Trump is, in fact, on Putin's side in this war

Trump has suspended military aid to Ukraine—the aid that was provided by the previous Biden administration.

Main Topic Link to heading

Hello, dear friends! I’m not entirely sure if it’s appropriate to say “Good morning” today, but nevertheless, I’m happy to welcome you all. My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 4th, it’s 07:42 in Kyiv, and we continue to reflect together on what is happening in Russia, Ukraine, the world, and in our souls.

Trump Takes Revenge on Ukraine Link to heading

Well, at least based on what happened today—last night, according to reports from the American press—a very important event took place that clarifies a lot. You know, like in those not-so-funny jokes about clarity on one hand and, on the other, that cursed uncertainty. So who exactly is Trump, what is he doing, and whose side is he on in this war? For those who, after everything that has happened, still have some uncertainty, I think everything I’m saying now, and everything I will say, is completely pointless. Because if something still needs to be explained in this situation, then there’s no need to explain anything at all. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has issued an order to suspend military aid to Ukraine.

I want to emphasize that the President of the United States himself has not allocated a single cent. Since he has been in the White House, and in that time has issued—I don’t even know—probably not just hundreds but thousands of orders, not a single one of them has been directed at aiding Ukraine. So his order to suspend military aid to Ukraine concerns the assistance provided by the previous Biden administration.

He justified it—at least, according to the press—by saying he is focused on achieving peace. And accordingly, he is suspending and reviewing aid to Ukraine to ensure that this aid contributes to that goal. The logic here is that if aid to Ukraine is suspended, Ukraine will lose the war, and peace will be established. That’s the logic. Because what other logic could there be, you see? Clearly, in this war, Trump is on Putin’s side, on the side of the aggressor, since at the same time, he is taking steps to restore relations with Russia. Diplomatic structures, representations, consulates, and the embassy are being fully restored. In other words, Trump is moving full speed ahead toward rapprochement with Putin. And in parallel, there is this act of suspending aid to Ukraine.

So, what exactly does this mean? The delivery of weapons and orders for their production, worth more than $1 billion, has been suspended. Additionally, hundreds of millions of dollars allocated under a special aid program—direct purchases of weapons from American defense contractors—have also been halted.

This is undoubtedly a blow to the American military-industrial complex as well. This is a serious issue. In fact, this move could have significant consequences for Trump within the United States. But nevertheless, the overwhelming desire to take revenge on Ukraine is obvious. And this was done, evidently, immediately after that scandalous incident in the Oval Office of the White House. It’s a desire to punish Zelensky, but in reality, it’s a blow to Ukraine.

At the same time, restrictions on sanctions against Russia as a whole, as well as against specific individuals previously sanctioned, are being reviewed. This once again proves whose side Trump is on in this war.

Formally, between these events—the Friday incident in the Oval Office and last night’s decision—well, I don’t know if it was late at night or in the evening yesterday—it’s hard to say. We haven’t seen the documents. At least, I certainly haven’t seen them. But reports in the American press about this emerged relatively recently. So what happened between these two events—the Friday scandal and today’s actual decision to suspend aid?

The Blood of Murdered Ukrainians Is on Trump’s Hands Link to heading

First of all, there was Trump’s outraged reaction to Zelensky’s statement that the war is likely to continue. Trump was indignant and called it “the worst statement.” You see, when someone says that, most likely, after the clock strikes 00:00, night will come, there are different ways to react. You can say, well, obviously, the person is just stating the obvious. Or you can claim that it’s the worst statement ever. How dare someone say that night will come? Night will never come! That’s more or less how Trump reacted to the obvious remark that the war with Russia will most likely continue. And why? For a very simple reason—because Putin has no intention of ending it. Trump responded to this statement by calling it “the worst thing Zelensky could have said” and declared that “America will no longer tolerate this.” In fact, this was the prelude to his decision. “America will no longer tolerate this,” Trump said, and he suspended military aid.

