Three years later. Bundestag elections – preliminary results. How the Pentagon congratulated Trump by lying.
Main topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 24, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and in our souls.
Exactly three years ago—well, not exactly, but a little earlier, at 5:00 AM Moscow time on February 24, 2022—Putin addressed the citizens of Russia with a speech that included the following words:
“I have made the decision to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide by the Kyiv regime for eight years. To achieve this, we will seek the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.”
He then continued: “We do not plan to occupy Ukrainian territories. We are not going to impose anything on anyone by force. I am confident that the soldiers and officers of the Russian Armed Forces, loyal to their country, will fulfill their duty professionally and courageously.”
This address lasted 28 minutes and was broadcast on all Russian state television channels.
So, the stated goal: protecting Ukrainian citizens, demilitarization, and denazification.
So, three years have passed. On the eve of this anniversary, Putin’s parrot, Peskov, stated that it is too early to draw conclusions, as the special military operation is still ongoing. Nevertheless, we are beginning—starting today—to summarize the results of three years of war.
I want to say right away that we have decided to start this process. By “we,” I mean myself and a very small team that I work with. We have decided to begin by having a conversation with Kyrylo Sazonov—a political analyst who is currently fighting as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. At 9:00 AM, we will be reviewing the three years of war with him. That is where we have chosen to start.
First of all, I’m not claiming to provide a full summary of the war’s outcomes, but I will say a few things.
According to a number of independent sources, Russia’s losses—meaning both killed and wounded—have reached 564,000 people. There are different estimates, some even higher, but independent sources do not cite lower figures. This is the first key outcome of the war for Russia: the blitzkrieg failed. The expectation that Kyiv would fall in three days collapsed due to the staggering incompetence of Putin’s inner circle.
I don’t want to put all the blame on the Russian General Staff—after all, they likely understood what was happening. But as for the FSB, which spent around $5 billion on preparing a “fifth column” in Ukraine—funding it directly and through Medvedchuk—it was a complete disaster. They assured the Kremlin there would be no resistance, that Ukrainians would welcome the Russian army with bread and salt. We all know the result.
Yesterday, during the weekly review with Mikhail Valentinovich Savva, we also touched on these three years of war. He made an important point about Ukrainian optimism—how, in the absence of resources, optimism becomes a lifeline. That’s absolutely true. But at the same time, we must remember and clearly understand that what is happening in Ukraine today is hell.
Donald Trump recently said that if Hamas does not release all Israeli hostages, “the gates of hell will open.” But those gates opened long ago, and Ukraine has been living in hell for three years now. I’m not even talking about the earlier years of war—these last three years have been pure hell.
I just want us to remember this. Many, especially those in Ukraine, know it all too well—when bombs, drones, and ballistic missiles rain down on them every day. I vividly remember seeing Iskander missiles and other deadly weapons paraded across Red Square, dreading the thought of what would happen if they were ever actually used. And for three years now, they have been flying and striking their targets.
And here are the brief results.
According to United Nations estimates, Ukraine’s population has decreased by 10 million people over the past three years since February 2022—that’s roughly a quarter of the population. Some try to compare these numbers to World War II, arguing that the losses aren’t as catastrophic. But think about it—Ukraine’s population has shrunk by 10 million. No, these aren’t all deaths; most of this decline is due to displacement. But 10 million people—that’s comparable to what some countries lost during World War II.
Let me clarify these figures. The last population census in Ukraine was conducted in 2001. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion, excluding the occupied territories of Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, estimates placed Ukraine’s population at 40–42 million people. I emphasize—this number does not include Crimea or the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk.
By mid-2024, based on highly accurate estimates from Ukrainian demographers—who used data from three Ukrainian mobile operators and other key indicators—the population in government-controlled Ukraine was around 30 million. Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy provides a more optimistic figure of 33 million, but I tend to trust independent demographers more. This means a real loss of 10 million people.
Now, let’s look at another figure from a CIA report published a couple of months ago: Ukraine’s mortality rate is 18.6 per 1,000 people—the highest in the world. Higher than in countries facing absolute catastrophe, including famine-stricken African nations. Ukraine is number one in mortality.
