The suspension of American aid and intelligence sharing is direct support for Putin and the death of Ukrainian citizens. A new carrot-and-stick policy: the stick for Zelensky, the carrot for Putin. American democracy is resisting Trump.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 6th. It is 07:41 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls.
The U.S. Has Opened a Second Front Against Ukraine Link to heading
Essentially, recent events quite clearly indicate that in the fourth year of the war, the United States has indeed opened a second front. But this time, against Ukraine. This is not just about what happened at the White House last Friday but also about the consequences. U.S. aid to Ukraine has been suspended—the aid that Biden had been providing, as Trump has not allocated a single cent to Ukraine so far. Even more dangerously, intelligence sharing has been partially blocked.
Let’s go into some specifics about what happened and what the consequences might be. The key question is how long this pause will last and how significant the suspension is. I will now attempt to make some cautious assumptions about this. Once again, we are stepping onto shaky ground of speculation and hypotheses, but there are some grounds for these assumptions. We will discuss all of this now. First of all, I must acknowledge that this is not entirely my area of expertise—it is ultimately a matter of military analysis—but some open-source data is available.
For example, according to Politico, Ukraine currently has six Patriot missile batteries that can be used to protect key targets within the country. So, in reality, this suspension of aid will not primarily affect the front lines. In a recent conversation with the deputy commander of the Freedom of Russia Legion, he confirmed what Sergey Maratovich Grabsky and other military experts have said: that on the front lines, the primary strikes are carried out using drones, which are domestically produced in Ukraine. The main impact of this aid suspension will be on the protection of Ukrainian cities. Everything now depends on how large Ukraine’s current stockpile of Patriot missiles is. If this stockpile is depleted, intercepting missiles like the Kinzhal will become much more difficult.
Moreover, right now, taking advantage of the fact that the U.S. has effectively opened a second front against Ukraine, Putin will undoubtedly increase the frequency of missile attacks, primarily to exhaust Ukraine’s supply of Patriot missiles. The question of whether Ukraine can procure these missiles from other countries is a separate issue—I plan to discuss it with Sergey on Monday—but it is clear that this will be much more difficult. Russia is well aware of the locations of Ukraine’s air defense systems and is actively trying to bypass them. Any pause in U.S. support, therefore, risks creating a severe shortage of critical munitions and defense systems. Given the timing of this development, it is clear that Russia will now launch the most intense strikes possible.
U.S. Refusal to Provide Intelligence Link to heading
Even more dangerous and critical is the United States’ refusal to provide intelligence, as this will make it much more difficult to carry out precision strikes on critical infrastructure. Recent events have shown that Russia has suffered massive losses, primarily in fuel and energy resources essential for the war, thanks to Ukraine’s precise strikes on oil storage facilities. This has been an extremely effective tactic. However, the absence of American intelligence will make this significantly more difficult—in essence, it is a stab in the back.
Trump’s statements during his address to Congress, claiming that Russia had sent strong signals indicating a willingness for peace, are complete nonsense. The reality is plain to see—there have been no secret signals, strong or weak, from Russia about peace. Both Putin and Lavrov, not to mention Medvedev, openly link any peace settlement to Ukraine’s capitulation. There is no discussion of a ceasefire along the current front lines; rather, the demands are clear: Ukraine must withdraw from all territories that Putin has enshrined in Russia’s Constitution. Ukraine must reduce its military. Ukraine must officially recognize these territories as Russian. Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea must be removed from Ukraine’s Constitution. Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership must also be erased. Essentially, this amounts to total and final capitulation. The demand for elections with the participation of pro-Russian candidates is, in fact, direct interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs, effectively eliminating Ukraine as an independent state. Clearly, Putin has no intention of establishing peace.
What is particularly telling is that while halting aid and cutting off intelligence sharing with Ukraine, Trump did not say a single word about it during his speech in Congress—not a word. In diplomacy, and not only in diplomacy, there is a well-known concept of the “carrot and stick” approach. We are now witnessing a new version of this policy unfolding before our eyes. Trump’s “carrot” is exclusively reserved for Putin, while the “stick” is solely for Zelensky and Ukraine. A carrot for Russia, a stick for Ukraine—this is Trump’s new policy. The key question now is how long the aid suspension will last—the aid that Biden had been providing and that Trump has now put on hold.
Aid Blocked for a Long Time Link to heading
Here, once again, I emphasize that these are only assumptions, but they are based on concrete facts. Judge for yourself. I am making these hypotheses very cautiously. Just look at what is being publicly stated.
Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Wells, said yesterday that Ukraine and the United States could hold a new round of negotiations aimed at ending the war. He referred to a conversation with a certain Ukrainian national security adviser. My attempts to determine who this adviser was—any effort from the Ukrainian side to clarify who exactly was involved—suggest that the conversation was not with just any adviser but with Andriy Yermak, the head of the President’s Office. Yermak confirmed that he spoke with Wells and stated that a meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian representatives would take place in the near future. He mentioned that he had discussed a possible time and location for such talks, as well as the composition of the delegations, with an unspecified Ukrainian security adviser.
All of this strongly suggests that we are unlikely to see a staged, dramatic scene of Zelensky returning to the White House, to the Oval Office. A remake of that scenario is quite improbable. This means we might avoid the consequences of such a spectacle—where some would perceive it as the return of the prodigal son, others would scrutinize what suit Zelensky is wearing this time, and still others would celebrate with grotesque comparisons. It is entirely possible that we will not see this scene at all. Instead, there may be negotiators on both sides, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Because, honestly, if there were a repeat of a direct Trump-Zelensky meeting, the consequences could be unpredictable—Zelensky’s humiliation, testing his resilience, and so on. Fortunately, it seems that none of that will happen. Most likely, there will be negotiators. At least, that’s what we can infer from the statements by Wells, Yermak, and another adviser from Ukraine’s Presidential Office, Dmytro Lytvyn, who also confirmed that Yermak had these discussions—information I gathered from both Ukrainian and American press sources.