So this exchange with Zelensky resulted in Trump deciding to strike at Ukraine. It’s a blow to Ukraine, just as when, while still only a presidential candidate, practically just a private citizen, he delayed aid to Ukraine for six months. Ukraine is bleeding because of Trump’s actions. Trump is drenched head to toe in Ukrainian blood. Do you understand? Even as a candidate, he got himself completely soaked in Ukrainian blood. Because the delay in aid has stretched over a year, and the current situation on the front lines is largely a consequence of that delay. And now, this suspension of aid—once again, I emphasize, the aid that was provided by the previous president, that same Biden, whom we all, including yours truly, criticized for being indecisive and weak. You called this aid limited. Of course, we will still discuss the scale of this aid, but nonetheless, it was aid. It was significant aid. Not that Ukraine wouldn’t have resisted on its own—it certainly would have and did put up serious resistance against the aggressor. But without a doubt, the assistance provided by the previous administration helped Ukraine resist more effectively.

Trump Supports Russia Link to heading

And now Trump has come—the very Trump about whom many said, “Well, once he’s in office, he’ll provide decisive aid. It will be a completely different story.” Well, here he is, and he has completely suspended aid. For how long? How long will this continue? Under what conditions? It’s hard to say at this point. According to Zelensky, the United States currently accounts for 30% of the weapons and military equipment used by Ukraine. Military experts unanimously agree that the existing stockpiles of weapons will allow the Ukrainian army to maintain the current level of combat intensity only until mid-summer.

So, once again, this suspension ordered by Trump affects all American military equipment that has not yet been delivered to Ukraine, including weapons that are already en route or awaiting transit through Poland. This is an obvious and undeniable shift—Trump is siding with the enemy, siding with Putin.

On one hand, there are clear and unambiguous moves toward closer ties with Putin’s Russia. On the other hand, there is the suspension of aid previously provided by the Biden administration. What more proof is needed that Trump is not on Ukraine’s side? In this war, Trump is firmly and unequivocally on the side of Russia. Yes, one could say that Trump is not yet supplying weapons to Russia. Trump is not yet sending American planes to bomb Ukrainian territory. Well, a big “thank you” for that, of course. But to contribute to Ukraine’s destruction, it is enough to support Russia economically—and Trump plans to do just that.

Nord Stream 2—what is that about? It’s about economic support for Russia, which will be converted into those very bombs, missiles, and drones that will be sent to Ukrainian cities. And by depriving Ukraine of American aid, Trump is indeed making a serious personal contribution to Ukraine’s destruction. So I think there is little room for doubt here.

The Scale of Aid Already Provided Link to heading

Just a few words about what this aid actually looks like. It’s important to assess all the statements being made about the scale of U.S. assistance. Trump somehow came up with a figure of $500 billion—he seems to have some kind of fixation on exaggeration. Then he mentioned $350 billion. All of this is, of course, complete nonsense.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which meticulously analyzes all aid-related documents, has calculated that since 2022, the total amount of U.S. assistance to Ukraine has been $114.2 billion. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department—Trump’s own agency—reported that military aid from the start of the full-scale war (meaning the war that began on February 24, 2022) up until Trump took office amounted to $90 billion.

So, is that a lot or a little? Of course, it’s a lot. The U.S. has undoubtedly provided the most aid compared to any other country. But to claim that this aid surpasses what Europe has provided is simply absurd. The actual military aid figure is around $66 billion—nowhere near the $350 billion Trump talks about. The difference is nearly tenfold. But that’s how Trump lies—he typically exaggerates things by a factor of ten, or at the very least, five.

What has happened in recent days, from Friday to last night’s announcement about freezing aid, is truly a tectonic shift. We still don’t know exactly what’s coming—at least, I certainly don’t. Trump promised to make some kind of fateful statement yesterday, to finally “tell the whole truth.” I have no idea what “truth” he plans to reveal, but so far, he hasn’t said anything. He claims he will open the world’s eyes to what’s really happening. Okay, we’ll wait. But I think his actions have already made everything clear.

This is undoubtedly a tectonic shift. This suspension of aid is not just a devastating blow to Ukraine, which will inevitably feel the consequences, paying for it with the blood of its defenders. It is also a strong signal to Europe: the United States can no longer be trusted. These are the same people—like Marco Rubio, for example—who once claimed that the U.S. would “always stand by Ukraine, always help, always be there.” But it turns out “always” doesn’t mean always. Trump came, and everything changed.