According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy, as of early December 2024, there were 4.9 million internally displaced persons—people who lost their homes. And according to the UN Refugee Agency, as of mid-January 2025, there were 6.9 million registered Ukrainian refugees.
This is genocide in its purest form. Not a metaphor, not an exaggeration—just a cold, hard fact. This is the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
In this context, as we approach the three-year mark of the war, Donald Trump’s recent statements provoke a strong sense of rejection in me. All these arguments about how we shouldn’t pay attention to what Trump says—I completely disagree.
When a person claims that Ukraine started the war, that it could have been prevented, and that the Ukrainian leadership is to blame, this cannot be ignored. When the official position of the United States shifts to saying we shouldn’t talk about aggression, shouldn’t discuss who started the war, but instead frame it as some kind of internal Ukrainian conflict that “grown men” from Russia and the U.S. are now trying to resolve—this is deeply disturbing.
These are the words of a man who has openly taken the side of an international criminal, who openly supports the genocide of the Ukrainian people. That is exactly how it should be characterized.
Words matter. They have already had an impact, and they continue to do so. The idea that we shouldn’t pay attention to them is, at best, foolish—and at worst, outright complicity.
And we will continue.
Throughout the coming week, we will be summarizing the results of three years of war. We will have different guests with different perspectives. I am deliberately inviting people with varying opinions because, in my view, being trapped in an informational bubble is a serious mistake.
So, get ready, dear friends—we will be engaging in discussions with a range of speakers, including some who I don’t find particularly agreeable and who you might not like either. But this is important. It is crucial to hear different viewpoints.
One of the most significant events this past weekend—on Sunday, yesterday—was the elections to the Bundestag. I’d like to take a look at the preliminary results and how the seats will be distributed.
According to early results, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU/CSU) is in the lead and is expected to secure 208 seats. Meanwhile, the pro-Russian nationalist extremist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has achieved an unprecedentedly high result, winning 150 seats.
The role of Elon Musk in this outcome—who has openly supported Donald Trump, as well as other figures and groups, including Trotskyists who backed this openly pro-Russian extremist organization—requires further investigation. Right now, I don’t have the resources to conduct such research, but it’s an extremely important and interesting topic. I know that Germany has a strong tradition of sociological research, and I hope that some researchers will take an interest in this issue. I will be eagerly awaiting such studies.
How much of AfD’s 150 seats were gained due to Elon Musk’s blatant and aggressive interference in the German elections? That remains an open question.
Of course, we understand that Germany’s main challenge right now is its economy. However, I don’t believe AfD’s economic program was particularly attractive. What did play a major role was the issue of migration. Migration is a serious matter—especially since, in the year leading up to the election, five people were killed in Germany, with perpetrators in all cases having a migration background. Naturally, these events influenced public opinion.
That said, the fact that this absolutely pro-Russian party—one that openly acknowledges both its Kremlin-directed actions and funding—managed to secure 150 seats in parliament is alarming. However, it is a problem that can be addressed. There is currently a consensus on blocking AfD from gaining power.
Let’s look at the results again. The third-place finish was a colossal failure for Scholz’s party, which secured only 121 seats—the worst result since 1990. The Greens won 86 seats, while The Left (Die Linke) secured 64. The good news is that both extremist parties—far-right and far-left—received less than 5% of the vote.
The key question now is how a coalition will be formed. There is hope that the CDU/CSU will be able to form a government, possibly in coalition with the Social Democrats and the Greens. If that happens, the result for Ukraine will be close to ideal.
Almost certainly, the next German chancellor will be Friedrich Merz, who has already pledged military support for Ukraine. More broadly, he is someone who—perhaps in partnership with Britain and France—could play the role of a “collective Churchill.” There is no single Churchill-like leader in Europe today, but together, these three nations could take on that role.
So, amid the horror that has lasted for three years, this is at least some good news.
Another piece of news I wanted to share: the Pentagon has “congratulated” Donald Trump—by exposing his lies.
