Trump called Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” a “comedian with modest success,” and accused him of “derailing a deal on rare earth metals.” This is already a war for political destruction.

News Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 20th. It is now 07:41 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and in our souls.

So, what’s going on? Over the past two days, former U.S. President Donald Trump has unleashed an unprecedented amount of lies and negativity. I’m trying to speak as restrained as possible because there are much harsher words I could use, but I’ll hold back.

The sheer volume of lies and negativity directed at Ukraine in general, and primarily at Zelensky personally, is astonishing. I don’t recall a similar outburst within a comparable timeframe, even from Russian media and politicians attacking Zelensky. Trump has, without a doubt, surpassed Putin in slander, stupidity, and lies against his opponent. This is something new.

Yesterday, Trump published a post in which he called Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” a “comedian with modest success,” and accused him of exploiting U.S. aid for personal gain. He claimed that Zelensky forced the U.S. to allocate $350 billion in military aid to Ukraine, which the U.S. will never get back.

Trump’s relationship with numbers is well known. This is the same person who famously claimed Zelensky had only 4% support—an assertion completely detached from reality. A recent poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in early February found Zelensky’s support at 57%, which is actually higher than Trump’s current approval rating.

Trump also stated that Zelensky sees war as a profitable enterprise. His running mate, J.D. Vance, justified Trump’s remarks by saying that Trump was simply responding to Zelensky’s criticisms. Vance claimed, “If Zelensky thinks he can change President Trump’s mind by publicly attacking him, everyone who knows Trump will confirm that this is a suicidal way to deal with his administration.”

In reality, Zelensky had always spoken extremely positively about Trump—until Trump himself started making these accusations. The only time Zelensky expressed any disagreement was when he questioned the logic of deciding Ukraine’s fate without Ukraine’s participation. But from there, the escalation began, leading to this breaking point.

Regarding the numbers, Trump claims $350 billion was allocated, but the actual total U.S. aid to Ukraine is significantly lower—less than $200 billion. So, Trump exaggerated the amount of aid by almost twice. At the same time, he drastically downplayed Zelensky’s support.

Trump also accused Ukraine of sabotaging a deal on rare earth metals, which, in his view, could have reimbursed the U.S. for its aid. At an investment forum in Miami yesterday, Trump declared:

“We had a deal on rare earth metals, and they broke it two days ago.”

This is outright nonsense. A “deal” means an agreement between two parties, but in this case, no agreement was ever signed. The so-called “deal” was merely a proposal put forward by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bond. Since Ukraine never signed anything, claiming that it “broke the deal” is pure fabrication—typical Trump-style lying.

At this point, Trump is surpassing even Putin in dishonesty. Every time he opens his mouth, he lies. No deal was broken—Zelensky simply refused to sign an agreement brought by the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Zelensky responded by saying he could not sell his country’s resources and that Trump is living in a world of disinformation.

Additionally, Trump accused Zelensky of being rude to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bond simply because he refused to sign the agreement. In Trump’s worldview, any rejection of U.S. demands is considered “rude.” By this logic, Denmark must have been incredibly rude to Trump when it refused to sell Greenland to the U.S. Similarly, Canada’s leadership must have been disrespectful for rejecting the “generous” offer to become the 51st state of the U.S.

Meanwhile, yesterday, Keith Kellogg arrived in Kyiv. There was speculation that, given Trump’s rhetoric, Kellogg might refuse to meet with Zelensky. But that’s an unrealistic scenario—it simply doesn’t happen that way. Zelensky has already invited Kellogg to visit the front lines and speak with Ukrainian soldiers. It remains to be seen whether he will accept the invitation, but the fact that he is in Ukraine is a positive sign. He has stated that he came to listen, effectively acting as Trump’s “ears.”

However, I doubt this visit will change Trump’s stance. Every representative of Trump’s team is deeply immersed in what I’d call a severe case of “Trump-brain syndrome.” Take, for example, Senator Marco Rubio. In the early days of the war, Rubio, as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was one of Putin’s fiercest critics. He called Putin a liar, a war criminal, and consistently opposed any negotiations with him. Now, Rubio is one of Trump’s key allies in his attempts to undermine Ukraine.