What we are witnessing right now is a restructuring of the global geopolitical map—one that has remained in place for 80 years, since the end of World War II.

Can Europe Replace the U.S.? Link to heading

It’s clear that much now depends on Europe. Can Europe compensate for the loss of U.S. aid? Financially, it probably can—maybe not entirely, but most likely to a large extent. There is potential, especially considering that assistance could come not just from Europe but also from Canada, Australia, and other allied countries.

But the most crucial issue is, of course, weapons. Until recently, I assumed that Europe would continue supplying Ukraine with American weapons and simply pay for them. But today, I am no longer certain that Trump—despite his love for deals, money, and trade—will agree to sell American weapons to Europeans for transfer to Ukraine. His hatred for Zelensky personally and for Ukraine as a whole is simply too great. It’s not just opposition anymore—it’s pure, burning hatred. Do you understand? Last night’s decision is a manifestation of complete irrationality.

By trying to punish Zelensky personally and Ukraine as a whole—because Ukraine obviously refuses to support Trump’s empty “deal” and his attempt to hand it over to Putin—Trump is effectively saying, “If I can’t have it, no one will.” This is a pathological display of hatred toward Ukraine as a whole and Zelensky in particular.

Today, Europe is facing a major test. This is purely a question of political will and the ability of European leaders to mobilize their countries for assistance. They understand what’s happening—it’s obvious. But understanding is one thing, and taking concrete action is another. And sometimes, the gap between the two is vast.

Moreover, the political landscape in Europe today is not making consolidation any easier. The recent strong electoral support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is a clear example. There are Trojan horses within the EU—Hungary, Slovakia, and the growing influence of Marine Le Pen in France—all of which Putin is heavily counting on. These are all Putin’s allies, his agents within Europe. And there are far more of them than just two; it’s just that not all of them are in power yet. However, they do wield significant influence.

Exposing the Villains Link to heading

So the question remains—a huge question. What has happened from last Friday to last night is a major tectonic shift, and it undoubtedly requires deep reflection. Ultimately, I believe we will continue exposing those who, for various reasons, have chosen to stand on the side of evil. And that now includes not only the allies and followers of Putin’s Russia and its fascist regime but also the supporters and associates of the postmodern version of fascism represented by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

That’s why I will continue my Mediafrenia programs, as well as Trumpofrenia—because we have a lot of work ahead.

This is my way of contributing, aside from the very modest material support that I, your humble servant, am able to provide to Ukraine and its Armed Forces. Of course, this support is quite limited, given the relatively small resources available to our YouTube channel. But beyond that, I believe we can make a much greater impact in the information war.

That’s what I wanted to share with you before moving on to your questions.

Program Announcement Link to heading

And also, today we have a representative of the Freedom of Russia Legion with the pseudonym Caesar at 17:00. This is not his first time with us, so we will have a conversation. There are many topics I would like to discuss with him besides the situation at the front—what you might call a view from the trenches. In addition, I would like to talk with him about some interactions with the Russian opposition. It is said that their representatives were also present at this march in Berlin. In any case, we will speak with Caesar at 17:00, and at 19:00, we will have Ukrainian political analyst Christensen. I believe these conversations will be interesting.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Now I’m moving on to answering your questions. So, regarding Vadim’s question—I want to clarify right away, dear friends, that I have gone through almost all of your comments on yesterday’s stream. However, there were about 2,000 comments. It’s only natural that I’ll be sorting through the questions gradually. But of course, I won’t be able to answer all of them right away, as 2,000 comments is a massive task that simply doesn’t fit into my schedule. After all, there are only 24 hours in a day. So, I ask those who submitted questions for the Saturday stream not to be upset. Today, I’ll try to answer some of them, and I’ll continue little by little. I have that stream and its questions open, so I will gradually go through them—but I can’t promise to respond to everything immediately.

On Trump’s Behavior as Revenge for Humiliation Link to heading

So, a question from Vadim.
Don’t you think that Trump’s behavior in general, and toward Zelensky in particular, reflects a phenomenon long described by Freud? Trump seems to be furiously venting his hatred toward Biden and everything his administration did as payback for his previous humiliation—his failure to get re-elected, NATO’s stance on Europe and Ukraine, Zelensky, his own American governmental structures, humanitarian projects. Since he has no way to take it out directly on Biden, he constantly tries to attack him verbally instead.

