Putin explained to Trump that U.S. Independence Day is thanks to Russia. Russia was the first in the world to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan under Taliban leadership and banned the Norwegian Helsinki Committee.
News Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is the fourth of July, in Kyiv. It’s now 07:41, and we continue our daily morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Putin explained to Trump that U.S. independence is thanks to Russia Link to heading
Today is Independence Day in the United States of America. On the eve of this occasion, the sixth hour-long conversation between Putin and Trump took place. Putin congratulated Trump on Independence Day and clearly explained to the 47th President of the United States that, essentially, the U.S. should thank Russia for this day. According to Ushakov, who conveyed the content of the conversation, Russia played a significant role in the formation of American statehood, including during the War of Independence and later during the Civil War. Well, that’s Ushakov’s version. I don’t know whether Putin actually said something in the spirit of “the U.S. was created by Catherine II.” We don’t know, as there is no transcript of the conversation, of course.
In general, Russia’s role in the creation of American statehood—well, if you search with a microscope, it really is there. It lies in the fact that Catherine II did indeed reject a British request to send 20,000 Russian soldiers to fight against the Americans. And overall, that’s probably it, probably where it ends. Russia didn’t take part in the war on Britain’s side. It’s like they say about Lenin in such cases: “He could have slashed with a razor but didn’t.” So if that counts as a role in the creation of statehood, then yes—many countries “contributed” by not participating. By the way, the full text of the U.S. Declaration of Independence was banned in the Russian Empire for nearly 100 years until the reign of Alexander II. That’s fairly understandable, given the total mismatch between the values of the Declaration and the policies pursued in Russia. Incidentally, the Declaration of Independence reportedly inspired some participants in the Decembrist uprising, as they viewed America as the homeland of freedom. So, in a way, the influence ran in the opposite direction—the United States continued to serve as a kind of beacon.
Returning to Russia’s role: it recognized the United States only in 1807, that is, 31 years after its founding. Additionally, in that sixth conversation between Putin and Trump, Putin proposed an exchange between the two countries of film content promoting traditional values. As Ushakov put it, values shared by both Russia and the Trump administration. According to Ushakov, Trump immediately responded that he liked the idea. I find it difficult to say what kind of films Russia might offer—probably a bunch of propaganda movies about the occupation of Crimea, maybe something else. In any case, I think Trump will have something to watch during his long evenings after golf. As for what kind of productions Trump might offer Russia, it’s hard to say. Still, they had a lively discussion on the topic, so there will be more to talk about during the seventh and eighth conversations, as they say.
Years pass, death count 125, and the Putin–Trump conversations continue. So, in short, this series appears to be a long one. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that Trump was left dissatisfied with the conversation with Putin. He said there was no progress in resolving the situation in Ukraine. It’s strange—Putin seemed to do everything to please Trump: congratulated him on Independence Day, explained that the U.S. exists solely thanks to Russia, even promised to show traditional-values-based movies—yet Trump is still not satisfied, still picky. I think Putin will respond soon by sending Kirill Dmitriev to him, since Dmitriev is a high-level professional when it comes to satisfying people like Trump. I believe that after a conversation with Kirill Dmitriev, Trump will be left with a deep, deep sense of satisfaction.
Turns out Biden depleted the U.S. Link to heading
So. In addition to that, responding to a journalist’s question, Trump stated that the United States of America—he explained why the supply of weapons to Ukraine had been interrupted, and said that the U.S. had transferred a lot of weapons to Ukraine, but the Trump administration—Biden’s administration is to blame. By sending weapons to Ukraine, it turns out, the entire country was depleted. So what? We need to be sure that we ourselves have enough of that weaponry. Turns out, everyone was saying “We’re screwed!” We’re screwed. The aid—turns out Biden depleted the whole country by sending weapons to Ukraine. So. Well, it’s hard for me to comment on that, kind of. Of course, of course, you have to be a specialist. Not just a military expert and a Pentagon specialist, so to speak. But there is a firm belief that this is, of course, complete nonsense. Right. Because the types of weapons that were transferred—at least from what’s known in open sources—there’s no sign of depletion anywhere near that scale. Here are the specific dates. The further development of this whole series—well, it’s not exactly in question, but it hasn’t been specified, because there are no concrete dates for a third round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, those Istanbul sit-downs—they haven’t discussed the possibility of a personal meeting between Trump and Putin. But still, we see—the sixth round, the sixth conversation took place. Of course, there’s no real point to this conversation. Unless you count it as another political lesson Putin gave to Trump. Now next up is Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. The President of Ukraine announced this conversation yesterday, saying it could happen tomorrow, meaning today or in the coming days. But this is important. Whether Zelensky will be able—whether Zelensky will be able to change Trump’s stance on providing weapons—that is, of course, the main question. Well, let’s hope he’s able to explain something to him.