Trump recently claimed that the U.S. had provided Ukraine with either $350 billion or $500 billion in aid. Both figures are utterly absurd, and the Pentagon has now debunked them.
Trump stated that the U.S. spent $350 billion on military aid for Ukraine—$70 billion more than the European Union. But here are the actual numbers:
According to the Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve, who oversees U.S. spending on Ukraine aid, Congress has approved a total of $182 billion, out of which $39.6 billion has not yet been allocated or used. The total aid actually provided from February 24, 2022, to early 2025 amounts to $83.4 billion—with $34.2 billion of that being humanitarian and social grants through USAID.
Meanwhile, the direct military aid provided by the U.S. for Ukraine’s defense from February 2022 to December 2024 stands at $13.73 billion.
If we look at the proportions of U.S. and European aid, the U.S. contribution accounts for about 35% of the total international support for Ukraine, while its share of military spending is 21%. So the claim that America has provided more support than Europe and the rest of the world combined? Pure fiction. Another blatant lie from Trump.
Now, I want to bring in some figures from Andrei Illarionov, a meticulous analyst who will be featured in my next episode. He was once a strong Trump supporter but seems to have had a change of heart.
According to Illarionov, the budgetary aid figures for Ukraine, based on data from the U.S. State Department, the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance, and U.S. government auditors, are as follows:
- $27 billion in military aid
- $31 billion in budgetary support
- Total U.S. aid over three years: $58 billion
These are official figures from the U.S. government. In other words, Trump’s claims are off by nearly an order of magnitude—he talks about $350 billion or $500 billion, while the actual total is $58 billion.
So, congratulations to Trump—from the Pentagon, from Illarionov, and from anyone who values facts over fiction. “Соврамши.”
One more important point from Illarionov concerns Trump’s demand for Ukraine to hold elections. He notes that the only country in history to conduct democratic elections under U.S. pressure during an active war was South Vietnam. They held both parliamentary and presidential elections—and we all know how that ended. Free South Vietnam was crushed by the communist dictatorship of North Vietnam, with support from the Soviet Union and China.
Illarionov’s conclusion: demanding elections from a country fighting for survival is nothing short of a suicidal proposal.
Bravo, Andrei Nikolaevich. If only he had taken this stance from the beginning. We’ve had our disagreements, and likely still do, but when he stands on the right side of history, that is always a good thing.
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention something. Under heavy pressure from part of my audience—who practically twisted my arm—I conducted a poll on our channel. My weak willpower failed me, and I gave in.
The question was: “Do you believe that Trump’s behavior can be explained by the fact that he was recruited and is an agent of the Kremlin/FSB?”
5,000 people participated in the poll. Here are the results:
- Yes, I believe so – 45%
- No, I don’t believe so – 38%
- I’m unsure – 17%
As often happens, I find myself in the absolute minority—I fall into the 17% who are unsure. Meanwhile, the largest share, 45%, believe that Trump is indeed a recruited Kremlin/FSB agent, which, for all practical purposes, is the same thing.
Now, I don’t rule out this possibility. But to outright assert it? Look, there have been analyses tracking how many times, just in the past month since his inauguration, Trump has acted in favor of the Kremlin. These actions can be explained in different ways. For me, recruitment is the last explanation I would consider. Yes, a lot points in that direction, but I’ve explained my stance many times.
Many of you, however, take a more straightforward approach: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.”
So, those are the results.
And one last thing before we dive into your questions—I want to remind you that at 9:00 AM, we will be reviewing three years of war with political analyst Kyrylo Safonov, who is currently fighting on the front lines. I expect it will be an insightful perspective from the battlefield.
And at 8:00 PM, as usual, we’ll have Sergey Maratovich Gradsky on the program.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Moving on to your questions.