Now, another important point: Wells stated that the resumption of U.S. military aid to Ukraine and the restoration of intelligence sharing will depend on the success of these future negotiations. I emphasize—on their success. Moreover, according to Wells, discussions are still ongoing about the composition of the delegations and the topics of the negotiations. Only after this, based on the outcome of the talks, Trump—quoting carefully—will “carefully consider the issue” of lifting these restrictions. I can also refer to The Wall Street Journal, which reported that the suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine may continue until Trump decides that Zelensky is genuinely committed to peace talks with Russia. What exactly Zelensky must do to prove this is not specified. And I suspect that even in Trump’s own mind, there is no clear picture of it. Should the Ukrainian president eat all the soil from a potted plant? Should he publicly cut his hand and swear an oath in blood? Who knows what’s in Trump’s head—it’s unclear, as always.
This is the situation. Meanwhile, the facts remain obvious.
Trump Is Fighting Against His Own Link to heading
The people who died today because American aid was delayed—half of their blood is on Putin, and half is on Trump. Trump’s policies are, without a doubt, a war against liberal democracies. The full-scale trade war he is now launching against the world is, first and foremost, a war against his own allies. Trump is waging his harshest battle against Canada.
His latest statement, in which he threatened Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau with new tariff hikes if Canada imposes retaliatory duties, is a clear example. I quote: “Please explain to the Governor of Canada, Trudeau, that when he imposes retaliatory tariffs on the U.S., our mirror tariffs will immediately rise by the same amount.” Beyond the fact that the U.S. president rudely refers to the prime minister of an independent neighboring country as a “governor,” implying that Canada is already the 51st U.S. state, the reality is clear—this is an economic war.
Later today—jumping ahead a bit—at 5:00 PM, we will have a discussion with economist Professor Lipsits. I believe he will provide a more detailed analysis of these trade wars. From my perspective, some things are obvious. Trump is engaging in trade wars to balance the U.S. trade deficit. That much is clear. But then a very simple question arises: Why does this trade imbalance exist in the first place? The answer is also obvious—American goods are very expensive. Because the standard of living in the U.S. is high. This is precisely why so many people aspire to move to the United States—it is a good and comfortable country to live in. But for that very reason, products made in the U.S. cost a lot, making them uncompetitive.
This seems like an obvious fact to me, though apparently not to everyone—since Trump is trying to “fix” it. But this is like trying to rewrite the laws of physics. If a country has a high standard of living and high wages, then goods produced with those high wages will inevitably be more expensive and, therefore, less competitive—except for certain unique products, like high-tech goods and weapons, where competition is based on quality and efficiency. But when it comes to everyday consumer goods, the reality is stark: the U.S. is highly competitive in producing “goods for death” but not in producing “goods for life.”
Trump is trying to bend economic realities to his will. What will be the result? An increase in prices within the U.S. itself. For example, as far as I recall, about two-thirds of the fruits and vegetables imported into the U.S. come from Mexico. Raising tariffs will lead to higher prices. The supposed love for American farmers that Trump has demonstrated will end up hurting the majority of the U.S. population. But in the end, that is their concern—they chose this president for themselves.
Trump Came to Settle Scores Link to heading
The problem with Trump’s policies is that they contain a significant degree of irrationality. He has clearly returned for a second term to settle scores. This is evident both in his domestic and foreign policies. His attitude toward Ukraine is largely shaped by his personal grudge against President Zelensky.
This is revenge for the previous situation, when Trump expected Zelensky to be a tool in his fight against Biden. Zelensky refused to play that role—and rightfully so, because it is not the Ukrainian president’s job to interfere in U.S. domestic politics. Trump had counted on it, but it didn’t work out. Now he is seeking revenge—without a doubt.
It is hard to say exactly how much of this is personal vengeance against Zelensky, but it is certainly a factor. Most likely, Trump’s broader strategic goals are driving his actions, but this personal animosity adds a certain tone to everything that is happening.
Postmodern Fascism Link to heading
So what now? What should be done? And what will be the outcome of all this? There are some faint, albeit weak, signs of hope. They indicate that a fundamental contradiction—one I have previously discussed in both our morning talks and conversations with guests—is already becoming evident. In the case of the United States, we see a vast contradiction between the country as a whole, which remains a fundamentally democratic nation, and its leader, who is practically a fascist-style politician. Call it whatever you like, but I define what Trump is doing and what he represents as a form of “postmodern fascism”—a postmodernist variant of fascism. And this fundamental contradiction, between the country and the state as a whole and the individual who leads it, is beginning to manifest itself in the form of institutional resistance to Trump’s policies.
For instance, some of Trump’s decisions have already been blocked, not only by state courts but even by the Supreme Court. Most notably, the Supreme Court refused to approve Trump’s request to freeze approximately $2 billion in payments owed to foreign organizations through USAID for projects that had already been completed. Naturally, the Supreme Court cannot block Trump’s decision—or rather, Elon Musk’s decision—to effectively dismantle USAID. This is undoubtedly a harmful decision, but it falls within the president’s authority. However, refusing to pay for completed work is a blatant violation of the law.
What is particularly telling here is how the Supreme Court ruled. I think this is an important moment because one of the most critical lines of defense against Trump is, of course, the Supreme Court. Let’s take a closer look at the breakdown of the vote—it was decided by a narrow margin, 5 to 4. There are three justices appointed by Democrats and six appointed by Republicans, including three personally nominated by Trump. Naturally, all three Democratic-appointed justices ruled against Trump’s unlawful decision. But they were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican, and another Republican-appointed justice, Amy Coney Barrett. As a result, Trump’s completely illegal attempt to withhold payment for completed work was blocked. Of course, his administration will challenge the ruling and continue resisting it. But for now, Trump has suffered a defeat—just as he did when he attempted to essentially overturn the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees birthright citizenship. That effort also failed, though it was so blatantly unconstitutional that it likely never stood a chance. I didn’t check the exact vote breakdown in that case while preparing for our discussion, but I suspect even the most radical Trumpist justices hesitated to support such an obviously unconstitutional move.
At present, a vast number of lawsuits against Trump’s decisions are under review. The judiciary has become a clear line of defense against him.