Who is a Friend to Russia, and Who is an Undesirable Organization Link to heading
Putin responded to Trump’s call to end the war with concentrated strikes on Kyiv last night. I can’t say right now how many were affected, but in any case, a lot, because a massive, combined barrage of missiles and Shaheds hit Kyiv exclusively. So, a peculiar kind of response. Trump called for an end to the war. Putin responded, engaged in a dialogue with Trump, and answered with strikes on Kyiv. Right. In addition, Russia continues to clarify its political identity. Essentially, this is a constantly ongoing answer to the question of what is good and what is bad. So, literally just the other day, two such answers occurred. First of all, there was the answer that the Taliban is good—Russia was the first in the world to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which is led by the Taliban. The Taliban is considered a terrorist organization in many countries, but for Russia, it’s a good thing, you could say a kindred regime. Meanwhile, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee is bad. So: the Taliban is good, but the Norwegian Helsinki Committee is bad. That is, the Prosecutor General’s Office acted at the request of State Duma deputy Andrei Lugovoy. Everything about this is just perfect. Andrei Lugovoy demanded that the Norwegian Helsinki Committee be recognized as an undesirable organization in Russia. This whole storyline really is perfect. A murderer, a courier, a person who was wanted for a long time, responsible for the death of people—the death of a person was committed in a way dangerous to the public: poisoning with polonium. And now this person is shaping the agenda in the State Duma. And he’s the one declaring that the Norwegian Helsinki Committee should be declared an undesirable organization. The rationale is that the Norwegian Helsinki Committee is an instrument of Western intelligence services, as it turns out, which acted against the Soviet Union. And now they’re supposedly up to no good again—drawing pseudo-identical parallels and associative links. I’m quoting Lugovoy’s report here—between the actions of the Russian armed forces in the 1990s–2000s in the Chechen Republic and in recent years in Ukraine. So let me remind you, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee is an organization founded in 1977, and it was based on the principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which served as a foundation for world order over the last decades—40 years, even 50. So, just to be clear, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee is about human rights. It’s clear that what is happening now is the fascist Reich being brought to a state of sterile completeness. Internal contradictions are being eliminated. Indeed, in a country where the Taliban are close partners, of course, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee cannot operate. That is, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee is about human rights, while the Taliban are exclusively about violating those rights. Therefore, let’s just say that here, a certain sterility has been restored. The internal logic and completeness of the fascist Reich are taking shape. This is about bringing it all, so to speak, to a state of absolute clarity—a fascist one. All contradictions are being eliminated.
Actions of Ukrainian Intelligence Services Link to heading
So, before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that the work of Ukraine’s intelligence services is gradually approaching the level of Israel’s intelligence services. In the Kursk region, the deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Major General Mikhail Gudkov, was eliminated. He was killed in an explosion at a command post in the Kursk region. It’s very telling that he had only recently been appointed to this position. Moreover, it happened publicly—Putin preceded the appointment, and it was all done on camera. When appointing Gudkov as deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Putin spoke at length and showered Gudkov and the marines he commanded with compliments. So, the reward found its hero.
One more thing. On the same day—yesterday—it became known about another elimination. Yesterday in Luhansk, the former head of the occupation administration of Luhansk was eliminated. He was wanted by the Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine as an active participant in an illegal armed group, and was also eliminated in an explosion. So another reward found another hero. The Ukrainian intelligence services are operating quite effectively.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that today is Friday, and as usual on Fridays at 8:00 PM, we have a conversation with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky. I hope he will somehow bring some optimism into the current agenda. He’s good at that. So we’re looking forward to it until 7:00 PM. And now I’ll move on to answering your questions.
About Chechnya and Subsidies Link to heading
A question from the Telegram channel chat from a subscriber who calls himself Lu: Igor Aleksandrovich. For many years I’ve been hearing about Chechnya living exclusively on subsidies from Russia, and you also mentioned this in your stream. I’d like to understand then, where does all the money from oil sales go? After all, Chechnya is an oil-producing region. Has the oil run out? Or does Russia continue to pump Chechen oil for free, as it always has, while still declaring Chechnya a subsidized region? Why is Chechnya the most subsidized region in Russia, despite having its own oil and numerous refineries? What’s going on here?
Dear colleague, I think this is a very simple story. For obvious reasons, I didn’t go into detail about an event like the wedding of Adam Kadyrov, the 17-year-old son of Ramzan Kadyrov, which was marked by incredible luxury. There were watches worth half a billion, super-premium cars, and generally, everything was ultra-luxurious. We all know what kind of wealth Kadyrov and his circle possess. There’s a villa in Dubai, the construction of the largest mosque in Europe, invitations to Western celebrities, golden pistols… In short, wealth on the level of Arab sheikhs—well, I wouldn’t say it surpasses them, but it’s definitely on par.
So, when you ask where the oil goes—not just the oil, but also those massive subsidies that Putin pays Kadyrov as tribute—well, they turn into those golden pistols and those watches worth over 1.5 billion. And that’s just the very small tip of the iceberg. In reality, the Kadyrov regime doesn’t use those countless billions received from Putin to improve everyday life. What’s the difference—since I mentioned Arab sheikhs—what’s the fundamental difference between the Kadyrov regime and the regimes of Saudi Arabia or the UAE? There, oil wealth results in a fairly high standard of living for all citizens. In Chechnya, the general population lives at a fairly low standard, while at the top—the Kadyrov clan, his family, his inner circle—there’s obscene luxury. Truly, it’s off the charts.
So, where does the money go? That’s where. I think it’s all quite transparent and clear.
Could Lukashenko Have Been Yeltsin’s Successor Link to heading
A question from Ilya: I’ve heard more than once, including from Abbas Gallyamov in a recent interview with Stanislav Kucher, the opinion that Lukashenko could have become Yeltsin’s successor instead of Putin—if Yeltsin had united with Belarus into a single union state with one president at the head. This is said in the context of Lukashenko allegedly hating Putin, dreaming of a bedroom in the Kremlin, seeing him as an upstart, and possibly ready to hand him over to The Hague if given the chance. Hence his flirtations with the U.S. and the EU. I find this opinion rather strange. Rather, strange—since it’s hard to imagine that even then, with Yeltsin weak, his family would have allowed Lukashenko onto the Russian throne, simply because he was unmanageable from the start. Not to mention other factors. Ilya writes: I fully allow that Lukashenko may feel hatred toward Putin, but he’s unlikely to dare arrest him or make personal attacks. What do you think about such opinions? And is Lukashenko capable of a bold move against the Kremlin to preserve his power and become acceptable to the West?
