, we’ve been witnessing developments that—with a great deal of wishful thinking, I’d say—can be seen as something we very much want to believe in. At least I’d like to see it that way. This is the “MEGA” process. In response to America’s MAGA—Make America Great Again—there’s this acronym: Make Europe Great Again. It sounds, in my opinion, a bit more appealing. MEGA versus MAGA.
So what stands out here? Just a few hours ago in Berlin, a conference was held—a presentation of the agreement forming the new ruling coalition between the CDU, CSU, and the Social Democrats. Why do I consider this a significant step toward Germany becoming a leader in this “Make Europe Great Again” movement? Even though no one has actually used that slogan, I think the current developments are moving in that direction—toward increasing Europe’s agency. This is a process being declared by French President Macron and, to some extent, by Germany’s new leader, who is replacing Merkel and is clearly set to become chancellor.
The main theses and parameters of the new coalition’s plans were laid out. It’s clear that these plans are significantly more assertive. Germany is clearly shaping a new course. This is reflected in a tougher migration policy—which was to be expected. That’s understandable, especially given that during these successful negotiations between the CDU, CSU, and Social Democrats, a concerning sign emerged: at the same time, according to public opinion polls, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has taken the lead in popularity, slightly overtaking the CDU/CSU. That’s one thing—public opinion is one matter, and government representation is another. It’s mostly coming from Eastern Germany, the former GDR, but the party isn’t represented in the government.
What’s becoming increasingly clear is that, alongside tightening migration policies, the new cabinet will strengthen support for Ukraine and increase defense spending—which overall fits within this concept of “Make Europe Great Again.”
Trump’s Dreams of Kisses Link to heading
Well, it’s impossible to go through one of our analytical reviews without discussing what’s once again coming out of Donald Trump’s big mouth. So, the President of the United States celebrated his birthday with a military parade. During a ceremonial dinner held essentially in his honor, he shared that countries on which the United States has imposed tariffs—or rather, sanctions and tariffs—are now sending negotiators to Washington to make deals, as one might expect.
At the same time, the 47th President of the United States revealed to the world an ocean of his erotic fantasies. It suddenly turned out that Donald Trump prefers oral attention with a dominant twist. Here’s what he specifically said—quote: “These countries call us, they kiss my ass. They are dying to make a deal. Please, please, make a deal. I’ll do anything, sir,” Trump recounted while speaking at this Republican Party celebration.
And then he continued: “I think the trade war with the world isn’t even a war, because they’re all coming here. Japan is coming now, flying in on a plane. There are many of them, and they’re all tough negotiators,” and so on.
But it turned out that Trump’s erotic fantasies are not widely shared around the world. Well, we’ll see who actually shares them. As for this kind of rhetoric—when you want to strike a deal, when you want something advantageous for yourself, but at the same time you publicly humiliate your negotiating partners in front of the whole world—I don’t know. Maybe this is the new Carnegie Edition: How to Make a Deal. Apparently, to do that, you have to humiliate your prospective partner so thoroughly that simply speaking with you becomes impossible.
Well, we’ll see. In fact, this is a test. I like it, actually. It’s a good test. We’ll soon find out how many world leaders are ready to face cartoons in their own countries showing them kissing the backside of the President of the United States. Quite the trial by fire. Let’s watch.
How China Is Responding to Trump Link to heading
It’s absolutely clear that Trump’s erotic fantasies are not shared by a number of countries—they’ve already made that clear. In particular, China’s Ministry of Finance announced an 84% increase in tariffs on all goods imported from the U.S. Trump had imposed tariffs on China at 104%, and China responded with 84%.
Now, I won’t pretend to be an economic expert who can analyze this in detail, but from what I know, the biggest losers from this essentially trade barrier—because 104% and 84% tariffs effectively make trade almost unfeasible—will be, in China, its vast pig population: 440 million pigs. The U.S. supplies soybeans for their feed.
In the U.S., the people who will suffer most are iPhone users and consumers of other electronics, since China is a major supplier to the U.S. I don’t remember the exact numbers right now—I’d really like to bring in an economist for this—but China holds a significant share of the electronics and iPhone market.
In fact, the overall volume of trade between China and the U.S. represents a massive portion of global commerce—if I’m not mistaken, around 40%. So a blow to this enormous share of global trade is bound to affect everyone else as well.