Well, of course, yes, absolutely. Trump is a very petty, vindictive person. Despite being a physically large man, he is very small-minded as a personality. His vindictiveness and resentment perfectly illustrate these traits. I completely agree with your interpretation, dear Vadim!

On the Murder of Listyev Link to heading

Ilya,
Perhaps you’ve already spoken about this and I missed it, but still—30 years have passed since the murder of Vladislav Listyev. As I understand it, neither the perpetrator nor, even more so, the mastermind has been found. Were you personally acquainted with Listyev, and what is clear to you about this crime at this point? What still raises questions?

Well, as for Listyev—how should I put it? I met him several times, but never one-on-one, only in a more general social setting. Yes, we… Well, let’s say, I naturally recognized him, he recognized me, knew that I existed, but we never had a close personal relationship.

Now, regarding what is clear to me about this crime and what raises questions—everything raises questions. I do not find any of the most popular theories convincing. The most widespread version is that Listyev was killed on Berezovsky’s orders. I don’t really subscribe to this theory, despite my extremely negative opinion of the late Berezovsky. Still, I am not convinced that he had any reason to kill Listyev.

I completely reject the idea that Listyev was murdered as a journalist, because by the time of his death, he was no longer a journalist—he was the general director of ORT at the time. And? The general director of ORT was a position that Berezovsky himself had given him.

So, the entire story behind Listyev’s murder may point to one primary motive—everything connected to his decision, which was undoubtedly dictated from above. Listyev was clearly acting under Berezovsky’s orders when he canceled advertising on ORT. For those unfamiliar with the situation, I can briefly explain the issue. The problem was that ORT—or, before that, Ostankino—was a total cesspool in terms of advertising revenue flows. All these advertising funds were being funneled into private pockets—not necessarily even those of the owners, but rather a wide range of people. Many employees and administrators at Ostankino were running their own little side schemes on this vast advertising pot, constantly taking kickbacks.

I know this well because when the whole issue of Ostankino’s privatization arose, I became the chairman of a parliamentary commission investigating the matter. There was even a moment when, at a general meeting of Ostankino employees, I was unexpectedly elected as an alternative general director. Naturally, I declined the honor, but I was deeply involved in what was happening there.

So, I believe that the only truly noteworthy motive behind Listyev’s murder is related to advertising. Berezovsky had no motive, because Listyev was simply carrying out his orders—there was no conflict of interest there. Berezovsky’s goal was to squeeze every possible penny out of the channel so that all advertising money flowed directly into his pocket. Listyev was following Berezovsky’s directives. But who might have been displeased? The major advertising agencies, who suffered financial losses as a result. They were the ones losing significant amounts of money. The heads of these agencies are well known—Lisovsky, for example, among others. Could one of them have ordered the murder? I think it’s possible. At the time, we were talking about enormous sums of money. I’m not saying any one of them was the murderer, but they certainly had a motive.

As for who specifically was behind it—there was no real investigation, because all these people had strong connections in the Kremlin. So, who exactly? I don’t know. In cases like this, you either know or you don’t—speculation is irresponsible. But in terms of motive, the main ones belonged to the major advertising agencies. They undoubtedly suffered losses, lost real money—huge sums—because of Listyev’s decision, which was clearly made at the behest of his boss. The boss was Berezovsky. The ones who suffered were the advertising agencies.

One could also argue that, to some extent, advertisers themselves suffered—companies that had already paid for ad slots. But that’s a more indirect connection. The idea that a company owner or advertiser would have sought revenge this way seems less plausible. The more direct and obvious link is to the advertising agencies. That’s how I see it.