Another line of defense is the states themselves. The United States is not just a federation—in many ways, it more closely resembles a confederation. From a Russian perspective, looking at the U.S. through Russian eyes, its level of state sovereignty is almost unimaginable—far beyond anything seen in Russia or even in most European countries. This state-level independence forms another crucial barrier against Trump’s authoritarian ambitions.
And finally, one last point—the U.S. is an armed nation. The Second Amendment still holds power. How far can Trump go in his attempts to break American democracy over his knee? We shall see. But in any case, the fight continues. Ukraine continues to resist. Nothing is lost.
This is why the fact that the U.S. has effectively opened a second front against Ukraine is such a historic event. But it is also part of a larger picture—Trump and Putin share a common enemy: Europe’s liberal democracy. That is their true opponent, the force they are willing to unite against.
This is the reality we face today.
Q&A Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that today at 3:00 PM, we will have a conversation with Academician Libanova—an interview I am eagerly looking forward to. And at 5:00 PM, an equally interesting discussion with economist and professor Igor Lipsits. Let’s stay tuned for these conversations—I believe they will provide answers to many pressing questions.
Now, let’s move on to your questions.
Why Many Russian-Speakers in America Support Trump Link to heading
So, Alexander—Alexander is a sponsor of our channel, for which we thank him. Here’s the question:
Why did so many Russian-speakers in America vote for Trump, and why do people around the world practically worship him?
Well, I don’t know who exactly worships him, but okay, let’s treat this as a question.
There are two reasons I can think of, writes Alexander. The first is hatred—restrictions on immigrants. We’ve discussed this before. The second is the dream of a strong leader who will solve problems decisively and quickly, without bureaucracy, based on “understandable” rules. I’d like to ask Latynina and Veller about a third reason. Do you think that non-political emigrants feel nostalgia for everyday freedoms—in other words, for the liberties that compensated for the lack of political rights and freedoms in the post-Soviet space? I’m exaggerating, of course, but roughly speaking, could support for Trump be linked to the hope that one could, for instance, toss a cigarette butt past the trash bin without consequence?
You know, there’s probably some truth to that. This disregard for the law, the rule of strength—after all, under the world order that Trump establishes, only the strong can afford to throw a cigarette butt past the bin. So yes, there’s an element of that.
But there’s another motivation as well. A significant part of the vote for Trump was actually a protest vote. Trump was elected because of deep disgust with the Democratic Party’s policies. There was a tangle of issues and a lack of strong leadership. Even now, you can’t really say that the Democratic Party has a strong politician capable of standing up to Trump. Biden? Kamala Harris? You can like them or not, but they are not first-tier politicians. That’s a problem.
Another issue is the Democrats’ exaggerated focus on political correctness. In reality, certain things were pushed too far. For example, why should transgender people receive privileges just for being transgender? I completely understand that some people feel they were born in the wrong body and need surgery—fine, I get it. But why should they get special treatment because of it? That was hard to stomach and irritating. It may not have been the main reason for Trump’s support, but it certainly fueled the protest vote.
So, if you’re looking for a third reason, I’d say this one might even be more significant. Besides Trump’s core base—his “nuclear electorate,” which we’ve discussed before—he also had “fellow travelers.” These are people who voted for him not because they liked him, but simply in protest against the Democrats, against bureaucracy, and against everything else we’re all too familiar with.
Can the EU Replace the US? Link to heading
Valery Chuvashov:
You answered my question. What is your view on the EU? What situation will arise without America but with the EU? Can the EU replace the US? And is it possible now?
I don’t have an answer to this question. I don’t know. I didn’t make Macron’s statement a main topic of the stream, but he did make a rather strong declaration. First, he said that France is ready to provide a nuclear umbrella for Europe. Second, he stated that a new era has begun—Europe can no longer count on the United States of America.
Macron is clearly aiming for European leadership. Meanwhile, Germany is about to get a new chancellor, most likely Merz. But again, we’ll have to see how things unfold. There seems to be a kind of leadership structure emerging among the three leading European democracies—Macron in France, a new chancellor in Germany, and Britain in the mix. Perhaps this trio could, in some way, replace the US.
But this isn’t just about leadership or money—Europe has plenty of that. The question is: how ready is Europe in terms of military capabilities? Intelligence is another key issue. Replacing American intelligence is extremely difficult because of NATO’s long-established division of labor, where the US took on the primary intelligence role. When a team falls apart, the specialized roles each member played are hard to replace—it takes time.
If an agreement can be reached with the US to restore intelligence-sharing, that would make things much easier. Similarly, if the US remains willing to sell weapons to Europe for Ukraine, that would also help. If not, everything will become much harder and more complicated. But to some extent, replacement is not only possible but also necessary.
Is There a Reason to Criticize or Praise Zelensky? Link to heading
Valentina Vasilenko:
In your opinion, are there any aspects of Zelensky’s actions that you agree with, things he shouldn’t be criticized for? And on the other hand, you often say there are reasons to criticize him. But is there anything to praise him for or not? No specifics—just a yes or no.
You know, dear Valentina, of course, there is. And even without specifics, I can say that Zelensky’s conduct during the war is an act of heroism. No, he’s not on the front lines, but he is fully dedicating himself to ensuring that Ukraine resists and receives aid. And how else can one regard that? With the deepest respect.
As for my statement that there are reasons to criticize Zelensky—well, you see, I don’t want to “create an idol” for myself or encourage others to do so. Whether or not to criticize Zelensky is a decision I’ve made for myself—I choose not to. That’s my choice. But I do know for certain that there are reasons to respect the President of Ukraine. That much is obvious. It’s right on the surface.
Compromising Material on Trump Link to heading
Julia:
I have two questions, writes Julia. The first is about compromising material on Trump from the Kremlin. Yes, I agree that nothing can scare Trump, not even accusations of pedophilia. The only kompromat that could provoke a real backlash would be the disclosure of evidence proving that Agent Krasnov was working for the KGB. That would be the only trump card. Do you agree?
Alright, let me answer the first question. You see, the idea that the Kremlin would suddenly release documents proving that Trump worked for the KGB seems completely fantastical to me—just pure fantasy. Imagine, let’s say Putin or someone else steps forward with a folder containing reports from Agent Krasnov, showing how he signed an agreement to cooperate with the KGB. And then what? You understand that this is absurd, right? That’s simply not going to happen.
