Before the meeting in Jeddah, Marco Rubio explained that if he liked its outcome, military aid would continue. Musk accused Ukraine of a cyberattack on the X network. USAID is no more – who suffered.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 11. It is now 07:44 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, Ukraine, the world, and in our souls.

The Policy of the Whip and the Gingerbread Link to heading

Today, negotiations between the United States of America and Ukraine begin. Some statements and events preceding these negotiations will be the subject of our joint reflections.

First of all, the head of the U.S. negotiating delegation, Marco Rubio, stated on the eve of the talks that Ukraine must be prepared for concessions and difficult decisions as part of a peace agreement with Russia. This is, in general, the well-known policy of the whip and the gingerbread, as described by Trump’s representative on Ukraine. He mentioned that Trump employs this policy in relation to both Russia and Ukraine. However, these two elements are distributed in such a way that the whip is exclusively for Ukraine, while all the gingerbread goes to Russia—a rather peculiar interpretation of the policy.

So, Ukraine must be—Marco Rubio insists—ready for concessions and difficult decisions in the framework of a peace agreement with Russia. But what must Russia be prepared for? Marco Rubio did not specify. The key point here is that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions.

The Meaninglessness of the Meeting Link to heading

Among other things, he stated that this meeting would be crucial for the resumption of American military aid and that if the U.S. was satisfied with the negotiations, the meeting would take place—literally like that. He said, “I think that if there is a good meeting that we like, I think a decision will be made regarding the pause.”

This raises a question: what exactly needs to be liked? How should Marco Rubio and other members of the American delegation be pleased? What should the representatives of the Ukrainian delegation do? Naturally, they must all be dressed according to protocol—in white shirts and black suits. Perhaps they should wear red pioneer-style ties. Surely, Marco Rubio would appreciate it if they wore a baseball cap with the word “Mom” on it. Maybe they should draw ashtrays and crosses on their foreheads? Should they sing something in chorus? The question is, what? It’s unlikely that Ukrainian songs or dances would please Marco. So, it’s a mystery—what exactly needs to happen for Marco Rubio to be satisfied? Maybe, on the contrary, there should be some Russian symbols? Should they sing the Russian anthem, perhaps? In short, what must be done to please Marco Rubio?

This is a very telling approach. “You must please us, you must make us happy.” And beyond that, there’s a mysterious phrase that renders the entire situation utterly meaningless. Rubio added that the U.S. still hopes to conclude a deal on natural resources but admitted that it might not be signed in Saudi Arabia because the details have yet to be fully worked out. But how can something be signed if the details haven’t been settled? Another mystery.

The main outcome the U.S. expects is to get a firm sense that Ukraine must make difficult decisions. But how is this “sense” supposed to arise? That remains another enigma. When asked if there is any concrete peace plan—whether by Musk, Trump, or other members of the American delegation—the answer is no, there is no plan. But difficult decisions must be made.

This is an important statement by Marco Rubio, which is why I am analyzing it in such detail. He also said that both sides must come to an understanding that there is no military solution to this situation. “The Russians cannot conquer all of Ukraine,” he stated, “and it is obvious that Ukraine will not be able to force the Russians back to the 2014 positions.”

But the reality is that this largely depends on the United States—on what specific weapons they choose to supply or withhold from Ukraine. This is like a climber holding another person on a rope and saying, “I don’t think you’ll make it”—and then letting go of the rope. Ukraine’s ability to win depends on U.S. support, and when they say, “No, you won’t succeed,” it’s obvious why—because they are the ones releasing the rope. If they refuse to provide assistance, of course, Ukraine won’t succeed. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

Unclear What Is Unclear to the Americans Link to heading

The most important point, of course, is the stated goals of these negotiations in preparation for future talks with Moscow—whenever those may happen. Marco Rubio stated that Washington needs to determine what concessions Russia is willing to make. “We don’t know how far apart they truly are from Ukraine,” he said.

But what is there not to know? Russia’s position has been well known for quite some time. Russia has repeatedly stated its stance, which essentially boils down to demanding Ukraine’s complete capitulation. This includes the legal recognition of all five annexed regions, Ukraine’s withdrawal from their administrative borders, the reduction of its army, and so on. In other words, it is effectively Ukraine’s total and final surrender. Moscow has never indicated any willingness to deviate from this position. So what exactly is unclear here? This is what remains a mystery—what is it that the Americans do not understand? That is a crucial question.