Trump’s flood of lies and negativity about Zelensky has triggered a strong reaction in Europe. I won’t list every response, but here are a few:

  • German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: “It is simply wrong and dangerous to deny the democratic legitimacy of President Zelensky. He is the elected head of state, and Ukraine has been defending itself against ruthless Russian aggression for almost three years.”
  • Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre: “It is deeply unfair. Zelensky is a democratically elected president who received the majority of votes and is now in the middle of a war.”
  • U.S. Democratic Senator Adam Schiff: “Trump’s cowardly appeasement of the Russian dictator will go down in history as a disgrace. Since Czechoslovakia, no democratic state has been so betrayed by a Western power.”

Even some Republicans are pushing back. Mark Law stated, “We cannot allow Russia to install a puppet government just to seize control from within.”

Summing up, Trump’s statements over the past 48 hours are not just criticism or empty rhetoric. This is not merely a strategy to dominate the political space. This is a war for the political annihilation of Zelensky. And it will continue.

While personal relationships in politics are different from everyday life, after such statements, a complete breakdown of personal relations would be inevitable under normal circumstances. Zelensky, of course, will not sever ties with Trump, as Ukraine is too dependent on the U.S. However, given Trump’s vindictive and unpredictable nature, we should expect a full-scale media attack against Zelensky, using Trump-controlled media outlets.

This campaign has already begun. Elon Musk is involved, Tucker Carlson is pushing narratives about Zelensky’s supposed illegitimacy, and they are reviving Russian propaganda tropes. Carlson even claims that Zelensky “looks like someone under the influence of powerful narcotics.”

This is an escalation of the attacks that Russian propaganda has been directing at Zelensky for three years. With the vast media empire at Trump’s disposal, along with Musk and others, we are witnessing an attempt to destabilize Ukrainian society from within.

I hope this campaign fails. Ukrainians are showing resilience, with recent polls indicating a rallying effect around Zelensky in response to these attacks. Even his harshest critics within Ukraine understand the gravity of the situation and are ready to resist external pressure.

Ukrainians have a stubborn and unyielding character. That is their strength.

On the U.S. Fear of Russia’s Collapse and European Confidence in Trump’s Success Link to heading

Two questions from Mikhail Kochkin:

  1. Do you think the U.S. has a vested interest in maintaining Europe’s demand for protection against “fearsome Russia”? Could this explain why the U.S. has historically feared the collapse of first the USSR and now Putin’s Russia? Are they just telling gullible Europeans horror stories about nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands? After all, if Russia collapses, what would Europe even need to pay the Americans for? Wouldn’t it be simpler for Europe, together with Ukraine, to build its own powerful army and triple its nuclear potential? Wouldn’t that be cheaper and more reliable? After all, can we even be sure that Americans would defend Europe if necessary? What’s in it for them?

  2. Why are so many Europeans, Ukrainians, and even Russians convinced that Trump will succeed? George H.W. Bush once begged Ukraine not to separate from Russia—and look what happened. The Budapest Memorandum was signed, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and now it seems unlikely that Ukraine would fall for the same trap again. So isn’t Europe’s direct interest, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, in seeing Russia weakened, if not entirely dismantled? Meanwhile, isn’t the U.S. paradoxically aligned with Putin’s interests in maintaining a powerful, nuclear-armed Russia to keep Europe scared and paying America for protection? After all, rational Russians should align with Europe and Ukraine, not with Russia and the U.S. Why would they want a Russia that invades their homes, poisons them with Novichok, and keeps them in solitary confinement? Let Russia break apart into smaller states without KGB-style rulers.