How Canada Is Responding to Trump Link to heading
Canada also does not share Trump’s erotic fantasies and, in turn, has imposed a 25% tariff on all automobiles from the United States. In addition to this, Europe is also preparing to introduce 20% tariffs. So, we’ll see. Trump’s perception of his role in the world—and this image he paints of everyone lining up, so to speak, for his kisses—well, let’s see how that actually turns out.
Chaos Benefits Putin Link to heading
In any case, it’s clear that the one who stands to gain—at least in the short term—is Putin. Although as a result of all this, it’s doubtful he’ll benefit in the long term, because oil prices are already dropping to a critical level, and of course, that’s going to hit the Russian economy. But regardless, this is chaos—and chaos, of course, benefits Putin. We’ll see how the situation unfolds. I hope that by tomorrow’s morning stream, things will have become a bit clearer.
Q&A Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I’d like to make two brief announcements. First, this convenient evening broadcast of ours isn’t the end of tonight’s programming. At 10:00 PM, we’ll have the next episode—number 134—of Mediafrenia.
And since we’ve had this shift from a morning stream to an evening one, I want to remind you that for tomorrow’s morning 7:40 stream, you should leave your questions under this video. That’s where I’ll be looking for them. I usually don’t check the comments under Mediafrenia for questions—just don’t have the energy for that. But here, under this stream, which will end shortly after I finish answering your questions, that’s where I’ll be looking.
With that, let’s move on to your questions.
On Zelensky’s Use of the Word “Russians” Link to heading
So, Aleksa Vasylenko
I want to comment on the word that grates on the eyes and ears—at least for me and, I believe, for none of your subscribers either. At the press conference after the talks in Jeddah—please correct me in the comments if I’m placing the stress correctly—Zelensky referred to the Russian occupiers as “Russians” (translated from Ukrainian). “We had to demonstrate that we want peace, and the Russians want war. One meeting showed it all.” I’d like to briefly share my opinion on this. In Russia, if you can put it this way, the term “Russians” includes the broader category of “citizens of Russia,” and within that is the subset of ethnic Russians. So, in my opinion, with that one word, Zelensky was emphasizing that the main perpetrators of the war are ethnic Russians—that is, ethnic Russians specifically. What do you think?
Dear Oleg, I think that, without a doubt, if that were truly the intent, it would indeed be a mistaken judgment. Because in reality, the main perpetrators of the war include everyone involved. The war isn’t being fought solely by ethnic Russians—it also involves Tatars, Chuvash, Yakuts, and many others. That’s quite obvious. In this case, I believe the criticism directed at President Zelensky is somewhat misplaced. And here’s why:
Ukraine is part of Europe—and increasingly becoming more integrated with Europe. Zelensky himself is also becoming more and more a European-style politician. In European tradition, going back to the Russian Empire, which also included many different peoples, and later the Soviet Union, which officially consisted of 15 equal republics, and now modern Putinist Russia—people from all these empires are generally referred to simply as “Russians.”
So to the European—and especially the American—eye and ear, when you hear “the Russians are coming” or “the Russians attacked,” it’s understood to mean “citizens of Russia,” regardless of their ethnicity, heritage, or even language. That’s precisely the nuance of European perception that President Zelensky was reflecting in his rhetoric.
On Three Proverbs Link to heading
So, “Gloomy Donkey,”
If I may, three small questions. What would you say in response to someone who says: “Everything happens for the best”? What would you say—as a believer, or more professionally, to those more devout—about the claim that children pay for the sins of their ancestors, when previously asked: Why do infants and children die if they haven’t committed a single sin in their short lives? And do you agree that the proverb “good always triumphs over evil” is untrue—not accurate? For example, evil often triumphs just as much, if not more. Evil can last for decades. Good wins briefly, and then evil rules for decades again. The USSR lasted 70 years, democratic Russia—10 years, Putinism—25 years, the Assad family, the Russian Federation, and other global cannibalistic regimes, and so on. Even in everyday life, there are millions of examples where evil—if not eternal—is at least long-lived enough to bring a lot of suffering to those around it.
Well, these questions are, let’s say, not quite philosophical—they’re more rhetorical. So, “Everything happens for the best.” I don’t subscribe to that phrase. It’s a cliché, really—a sort of shallow Hegelianism. There’s that well-known Hegel phrase: “Everything actual is rational, and everything rational is actual.” But that doesn’t mean that everything that happens is good or reasonable. No, that’s a mistake. And Hegel meant something quite different. I won’t delve into the depths of Hegel’s philosophy right now, but overall, this saying—“everything happens for the best”—reflects, I’d say, a passive view of the world. Forgive me, a view that leads to inaction. Because if everything happens for the best, then you don’t need to act, don’t need to change the course of events. It’s not a position I agree with.