Well, as for the last sentence, I think the answer is: not for now, definitely not. Lukashenko clearly can’t pull off such a move at this point. He simply doesn’t have the resources for that kind of gambit.
As for the historical part of the question—look, this is all very concrete. The truth is always specific. In 1995–96, Lukashenko really was—well, not exactly close to the Russian presidency—but he was actively working toward it. I remember headlines at the time: Lukashenko has his eye on the Russian presidency. I don’t recall whether it was in Kommersant or Ogonyok, but some newspapers did write things like that. One of them even said, as best I recall: He plans to annex the lagging kolkhoz of Russia to the leading sovkhoz of Soviet Belarus.
In several public conversations, Lukashenko openly stated that Belarus was a stage he had already passed. So yes, he really did plan—he truly planned—to take the Russian presidential seat. His aides spoke about it openly. This was 1995, with presidential elections approaching, and Yeltsin’s chances were considered nil. There really was hope that through unifying Russia and Belarus into a single state—well then, who would be president? The ailing Yeltsin? No, here’s a young, ambitious, energetic Lukashenko, a fighter against corruption.
I remember the situation well. Lukashenko began actively courting the Russian elite. He met with leaders of nearly 30 Russian regions. He worked intensely with Russian media. At first, he counted on Andrei Karaulov—but Karaulov, being a traitor at heart, didn’t stick around long. Then Lukashenko worked with Alexander Nevzorov. At the time, Nevzorov had the program Dni—it was practically Lukashenko’s mouthpiece.
As for patriotic newspapers like Zavtra and Sovetskaya Rossiya, people like Prokhanov—they were just thrilled with Lukashenko. So yes, he really positioned himself as an Alexander the Gatherer of Russian Lands. That episode happened.
But in the end, after the elections, after Yeltsin was made president again, Lukashenko’s ambitions faded. I don’t think he ever held such hopes again.
As for whether he holds a grudge now—I think Lukashenko is a fairly pragmatic man. Let me remind you: Lukashenko is a dictator who’s gone through a serious political journey. A very serious one. Lukashenko once spoke at rallies of the Belarusian Popular Front. Imagine Putin speaking at rallies of democratic organizations—it’s impossible. But Lukashenko did. He even stood on the same stage as Zianon Pazniak. That same Lukashenko.
So he went through political struggle before becoming a totalitarian dictator, before eliminating all his rivals and letting them rot in prison. He had to fight for power—unlike Putin, who was simply installed into power like little Zaches. So now, it’s a different story altogether.
Dreams of Tomahawks Link to heading
So, Aleksandr Komolov. In Iran, it has been stated many times that Ukraine will receive Tomahawks as well. Were you really that naive? Even a strong desire for something shouldn’t get in the way. Sober analysts of the real situation, which is not unfolding as optimistically as those who see the world through Ukrainian eyes portray it. Dmytro Gordon is an extreme case of excessive optimism, more akin to propaganda.
Well, thank you, of course, dear Aleksandr, for comparing me to Dmytro Gordon. I won’t forget that. Just kidding. Right. But in this case, you see, we probably live in different worlds. So, could we, for example, have predicted that the war would last almost four years already? Clearly, in terms of duration, it’s likely to exceed what is referred to as the Great Patriotic War—that is, the part of World War II involving the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. It’s quite possible it will exceed even World War II in terms of scale and duration. Could anyone have predicted that? I’m not sure. Honestly, I don’t think anyone expected it to go on this long.
Could we have predicted that the United States would give Ukraine F-16s? They did. So, you see, as for Tomahawks—I don’t know. The war isn’t over, and life goes on. So naivety? Naivety. You know, there are people who always predict the worst-case scenario. Like, everything’s bad, it’ll get worse, and so on. That’s a certain kind of skeptical stance. Then there are people who wear rose-colored glasses and always expect things to go well, even better. I don’t belong to either group, but I really did and still do believe that it’s not out of the question for Ukraine to receive Tomahawks. I still think that, yes?
Against the backdrop of Trump’s recent antics, it may look far-fetched. But I emphasize that, first of all, we don’t know how long the war will last. Indeed, Trump’s return is not even a Black Swan—it’s more like some chaotic force that just swooped in and messed everything up. So then the question arises, you understand? What’s going to happen next—I don’t know. We probably live in a world… The probability of Ukraine receiving Tomahawks right now is very, very low. Extremely low. What happens next—we don’t know.
So, you know, there are many things happening today that, just yesterday, could have been considered wildly naive to predict. But I have absolutely no desire to engage in any kind of propaganda. What I do want is to try and objectively reflect what’s really going on.
Trump’s Excuses About Weapons Supplies and Production Link to heading
So, Oleg Litvin. Igor, if the states themselves are short on weapons, then do they exist? They do. There’s a certain amount of time needed to replenish stockpiles. Did Trump say anything about the timeline for when they can restock? Then the reason isn’t that.
Dear Oleg, I also believe that this isn’t the reason. And we conducted surveys—only 2% agreed with the Pentagon’s official version that the reason is the U.S. itself lacking weapons. I think the real reason is that Trump is trying to bring Ukraine to its knees, to force Ukraine to accept Putin’s proposal. For Trump, that’s what matters. Essentially, to put it plainly, Trump is coming out of this war with a final ultimatum for Ukraine: surrender, or arms supplies will be cut off. He’s hoping that this will push Ukraine to accept any conditions. That’s the version I lean toward.
Did Trump Promise Weapons to Ukraine Link to heading
So, a question from Mr. MMM—Trump’s betrayal. The question: Igor Aleksandrovich, why use the word betrayal? As far as I understand, Trump never promised loyalty.