Mikhail, I partially agree with your reasoning. The way the U.S. has handled Russia, both during and after the Cold War, suggests that their primary concern has always been stability rather than outright victory. After all, it wasn’t a U.S. president, but rather Mikhail Gorbachev, who initiated the collapse of the Soviet Union. But when it became clear that the USSR was disintegrating, the U.S. tried to manage the process carefully.

Yes, George H.W. Bush did indeed try to persuade Ukraine to remain within a Soviet framework. And yes, the U.S. feared the uncontrolled collapse of a nuclear superpower. However, that doesn’t mean the U.S. actively prefers a strong Russia—it simply means they prefer a predictable one.

As for Europe, its long-term interest is clearly in a weakened Russia. The more fragile and fragmented Russia becomes, the less of a threat it poses to its neighbors. However, the U.S. operates on a different strategic calculus. Their goal is not to dismantle Russia but to contain it in a way that doesn’t create further chaos—especially nuclear chaos.

Regarding Trump’s supposed inevitability—I’m not sure who is so convinced of his success. Many people, including in Europe and Ukraine, are actively resisting his attempts to undermine Ukraine. So I don’t believe there is some universal belief in Trump’s victory.

On the Views of James Billington and Richard Pipes Link to heading

Question from Kantor:

“Which interpretation of Russian history do you find more insightful—James Billington’s focus on the dominant religious and sociopolitical thought of each era, or Richard Pipes’ approach through the lens of moderate Western conservatism? How do you assess their work overall?”

I don’t see a fundamental contradiction between Billington and Pipes. I’ve read both, including Billington’s The Icon and the Axe, which is a brilliant work of cultural and intellectual history. But Billington is more of a public intellectual and cultural analyst, whereas Pipes is a more rigorous, comprehensive historian.

Pipes’ work is more structured, especially in his studies on the Russian Revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union. He makes a strong argument that Russian history has been shaped by a lack of private property rights—going all the way back to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, where the Tsar was the sole owner of everything. This is a key distinction between Russia and the West.

Billington, on the other hand, takes a more thematic approach. He examines how religious and ideological currents shaped Russian history, rather than focusing on legal and economic structures.

Overall, I’d say Pipes provides a broader, more systematic view, while Billington offers a rich cultural perspective. But I wouldn’t say one is necessarily “deeper” than the other—they simply focus on different aspects.

On the Formation of Public Opinion Link to heading

Question from Elena Jim:

“Why do so many people rely on public opinion polls rather than analyzing how opinions are created? For example, in 2021, Russians didn’t openly express a desire for war, yet Russian social media was already spreading stories about happy Russian ‘relocations’ to Belarus. By June of that year, there were suddenly articles about ‘lazy Donetsk relatives’ living with Russian grandmothers, refusing to fight for the DPR. It was clear they were preparing for war. Yet at the time, most Russians still claimed they didn’t want war. But the aggression was being planted in them through social media. Shouldn’t we be focusing on how opinions are formed rather than just measuring them?”

Elena, I don’t see a contradiction between studying public opinion and analyzing how it’s shaped. These are two different but equally important things.

Polling measures the current state of public opinion. Studying propaganda and information campaigns tells us how those opinions are manipulated. Both perspectives are necessary.

How Likely is the Russian Orthodox Church to Become a Fascist Sect? Link to heading

Question from Elena Jim:

“In the 1990s, some members of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) already showed extreme hostility toward non-Russian Christians like Georgians and Armenians. Given this trajectory, what is the likelihood that the ROC fully transforms into a fascist sect?”

The ROC has long been a tool of state power, especially since Stalin re-established the patriarchate in 1943 under NKVD control. Today, it continues to serve the Russian government.

The degree to which the ROC aligns with fascism depends on how far the Russian state itself goes in that direction. If the regime becomes openly fascist, the ROC will follow suit—it is not an independent force.

In other words, the ROC doesn’t lead—it obeys. If Putin’s regime becomes fully fascist, then yes, the ROC will become a fascist sect. But it will do so not out of its own initiative, but because it is a loyal servant of the Kremlin.