That’s exactly why, when people accuse me of dismissing this claim without even watching Sotnik’s video, I stand by my response—it’s nonsense. And aside from Sotnik’s reputation, which is another matter entirely, I remember a publication of his where he made a list of supposed KGB agents within the opposition. It included everyone. I mean, literally everyone. Maybe I wasn’t even on the list, I don’t recall, but that’s not the point. The point is that he accused practically the entire opposition. That’s complete nonsense, of course—utter nonsense.
Sotnik is a liar. So when he claims to have precise information that Trump was a KGB agent, I have to ask—where is this information coming from? The only possible source would be the KGB itself. And in that case, it’s nothing more than a deliberate leak. A plain and simple disinformation campaign.
Moreover, I can guarantee—100% guarantee—that if and when our hopes come true, and Russia follows either the path of the Soviet Union’s collapse or that of a certain Russian warship, then leaks from the KGB archives will begin. And I am 1,000% sure that before those archives reach the public, the FSB will have prepared tens of thousands of forgeries. Real case files on actual agents will be destroyed, and tens of thousands of fake documents will be fabricated—targeting everyone, without exception, among Russia’s opposition leaders.
I have no doubt that there will be forged documents on Kasparov, on Osichka, on Feygin—on anyone they currently dislike. And making such forgeries is incredibly easy. You see my point? These fake documents will be made public, and then we’ll be left trying to figure out what’s real and what’s not.
There are cases where things are obvious, where there is solid evidence that someone is actively betraying others. But in this situation? If the only supposed source of this information is the KGB, then come on—do you really believe anything coming out of the KGB? If you do, well, then we clearly have nothing more to discuss.
On the Author’s Willingness to Expand the Team Link to heading
And here’s Julia’s second question:
You once said you were willing to make proposals considering the perspectives of subscribers from different countries—that is, a readiness not just to talk but to act. Do you have any desire to expand your team?
Well, to some extent, I always have a desire to expand the team. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but in the very near future, we will be introducing a new project that will involve someone who can already be considered a member of our team. So yes, expansion is definitely planned.
The key question is: for what functions? It’s not just about increasing numbers for the sake of it, but about specific roles and responsibilities. And, of course, another major question is: for what budget?
As for the readiness to not just talk but also act—yes, absolutely, that commitment is there. These actions include fundraising efforts to support armed units such as the Freedom of Russia Legion, the Russian Volunteer Corps, and now a newly formed unit as well. We will try to support all of them as much as possible. Maybe it’s not always very visible, but we are doing what we can.
On Possible New Pressure on Ukraine from Trump Link to heading
Question from Stan:
Don’t you think that during hypothetical negotiations between Trump and Putin, the latter will just deflect the ball back? That is, in response to a ceasefire proposal, he might say something like: “Yes, yes, we’re ready, just convince the Ukrainians to stop attacking us. Convince them to abandon our new territories, and we’ll sit at the negotiating table.” Then Trump will again rush to pressure Zelensky, proclaiming a phenomenal success in negotiations with Russia, while in reality, Russia has no intention of making peace.
Well, there are different possible scenarios. The one you describe is certainly one of them, but there’s also the possibility that negotiations between the United States and Russia won’t even take place at the highest level. That could happen too.
And it’s entirely possible that if there are talks between Trump and Putin, they’ll be held behind closed doors, leaving us unaware of what was actually discussed. Trump could simply emerge afterward and declare that Russia is ready for peace—without revealing the actual conditions. So yes, various scenarios are possible.
But to me, all of this doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter how or through what means these so-called peace initiatives will be pushed, because in the end, I believe they will hit a dead end. I don’t think any real peace can be achieved, simply because Putin doesn’t want it. Or rather, he wants peace only under conditions that involve the elimination of Ukraine—and, for some reason, Ukraine isn’t willing to liquidate itself.
That’s the core issue. The specific methods and technicalities of how this situation unfolds are, in my view, secondary.
Will Trump Accept All of Putin’s Conditions? Link to heading
Ekaterina Zuckerman:
Why are you so sure that negotiations between Trump and Putin will fall apart due to Putin’s excessive demands? Don’t you think Trump might unconditionally accept all of Putin’s terms, including giving up Zaporizhzhia, which the Russian army hasn’t even fully conquered, and that he will 100% accept everything and force Ukraine to capitulate?
I never said that negotiations would collapse due to a misunderstanding between Trump and Putin. What I do say is that they will fail because Putin’s demands will amount to the liquidation of Ukraine—essentially, stripping Ukraine of its sovereignty and turning it into a puppet of Russia. And Ukraine simply won’t agree to that. That’s all there is to it.
The exact sequence of events—who walks away first, who says what—doesn’t really matter.
As for the idea that Trump will accept all of Putin’s conditions and force Ukraine to surrender—well, Ukraine cannot be forced to capitulate. It’s impossible. That’s the core issue here.
So, the real contradiction isn’t between Trump and Putin. The fundamental conflict remains between Putin’s Russia and Ukraine. And no Trump can make that contradiction disappear.
Can U.S. Foreign Policy Be Considered Separately from Domestic Policy? Link to heading
Antonina:
You often say that what matters to us is U.S. support for Ukraine, not their domestic politics. But, excuse me, U.S. foreign policy is a product of its domestic policy, not the other way around. These things are inseparable. It’s like prescribing treatment for a hypertensive patient without considering that he weighs over 200 kilograms, is an alcoholic, and smokes three packs of cigarettes a day. Isn’t such shortsightedness in political analysis a serious mistake?
You know, analogies are always a risky business. In this case, you could also argue that domestic policy depends on the country’s history, and so on. It really comes down to what level of analysis you want to hear.
Do you want a comprehensive analysis that would take a huge amount of time and dive into areas where I am not an expert? I don’t want to overstep my knowledge. In fact, in the main part of today’s stream, I started discussing the tariff war—simply because the issue is obvious. I’ve read expert assessments on it, and even before that, I thought the same way. The trade imbalance is clear-cut.
However, there are topics where I don’t want to go too deep because doing so would require an immense amount of time, and I still wouldn’t have professional expertise. That’s exactly why I say we don’t analyze Trump’s domestic policies—or at least, we don’t focus on them much. That’s what experts are for.