Dear colleague, I must say that Trump’s speeches are known for a certain pattern—he starts out one way and ends up completely the opposite, or vice versa. Nevertheless, there are some very well-known statements Trump has made. In particular, he said that he would pressure both sides of the conflict, as he understands this war. And if Ukraine refuses to move toward peace, he would cut off weapons supplies. But if Russia refuses to move toward peace, then he would flood Ukraine with weapons—that’s what he said. He said that.
What do we see now? Ukraine is ready for everything. Trump says: let’s have a 30-day ceasefire. Ukraine responds: yes, yes, we completely agree, let’s do a 30-day ceasefire. Putin refuses. Then Putin says: let’s meet in Istanbul. Ukraine agrees to that too. So Ukraine is essentially agreeing to all of Trump’s proposals—and, generally, to many of Putin’s as well. But Putin? Putin agrees to nothing.
In their sixth conversation, when Trump said let’s end the war, Putin replied: we first need to resolve all our issues. And what are those issues? In essence, the liquidation of Ukraine. So, he openly told Trump to get lost. And what then?
So I believe that, of course, Trump is not fulfilling his commitments and is, in fact, betraying Ukraine.
What about the rare earth metals deal? Link to heading
Like this? A question from RG — “Glubina” is the person’s name. And what about the deal on Ukraine’s mineral resources? Sign it, sign the deal and we’ll help. Now the ammunition will go to Israel, writes Glubina. Oh, Svitan is right.
You know, regarding the so-called outrage about Trump — I’ve already spoken about that, and I agree with you. But as for some saying that Svetlana is right — in what way is Sveta right? That the Jews are always to blame for everything? And this little jab is now aimed at Israel. It gives the impression that the person is responding to the Israelis about Ukraine. Right? So, this little detail — excuse me — starts to smell a bit like antisemitism. That’s what this is. So I’m just addressing the framing of this question. In what way is Sveta right? Is Svitan right in his antisemitism or in something else? That idea that the Jews are to blame for everything, that the ammunition is going to Israel — excuse me, it’s not Israel giving itself this ammo, it’s Trump choosing Israel over Ukraine. So then, excuse me, Ukraine should take that as a sign that it needs to build just as effective a lobbying presence in the United States as Israel has.
About Kirill Sazonov Link to heading
Huh? Such a well-wisher. Have you seen Kirill Sazonov’s video with a more optimistic assessment of the U.S. aid situation? It’s a short one, less than seven minutes. A link is provided afterwards. By the way, haven’t you spoken with him in a while? Maybe. Hopefully, you’ll talk in the foreseeable future.
Dear kind buyer, I watched that video. It’s really short. I can only say one thing: the main argument of the very respected Kirill Sazonov — by the way, wishing him a speedy recovery, he’s feeling unwell right now — the main argument is that there’s no logic in this halt of weapons supplies. No logic. Well, dear Kirill, excuse me, but what does logic have to do with it? Trump’s logic? Where do they even intersect? It seems to me that Kirill Sazonov’s task was to stop the panic. I mean, I don’t really see much panic, but clearly his aim was just to calm things down and say, “Everything’s still ahead. They’ll work it out and everything will be fine.” I don’t know, the video didn’t seem convincing to me. It felt rather deliberate. That said, if anyone has the full right to their own opinion, it’s Kirill Sazonov.
Did Trump sell Ukraine to Putin? Link to heading
Olga Pisareva And what do you think of the opinion that Trump sold Ukraine to Putin in exchange for Iran? Like, Putin doesn’t interfere with Trump and Israel in Iran, and Trump helps Putin with Ukraine. And during the Iran operation, everyone fell silent — including Whitcoff and “Kirill Putin’s guy,” we know who that means. So they shook hands, and now Trump is fulfilling his part of the deal — halting supplies. I hope, of course, that Trump finds a reason to screw Putin over, if he’s not completely naive and foolish to seriously negotiate with him. I heard this opinion from Roman Svitan — again. And this view makes the most sense. And then there’s the second part of the question, about Michael Naki. He doesn’t advise Ukrainians to stay away from military targets, but rather — like you — doesn’t advise it when others do. Well, dear friends, there should at least be some factual basis. And he, like you, doesn’t meddle in Ukraine’s internal affairs. He’s talking to Russians, trying to stop them from being so foolish and thinking they’ll get away with supporting the war or being indifferent — that they’ll be untouched. He tells his fellow citizens, “You’re naive to think you’re safe, especially those working for the war effort. You’re legitimate targets, and if you want to live, stay away from military sites.”
Well, let’s put it this way. As for the first part — that, so to speak, Trump sold Ukraine to Putin for Iran, and that Putin doesn’t interfere with Trump and Israel regarding Iran — what could Putin have done to interfere? Just look at the capabilities — what exactly could Putin do? What is he dragging into Iran through his procurement channels? Air defense systems? Putin has nothing. Putin is well known for not helping his own partners. So I can hardly imagine the point of such a deal. In this case, I just don’t see any grounds for it, you understand? That there was some kind of Ukraine-for-Iran trade? No. Putin had no real way to help Iran.
So the motive is obvious — Trump is pulling out of the negotiation process and trying to force Ukraine to accept all of Putin’s terms. That’s a much more plausible motive.
And as for the rest… I don’t know. Yes, and about Michael Naki — of course, he’s not advising Ukrainians, he’s advising Russians. But again, the advice is pretty pointless. You see, if someone lives next to a military site — where are they supposed to go?
Isn’t it time for Ukraine to start producing its own Patriot missiles? Link to heading
Boris Popov. Isn’t it time for Ukraine to start producing missiles for the Patriot system?
Well, that’s the kind of advice like telling a mouse to become a hedgehog. Maybe it is time. But excuse me — you’re advising the Ukrainian defense industry to do something they simply can’t. Producing this kind of product is, well, clearly not very realistic. Sure, one could suggest producing F-35s or something else. But I can barely imagine the entire technological chain. What would need to be done to produce Patriot missiles? Most likely, this is an unrealistic expectation.