Why Are So Many Ukrainian-Born Figures Among Putin’s Aggressors? Link to heading

Question from Alexander, a supporter of the channel:

“Paraphrasing Schwartz: ‘They were all taught to be imperialists, but why were Ukrainians the best students?’ More specifically, why are so many figures of Ukrainian origin among Putin’s most dedicated supporters— from Valentina Matvienko to generals and colonels ordering the bombing of Ukrainian cities, sometimes even their own hometowns? It’s hard to imagine a Georgian or a Latvian ordering the shelling of Tbilisi or Riga. Now we see the same from artists, and even someone like Kyiv-born Kirill Dmitriev has emerged. Why?”

Alexander, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of your question. Let’s clarify some points:

  • Yes, Kirill Dmitriev was born in Kyiv, but he moved to the U.S. as a teenager and built his entire career in Putin’s Russia. His place of birth does not define his identity.
  • Valentina Matvienko and other officials with Ukrainian-sounding names do not consider themselves Ukrainian. Their loyalties lie entirely with the Russian state.

The key issue here is that you’re conflating birthplace with national identity. The fact that someone was born in Ukraine does not mean they identify as Ukrainian.

This phenomenon is not unique to Ukraine. For example, many Armenians in Russian state media push Kremlin propaganda, but that does not mean Armenian society supports them. Likewise, there are Jewish oligarchs and businesspeople who have aligned with Putin, but that does not make their actions representative of Jewish people as a whole.

The reality is that people with Ukrainian roots, like people from other regions of the former USSR, often integrated into the imperial elite. Some did so for career advancement, some out of ideological conviction, and some out of sheer opportunism. But they are not “Ukrainians” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Khodorkovsky and Pastukhov’s Discussion on the Possible Collapse of the EU Link to heading

Question from Nadezhda Kotik:

“I listened to a discussion between Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Pastukhov, where they touched on the possibility of the European Union collapsing. What’s your opinion on this?”

Nadezhda, I didn’t hear this particular discussion, but I can address the broader question:

I do not believe the EU is on the verge of collapse. The EU provides enormous economic and political benefits to its members. Even the UK, which left through Brexit, now regrets it—polls show that most Britons now believe Brexit was a mistake.

Yes, some European governments (Hungary, Slovakia, etc.) lean toward Euroskepticism, but none of them are rushing to leave the EU. Why? Because leaving the EU would be a disaster for their economies and political influence.

So, I do not see the EU collapsing in the foreseeable future.

Do the Newly Rich Have a Low Moral Compass? Link to heading

Question from A.M.:

“Have you observed that those who rise ‘from rags to riches’ often have an exceptionally low moral threshold—sometimes approaching zero? Also, speaking of moats with crocodiles, in the movie Garage, they joked about breeding frost-resistant monkeys. So why not do the same with crocodiles?”

A.M., your second question is clearly a joke, so let’s all have a laugh. Now, regarding the first question:

Yes, many people who rapidly rise to wealth through questionable means tend to have weak moral principles. But this is not because wealth itself corrupts—it’s because the process of unscrupulously gaining wealth selects for people with low ethics.

In other words, when you define a group as “people who gained wealth through dishonest means,” then of course they will tend to be unethical. It’s a circular definition.

Why Is Western Civilization Called Judeo-Christian? Link to heading

Question from Robert:

“I understand that religion has influenced culture, but why is Western civilization specifically called Judeo-Christian? Isn’t that giving religion too much credit? After all, democracy, philosophy, science, and even sanitation come from ancient Greece and Rome. Christianity, on the other hand, arguably set civilization back by centuries. The Renaissance itself was a re-awakening after Christianity’s suppression of knowledge. So why do we still refer to our civilization as ‘Judeo-Christian’?”

Robert, I understand your perspective, but the term “Judeo-Christian civilization” does not imply that Christianity created modern democracy, science, or human rights. Instead, it recognizes that Christian and Jewish traditions shaped the moral and philosophical foundations of Western society.