On Zelensky’s Behavior Link to heading

Question from FAS.
From what I see, Zelensky fell for the provocation and started arguing. This shows that he was unprepared and lost his composure, which is understandable. However, Ukraine has three indisputable arguments that should have been hammered home in response to all the stupid questions and accusations: Ukraine is fighting for survival. Ukraine has no other choice—otherwise, we will be exterminated or deported after enduring horrific torture. Here, look at the photos. Putin does not want a peaceful agreement; he wants Ukraine’s capitulation and absorption—just look at Chechnya. Yes, they would have interrupted and not let him finish, but that would have only weakened their position. For example, if they said, “You have no strong arguments,” the answer should have been, “We are fighting for survival.” Igor Alexandrovich, do you think that if Zelensky had responded this way, would Trump still have been able to push him out of the White House?

Dear colleague, you are contradicting yourself. First, you say that Zelensky fell for the provocations and started arguing, and then you suggest an alternative argument, which, in my opinion, is not fundamentally different from what Zelensky was already doing. Essentially, you are also proposing an argument—responding to so-called stupid questions by showing photos and making counterclaims. That is still a debate. We can discuss whether your version of the argument would have been more effective, but to me, it’s absolutely clear that the result would have been exactly the same. Regardless of how Zelensky behaved, the outcome would not have changed.

The only alternative would have been for Zelensky to lower his eyes, bow his head—or better yet, kneel down, kiss their hands, and say, “Just give me the document I need to sign. Let’s sign it already. I’m ready for anything.” In that case, they still might have found a reason to reject him. Even Vance could have said, “Sorry, that’s not how things work in the White House. Go put on a tie and come back, and then maybe we’ll sign something.” Of course, I’m exaggerating a bit, but still.

The second option would have been for Zelensky to go into negotiations with Putin blindfolded, hands tied behind his back, and fully sign off on all of Putin’s demands—handing over Zaporizhzhia with all its people, Kherson with all its people, reducing the Ukrainian army to 60,000 troops. Essentially, signing a complete and unconditional surrender. That’s the only other scenario.

Dear colleagues, Ukraine never had any real options from the moment Trump came to power. Trump was determined to give up Ukraine. The only issue was that Ukraine did not want to be given up. And that, of course, is not Trump’s fault—he simply encountered a country that was still trying to survive. That’s what this is all about.

On the Need for a Translator at the Oval Office Meeting Link to heading

Olga.
During the Fox News interview, Zelensky asked for the translator’s help twice. Don’t you think that having a translator at this press conference—clearly set up to be a failure—could have visually toned down the intensity of the confrontation? Zelensky was misinterpreted by Trump several times. Olga then provides specific examples of these misinterpretations. She continues: I believe that at such a high level of negotiations, a translator would have played the role of a moderator, making it much harder to escalate a verbal clash. Moreover, with all due respect to Zelensky, English is not his native language. In such crucial situations, it would be wise to rely on professionals.

Dear Olga, I’ve read many comments about this event on Friday, including many arguments in favor of using a translator. Yes, undoubtedly, it would have somewhat reduced the intensity of the confrontation—perhaps slowed down the pace of the verbal battle, so to speak. But ultimately, Zelensky had no room to maneuver.

These people were determined to derail the entire situation. They initially wanted to prevent Zelensky from entering the White House at all. This is confirmed by French media reports, which explicitly state that Macron had to persuade Trump to allow Zelensky in. Trump’s original intent was to bar Zelensky from the White House. But since he had no choice but to let him in, they were set on making the meeting go badly.

With or without a translator, it’s like that story about the wolf and the rabbit in a cap: You’re not wearing a cap? Well, I just don’t like you anyway. I’m going to eat you regardless. That’s why I believe the outcome would have been the same.

Calling Viewers to Action Link to heading

Oksana.
Now more than ever, it’s important not just to think together but to act. I know you are already doing a lot—shaving your head, for instance. That’s a statement in itself, as is your broadcast. But as a viewer, I’d like to ask you, if possible, to also encourage your audience to take action. After all, it is action that changes reality after reflection. Maybe it makes sense to call on your international viewers to write to their senators, congressmen, and so on? Perhaps it would also be useful to collect donations under your name and then pass them on to those you trust? This is just an example—there could be other ideas as well. In short, a real call to action. Let’s be specific.

Dear Oksana, first of all, I agree. In general, I fully support the idea that we should not only think but also act. Now, let’s get specific. You suggested two possible actions.