What will Ukraine gain from joining the EU? Link to heading
Alexander, What does Ukraine expect from EU membership?
A lot of things. Citizens of EU member states can move freely, work, study, and live in any EU country without needing visas or work permits. So membership in the EU brings a huge number of benefits — it provides access to various financial institutions and the ability to receive aid not through some isolated decisions, but just like Hungary now simply receives subsidies from the EU, or the same way Greece once received huge subsidies. So in fact, it’s a serious matter. That’s why EU membership is a very good thing.
Right? The question came from someone who calls themselves Trump Igor Alexandrovich — well, hello to you too. Do you think the fascists could stage an operation to implicate Budanov’s service? Well, you didn’t say in what — there’s no clarification. So I don’t see anything specific to respond to.
On the Genetic Slavery of Russians Link to heading
Konstantin KOLESNIKOV — okay, thank you for the kind words. Your viewers have repeatedly brought up the issue of the so-called genetic slavery of Russians. My question is: I’ve read this phrase as a metaphor that poorly captures the core of the issue. For me, it’s more about what’s called “signaling heredity,” where a set of behavioral codes or stereotypes is passed down through upbringing and socialization in the broadest sense. In other words, slavery isn’t passed on sexually, but the spirit — the spirit of dependence and humiliation — is imposed by society and the state over the course of centuries. In contrast to the genetic slavery of Russians — or rather, Russians as citizens — is the so-called genetic anarchism of Ukrainians, including Ukrainian Jews, Krymchaks, and ethnic Russians. Both behavioral stereotypes are rooted in centuries of history and have their strengths and weaknesses — for example, solidarity and vertical social cohesion among Russians, or Ukrainians’ tendency toward self-organization and horizontal ties. Do you agree with my assessment?
I agree, of course. The difference is very clear. You see, when you say it’s a metaphor — if it were just a metaphor, I wouldn’t say a word. But judging by the context in which “genetic slavery” is brought up, it’s clearly not a metaphor. People genuinely believe it. The difference between what you’ve said and the idea of genetic slavery lies in one simple thing: what you said allows for the possibility that some Russians can break free of that condition. That is, a person with your viewpoint doesn’t rule out the existence of some segment of Russians who are not subject to this “genetic slavery.”
But the position of those who talk about genetic slavery without any metaphor is essentially identical to that of Nazis. Just like the Hitlerites, they believe that Jews, by virtue of belonging to a certain nationality — or rather race, since it was a racial theory — are inherently marked. Every single Jew is to be destroyed, and escaping that status is impossible because it’s genetic and applies to all. They’d measure your skull, decide you were a Jew, and send you to the oven.
It’s the same exact mindset behind the idea of genetic slavery.
Your position is completely different. Because people are truly shaped by circumstances; they are thrown into a certain environment. And so what we’re really talking about is historical, socio-cultural inheritance — not genetics. That’s the difference. It seems very clear, and in context, it’s immediately visible.
You know, all this talk like “scratch a Russian and you’ll find an imperialist” — well, go ahead and scratch Sakharov, or Skobov, for example. Just scratch them. With people like Skobov, Sakharov, and others — the fundamental difference between your position, dear Konstantin, and that of people who are basically stepping onto Nazi tracks, is that in your concept, a person can break free of this socio-cultural inheritance. In theirs — no. Any Russian, they say, and you won’t find someone who accepts that Crimea is Ukrainian, etc. I’ve heard this kind of nonsense so many times from people who, in effect, align themselves with Nazi ideology.
What to Say in Response to Medinsky Link to heading
So, Tatyana? I often hear that Medinsky has repeatedly lied historically, but I don’t have the opportunity to read his book myself or make sense of it. I’m asking you to outline the main liberal arguments, as much as your morning stream format allows. I’m not a historian and likely wouldn’t understand it even if I did read it. But I know people who are reading Medinsky and staying quiet, because they can’t counter him with any authoritative arguments. I trust your opinion.
Dear Tatyana! First of all — at the core of Medinsky’s overall concept, as outlined in his dissertation, is the claim that historical truth is what corresponds to the interests of the country. You see? Historical truth is what aligns with national interests. This implies that historical truth is plural. So, for example, one truth aligns with Ukraine’s interests, another with Russia’s. This is essentially a rejection of history as a science.
It means historical science fragments into countless national versions, with no way to reconcile them into a unified discipline. The very claim that truth equals national interest is a denial of history as an academic field. That’s the fundamental issue.
Then comes the specifics. Take his statement about the story of the 28 Panfilov Guardsmen — he says, sure, maybe it’s nonsense, but it shouldn’t be debunked because it’s a meaningful myth. Again, this flows directly from his core stance. He effectively prohibits investigation into World War II events. The Panfilov story, for instance — it’s long been documented and proven that it was invented by a political officer, I believe his name was Klochkov, who made the whole thing up. There was no such heroic stand by 28 Panfilov Guardsmen. But Medinsky says no — we must continue to believe it.
Then there were his astonishing claims that Russia made the greatest contribution to victory in World War I. An astounding claim from a so-called historian.
And finally, I can’t leave out his infamous statement about the “extra chromosome” of the Russian people. Speaking of Nazism — Medinsky actually claims that Russian history proves the Russian people have an extra chromosome.
I’ll stop there. I could honestly spend an entire stream listing the nonsense Medinsky spreads in his myths about Russia.