Let me give you two simple historical examples:

  1. The first president of the United States, George Washington, took his oath of office on a Bible. Every U.S. president since then (with very few exceptions) has done the same.
  2. When Turkey attempted to join the EU, one of the arguments against it was that the EU is fundamentally a Christian cultural space.

Does this mean Christianity was always a force for progress? No. There were the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, and religious wars. But Christianity was also the foundation for universities, hospitals, and moral codes that shaped modern law.

So, Western civilization is called Judeo-Christian not because it owes everything to Christianity, but because Christianity and Judaism were integral parts of its development.

What Was Discussed in U.S.-Russia Talks in Saudi Arabia? Link to heading

Question from Pan Stepan:

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the only real result of the U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia the agreement to restaff the Russian embassy in Washington with spies? Beyond that, did they agree on anything? Even a Trump-Putin meeting wasn’t confirmed. Do you think any significant outcomes will emerge from these talks?”

Pan Stepan, the most immediate outcome of these negotiations was indeed the return of Russian diplomats (many of whom are likely intelligence operatives). However, the real consequences of these talks may unfold over time.

There’s speculation that Russia is offering Trump and his allies financial incentives—massive deals involving Russian resources, energy, and investments.

One key figure to watch is Kirill Dmitriev. He could serve as a bridge for major backroom deals between Russia and Trump’s business interests. Additionally, Elon Musk’s involvement in these geopolitical games suggests that economic incentives are being offered on a massive scale.

So while these Saudi talks may not have produced a formal agreement, they likely laid the groundwork for deeper coordination between Trump’s team and the Kremlin.

How Does the Author Maintain Such a High Level of Productivity? Link to heading

Question from Postanyuk, a sponsor of the channel:

“Can you share your secret to maintaining such an impressive level of productivity?”

Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything extraordinary about my level of productivity. In fact, I can feel myself burning out—both physically and intellectually. Constantly being on air, always serving as a “donor” of information without receiving much in return, takes a toll.

There are a few key factors that keep me going:

  1. Strong Motivation – I take what’s happening in Ukraine personally. It’s not just a political issue for me; it feels like a personal tragedy.
  2. Support from the Audience – Knowing that my work is valuable and appreciated gives me energy.
  3. Developed Work Habits – I’ve trained myself to function on very little sleep. Decades ago, when I worked night shifts in the Moscow metro while also attending evening university classes and taking care of a child, I developed the ability to recover in just 2-3 hours of sleep. It’s a learned skill.

That being said, the constant immersion in information warfare does negatively impact creativity and cognitive ability. No matter how motivated I am, prolonged exposure to this level of stress and mental exhaustion inevitably leads to some decline.

Could Discussing Viktor Krasnov’s Case Harm Him? Link to heading

“You’ve been talking about Viktor Krasnov. Are you worried that these discussions could be used against him? In Belarus, authorities love using any public statements as evidence against dissidents.”

No, I don’t think I’m putting Krasnov at greater risk by discussing his case. His activities were already well-documented—both in his own writings and in public records. The Russian authorities came for him primarily because of his connection to Ilya Ponomarev and the “Congress of People’s Deputies.”

If anything, more publicity might actually help him. When political prisoners are forgotten, they are in much greater danger. The more attention his case gets, the harder it becomes for the authorities to quietly disappear him.

Does Israel Have Nuclear Weapons? Link to heading

“You often state as a fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, but there’s no direct proof—no official confirmation, no tests (except for the unproven Vela incident in 1979). So, can we really say it’s a fact?”

Yes, we can.

While Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources:

  • U.S. Intelligence Assessments – The Federation of American Scientists and other nuclear watchdog groups have long estimated that Israel possesses around 90 nuclear warheads.
  • Delivery Systems – Israel has the full nuclear triad:
    • Aircraft (F-35 and F-16 jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads)
    • Missiles (Jericho ballistic missiles)
    • Submarines (Dolphin-class submarines from Germany, equipped with nuclear-capable cruise missiles)
  • Historical Leaks – Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, revealed details of Israel’s nuclear program in 1986.