This whole situation, in many ways, resembles a petty communal dispute. The American side appears to be particularly focused on personally humiliating Zelensky. For instance, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Whitko claimed that President Zelensky apologized for the incident at the White House in a letter he allegedly sent to Donald Trump. This statement was made just recently. However, the existence of such a letter is unknown.

If they are referring to a post made on the social network X, Zelensky merely expressed regret over the situation. He also mentioned this in his speech before Congress, as Trump pointed out. But according to all available sources from Ukraine, Zelensky never sent a separate letter to Trump. So what exactly is being referred to here?

Yet, for the American side, it is crucial to emphasize that Zelensky not only expressed regret but explicitly apologized. It’s as if they are reenacting a scene from the film Kin-dza-dza: “Now on your knees! And now you must not only perform your songs in cages but also on your knees.” That is what truly matters. This entire situation strongly resembles how things operate under Kadyrov in Russia, where everyone is constantly forced to apologize.

The Americans Are Ready to Lift Sanctions on Russia Link to heading

Speaking of gingerbread, the American side—specifically, the administration of Donald Trump—is considering a plan to ease sanctions against Russia. This pertains to restrictions on Russian oil, specifically the ban on transporting and insuring oil purchased from Russia at a price higher than $60 per barrel.

However, this restriction is easily circumvented through the use of a shadow fleet. And, as is well known, the United States has refused to join the coalition that seeks to combat this shadow fleet. Nevertheless, even this minimal restriction is now set to be lifted by the U.S. Here you have it—yet another gingerbread treat for Russia.

Proposal for a Ceasefire Link to heading

When it comes to Ukraine, it’s exclusively the whip. According to press reports and statements from the Ukrainian side, they plan to propose a partial ceasefire. This would involve a ban on drone and long-range missile strikes, as well as a cessation of hostilities in the Black Sea.

I don’t know. As you know, I try to be very restrained in commenting on anything related to Ukraine, but it seems to me that this proposal is doomed to fail. The reason is obvious: first, controlling such a partial ceasefire would be impossible. Russian aircraft do not enter Ukrainian airspace but strike with glide bombs that penetrate deep into Ukrainian territory. How exactly would this be controlled? Bombs are not aircraft, so what could be held against Russia if it continues its attacks from its own territory? This is a matter of legal technicalities.

But the main issue isn’t even about how to monitor such an agreement—because that would likely be impossible. If the ceasefire were total, enforcement might be manageable, but with a partial ceasefire, numerous questions arise: where exactly would it apply, and how would it be controlled?

The key point, however, is that this Ukrainian proposal is 1,000% certain to be rejected by Russia. Russia has air superiority and carries out massive daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine also strikes back—just today, there were attacks on Moscow and the Moscow region. But ultimately, a partial ceasefire would clearly benefit Ukraine more than Russia. There’s no need to entertain any illusions—Russia will, of course, reject this proposal.

This is so obvious that Ukraine’s proposal appears to be more of a diplomatic maneuver—an attempt to keep the conversation going. Zelensky previously suggested that the first steps should include the release of prisoners and an immediate air ceasefire. But of course, the Russian side will reject this just as it will reject any other proposals for a ceasefire, whether partial or full.

There are no signs that Russia is open to any kind of truce. Before going on air today, I reviewed the Russian press, and their position remains unchanged. Lavrov has repeatedly stated that Russia seeks a “lasting peace,” not temporary pauses or ceasefires that Ukraine could use to rearm. Russia consistently reiterates that Kyiv must legally renounce claims to the five occupied regions—including those still under Ukrainian control. Moreover, Russia’s broader goal remains ensuring that a pro-Russian government is installed in Kyiv. In essence, Russia demands full Ukrainian capitulation. It seeks nothing else and will not agree to anything less.

Will There Be a U.S.-Russia Meeting? Link to heading

There have been reports suggesting that the United States may meet with the Russian delegation in Saudi Arabia. However, there has been no information from the Russian side confirming this.

Once again, before our discussion, I carefully reviewed the Russian press, and there are no indications whatsoever that such a meeting is planned.

Accusation of Ukraine in a Cyberattack Link to heading

Now, let’s talk about some details that illustrate the current stance of the new American leadership. And I must emphasize again: when discussing what is happening in Ukraine and this war, we must acknowledge that what has taken place in the United States is, in my view, a complete and absolute fascist coup.