About the Butterfly and the Stages of Development Link to heading
Yulia Igor Aleksandrovich, please explain. I truly can’t understand. So, there’s a butterfly — it has four stages of development: egg, larva, pupa, adult. Metamorphoses occur within this cycle — the adult has nothing in common with the previous stages. But isn’t it somewhat similar in humans — intrauterine development, birth, biological death? Why is the butterfly entitled to metamorphosis, but a human is not? In the end, as those groups say, calm down — something’s off here. And then the postscript — It’s a pity you didn’t accept or understand my question yesterday. Or was I just unable to explain? I don’t like Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, or villagers either. I meant to say: the further from Putin’s Reich, the more chances a person has to remain human. Not fleeing civilization, but fleeing Goebbels-style TV propaganda — from everything today and from today’s Russia. That’s what I meant.
Dear Yulia, Let me start with your postscript. You see, you were trying to argue the point that, say, Tuva or Buryatia are farther from Putin’s Reich than Moscow or St. Petersburg. That is, the backwoods, the provinces — there, supposedly, are some good, honest faces. So, that’s what you were talking about. That’s how I understood it. And here’s the thing — by immersing yourself in that backwoods, in those depths, you’re not distancing yourself from the Reich — you’re actually sinking deeper into it. That’s the point. So yes, I perfectly understood your question. I just disagree with it — I disagree with that thesis. And this is exactly that Rousseau thesis — the idea that the farther from civilization, the closer to the earth, to nature. And that’s where you’ll supposedly find… well, you know, in Russia this was populism — going to the people, hoping to find some truths there, moral purity. And they would encounter “the people,” who would immediately report them to the gendarmerie, they’d be arrested in Mordovia, or sometimes those wonderful Narodnaya Volya women would be raped and thrown in jail. That’s all. That’s what populism got them. You know, since my distant ancestors were populists, I’ve read their letters. It really was this kind of high-minded idealism, in the spirit of Rousseau — “we’ll go to the people and find primeval purity.” There is no such purity there, you see? So yes, I completely understood what you wrote.
Now, as for the butterfly — well, I don’t know, it’s hard to answer that question seriously, because, you know, I’ll tell you a terrible secret — butterflies die too. So, death is part of the butterfly’s metamorphosis. There you go. I assume you’re talking about reincarnation and so on. Well, butterflies are just as fine — they end up the same way as people.
On the Physical Elimination of the Ayatollah and Putin Link to heading
Is that so? After all, it’s about control — in a couple of recent… there are two questions. In several recent interviews, Olga Romanova expressed the view that within the ruling circles of Western, pro-Israel states, there is an ongoing discussion about the need for the physical elimination of the Iranian Ayatollah. Olga Evgenyevna accompanies this statement with a legitimate question: why aren’t they over there discussing whether it’s worth eliminating Putin? Putin has nuclear weapons — but so does Iran. I’m not asking you, Igor Ivanovich, why the West doesn’t strike Putin. I’ll phrase the question this way: why is this question considered natural in relation to Iran, but taboo when it comes to Putin and Russia?
Well, the question isn’t exactly for me, because I personally believe that the elimination of Putin should be on the agenda of Western countries. But, as you probably know, I’m neither the leader of any Western state nor an expert who can directly advise them. So yes, I agree with that. As for the reason — it’s clear to me. You claim that Iran has nuclear weapons. It does not. Moreover, even if a few bombs appear, the issue still comes down, first of all, to quantity. Here, size matters. Then, Russia has a nuclear triad. All the talk about how it’s rotten, decayed, already useless — well, no one wants to test that. There are submarines, there are carrier aircraft, there are missiles, including intercontinental ones. And by the way, they undergo tests — not with nuclear warheads, but the delivery systems themselves are tested. The submarines are sailing, the planes are flying, the missiles are flying too. So all of that appears to still be operational. Iran has nothing remotely similar — we understand this. That’s why Russia is not Iran. That’s why they’re afraid. Nevertheless, I am deeply convinced that this should be on the agenda. The elimination of Putin should be on the agenda. It doesn’t necessarily have to be public, in front of TV cameras. But it should be there. So yes, in this I agree with you and with Olga Romanova — except for the claim that Iran also has nuclear weapons.
On Authoritarianism Link to heading
Second question from Petya I often hear in various media the idea that Russia in 2025 is an authoritarian, totalitarian state. I hear this from both liberal socialites and serious analysts. I didn’t used to pay much attention to it, but over the past five years, excuse me, this clarity has started to irritate me. As a lawyer, someone who once studied the theory of state and law, I can say that we crossed the authoritarianism mark after May 6, 2012. We no longer have any truly free media at all, and selective repressions vanished in the ’90s, when imprisonments were limited to a few scientists and ecologists, and in the 2000s to Yukos people, sheep farmers, and National Bolsheviks. Tell me, how important is the question of regime identification today? Maybe I don’t understand something, or I’m taking it all too personally?
I completely agree with you. The question of regime identification is important, because without a diagnosis, there can be no treatment. If someone believes that it’s authoritarian… You see, the reason I’ve long been a consistent opponent of Shulman is because her position — that this is a hybrid regime, that it’s not all that bad — implies that everything can be fixed. That with a few adjustments, removing some flaws, the regime could become quite compatible with life. But no — it’s a different story. You see, political behavior depends on the diagnosis. If we say this is an authoritarian regime, then it can be fixed — fixed through elections, for example. Another person could come along and everything would be fine. This is precisely the position of someone like Yulia Navalnaya: that she’ll participate in elections, become president, and then we’ll have that shining, beautiful Russia of the future. So yes, political behavior depends on the diagnosis. That’s why I agree with you — and I take it personally too.
About Denis Kataev and France Link to heading
So, Vera Biron, what do you think about Denis Kataev, who so desperately loves Macron and France?