So, dear Antonina, I agree that U.S. domestic policy is important, including Trump’s policies. But that doesn’t mean I have to cover everything. You’ve seen how we operate—today, we have academician Libanova, who knows everything about Ukraine’s demographic situation, while I know almost nothing about it. Should I replace her? Or Professor Lipsits, who will be discussing the economy?
Professor Livshits, for instance, will touch on the very issues you’re interested in. As for me, I’d rather focus on what I at least have some expertise in.
Will Trump’s Attitude Toward Israel Change If Netanyahu Leaves? Link to heading
Here’s Antonina’s second question:
A thought experiment: In Israel, a new leader comes to power—thankfully—who is a staunch supporter of liberal democracy. Will Trump’s attitude toward Israel change? If it does, then Trump supports Israel only conditionally, as some claim. If it doesn’t, then he truly supports Israel, as many experts argue. But something tells me it will change, and for the worse. In that case, we’d have to admit that Trump isn’t really a supporter of Israel, but rather a supporter of reactionary, anti-democratic forces within Israel—presumably meaning Netanyahu. And that’s a big difference. The U.S. will continue to support Israel, with or without Trump. But Trump himself cares only about individuals. Do you disagree that the claim “Trump is a friend of Israel” is false?
No, dear Antonina, I disagree. And here’s why.
First, Trump’s stance on Israel is not tied exclusively to his personal relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. That’s simply not the case. In fact, relations between Trump and Netanyahu were not particularly good. Trump was deeply offended by Netanyahu’s willingness to engage with the Biden administration—something that angered him greatly.
Second, Trump’s support for Israel could very well be sincere. Despite my extremely negative view of Trump, I can’t rule out the possibility that he has some genuine, well-intentioned motives. After all, even Hitler—one of the most monstrous figures in history—had a documented love for animals. This in no way redeems him, of course, but it’s a small fact within the much darker reality of his character. Similarly, it’s possible that Trump genuinely wants to support Israel. I can’t dismiss that outright.
But there’s a more practical reason at play. The pro-Israel lobby in the United States is extremely powerful—far more influential than the Ukrainian or Russian lobbies. That’s just a fact. Supporting Israel is, to a significant extent, a calculated electoral move.
It’s quite simple: regardless of who leads Israel, Trump will continue to support it. That’s political pragmatism. It’s about securing serious voting blocs, not only from American Jews but also from evangelical Christians, many of whom are staunch supporters of Israel.
In short, U.S. support for Israel is a far more stable political reality than support for Ukraine. Many Americans don’t even know what Ukraine is, but almost everyone knows about Israel.
On Biden’s Role Link to heading
A subscriber with the username With Him, Justice Will Prevail asks:
If Biden—who has allocated $114 billion in aid to Ukraine over three years of war and helped preserve Ukraine as a state—is still considered “evil,” albeit lesser than Trump, then what, in your view, Igor Alexandrovich, does “good” look like?
You see, the phrase “Biden is the lesser evil compared to Trump” was something I used in response to a previous question. But we could debate whether Biden is truly “evil” or simply a very small “good”—these are just figures of speech.
If you want a direct answer to your question, dear colleague, it’s quite simple: pure good does not exist in politics. It just doesn’t. Good can only be defined in relation to something—toward one’s own country, or toward the interests one lobbies for. In reality, within any political system, good is an extremely rare phenomenon.
Take Václav Havel—he was an example of good, but an exceptional one. First, he led a relatively small country, Czechoslovakia. Second, he was an anomaly in politics. That was good, if we want an example. But imagining someone like Havel as the leader of a country like the United States is quite difficult.
There was also Jimmy Carter, a humanist in some respects, though his presidency raised many questions. In some ways, one could even argue that Ronald Reagan represented good. But if we scrutinize his policies, we’d find plenty of aspects that were far from purely good.
The point is, pure good does not exist in politics. Good is an ethical concept, whereas politics is a sphere of public action and consciousness that doesn’t always align with ethics.
So if you ask me what good looks like in today’s politics—I don’t know. I don’t see it. I see traces of good in the actions of certain individual politicians, but to say that there is a single figure who embodies “good”—no, such a person does not exist.
Collective Responsibility of Americans Link to heading
Zhenya from the USA
What is the collective responsibility of American citizens who voted against Trump for the fact that Trump and Trumpist fascism won and now rule the USA?
You see, here we are again returning to the question of the forms and manifestations of collective responsibility. We have talked a lot about this topic. I’m not imposing my point of view, but nevertheless, I believe that collective responsibility exists as a kind of feeling—an awareness of collective responsibility. That is, a person feels, for example, ashamed that Donald Trump is the President of the United States.
The second form of collective responsibility is when actual responsibility arises—when consequences emerge. As for this second form, it hasn’t come yet. Just wait. Collective responsibility for all U.S. citizens will arise when the negative consequences of Trump’s actions become apparent. I believe they will, but the time for this second type of collective responsibility simply hasn’t come yet—for anyone. And obviously, this applies to those who voted, those who didn’t vote, and so on.
But the first type of collective responsibility has already arrived because many citizens—I’ve heard and seen this—many Americans, including those who didn’t vote for Trump, say they feel ashamed. This is collective responsibility—it is shame. It manifests itself in the form of shame. By the way, Trumpists, including Russian-speaking Trumpists—we are currently preparing the third episode of Trumpophrenia—not a single one of those Trumpists who fervently supported Trump has admitted to feeling ashamed of what is happening now. So, they are precisely the ones who do not feel any sense of collective responsibility.
But the first, so to speak, the first version of responsibility—when consequences simply catch up with everyone—will eventually reach all. Perhaps not in as horrific a form as collective responsibility caught up with the Germans, including anti-fascists, but I believe it will happen.
On Comment Moderation Link to heading
Margarita.
My question might be a bit off-topic, considering the nightmare happening in the world right now. I once commented on some stream, mentioned the name Putin—I don’t remember exactly, but maybe it was a Russian channel. Then I saw my comment disappear right before my eyes, as if someone erased it with a rubber eraser. Have you heard of this? I can understand if YouTube somehow licenses comments for some reason, but this seemed different.