A question from Sergey Afanasyev:
A recent article in Politico titled “29 Times Donald Trump Did Exactly What Putin Wanted” breaks down the specific instances where the former U.S. president fulfilled the Kremlin’s wishes. The publication identified 29 such cases. I know you’re a firm believer in not labeling people as Kremlin agents. But could you estimate the likelihood that Trump was actually recruited by the KGB? In your opinion, is it over 50%? Also, could you run a poll on your page asking whether your subscribers believe Trump is a Putin agent? I’d be very interested to see the results.
Well, Sergey Afanasyev, you were one of those who twisted my arm. And I gave in. I just shared the results of that poll, so you can consider your request fulfilled.
Ilya: What do you mean when you say you’ve been reading less? Does that lead to degradation? How does it manifest? What kind of reading are you referring to—journalism, fiction, or something else?
Vitaly Portnikov, in one of your joint broadcasts, mentioned (if I understood him correctly) that he doesn’t watch interviews with figures like Zelensky or Fridman but instead reads transcripts. He said that facial expressions, emotions, and all that don’t interest him—only the raw statements matter.
What’s your take on this? When are body language and emotions important, and when can they be ignored in favor of just the text?
I think body language is important in general. But I also understand Vitaly’s approach—he processes a vast amount of information, and reading transcripts makes the task easier. It allows for multitasking—you can skim a transcript much faster than watching an entire video. If you’re just boiling water for tea and listening, that’s one way to do it. But reading is much faster than speech, so I see why he prefers it.
That said, when watching dialogues—especially debates—body language can be crucial. It adds another layer of meaning beyond the words themselves.
Now, to your main question. As I reflect on my own three years of war, I can say—yes, degradation happens. War doesn’t make anyone better; it worsens life for everyone.
What I call “burnout and degradation” happened because, during this war, I prioritized quantity over quality. I know for a fact that my analytical work could be much stronger if I weren’t doing daily broadcasts, sometimes appearing on five, six, even seven or eight programs in a single day—on top of producing my own content. Naturally, the quality of analysis suffers.
As for reading, the biggest loss has been specialized literature. I’ve long stopped following philosophical works and read very little sociology beyond survey data. And as we know, polling is only a small part of sociology as a science. I don’t keep up with academic sociology journals or contemporary philosophy, or at least I do so very rarely. That means I’ve fallen out of professional academic discourse, which undoubtedly has an impact.
This is what I mean by burnout and degradation. But what can you do?
Kyrylo Sazonov is a political analyst who is also a soldier. My “trench” is different—I don’t risk my life, but the cost of this mode of work is burnout and decline. But in the end, everyone pays their price for war.
Oleg Kuznetsov: What happened to your broadcast? Was it a technical issue or a political one?
There was no political reason behind it. Just before our scheduled broadcast, Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak messaged me saying he had been urgently summoned to a meeting with the President of Ukraine.
What can you do?
So, was this a political or a technical issue? I’d say, in the usual sense, it was purely technical.
Alex Dean: Could you give a response to Elon Musk’s statement?
Musk recently said:
“Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to send bodies into the meat grinder forever. They have no plan for success, just shallow sympathy. They are the real…”
We started this conversation earlier with Trump, but let’s get into Musk now. If Trump is a category of his own, Musk is an “organic Trump”—not just a supporter, but a co-author of the same ideology. He’s not a victim of Trumpism; he is actively shaping and deepening it. What Musk does is extend, expand, and escalate Trump’s cynicism to new levels.
The kind of rhetoric Musk uses—the way he speaks and acts—can only come from someone who is even more of a “Trump” than Trump himself. I don’t think Musk ever feels shame. A complete atrophy of conscience, the rejection of morality—these traits are common among Trumpists, and Musk embodies them fully.
To say that we want to “send bodies into the meat grinder forever”—what does he suggest as an alternative? Surrender? Appeasement? Letting Putin turn all of Ukraine into one giant Bucha?
The people of Ukraine don’t want to die, but they understand what their fate would be under Putin’s rule. Bucha is the answer. That’s what “peace” under Putin looks like.
Musk’s statement is nothing more than the thief shouting ‘Stop, thief!’—accusing others of the very thing he is enabling.