You know? Well, generally, the man says some rather pleasant, obvious things. Sometimes I try to form a portrait of certain journalists for myself. I sometimes listen to them, sometimes read about them. And I came across a description of Denis Kataev — well, yes, he… For those who don’t know, he worked at Dozhd for some time, then moved to France. Now he’s a very, very rooted patriot of France. Recently, he took part in a debate show, defending a position that is close to mine, by the way — the position that Russia should not have nuclear weapons or a large army. By the way, he lost that debate because he wasn’t very convincing. I didn’t hear that particular statement, but I read that his journalistic idols are Pozner and Krasovsky. And then everything he does looked different to me. If a person’s idols really are Pozner and Krasovsky, then who is this person? I watched some of his broadcasts. Let’s just say, I wasn’t very impressed.
On the Collapse of Russia and Liberation from Great-Power Chauvinism. Absolutism of Power Link to heading
Except for Bey. Here’s what troubles me and my generation. When I was a student at a Moscow university in the 1960s, the smell of Khrushchev’s thaw had not yet dissipated — people were different then. At least in Moscow, the majority of people had critical thinking.
A strong statement, a very strong one. If by “people” you mean the rather narrow stratum of intelligentsia from the Thaw era under Khrushchev, then yes. But as for “the majority of people,” I think that’s an overstatement. But all right.
There was hardly any trace of Russian imperial chauvinism. Again, among that narrow layer of Thaw intelligentsia, yes, there really wasn’t — but among the general public, there was chauvinism. Non-Russians weren’t harassed. After all, Moscow was considered the common capital for all peoples. True, many non-Russian students were skeptical of the anthem’s lyrics. Why does it sing about “Great Rus’ united forever”? Why is it Rus’ that united and not conquered forever? After the Thaw came Brezhnev’s stagnation, then Afghanistan, then the collapse, then freedom of speech, Yeltsin’s anarcho-democracy, then Putin, the omnipotence of the security services, Russian chauvinism, revanchism, fascism. And the whole world is supposedly Russophobic. Russia’s greatness stopped being respected. So what does the future hold for the current generation, brainwashed by Putin’s propaganda — those who saw the world through Putinist media and were even born during his rule? Who will they become, and where will Russia go? After all, they will be the ones to come to power in Russia. And here your idea comes to mind — the idea that only the complete collapse of this Eurasian cancerous tumor known as Russia into national and regional states will save both Russia’s neighbors and the peoples of Russia itself. You were practically the first among many political scientists and sociologists to speak of Russia’s disintegration as a necessary and sufficient condition for curing Russians of Great Russian imperial chauvinism. I’d like to hear your analysis.
Well, in essence, you’ve done this work for me. You’ve described it all. I truly do believe that, you see, starting with the Grand Duchy of Moscow, what formed on the territory of Northern Eurasia — as Yuri Sergeyevich Pivovarov described in his articles for Rubezhi, the journal I edited — is what he, along with Fursov, defined as the Russian system of absolute, undivided power. It’s pure Horde heritage — the population has no agency. It’s also the result of the Russian variant of Orthodoxy and imperialism. So we have three main components: absolute power, lack of subjectivity in the population, and imperialism — meaning a drive for expansion. That’s essentially the model that developed. It’s tied directly to what this state is. If it collapses, then the very foundation for all this ceases to exist, because in the process of collapse, liberation movements begin to take hold. Instead of being imperial, they start acting against the empire, against the center. That’s what’s happening.
It’s important that in the course of the collapse, the national republics don’t simply break away while the core of “ethnic Russian” Russia is preserved. If the core of Russian Russia is preserved, imperialism will remain, chauvinism will remain, and the threat will remain. It’ll all just reproduce again. It’s essential that the collapse of Russia includes the Russian regions as well. That’s what’s critical — a Siberian Republic, a Ural Republic, a Far Eastern Republic, Ingria, and so on. Muscovy, maybe a Kuban Confederation, and so forth. If the collapse happens along the lines of Russian regions, then the imperial element will be gone. But if only Tatarstan, Chechnya, Yakutia break off and the Russian core remains intact, then nothing will change. That imperial code, if you will, will remain — and the Russian system itself will remain. It’ll simply shrink in size. In other words, the dragon will shrink — but it won’t disappear.
On Religion, Faith, and Reincarnation Link to heading
So? Nikolai Egorov. Free soil. You’re an agnostic — meaning an atheist in denial? I’m making a voluntary confession here, as I’m 100% atheist. Any religion is based on faith and cannot be verified empirically. But there is one exception — namely, Hindu beliefs about reincarnation. We see how the souls of Goebbels and other Third Reich figures have reincarnated in certain well-known figures of our time. Do you agree with this? That’s the first question.
Well, the short answer is no, I don’t agree. As a metaphor, sure — you could say that the soul of Goebbels reincarnated in someone. But that’s a metaphor. In whom exactly? Well, Solovyov, or someone else. Solovyov is an independent figure. We know when he was born — no soul of Goebbels reincarnated in him. He may have absorbed some of Goebbels’ ideas, but that absolutely doesn’t mean his soul was reincarnated. So again, as a metaphor — yes, absolutely. But you’re asking the question seriously, with a lead-in about atheism, agnosticism, and so on.
Definition of Aggression at the UN Link to heading
Here. The second—second question.
I remember how back in my youth, in the 1960s, the Soviet press and radio talked a lot about how the UN had finally adopted a definition of what aggression is. What’s the status of that definition now, and how can it be applied?
By the way, it fits 100% — it just perfectly applies to Russia’s war against Ukraine. One hundred percent. According to the UN definition, aggression is a concept in modern international law that encompasses any use of force by one state against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Any use of force directed against territorial integrity or political independence — that fits 100%. This definition directly applies to what Putin calls the “Special Military Operation.”
On Translating Skobov’s Speeches into English Link to heading
So, Denis Liu the Fighter — also two questions. Are there English translations of Skobov’s speeches?