You know, Margarita, to be honest, I’m not very confident in my competence to answer this question. But still, since I deal with YouTube myself—reading comments and hearing many claims like, “Oh, they deleted this or that”—I can share my observations. Some people even say, “Yakovenko is such a scoundrel, he deletes comments!” But I don’t delete comments at all. In rare cases, if I see that someone is clearly a bot—if I check and notice they registered in the morning and by the evening are already spamming nonsense and insults—then I simply block or ban the account.
As for comment deletions, I know for a fact that YouTube’s settings sometimes automatically remove certain messages and comments. I have no idea what their exact policy is, but they do delete things—many people have complained about this.
And another thing—I think it’s unlikely that an individual user could be manually deleting comments, unless they’re just removing their own. No one else has the authority to do that. For example, I have the ability to delete your comment, but I don’t do that—100% guaranteed. I never just remove an individual comment while leaving the author in the chat—that doesn’t happen. If I find it necessary, I might ban a dozen or even two dozen blatant trolls a day. These are people who registered that morning and by evening are already spreading insults and garbage. Those I ban. But I don’t delete comments—so it’s likely just YouTube’s settings at play.
On Opposition Unity Link to heading
A message from an anonymous person. Okay. Thank you for the compliments. Thank you. I’m touched.
People tend to be mistaken, to err for various reasons, even the most unflattering ones. But if Illarionov is making reasonable arguments, a connection should be established. If Sotnik has started something good—excuse me, I lost my train of thought—if Sotnik has started something good, he should be supported, rather than dismissed for past mistakes. There aren’t that many people on the right side of history to afford the luxury of ignoring the chance to increase their numbers. Are you ready to take the first step—reach out, commend, approve, talk to Illarionov, for example? Facts cannot be ignored. Three years of war have shown that the opposition is hopelessly fragmented. We must change, find common ground, not compete in humiliating each other. Engage with Trumpists not about how they were wrong, but about how they can help fix the situation.
Dear colleague! So, look—Sotnik has not started any good cause. Sotnik has lied, is lying, and will continue to lie—that’s simply his reputation. He repeatedly claims to have evidence that Trump is a Kremlin or KGB agent. But where does he get this from? I don’t see any good cause he has initiated. He still accuses everyone of being Kremlin agents. And what’s so good about that? Are we supposed to just keep looking at each other suspiciously? Sotnik labels practically everyone—Kaspárov, Nemtsov, even Navalny—as Kremlin agents. Everyone, without exception. So what? And as for Trump—maybe he is an agent, I don’t know. But where are the “good causes” that Sotnik is supposedly working on? I don’t see them.
As for Illarionov, I have plans. Right now, I’m working on the third episode of Trumpophrenia, and I plan to carefully review Illarionov’s recent videos. I don’t know if he has truly changed his views on Trump. Some people who have watched claim that he still defends Trump. So, we’ll have to see. But even if that’s the case, you have to understand—I don’t fully share your view that the opposition must unite. Unite for what purpose? Especially for those of us who don’t consider ourselves politicians—I see myself as a journalist and sociologist. Why should I join forces with Illarionov or anyone else? To have conversations with Veller? For what? What are we going to do together?
If we’re talking about uniting the opposition, we need a clear goal. Are we gathering forks and knives and marching on the Kremlin? No. Are we running for elections together, forming some kind of pre-election coalition? No. Then what’s the purpose—writing articles together? Appearing on air together? I think we’re much better off working independently. This populist call—“Unite already!"—is meaningless. It’s always followed by some cliché like, “It’s easier to break separate sticks, but a bundle is strong.” But we have different tasks, different work. I see no motivation here.
And as for being “on the right side of history”—I believe that Andrey Nikolaevich Illarionov spent the last eight years on the wrong side. And Sotnik still remains there. That’s all there is to it. Being against Putin doesn’t automatically put someone on the right side of history.
As for reconsidering positions—well, we’ll see. I want to watch Illarionov’s latest stream with my own eyes. We’ll see. But overall, it’s completely pointless. I know Andrey Nikolaevich personally, and I see no basis for any joint activities. And as for discussing with Trumpists how they can help fix the situation—that’s useless. How? Should we also talk to Putinists? Should we ask Margarita Simonyan how she can fix the situation? Honestly, I don’t see much difference anymore between Trumpists and Putinists.
On the Author’s Actions as President of Russia Link to heading
Vesyoly Dachnik. A personal question for you. I go by “Vesyoly Dachnik.” Let’s conduct a fantastic thought experiment. If some supernatural forces declared that they would eliminate Putin, but only on the condition that you personally—that is, me, sorry—become the President of Russia, would you agree?
Well, dear Vesyoly Dachnik, you know, this is a very simple question for me. I know for sure that under no circumstances will I return to politics. And the idea of becoming president is even more absurd. So, my decision would be very straightforward—if these supernatural forces appeared before me and set such conditions, I would say, “Supernatural forces? No problem. Piece of cake. Get rid of Putin, put me in his place.” And in the shortest possible time—because I absolutely, definitely will not be the President of Russia, nor a governor, nor a deputy, nor anything else under any circumstances—I would do everything to ensure that, as quickly as possible, necessary actions are taken.
Since we’re indulging in an unrestricted fantasy, let’s go all out: I would immediately free all political prisoners. I would task Alexander Valeryevich Skobov with forming an election commission and drafting the necessary legislation. Or maybe assign that role to someone else—to a politician like Podrabinek, for instance. Then, I would ensure that truly deserving candidates participate in the elections, and whoever wins, wins.
But first and foremost, I would do everything in my power to grant independence to Russia’s regions. Without question, I would invite representatives of the Chechen resistance—all those groups fighting for independence. As a result, I hope that Russia as an empire would cease to exist.
One thing is certain—I would not remain in politics for long. It’s something I neither want nor am capable of doing. Holding political office is destructive to one’s personality, and for me, being in politics would be nothing short of suicide. And I have no intention of ending my life in such a way.