Yes, so far, this coup has only occurred at the top levels of power. The United States remains a democratic country, but only partially, because such a totalitarian shift could not have happened without the will of a certain portion of Americans. Which portion? The 77 million Americans who voted for Trump? Of course, not all of them wanted what is happening now—that is a separate discussion. I sincerely hope that we will have the strength to hold a serious, thorough conversation about this, to fully understand Trumpism and bring it to public discussion.

Now, let’s look at some details—some brushstrokes to the portrait of Trumpism in today’s United States. First and foremost is the recent statement by Musk, who—perhaps exaggeratedly—is sometimes called Trump’s co-ruler.

Yesterday, many of you likely noticed that social networks were experiencing outages—X was down for some time. It was clearly a massive global cyberattack on social media. Elon Musk claimed that this attack was organized by Ukraine, citing Ukrainian IP addresses as evidence. He also stated that this was a state-sponsored attack. Naturally, no proof was provided.

However, there are two additional points worth analyzing. First, according to reports, a Palestinian hacker group claimed responsibility for the attack—meaning Ukraine had no connection to it whatsoever. Now, I am not asserting that this pro-Palestinian hacker group was actually behind the attack. As often happens, terrorist groups sometimes take credit for incidents simply to enhance their reputation. But at the very least, this is the only existing claim regarding the possible perpetrators of the cyberattack.

Meanwhile, Musk instantly “discovered” a Ukrainian connection. One cannot help but recall how Russia hastily tried to fabricate a Ukrainian link to the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, stitching together a narrative with the most obvious white threads, despite it being completely clear that Ukraine had nothing to do with it. And now, Musk just as swiftly sniffs out a Ukrainian trace in this cyberattack.

This once again underscores the fact that Russia has built a fascist regime—and that Donald Trump is attempting to construct a similar one in the United States. The tactic of fabricating false accusations against opponents is a hallmark of such regimes, both the one established in Russia and the one Trump is now trying to establish in America.

What’s Left of USAID Link to heading

There’s another issue I’d like to discuss because I believe it has global significance—the notorious dismantling of USAID. The full scale of the disaster and the crime committed by Donald Trump’s regime is yet to be fully studied and understood. There is much to investigate, including the false accusations spread by Elon Musk’s team and echoed by Donald Trump against BuzzFeed.

But first, let’s look at the raw facts. Marco Rubio stated—this was posted on Twitter—that following a review of USAID’s work, it was decided to shut down 83% of its programs. The remaining programs will be transferred under the leadership of the State Department, where, as we can expect, they will soon be terminated as well. The principles guiding the current State Department leadership are so radically different that it’s likely no programs will survive.

The most important thing is to look at what these 83% of terminated programs actually were. In other words, let’s see who was affected. This is not a complete list, of course, but here are some of the key cuts:

  • Food aid for approximately 1 million people in Ethiopia—so people will starve to death, but never mind. One of the core principles of Trumpism, as proclaimed by Elon Musk, is that empathy is what will destroy Western civilization. So, no more empathy—let the starving in Ethiopia perish. That’s Trumpism for you.
  • Medical treatment for malnourished people in Kenya—scrapped.
  • A malaria eradication project in Senegal—scrapped.
  • Water supply infrastructure in northern Burkina Faso—scrapped.
  • Aid for people with disabilities in Vietnam—scrapped.
  • Hospitals in Thailand that provide care for about 100,000 refugees from Myanmar—scrapped.
  • The emergency plan to fight AIDS, one of USAID’s most significant programs, which has saved more than 25 million lives—scrapped. No more lives saved.

Particularly ironic is the fact that funding for independent media in Russia and Ukraine—which, among other things, were critical of both the Ukrainian and Russian governments—has also been axed. Naturally, when Musk commented on this, he reacted with a tweet saying: “Independent media? LOL.”

It’s clear that all this soft-power funding will now be largely, though selectively, taken over by Russia and China. So, we’ll soon see how Russia and China move into the vacuum left by USAID.

As for outright lies, I’ve already mentioned the sensationalist claims about how USAID money was supposedly wasted. For example, Trump stated in his speech to Congress that $8 million was spent on creating transgender mice. In reality, no such thing happened. Musk’s fanatics simply misread the actual program. The mice in question were not transgender but transgenic—genetically modified for research, including cancer treatment studies. But now, that research is gone. From now on, all mice will be strictly male (M) or female (F), and cancer research using them will no longer be possible.