As for how I’d respond from a believer’s perspective—whether amateur or more devout—regarding the idea that “children suffer for the sins of their ancestors”: I also reject that notion entirely. I don’t believe children are punished. That’s a belief held by some of the most extreme obscurantists in the Russian Orthodox Church, who think everyone pays for the sins of their parents and so on. That’s pure obscurantism.
Now, as for the proverb “good always triumphs over evil”—this one is a bit more complex. Yes, indeed, good does not always triumph over evil. That’s true. So, as a universal statement, it’s inaccurate. But your own position, dear “Gloomy Donkey,” is also flawed, in my opinion. Why? Because your examples of evil lasting long and good being brief are very selective. I could offer thousands of counterexamples. Let’s look, for instance, at the Federal Republic of Germany—Germany as a whole. The Third Reich existed for an immeasurably shorter time than the quite humane regime of the FRG. That’s one example. In Italy, Mussolini ruled for a far shorter period than the stable and livable democratic regimes that followed. So, I’d say examples of the opposite can be found in abundance.
And overall, if we look at the general trend… again, this notion that evil is on the rise, that we’re living in the worst of times—listen, if you take the broader scope of human history, there has been an evolution toward the better, toward humanism. That may sound blasphemous in the context of Bucha or the recent tragedy in Kryvyi Rih, but I’ll say what I truly believe.
And I believe that over the course of millennia, humanity has moved in a better direction—toward greater humanity. We abandoned cannibalism, we abandoned slavery, we abandoned mass killings based on ethnicity. Now, such things are at least being openly condemned, regarded as atavisms. If we look at history, we can say that, overall, there is progress toward humanism.
So in that sense, yes—on a historical scale, good does triumph over evil. But not immediately, not completely, not everywhere, and not in every single episode. So, regarding the last point: while I reject the first two sayings, I think the third deserves careful consideration—which I’ve tried to provide here.
On Garry Kasparov’s Statement Link to heading
Tamara Fetisova
Yesterday, on the Free Russia Forum channel, Garry Kasparov repeated your shared idea that the war in Ukraine is not just Putin’s war, but a war of the entire Russian people. I agree—I have no issues with that idea. But I do have a request: name a nation that, after years of intense, one-sided propaganda, wouldn’t start hitting every red button it was pointed toward. And please don’t say “they won’t allow it” or “they’ll all rise up as one.” First, that’s debatable, and second, that’s beside the point.
Dear Tamara, I wasn’t going to say that. I want to say something entirely different. You see, this propaganda—and the regime that makes it possible—did it come from Mars? From planet Nabiru? No. All of these people—Solovyov, Simonyan, Putin—where did they come from, and why did they emerge specifically on Russian soil?
Yes, you could say that in the U.S., Trump also emerged—but Trump was around for just a few months, while Putin has been in power for 25 years. So, I still wouldn’t dismiss this idea—which, as I understand, you agree with—that any people subjected to such propaganda would act similarly. But where did that propaganda come from in the first place? That’s the key question. It’s not some outside radiation broadcast by a hostile country. It’s homegrown. It came from within.
Could Trump’s Tariff War Benefit Ukraine? Link to heading
So, Olga Donetskaya—Olga is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are deeply grateful.
Igor Alexandrovich, what do you think—could Trump’s tariff war be beneficial to Ukraine? After all, it’s led not only to a crash in the stock markets but also to falling oil prices. If that decline continues, Putin will struggle—or even be unable—to wage war, since there’ll be no money to pay public sector workers, including the guards. And how can he allow that, when his own security comes first?
You know, dear Olga, I do think that to some extent what’s happening may—well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s beneficial to Ukraine. I’d phrase it more cautiously: this whole situation may create a window of opportunity for Ukraine.
First, because indeed, hard times are coming for Putin and the Russian economy. I don’t think it’s catastrophic. I don’t think he’ll stop the war because of this, but he’ll definitely have fewer resources—that’s a fact.
Second, another window of opportunity is opening up because Trump’s pivot away from Ukraine is prompting Ukraine to consolidate. Ukraine is beginning to rely more on its own strength. And the military alliance that may emerge as a result of Trump’s turn away—Ukraine could become a part of that alliance. Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO, but this potential military alliance, which could arise from the threat posed by Putin—there, Ukraine’s chances are much stronger.