So while Israel does not officially confirm its nuclear arsenal, its existence is widely accepted as fact in the intelligence and defense communities.

How Quickly Will Russia’s Government Become as Brutal as the Chechen Regime? Link to heading

Question from CyberWolf:

“Regarding Viktor Krasnov—my condolences. But welcome to a reality that Chechnya has lived under for the past 25 years. This is only the beginning. Eventually, Russians will disappear in the middle of the night and never be found. You will see bodies mutilated by torture. This is just a fraction of what awaits Russia. My question is: How quickly do you think the Russian government will ‘drop the mask’ and become as openly repressive as the Chechen regime? Six months? A year? Five years? It feels like it’s accelerating.”

CyberWolf, I understand your concern, but I don’t think Russia will adopt the full-scale terror tactics used in Chechnya. Here’s why:

  1. The Threat Level is Different – The Russian state viewed the Chechen people as a major threat—a population that had historically resisted Russian rule and waged two brutal wars against Moscow. Crushing Chechnya required extreme measures.
  2. Russian Society is Much More Passive – Unlike the Chechens, the Russian population has shown very little willingness to resist the regime. There is no need for mass executions and disappearances when softer repressions (arrests, censorship, intimidation) are already working effectively.
  3. Violence Will Scale According to Necessity – If mass protests or uprisings occur, then yes, we might see an escalation toward Chechen-style terror. But as long as Putin’s system remains stable, there is no strategic reason for them to go that far.

In short, while repression in Russia will continue to intensify, I do not think it will reach the extremes of Kadyrov’s Chechnya—at least not unless a real insurgency arises.

Did the U.S. and Russia Make a Secret Deal in Switzerland? Link to heading

Question from Tatyana from Donetsk:

“Logically, it seems like the U.S. and Russia reached some kind of secret agreement in Switzerland without informing Ukraine or Europe. But then Putin overreached—he aimed for Kyiv and Eastern Europe, which wasn’t part of the original deal. And Zelensky didn’t flee, which nobody expected. Now, the U.S. and Russia are still working from their previous secret understandings. What do you think?”

Tatyana, I agree that there were backchannel discussions between the U.S. and Russia, but I wouldn’t focus on Switzerland specifically. The most notable Trump-Putin meeting took place in Helsinki, not Switzerland.

Trump and Putin clearly had a mutual understanding—though the exact terms remain unknown. However, if there was a deal, Putin broke it by launching a full-scale invasion instead of sticking to a more limited land grab.

Now, with Trump seeking a return to power, there is a real possibility of renewed backroom agreements. But the war has changed the landscape, making any U.S.-Russia deal far riskier for both sides.

Could You Invite Igor Eidman to Discuss German Politics? Link to heading

Question from Marat:

“Do you plan to invite Igor Eidman? You could discuss the elections in Germany, among other topics. He’s also a sociologist.”

Yes, Igor Eidman is definitely on my list of potential guests. However, I’d need to coordinate with him to confirm a topic and schedule. But it’s a great idea—I’ll reach out to him.

Where Did Trump Get the Claim That Zelensky Has 4% Support? Link to heading

Question from ONF:

“Trump’s lies are absurd, but where did he even get the idea that Zelensky has 4% support? Who is feeding him this nonsense?”

There are likely multiple sources:

  1. Russian Disinformation – When Trump’s team met with Russian officials (such as Sergey Lavrov), they likely absorbed Kremlin propaganda.
  2. Trump’s Own People – Figures like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio may be distorting information to fit Trump’s agenda.
  3. Trump’s Habit of Making Up Numbers – Trump is infamous for throwing out random, exaggerated statistics. The “4%” claim may be one of his many fabrications.

In any case, it’s pure fiction. A February 2024 poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology put Zelensky’s approval at 57%—significantly higher than Trump’s own approval rating in the U.S.