On Aleksashenko’s Comments About Zelensky Link to heading
Aktivno, aktivno. I’d like to hear your opinion on Sergey Aleksashenko’s latest appearance on Plyushchev’s show. He said that Zelensky behaved incorrectly during his meeting at the White House—that he should have bowed to the master and agreed with everything. What I found especially striking was the claim that you shouldn’t call Putin a murderer if you want to sit at the negotiating table. What’s your take on this?
I watched this appearance—it so happened that I first came across a fragment of it on Twitter, which piqued my interest. I respect and sympathize with Sergey Aleksashenko, but I found his position rather strange. He fully aligned himself with Kókh’s stance. Koch, as we know, loves to say that if you come asking for money, you should stand at attention and only say two things: “Yes, Mr. President,” and “No, Mr. President.”
Well, excuse me, but while that might be a familiar posture for Koch, it’s absolutely impossible for the president of an independent country. That’s why I believe that Aleksashenko, whom I respect, took a peculiar and mistaken position in this case.
Márat, the most important point here is this: whether you call Putin a murderer or not, it changes nothing. He still wants to destroy Ukraine, and he will continue trying, regardless of what you call him.
So, regarding Aleksashenko—I’ve essentially just answered the same question, dear Márat.
On Inviting Kasparov Link to heading
Another question from Marat. Apologies for the request, but since you have a friendly relationship with Kasparov, could you call him and invite him to your show? He occasionally appears on RTR, but it would be great to see him on your channel.
Yes, of course, I will definitely do that. Right now, I’m just working on scheduling—it’s a matter of aligning Kasparov’s availability with our broadcast schedule. That takes some time.
On Konovalov in the Constitutional Court Link to heading
Andrey. Andrey calls himself “Andrey Bardak.” The author of the following question. I’d like to hear your opinion on the possible upcoming appointment of Alexander Vladimirovich Konovalov—Doctor of Law, professor, presidential representative to the Constitutional Court, and one of the main architects of the foreign agent law—as a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
I have no idea that he’s being considered for a position as a judge on the Constitutional Court. Maybe I’ve let my guard down a bit in terms of closely analyzing what’s happening in Russia. I still follow the media landscape, but I somehow missed this piece of information—I didn’t know anything about it.
But you know, in this case, he would fit perfectly into the role of a Constitutional Court judge in Putin’s Russia because he’s a quintessential Putin lackey. I mean Alexander Vladimirovich Konovalov, of course. He wasn’t just the Minister of Justice—he was also the prosecutor in Bashkortostan during the unrest there, when there was mass police brutality. And he handled that situation with remarkable “loyalty”—let’s put it that way. You might remember that infamous case of a town being brutally suppressed. Well, Konovalov was extremely accommodating to the uniformed sadists involved. Everything was swept under the rug, and even the then-head of the Interior Ministry managed to keep his position.
So, yes—he’s a lackey, an outright lackey, always on the side of power. As a judge on the Constitutional Court, he would be a very useful tool for Putin. Oh, and let’s not forget—he also has a theological education. Back when he was Minister of Justice, I was following Russian politics more closely. I analyzed his biography and watched some of his speeches. He suffers from a severe case of “Orthodox brain syndrome.” So, yes—he’ll fit right in.
Can Evil Lead to Good Deeds? Link to heading
Ivanovich Eduard Alexandrovich. Then why does Zelensky even talk to Trump? It’s long been clear that Trump is a ghoul. Why would a normal person like Zelensky meet and speak with him? Why seek allies among fanatics? Or does it not matter that he’s a ghoul, only that he’s strong? Where is your condemnation of this stance? “Might makes right”—is that what you’re saying? This idea that evil can do good is extremely dangerous. All the world’s problems stem from this. Do you take back your words?
No, dear colleague, I do not take back my words. I still believe there are cases where good comes into the world through the clash of two evils. A classic example—look, Stalin was evil, right? The Soviet Union under Stalin was evil. But it was the Soviet Union that liberated Auschwitz and freed its prisoners. That’s a fact. Whether we like it or not, it happened. That’s an example of good being done with the involvement of evil. And you can find thousands more like it.
The destruction of Hitler’s fascism happened, in significant part, due to the blows dealt by Stalin’s USSR—Stalin’s, because there was no other USSR at the time. That’s a fact. Now, I’m not saying Stalin won the war—that’s a myth pushed by Stalinists. But still, it was Stalin’s Soviet Union that fought. So there you have it—evil that led to good. That’s why I won’t take my words back. That’s simply how the world works.
As for Zelensky, you see, you think Trump is a ghoul. But who else can Ukraine rely on right now? Europe? Sure. But in Europe, there was a clear demand for Ukraine—and for Zelensky personally—to restore relations with Trump. Maybe deep down, every one of these leaders thinks Trump is a ghoul, but they want him to prove it beyond all doubt.
They all have voters behind them, and Zelensky has his own voters as well. If this were just a personal matter, I have no doubt that Zelensky would have spat on Trump long ago. I’m certain of it. Either that, or he would have lost his temper and used his fists. Or, at the very least, he would have completely cut ties with Trump after the first insults.
But he has a responsibility—not just to himself, but to the citizens of Ukraine, who are being killed every single day. Many of them. And any attempt to secure U.S. support is justified and necessary. The real question is: at what cost? That’s the tricky part. Yes, Trump is a ghoul. So what now? Americans elected him—with the support of quite a few of our compatriots.
On the Interview with Aleksashenko Link to heading
Tamara, also regarding Aleksashenko’s interview. He spoke with anger and indignation about Zelensky’s outfit during his meeting with Trump. What was that about? Is he afraid he’ll be asked to leave America if he criticizes Trump?
No, dear Tamara, I don’t think Aleksashenko is afraid of anything. Especially since no one gets expelled from America simply for criticizing Trump. I believe the issue is something else—the same thing I mentioned earlier. It’s this “Kos-like temptation” to appear rational.
The logic goes like this: “You came asking for money? Then put on a tie, polish your shoes, and kiss the villain’s hand. That’s just how it works.” But again, that’s a private individual’s position. If you’re asking for money for yourself, you can behave however you want.
But if you are the president of a country at war, tolerating insults toward your nation and bowing down—that’s a different story. Especially when it happens in front of cameras, in front of the entire world. Maybe, behind closed doors, it would have been different.