In any case, Europe’s support for Ukraine will likely grow significantly compared to before. So yes, a window of opportunity for Ukraine does seem to be opening.
Do the Widows of North Korean Soldiers Receive Compensation? Link to heading
Wreath:
It would be interesting to know whether the widows of North Korean soldiers, whose bones are now in Ukrainian black soil, receive compensation for the loss of their breadwinner from Kim Jong-un.
Well, first of all, given how closed-off that country is, I don’t have any reliable sources on what exactly is being received there. But I do have a hypothesis, based on the following facts.
As far as I know, Kim Jong-un personally doesn’t pay much—if anything—to the people he sends out. Those 12,000, and later another 3,000 North Korean soldiers who were sent to fight in Ukraine—here’s what I do know for sure: Putin pays $2,000 per month for each soldier. That’s $2,000 a month.
But that money is not paid directly to the soldier or their families. It goes to Kim Jong-un. What portion of that, if any, reaches the soldier himself—let alone his widow—I don’t know. What I do know is that they received some kind of thank-you letters. As for money? I doubt it. Most likely not. Maybe a few scraps trickle down, but there’s no concrete information.
What is clear is that Putin is paying the $2,000—to Kim Jong-un. This is a textbook example of slavery: he’s buying slaves from the slave owner—Kim Jong-un. And as for the slaves themselves—what they get out of it, who knows.
A Complaint to the Author About Unanswered Questions Link to heading
John Bonham wrote the following message:
Maybe this will be my last question—why did you stop answering my questions? The last three went unanswered. If they just got lost among the other comments, then no big deal, that happens. But if this is a deliberate ignore for some personal reason, at least say so, so I don’t keep writing in vain.
Dear John Bonham,
Since you and I, unfortunately, don’t have the pleasure of knowing each other personally, I can’t possibly have any personal motives to ignore you. I simply didn’t see the questions. That happens. It could be YouTube settings, too. I won’t get into the technical explanations, but everyone listening now—including you—should understand that sifting through a thousand comments to find every question isn’t easy. Sometimes they appear after I’ve already looked through the thread. Sometimes they get hidden. Anything can happen.
If your message had been a question instead of a reproach, I definitely would have seen it—and I would have answered.
On the Anti-Trump Protests in the U.S. Link to heading
Moscow Migrant:
This past weekend, there were multi-million-strong protests in the U.S.—against Trump. Social media was flooded with posts about these actions, but major media outlets, it seemed to me, barely covered them. I could assume the reason is media bias. But even you, in your Monday stream, only briefly mentioned the protests, noting only that Trump didn’t respond clearly. Why such restraint? Is there something about these protests that makes them less significant? I’d like to understand whether they can really influence U.S. policy and serve as an effective form of resistance to Trump’s actions.
First of all, I’d question the claim that these protests were multi-million in scale. From what I’ve seen—and I followed both videos and reports quite closely—they involved tens of thousands of people, but certainly not millions. That’s the first point.
Second, Trump truly doesn’t care about these protests. They lack leadership and don’t offer a clear alternative. What are the protesters proposing? The participants are very diverse: some are angry about tariffs, some about layoffs, some about Trump rejecting the left-wing agenda of the Democrats. And in many cases, these protests actually appear to many Americans—including those who support Trump—as validating his policies. Like, “Look, he’s standing up against all that political correctness, and they’re marching for it.”
In short, I’m not criticizing the left or the right—I’m saying that Trump’s position needs to be opposed by a clear and coherent political alternative. The absence of a strong leader is really felt here. If not Trump, then who?
That’s why I gave more attention to the protest by the Governor of California—because that’s a figure of real significance, from the largest and most economically developed state in the U.S. That’s a political force.
So these protests, in my view, aren’t decisive—at least not yet. Maybe I’m wrong.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
And with that, we wrap up today’s morning stream. Once again—there’s that slip of the tongue—this evening’s stream. Just a reminder that questions for tomorrow’s morning stream can be left in the comments under this one.
And finally, don’t forget: at 10:00 PM we’ll have our Mediafrenia program. Don’t miss it—I hope it’ll be substantive.
Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom for Alexander Sokolov, for Russian political prisoners, and for Ukrainian POWs!
All the best! See you at 10:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/Fgkjxmur5uU