Should Ukraine Develop Nuclear Weapons? Link to heading

Question from Luchshe iz Batumi:

“Do you think Ukraine should develop nuclear weapons, given the existential threat to its sovereignty?”

I believe that, sooner or later, Ukraine will acquire nuclear weapons, despite current claims that this is impossible.

Right now, the international community strongly opposes the idea, and Ukraine remains committed to its non-nuclear status due to its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum. However, in the long run, if Ukraine sees that Western security guarantees are unreliable, there will be strong internal pressure to develop nuclear capabilities.

In practical terms, Ukraine has the technical expertise to build nuclear weapons. The question is whether it will choose to take that step—and whether the West will try to prevent it.

A Pro-Trump Guest from Previous Interviews Link to heading

Question from Vitaliy:

“In your series Thinking Together, you’ve had guests who were strong supporters of Trump but also clearly pro-Ukraine. I remember one guest who even seemed frustrated with your skepticism about Trump—he said he was ‘a little offended’ by your stance. Could you invite him again to see if he still feels the same way?”

Vitaliy, I’m not sure exactly which guest you mean, since I’ve spoken with several people who fit that description. However, Boris Efex is one of the most vocal Trump supporters I’ve interviewed, and he will be on my show today at 19:00.

If you’re interested in hearing how his views have evolved (if at all), be sure to tune in.

Why Did Stalin Suddenly Target Jews? Link to heading

Question from Irina, a channel sponsor:

“Help me understand why Stalin suddenly focused on the ‘Jewish Question.’ What was the reason behind his ‘final decision’? I understand how Hitler used Christian antisemitism to manipulate Germans, but in the Soviet Union, religion had been largely erased. The economy was state-controlled, so Jews couldn’t be blamed for ‘stealing wealth’ like in Nazi Germany. So what was the motivation? And why did the Soviet people so easily go along with it?”

Irina, there are two key factors here:

  1. The Soviet Union always needed an internal enemy. After World War II, Stalin had eliminated most of his real political rivals, so he needed a new scapegoat to justify further purges. The choice fell on Jews, especially after Israel aligned more with the West than with the USSR.
  2. Low-level antisemitism never disappeared. Even though the Soviet government officially rejected racism, antisemitic attitudes were deeply ingrained in Russian society. Pogroms existed long before Stalin, and antisemitic conspiracy theories never fully went away.

So when Stalin started pushing the idea of ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ (a coded term for Jews), many people were ready to believe it. In authoritarian systems, the leader doesn’t need logical justifications—just a convenient enemy.

Calls for Protests on February 24th Link to heading

Message from Ruslan Gaponenko, a Ukrainian living in Australia:

“Like last year, I urge you to call on people everywhere to take to the streets on February 24th to remind the world of the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.”

Absolutely.

February 24th marks three years since Russia launched its brutal war against Ukraine. Public demonstrations matter—especially now, as the global conversation is being distorted by Trump’s propaganda and Kremlin-backed disinformation.

We will be doing a series of special broadcasts to analyze the war’s impact and the road ahead. I encourage everyone to participate in rallies and online campaigns to ensure that Ukraine remains in the global spotlight.

Could Ukraine Collapse from Within? Link to heading

Question from Kapitan Ochevidnost:

“How do you assess the likelihood of internal collapse in Ukraine? Could we see a scenario where parts of the Ukrainian elite, possibly with military backing and support from Trump’s team, conspire to remove Zelensky? Trump has already openly called him an obstacle to peace. If a new Ukrainian leadership were to sign a ‘peace deal,’ would this scenario be possible?”

This is precisely the nightmare scenario that Russia and Trump’s team are working toward.

  1. Trump and Putin are completely aligned on the idea that Zelensky must be removed.
  2. The goal is to destabilize Ukraine from within—through political pressure, economic hardship, and propaganda campaigns designed to turn Ukrainians against their government.
  3. If a coup or internal fragmentation occurs, Russia will use it as a pretext to demand a “peace agreement” on its own terms, effectively forcing Ukraine into capitulation.