I completely agree with the idea of encouraging viewers to take action, and I’ll probably start addressing this more directly. Thanks to YouTube analytics, I have a fairly accurate understanding of how many viewers we have from different countries. So I’ll start addressing them directly: “We have 9% of our audience from this country—I ask you to do this and that.” Maybe in some cases, this appeal will be heard. I agree, Oksana—thank you for the suggestion. It’s a good idea. I’ll try to prepare some kind of appeal by tomorrow morning.

Now, regarding the second proposal—collecting donations under my name. Here, I have to firmly say no. The way I currently help is by supporting specific organizations, specifically Russian volunteers fighting against Putin alongside Ukrainians. But I don’t accumulate money in my own account and then distribute it.

For example, since I appear on Kurbanova’s show every week, I see how she raises funds. She collects money into a specific account, then announces how much more is needed for a vehicle, for example. I don’t operate that way. What I do is provide the account details and say, “Send money here.” That account belongs directly to the people who need it. I don’t keep track of how much is collected—that’s not my role.

This is simply my approach. Kurbanova, for instance, likely has a larger team, and maybe she has an accountant managing these funds—I don’t know, I’ve never asked. But I do know that I don’t have the capacity for this. Managing funds means constantly monitoring transactions, reporting on them, and taking responsibility for their allocation. That’s a completely separate task, one I simply don’t have the time or resources for.

Collecting other people’s money and redistributing it requires regular reporting—publishing details on how much was spent, where it went, who received what. That’s an entire job in itself. And our small team running this channel doesn’t have anyone who can take on that additional workload. So, unfortunately, no—I simply can’t do it.

Would it be great to have such a system in place? Absolutely. I would love to have that option. But for now, I can only continue to direct funds to the right places. For example, send money to the Freedom of Russia Legion. Periodically, I’ll provide details for other organizations as well.

Just yesterday, Hrabski mentioned that a new unit has emerged to fight against Putin. I want to find out more about them—if Hrabski is talking about them, then it must be a serious organization. If they have an account for donations, I’ll share it as well. But the donations should go directly to them, not through me. That’s how I see it.

On Katz’s Analysis of Zelensky’s Mistakes Link to heading

Irina asks:
Have you seen the analysis of Trump’s meeting with Zelensky? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Did the video come out today? No, of course, I haven’t seen it. But I’ve heard the reactions. I don’t want to comment on the video itself since I haven’t watched it, but I can respond to the assessments I’ve heard. From what people are saying, Katz meticulously breaks down Zelensky’s mistakes—how he entered the room “the wrong way,” so to speak, as some commentators jokingly put it, not following the right “rules” or “understanding.”

I don’t share this perspective. I believe the decision was made long before Friday, and it makes no difference how this predetermined verdict—handed down by Trump and his team—was carried out. Does the executioner’s actions depend on how the victim behaves? Of course. If the victim resists, the execution is harsher. If the victim submits, they might even get a kiss before they die. But in the end, it doesn’t change the fact of the execution itself.

On Trump’s Statement Link to heading

Pan Stepan, I have two questions. The first one:
Trump stated that Zelensky does not want peace. Does he realize that if this is true, he won’t be able to broker any peace deal since it would be impossible without Ukraine? After all, he keeps insisting that he wants to establish peace immediately.

Well, yes, probably. Most likely, Trump is willing to sacrifice that Nobel Peace Prize, which is clearly slipping out of his hands. But for him, the priority now is to take revenge on Zelensky and Ukraine. Let Ukraine bleed—because it refused to become a tool for Trump to secure his Nobel Peace Prize.

On the Norwegian Parliament and Its Intent to Increase Aid to Ukraine Link to heading

Second question, Pan Stepan.
The Norwegian Parliament is convening for an emergency session to discuss a significant increase in aid to Ukraine. The assistance was already substantial, but now there are cross-party agreements for an even greater increase. Given this, do you think the U.S. is truly that crucial to the war’s outcome if Europe finally steps up and does everything it should?

Dear Pan Stepan, first of all, yes, the U.S. is still crucial because, as of now, Europe has not made a decision to fully replace the decreasing—or potentially absent—aid from the United States. That’s the first point. The second is that wars are not fought with money alone; they are fought with weapons. And Europe simply does not have enough weaponry to counter Russia without the U.S. Europe has been demilitarized.