No, unfortunately, there aren’t. And I think the task of popularizing Skobov, promoting his ideas, is really important. Skobov is a figure who deserves serious, serious investment. I try to do this within my very limited means, but someone should make a film about him. That, by the way, would be a worthy outlet for the creative potential of those who have the strength for it.
Poll on “What Do Subscribers Want?” Link to heading
Second question Is it possible to conduct a poll about what your subscribers most want from you? For example, I’d be interested in learning the history of Putin and contemporary Russian politicians, who are personalities in their own right.
I agree completely. You see, the problem with a poll is that — well, I more or less understand what people want, but the whole issue is in execution. It’s all about resources and implementation. So yes, through a poll I could identify what people want — but then the question becomes how to actually do it, and where to find the energy for it. Still, a poll is probably necessary — I need to think about what kind exactly. Because you see, this kind of poll has to be open-ended, meaning people should write in their own words what they want. Then we could try to somehow summarize that and convert it into some kind of action plan.
On the Texts of Sergey Steblenenko Link to heading
Question from Serafim Igor Aleksandrovich, please take a few minutes to look at the text by the Odessa journalist.
This is about Sergey Lenin. I had a chance to look at it before this stream started — I managed to take a look. Thank you. Well, it’s interesting. A good journalist, good texts. Thank you — I’ll keep it in mind. Somehow Sergey Steblenenko hadn’t crossed my radar before. I’ll remember him now.
On the Recommendations of Naki and Babchenko Link to heading
So. Vitaly, why do we equate Michael Naki’s specific, targeted recommendation to stay away from military facilities with Babchenko’s abstract call “Run, fools, run,” which serves no practical purpose? In the first case, it’s an attempt to warn of a real threat and possibly save lives — like, for example, those killed in Izhevsk. Military facilities are absolutely legitimate targets. People who work at or live near them are effectively in a deadly risk zone. The ground is, in a sense, burning beneath their feet. If we imagine a thought experiment in which a person is offered the choice between almost certain death or taking steps to leave an area that is an obvious and legal military target — the choice seems clear. Or do we seriously expect Michael Naki to provide a list of safe places for these people to go and what they should avoid? Meanwhile, Babchenko’s shout is an emotional expression that, in this context, simply isn’t meaningful to discuss.
But again, you see, I’d refer you back to the origin of this conversation, when a subscriber who cited Michael’s statement said: “Well, I live nearby — where am I supposed to go? Just wander around Russia on foot? Or try to walk across the Kazakh border?” The issue is, you know, like the wise owl said to the mice: “Become a hedgehog — I’ve pointed the way. You figure out the tactics yourself.” People live near military targets — what are they supposed to do? I’m not saying, “Great, Michael Naki gave a recommendation — wonderful.” It’s not like people didn’t already know. Frankly, I don’t see much of a problem here. I expressed my opinion — I think these kinds of recommendations are fairly abstract. It’s already understood that a military site is dangerous. But if a person — again, if they work there — just one moment, this is a very important distinction, and it’s good that you, dear Vitaly, mentioned it. Working at a military plant is already a step toward making yourself a legitimate target. But living near a military site — well, what can you do? Not everyone has the means to buy an apartment somewhere else.
About the Migrant Prison “Alcatraz” Link to heading
So? A question from Chris Not to correct you, dear Igor Aleksandrovich! Just a clarification — Alcatraz is not in Florida, but in San Francisco, California.
Dear colleague! The conversation wasn’t about the location named Alcatraz, but about a migrant prison called Alcatraz Alligator. This prison is located in Florida. So this was simply a misunderstanding on your part.
On Genetics Link to heading
Natalya Kovalyova Genetic doesn’t mean universal. Simply put, we can say that universal genes are those responsible for viability. There are genes that determine neutral traits, such as eye or hair color. And the rarest are genetic diseases. If we were to assume that slavery is genetically determined, then according to the laws of genetics, it shouldn’t be universal — that is, it shouldn’t be inherent to every person.
Dear Natalya! I never claimed that something being universal means it’s genetic — or that genetic means innate. That is, racists didn’t believe that every person is a Jew, but they did believe that every Jew is superfluous on this Earth. Every single one — because from birth they were already considered superfluous. And the key point is that this cannot be changed. They have no chance. That is, if someone is born a Jew, they must die as soon as possible, because they’re a burden on this Earth. That’s it. And as for “universal” — I didn’t say that. So that needs to be clarified.
Elena Shevchenko — yes, you often add the word “innate” to your listeners’ questions and remarks yourself. And then you proceed to tear those Nazis to shreds. Although in most cases, the commentators clearly meant acquired traits. I don’t doubt that you’re not doing this on purpose — it’s just that you see something in certain statements that isn’t actually there.
Dear Elena! I see and comment on what I read. And when people write and speak about genetic slavery or genetic cowardice — that is innate. That’s it. Don’t use the word “innate” if you’re talking about “genetic slavery.” I understand from context when something is meant as a metaphor, and when people truly believe, for example, that all Russians are slaves. The context is clear — you see? So I comment on what I read with my own eyes. And such views exist — and the fact that they constitute Nazism or racism is a historical fact. Even if those people happen to be on the right side of history at the moment. It happens.
Final Words Link to heading
So, dear friends, this brings our conversation today to a close. Let me remind you once again that today, first of all, at 8:00 PM we have a meeting with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. And most likely at 8:00 PM, I’ll also try to release the next episode of Mediafrenia. There are some materials I wouldn’t want to delay for too long. So we still have two more sessions today. Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Zhukov, to all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian POWs! See you soon! First at 7:00 PM, then at 10:00 PM.
Source: https://youtu.be/E_uCcaYjasI