However, I don’t think this strategy will succeed. Ukrainian society has demonstrated a strong ability to resist external and internal threats. Even Ukrainians who are critical of Zelensky seem to understand that any attempt to overthrow him would directly benefit Russia.

That said, we should expect continued efforts to weaken Ukraine from within. Trump-aligned media, Russian propaganda, and oligarchic networks will all push narratives aimed at sowing division.

Will Europe Betray Ukraine? Link to heading

Question from Natalya Kirilenko:

“Isn’t it possible that Europe will decide it’s more beneficial to align with America rather than Ukraine? If that happens, won’t we be left with no choice but to wage a partisan war?”

No, I don’t think Europe will abandon Ukraine.

  1. European leaders have strongly reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine. Even figures like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz—who was initially hesitant—are now vocal in their support.
  2. The cost of betrayal is too high. If Europe allows Ukraine to fall, Russia will move on to other targets (e.g., the Baltics, Poland). European leaders understand that failing Ukraine could ultimately lead to their own destruction.

However, there are internal divisions in Europe—especially among right-wing and pro-Russian factions in countries like Hungary and Slovakia. We should not be naive about the fact that some forces are working to weaken European support for Ukraine.

But overall, I believe that Europe has chosen its side, and that side is with Ukraine.

Did Mark Feygin Say NATO Might Withdraw from the Baltics? Link to heading

Question from Yuliya:

“In a recent stream with Lena Kurbanova, Mark Feygin suggested that NATO could realistically withdraw its forces from the Baltic states. If that happens, would you still see NATO as a stabilizing force?”

I didn’t personally hear this stream, so I can’t comment directly on Feygin’s words. However, I do not believe NATO will fully withdraw from the Baltics.

  1. Trump could try to withdraw U.S. forces, but he does not control the entire NATO alliance.
  2. Other NATO countries (Germany, the UK, Poland, etc.) have a vested interest in protecting the Baltics. Even if Trump abandons them, Europe will likely step up.
  3. The Baltic states themselves are prepared for resistance. Their defense policies are built around asymmetric warfare—meaning even if NATO withdrew, Russia would face an intense guerrilla war.

So while Trump’s potential return does pose a risk to Baltic security, I do not believe NATO as a whole will abandon them.

Has Zelensky Become a Dictator? Can Democracy Survive in Wartime? Link to heading

Question from Nikolai from Kharkiv:

*“Our enemies claim that Zelensky has dismantled democracy and become a dictator. You’ve said that democracy doesn’t necessarily prevent war, but isn’t war, by its very nature, a struggle for power that must end with either victory or a negotiated compromise?

Democratic decision-making, as a system of governance, isn’t suited for war. Instead, war requires centralized, directive leadership—what some would call dictatorship. Doesn’t this logically mean that Ukraine needs a dictatorship right now to win?”*

Nikolai, you’re right that war and democracy are not easily compatible. War does require restrictions on freedoms—such as limitations on movement, speech, and political dissent. This happens in every country engaged in a major war.

However, there is a key distinction:

  • A democracy in wartime may temporarily limit certain freedoms to ensure national survival.
  • A dictatorship permanently dismantles democracy and consolidates power beyond the needs of the war itself.

Ukraine has not become a dictatorship. Yes, there have been restrictions—such as banning pro-Russian parties—but these were necessary wartime measures. Elections were postponed, but holding elections during a full-scale war is impractical.

In short, war does require certain authoritarian measures, but Ukraine is not becoming a full-fledged dictatorship like Russia. Once the war ends, Ukraine will likely restore its full democratic processes.

Conclusion Link to heading

I wasn’t able to answer every question in today’s stream, but I’ll make sure to address any unanswered ones tomorrow.

Thank you for your patience, your thoughtful questions, and your support.

Glory to Ukraine!

Stay safe.

Freedom for Alexander Krasnov and all political prisoners!

Source: https://youtu.be/Fad6q2syll0