So, bravo, Elon Musk! Keep going straight down this glorious path!

Many are already saying that all of this ultimately serves Russia’s interests. But it’s not just that—it would be an oversimplification. The true nature of Trumpism needs to be examined in-depth, not just condemned. I believe we must have a serious discussion about this, not just denounce it.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

I am now concluding the first part of our stream and moving on to answering your questions.

Characteristic Traits of a Trumpist Link to heading

Question from Vlad.
Is there something characteristic of every Trumpist? Watching your “Trumpophrenia,” I saw quite different motivations. Imperialism is present in Latynina but absent, for example, in Solonin. Personal admiration for Trump exists in Weinstein and Tabak, but Latynina seems rather indifferent to Trump himself. And Solonin, for that matter, doesn’t like Trump at all. Is there anything common to all Trumpists that is absent in non-Trumpists or Trumpism? Or is it just a motley coalition of everyone dissatisfied with the modern Western world?

I believe the common denominator—again, I want to emphasize that among the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump, it’s unclear how many are actual Trumpists—requires separate research. A large number of those voters cast their ballots not for Trump but against the Democratic Party, choosing what they saw as the lesser evil. Many of them are not Trump supporters and likely dislike what he does, but they voted for him because, in their view, Biden and Kamala Harris represent an obvious evil. And they have their reasons for thinking so. The Democratic Party is certainly not in its best shape right now, so this was essentially a protest vote.

Now, as for true Trumpists, they are distinguished by the following traits. First, a complete lack of empathy—this is an inherent flaw, a defining feature of Trumpism. Empathy is simply impossible for them. They all advocate the right of the strong, embracing social Darwinism. They are universally anti-liberal, anti-humanist, and fundamentally anti-democratic. You will not find a Trumpist who simultaneously exhibits strong empathy, supports liberal aspirations, or champions humanism. This is the core essence that remains when you strip away all differences. These traits are present in all Trumpists. If even one of them is absent, then that person is clearly not a Trump supporter.

Overall, since Trumpism is essentially a modern postmodernist version of fascism, those who openly and publicly support Trump are not necessarily all fascists—because it is, after all, a complex phenomenon—but they all exhibit certain tendencies in that direction. Every person who becomes a subject of our program “Trumpophrenia” has some degree of movement toward fascism.

Where Are the Obamas? Link to heading

Igor Gladky. A question from a namesake.
Where are the Obamas? Have they disappeared completely, or are they afraid of something?

Dear namesake, I don’t know, I haven’t been following. You know, I think this is something that should probably be examined separately. But for that, I would need a discussion partner—I definitely can’t handle this alone. It would require an Americanist, preferably someone living in the United States who understands the situation from the inside.

The reason why Democrats—and not just Democrats, but the American democratic system as a whole—are resisting the advance of Trumpism so weakly and failing to stop the attempt to turn America into a totalitarian state is an important question. Because that is exactly what Trump is trying to do. Of course, America is resisting, but why so feebly?

There are hypotheses. One obvious explanation is that the Democratic Party, which should be leading this resistance, is in very poor shape. That’s the first hypothesis. Beyond that, we need to talk to people who understand America from within and have a better grasp of the situation than I do.

As for your question, namesake, I tried to provide some kind of answer.

Why Does Trump Need the Rare Earth Agreement? Link to heading

Oleg Pavlenko.
I don’t understand why Trump needs an agreement with Zelensky on metals if he is 100% convinced that Ukraine will lose its statehood due to defeat in the war. Is it really just to once again humiliate Ukraine and its president?

Dear Oleg! Well, first of all, even if Ukraine partially loses its sovereignty as a result of losing the war, Ukraine will still exist. The land will remain, the natural resources will remain. So what is Trump counting on?

First, it would be unfair to accuse Trump of consistency, logic, or rationality. Everything he says and does proves that any such accusations are nothing but slander against our dear Donald Ivanovich Trump. So there’s no need to look for coherence or logical reasoning in his actions.

But even from a common-sense perspective—yes, Ukraine might lose the war, but it will still exist. Its natural resources may, to some extent, fall under Russia’s control. Trump is likely counting on forging a friendship with Russia, and as a result, U.S. interests in developing Ukraine’s resources could actually be well protected through an alliance with Russia. So there is some logic to this.