Here’s a hypothesis—I’m not sure if it’s entirely correct, but I’ll put it forward: if this meeting had been held privately, away from the public eye, it’s possible that Zelensky would have swallowed the insults. But allowing his country to be humiliated in front of the whole world? For a wartime leader, that’s a serious risk, a dangerous move.
That’s why I still believe that, overall, Zelensky acted correctly. Sure, in the details, maybe some things could have been handled differently. But in general, I think he did the right thing.
And later, playing it down—not by apologizing (because there was nothing to apologize for), but by smoothing things over and taking a more conciliatory stance—that’s also perfectly fine.
Moreover, I’m absolutely 1,000% certain that no matter how Zelensky behaved, Trump’s so-called “peacekeeping mission” was never going to happen. Because the one who doesn’t want to end the war is not Zelensky—it’s Putin. That’s the real problem.
About the Immigration Problem Link to heading
Marina Krepko.
But what is a real solution to the huge immigration problem?
Well, this is another question that requires an entire series of lectures. So, I’ll try to address it in a more concise manner, without getting lost in phrases that sound like something out of Winnie-the-Pooh—sawdust, squirrels, and folk songs.
First and foremost, every state develops its immigration policy based on its own values and interests. There are several types of migration, and different policies should apply to each. Labor migration is one thing; refugee or political migration is another. Then there is so-called existential migration—people who are simply searching for themselves. They want to experience another country, immerse themselves in its values and way of life, and so on. This is what we call existential migration.
There is also the phenomenon of digital nomads, and their numbers are quite significant. I personally encountered this phenomenon back in 2010 when we conducted a large-scale research project on Jews in Russia. When we analyzed this topic—the Jewish population in Russia—we found that a significant portion of Jews lived in a kind of “globe-skimming” state, constantly moving between Israel, America, Russia, and other places. They study in one country, work in another, and so on. Of course, this applies not only to Jews. This is the phenomenon of nomadic digital workers—people who can travel freely. One day they’re in Montenegro, the next in the US, and the day after that in New Zealand. Since they work remotely, they feel comfortable anywhere.
That said, the main categories are labor migrants and refugees. The policy regarding labor migrants is fairly straightforward: each country determines what it needs for economic prosperity and selects the necessary workers accordingly. These workers secure jobs in advance, sign contracts remotely, and then enter the country to work. This is all quite clear-cut: the state defines the workers it needs, invites them, and excludes the rest. That’s it. This is a normal situation.
The second category is refugees—people fleeing countries where they face danger. If a host country considers itself civilized, it first verifies their situation, then provides humanitarian aid and takes them in. The next step is integration—helping them adapt. Thus, immigration policy must include both criteria for acceptance and a plan for further adaptation, including a transition period.
Of course, these are general statements, and in practice, countless problems arise. It all depends on how firm and enforceable the country’s laws are. But in broad terms, this is how immigration policy is shaped—by a nation’s interests and values.
Foolproofing Democracies Link to heading
Pan Stepan.
You once said that there is nothing inherently wrong with democracy as a form of government. But when I look at the chaos Trump has created worldwide, I can’t shake the thought that this is the result of democratic choice—one in which ignorance won this time. Yes, in four years, the pendulum will swing back, but in the meantime, a lot of damage will be done. The same thing happens in other countries—BRICS, for example. It seems that such failures, where ignorance takes power, are inevitable. Next time it might be France, then Germany. And after each such episode, we have to spend years restoring order. Isn’t it time to rethink the democratic process and build in some kind of foolproof mechanism?
When I hear this—when I hear constant proposals, such as offering people money not to vote—it reminds me of some truly remarkable ideas. Then there are those who suggest introducing property or education-based voting qualifications. And for some reason, my mind immediately jumps to France. The year was 1775, the death of Jean Calas, and the Paris Academy of Sciences decided to permanently stop reviewing proposals for perpetual motion machines. At the time, they were talking about a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, but later, the second kind was dismissed as well.
I have a similar attitude toward these attempts at mechanically “fixing” democracy. It just doesn’t work. Now, I am not the Paris Academy of Sciences, of course, and I do have a sense of humor. But I still believe that universal suffrage is a very bad idea—yet every alternative is far worse. At least, that’s how it seems to me for now.
On Sachs’ Speech Link to heading
Well, Berta Davydova,
I’d like to hear your analysis and assessment of Jeffrey Sachs’ speech.
Dear Berta, I’ve already given my assessment. What else is there to say? You know, in cases like this, I don’t know—he’s a “useful idiot,” perhaps? A person who openly supports dictatorships. I don’t see much to analyze here. I just don’t. A useful idiot—period. We can break down his speech in detail, but we’ll still end up with the same conclusion.
Prospects of Long-Term Rule for Trump and Putin Link to heading
A question from Pavel Alexandrovich
Are we facing a long, dark night? Eleven more years of Putin’s reign, followed by twelve years of Trump? What do you think?
I’m not sure. Not sure. That the winter will be long—yes, absolutely. Even though it seems to have ended, politically, it will last for quite some time. But I still think it’s going to be four years, not twelve.
I have a feeling that Vance is simply unelectable. Now, of course, listen—I am by no means a specialist in U.S. electoral politics. But my sense is that Vance just doesn’t have what it takes to win. He lacks that charisma—and charisma is something tangible, something serious. Trump has it; Vance does not. He’s too small for the role, you see? And I think you can feel that right through the screen.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Well, dear friends, I don’t rule out that I may have missed some questions, because—unlike usual—I didn’t start gathering them in the early morning hours. This time, I did it in the evening, from around 11:00 PM to about 3:00 AM. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if I overlooked some questions that were asked later in the morning. I’ll try to catch them and respond tomorrow.
Before saying goodbye, I want to remind you that at 3:00 PM, we have Academician Libanova, and at 5:00 PM, Professor Lipsits. I think both conversations will be very valuable and interesting.
With that, I’m wrapping up today’s morning stream. Glory to Ukraine! Take care! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, for Russian political prisoners, and for Ukrainian captives!
All the best! See you at 3:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/PeOu98pGEN8