This is the same twisted logic we saw at the Munich Security Conference when Russian officials absurdly accused Europe of lacking democracy—while their own regime crushes every last trace of it.
The real irony? The people making these accusations—Musk included—are the ones now working to dismantle democracy in the United States itself.
Vadim Karpov: Did you find the conversation useful after 33 minutes?
I assume you’re referring to my stream with Boris “Plinth”—when I pointed out that after 33 minutes, he still hadn’t touched on the topic that concerns all of us: Ukraine. Instead, he spent that time praising Trump’s “brilliant” domestic policies.
The impact of Trump’s policies on the U.S. itself is a separate discussion. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to make definitive judgments here, though I’ve read and heard many perspectives about how destructive and damaging Trump’s leadership has been for the U.S. itself.
But what mattered to us was Trump’s policy on Ukraine—and for 33 minutes, Boris P. avoided the subject entirely.
Boris Penthouse (yes, I will have a segment on him as part of my “Trumpism” series) represents another form of Trump opportunism—not as blatant as Andrei Illarionov’s past stance, but a more “shy opportunism.” He hesitates, hedges, but ultimately stays in the same orbit.
Now, to answer your question directly: yes, I found the conversation useful.
This is part of an attempt to assemble a mosaic—a portrait of contemporary Trumpism. That’s important.
Of course, talking with like-minded people is great—we can revel in our shared understanding, sometimes even learning from those who are more knowledgeable or experienced in certain areas. It’s a kind of “symphony of agreement.”
But it’s also crucial to engage with people from the other camp—within reason. Obviously, debating someone like Solovyov, Sobchak, or even Shlosberg would be pointless, as there’s no common ground to be found.
However, conversations like this? They are valuable. They expand our understanding.
Dan’s Question: Let’s conduct a thought experiment. You have the power to replace just one major political figure. Who would you replace, with whom, and why?
Until recently, I think the answer was obvious—Putin. But now? Even I’m not so sure.
This thought experiment needs clear rules. If we can choose a replacement, that changes things. For example, simply removing Trump would mean J.D. Vance takes over—and who knows if that would be even worse. But if we can actively pick a replacement, then we have options.
It’s like asking, “Who was the greater evil—Stalin or Hitler?” It depends on whose eyes you’re looking through. For Jews in World War II, obviously, Hitler was the greater evil.
Right now, looking through Ukrainian eyes—and Russian eyes as well—the greatest concentration of evil is still in Putin.
So, if I could replace one political leader and also choose their replacement, my pick would be:
Replace Putin with Mishustin.
Why? Because with Mishustin, the war ends immediately.
No need for fantasies—this is a realistic scenario. If Putin disappears and Mishustin takes over, the war stops. That alone makes it the optimal choice.
So that would be my decision.
Dan’s Second Question: What about Yevgeny Sevastyanov? Would you invite him to a stream?
Yes, I’m open to it. I believe he’s been on our program before, and I think it would be interesting to have him back. We’ll just need to coordinate and invite him. Sounds like a good idea.
Antonina: Listening to your conversation with Mr. Pincus, I was reminded of Fyodor Lukyanov. For a long time, Lukyanov was the “human face” of Putinism—speaking polished English, trying to deceive the West about Russia’s aggressive intentions.
Pincus, in a clumsier way, attempts to “soften” Trump’s grotesque face. He has a nice voice, a somewhat intelligent appearance—like a Professor Preobrazhensky type, saying, “Listen, dear child, let me explain how the world really works.”
I don’t overestimate the influence of Brighton Beach intellectuals on U.S. elections. But as we know, drops of water wear down stone, and even a drop of nicotine can kill a horse. We are where we are, in part, thanks to the efforts of all kinds of Trump apologists.
I’d like you, Igor Alexandrovich, to reflect with me on the balance of harm and benefit. Does the value of Pincus’s statements outweigh the obvious harm of giving him access to your audience, allowing him to borrow some of your credibility as an honest, decent person? Someone might hear him on your channel and start believing in the possibility of “human-faced Trumpism.”