Now, the main point. I don’t think this deal—which, as we just learned from Marco Rubio, hasn’t even been fully finalized—has any real practical significance for Trump or the United States. I’ve said many times before that all this talk about rare earth elements is complete nonsense. The total global market for rare earth elements is just over $6 billion. So claims of $500 billion or $350 billion are absolute nonsense.

Besides, this is a “stone soup” deal—rare earth elements haven’t even been explicitly mentioned for a long time. Now, it’s about broader natural resources: oil, gas, port revenues, and so on. But even that is insignificant. Just look at the scale of the United States—its enormous GDP, its massive budget. The potential revenues from this deal with Ukraine are mere pennies for the U.S. economy.

For Trump, this deal holds symbolic value. He needs to present it to his voters as a tremendous success. And why? Because he has no actual successes. Everything he has attempted has fallen apart. He promised to annex Canada—didn’t happen. He wanted to acquire Greenland—didn’t work out. He talked about resettling Palestinians on Mars—they told him to get lost. He made threats against Iran—Tehran sent him on the same route as a Russian warship. Failure after failure.

So, he needs something to show. “Look at Trump, what a great dealmaker! Who’s the best? Trump is the best!” That’s the whole purpose—it’s a PR move.

As for the goal of humiliation—yes, Trump is a petty and vindictive person. Undoubtedly, humiliating Zelensky and Ukraine is part of his agenda.

Why Should Ukraine Continue Negotiations with America? Link to heading

Dzhigurda
Explain why Ukraine is asking Trump for weapons if he wants to stop the fighting? Why sign anything if it’s clear to everyone that Trump will betray Ukraine in favor of the Russians anyway?

Dear colleague, first of all, I’m not sure—I don’t know, and I can’t read minds from a distance. I don’t know what’s in the heads of Ukraine’s political leadership, what’s in Zelensky’s mind, or whether he thinks the same way you do. That, I can’t say. But I am inclined to assume that they probably understand things in a similar way.

However, there is one psychological nuance that cannot be ignored. Since President Zelensky and all the other members of the Ukrainian delegation are engaged in negotiations with the Americans, they are caught up in the negotiation process itself. And you know, once you’re involved in a negotiation process, a kind of inertia develops. Sometimes, even when you already realize that you’ve hit a dead end, that it’s useless, you keep going. I don’t know if your personal life experience leads you to the same conclusion, but mine does. When you’re deeply involved in a project and it becomes clear that it will likely fail, or when you’re negotiating with a partner who is probably going to betray you, you often still continue. There’s an inertia to the process—you still want to see it through to the end. I wouldn’t rule out that Ukrainian politicians are in this exact situation.

But the most important thing here is something else. I want to emphasize that I am not trying to read the minds of Ukraine’s leadership. The issue is different. Even if Zelensky and other members of the Ukrainian government fully understand that the Trump mission is hopeless, that Trump will betray them, that he has switched to Russia’s side—even if they share my perspective and, presumably, yours to some degree—they have no right to act based on that belief.

And the reason is simple: if they do, it will allow their enemies to place the blame for America’s betrayal on Ukraine. You see, they are forced to demonstrate loyalty to the United States. If they don’t, the narrative will be: “See? They’re the ones picking a fight. They don’t want our help. We were willing to assist, but they rejected us.” And that would severely damage Ukraine’s relationships, especially with its European allies. A perception could take hold that “Well, look, Ukraine itself rejected American aid. The Americans came to negotiate, they even traveled to the far reaches of the world, to Saudi Arabia in the scorching heat, just to help Ukraine. And Ukraine pushed them away.”

This is the fundamental problem of diplomacy and politics: politicians rarely say what they truly think. That’s precisely why I left politics—I found it difficult. A politician has to think one thing and say another. That’s just how it works.

So, perhaps Zelensky and the rest of the Ukrainian delegation understand everything perfectly well. But they have no right to act otherwise. They represent the Ukrainian people, and they cannot give their adversaries the opportunity to blame Ukraine for a breakdown in relations or to accuse Ukraine of driving the U.S. into the enemy’s camp.

At least, that’s how I see it.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

Dear friends, unfortunately, I won’t be able to answer all the questions today. However, I promise that I will address the questions related to yesterday’s video in tomorrow morning’s stream. For now, I am wrapping up our morning discussion.

See you soon! Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Ukrainian political prisoners, Ukrainian captives, and Russian political prisoners!

Take care! See you soon! All the best!

Source: https://youtu.be/dV83T-lOp8Y