Until last night, I was convinced that Trump would not go so far as to refuse Europe access to American weapons for Ukraine. But today, I have my doubts. Yesterday, I discussed this with Serhiy Ivanovych Hrabski, and he made a very convincing argument: look at the interests of the U.S. military-industrial complex—why would Trump pick a fight with them? But now I have a feeling that maybe he would, because he has gone completely off the rails. Humiliating Zelensky is no longer enough for him; he wants to destroy Zelensky. And if that means destroying Ukraine in the process, Trump will gladly do it.

So yes, Europe is now playing a key role. But does Europe have enough weapons without the U.S. for Ukraine to continue resisting? No, it does not. And that is now becoming a serious concern—as of today.

On the Generational Divide in Worldviews Link to heading

HERMAN
A question from Herman:
In the EU, we’ve raised a generation of children who believe that war is a thing of the past, something hellish that no longer exists. The future is about good education, scientific progress, humanism, and even exploring Saturn’s moons. It seems to me that my compatriots in their 20s and 30s don’t grasp what’s happening in Eastern Europe at all. How can we bring them back to reality?

There’s no way. In fact, the situation is even worse than what you’ve described. The problem isn’t just that their worldview is focused on education, humanism, and so on. The deeper issue is that the current generations—both middle-aged and older people in Europe—have spent their lives in a unified Europe, a borderless Europe.

This affects their willingness to fight and die for their country. If your country is your one and only home, something irreplaceable, then your readiness to defend it is much higher. But if you have no strong attachment to one place—if you can just move elsewhere—then things are different. If your “home” is burned down, but you have no real emotional or existential connection to it, the sense of loss isn’t the same.

Take Bulgaria, for example. A Bulgarian citizen of the EU can easily live in France, Belgium, or elsewhere. A Romanian might be living in France, a Lithuanian in Spain. So when an attack happens on their homeland, it’s certainly terrible, but it doesn’t necessarily mean their entire way of life is under threat. The ground isn’t burning beneath their feet. And this mindset has consequences.

The one major exception might be Israel. Israelis also live all over the world, but their national identity is deeply ingrained. Their sense of belonging is strong because Israel was something their people struggled for over thousands of years. Every Jewish New Year, they would toast, Next year in Jerusalem. That kind of historical consciousness makes a difference.

But today’s Europeans? For many of them, yes, their homeland matters, but they also know they can live anywhere. That inevitably weakens the instinct to mobilize and defend their country at all costs.

So, is this a serious problem? Absolutely. And how do you bring them back to reality? Frankly, I don’t know. I could say a lot of words here, but I won’t—because I genuinely don’t have an answer. Even a direct threat or an actual attack might not fundamentally change anything. Many might still choose not to fight for their country, because why die when you can just leave?

On What Makharova Could Have Done Link to heading

Elena Zakharova:
We all saw Makharova holding her head—meaning the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. Could she have prevented what happened in the Oval Office? After all, she is Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., an extraordinary and plenipotentiary representative. Shouldn’t she have had some role in coordinating the protocol for the meeting? And even if she was merely informed about how the meeting would be conducted, she should have analyzed how it would play out within those parameters and advised Zelensky or tried to alter the format somehow.

Dear Elena, first of all, I don’t know how much of a surprise this was for Makharova. Maybe it was. Maybe some general framework was agreed upon, but then things went off script in a planned improvisation—that possibility can’t be ruled out.

And even if she knew everything and likely anticipated how things would unfold, ultimately, the decision to attend or not attend was Zelensky’s. Zelensky wanted to come, he wanted this meeting, and he got it.

What could Makharova have changed? I don’t know. Probably nothing. Could she have given Zelensky some advice? Most likely, she did. But so what? What advice can you give when they were the ones orchestrating everything? They planned it, they controlled it—they were the hosts. As Trump himself might put it, they held all the cards—and every single one of them was marked.

On Konstantin Remchukov Link to heading

Dmitry,
Is Konstantin Remchukov a figure similar to Venediktov, or something else entirely? Can his deep knowledge be trusted?