Is such a game worth playing? After all, Fedor Lukyanov clings to phantom hopes—why play cards with a cheat?
Dear Antonina, I doubt there’s a single person on this channel who didn’t understand exactly what was happening during that conversation.
As I’ve said before, I deeply enjoy speaking with Andrei Nikolaevich Piontkovsky or with Kyrylo Safonov, the fighting political analyst. These are like-minded people—and that’s great. Such discussions are valuable not only because they deepen our understanding, but because they provide insights I might not have myself.
However, staying exclusively in a bubble carries risks.
Take Putin’s situation, for example—he was surrounded by people who told him that Ukraine was just waiting to welcome Russian troops with flowers. They burned through $5 billion to feed him that delusion.
We, too, can fall into false information traps if we never engage with differing perspectives. That’s why it’s necessary to break through the walls of the bubble, engage with other audiences, and talk to different people.
That’s why I think the conversation with Pincus was useful. The same goes for my discussion with Yunusov—where I mostly listened, but we debated at certain points. It’s important to hear different views.
I don’t believe in self-censorship—purging the channel of differing opinions. I’m confident in my ability to defend my position, and I believe that conversations like these add value.
So, I don’t see a problem with giving someone a platform.
And regarding Konstantin’s comment: I will definitely do a second episode of my Trumpism series—if not this coming weekend, then soon.
Two figures I’ll be covering?
- Andrei Nikolaevich Illarionov
- Boris Pincus
Both represent different shades of Trump opportunism—a fascinating phenomenon.
Stay tuned—I’ll have plenty to say about them.
VODOLEY: In a recent eight-minute speech on his channel, Alexei Goncharenko called on Zelensky to make a public statement renouncing his candidacy in the next election. Is this a misunderstanding or playing for the other side?
Dear Vodoley, everything is quite clear.
Aleksei Alekseevich Goncharenko is a member of the Verkhovna Rada and part of the European Solidarity faction, led by Petro Alekseevich Poroshenko.
Do you need any further explanation?
Mikhail from Israel: The U.S. signed the Budapest Memorandum, committing to be a security guarantor for Ukraine and to assist in the event of war. This means the U.S. is not just choosing whether to help—it is obligated to do so under an international treaty.
Is there an international court that can force a country to fulfill its treaty commitments? Could Ukrainian international lawyers demand U.S. assistance through such a court? If no such court exists, then what’s the point of international treaties if countries can simply ignore them?
Dear Mikhail, this issue has been extensively discussed and analyzed.
The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty in the usual legal sense. That’s the key point.
It’s a declaration of intent—not a binding agreement that enforces specific obligations or penalties for non-compliance. Yes, it contains commitments, but they essentially boil down to expressing “deep concern” if Ukraine’s security is violated.
In other words, there is no legal mechanism to enforce it. No court can compel the U.S. (or any other signatory) to act because the document doesn’t include enforceable obligations or consequences.
It’s like those scams targeting pensioners—where the fine print in a contract contains clauses that completely undermine what was promised in bold letters.
The “fine print” of the Budapest Memorandum, written in invisible ink, essentially states: “These are just words that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.”
Unfortunately, that means there’s no legal recourse for Ukraine to force the U.S. to fulfill its so-called “obligations.”
And that is exactly why President Zelensky is now carefully reading the fine print of the latest proposed resource deal—and why he hasn’t signed it.
Alright, dear friends, that’s it for now.
I want to let you know that our Friday stream generated over 1,000 comments with questions. I simply don’t have the time to answer all of them today—especially since in just 27 minutes, we have a live broadcast with Kyrylo Safonov.
I promise to answer all your questions, but most likely tomorrow.
For now, I’ll say a brief goodbye—just for 20 minutes.
Take care of yourselves.
Glory to Ukraine!
Freedom for Oleksandr Popov, all Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian POWs!
And I’m not really saying goodbye—in just 25 minutes, we’ll be back on this very channel for a three-year war retrospective with Kyrylo Safonov, the fighting political analyst.
See you soon!
Source: https://youtu.be/tSTPvxDM1iw