Well, you know, Konstantin Remchukov is undoubtedly much more deeply integrated into the Putin regime than Alexei Alekseevich. If Venediktov can be suspected of certain things—there are reasons for that based on his behavior—then with Remchukov, what’s there to question? He has been the chairman of Moscow’s Public Chamber for the past nine years. In 2018, he led Sobyanin’s campaign for mayor. This is someone heavily embedded in Russian power structures.

I’ve known Remchukov, of course—he owns and edits Nezavisimaya Gazeta, so naturally, we were acquainted. We weren’t close, but we interacted from time to time. Once, I was invited to his birthday party. As Secretary-General of the Russian Union of Journalists, I attended many such formal gatherings, even those I would have preferred to avoid. My position required engaging with both pleasant and unpleasant figures.

At that birthday party, though, I saw so many hardcore Putin loyalists—ranging from Iosif Kobzon to that notorious criminal Mitrofanov, who was essentially Zhirinovsky’s alter ego. The guest list spoke volumes. Remchukov was deeply tied to the Putin system. He had even been a State Duma deputy, though from the Union of Right Forces—but that’s beside the point. The fact remains that he has been far more integrated into the regime than Venediktov ever was.

Venediktov, in my view, puffs himself up, exaggerating his Kremlin connections. Remchukov, on the other hand, truly belongs to the system. He even held some sort of advisory position at Rusal—Deripaska’s empire. He has always been part of the regime’s inner workings, especially as a figure representing its liberal-right facade in earlier years. Now, though, he is unquestionably part of its core.

So yes, he knows far more about what’s happening inside the system than Venediktov. Venediktov is just a bubble floating on the surface, while Remchukov is embedded in the very foundation of the regime.

That said, there’s a difference in how they share information. Venediktov talks about everything he knows—and a lot of things he doesn’t, embellishing to boost his own significance. Remchukov, on the other hand, keeps most of what he knows to himself. He frequently publishes editorial pieces in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, but I doubt those articles reveal even a thousandth of what he actually knows.

On Stalinism, Marxism, Leninism, and Trotskyism Link to heading

Sokol. Kukushkin.
In a few words, what are the differences between Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism? I included Bolshevism in this list only because Trotsky was also a Bolshevik. Some believe the differences are quite significant, although they clearly have much in common—after all, Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were often depicted together on posters, sometimes with Engels. Trotsky, for obvious reasons, was absent from those images.

Dear colleague, answering this question in detail would require an entire lecture series, which, of course, I can’t provide here. So I’ll keep it brief—like Winnie-the-Pooh would say, “fluff, sawdust, and short rhymes.” These will be brief remarks that won’t give a full picture, but a complete explanation would take too much time and energy.

Let’s start with the basics. Marxism is one of the most influential political, philosophical, and economic doctrines of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Whether we like it or not, it has shaped a huge portion of modern thought. The problem is that after 74 years of Soviet ideological indoctrination, the word “Marxism” itself causes a knee-jerk aversion—it was hammered into people’s heads through countless volumes of Marx, Engels, and Das Kapital. This overdose of theory caused real intellectual trauma. But despite the utopian aspects of Marxism, it contains deep insights that remain relevant today. The issue is that when it is force-fed as a monolithic doctrine, it leads to dangerous and bloody consequences.

Now, let’s move on to the “worms” that grew within Marxism.

Bolshevism has two meanings.

1. In its historical sense, it refers to a faction of Marxism that developed into a sect-like political movement obsessed with creating a totalitarian party structure. The Bolsheviks sought to overthrow the existing government and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. In reality, of course, there was never any real proletarian rule—only party rule.
2. The second meaning of Bolshevism goes beyond Marxism—it refers to a governing method that ignores the rights and interests of minorities. A Bolshevik approach can be nationalist, liberal, or anything else—it’s about the mindset that “the ends justify the means.” In this sense, even someone like Chubais could be called a Bolshevik—not in ideology, but in method. This is why the term Bolshevism can describe figures across the political spectrum, from left to right. Even Elon Musk, in his aggressive, uncompromising approach, could be said to use Bolshevik methods, though he has nothing to do with Marxism ideologically.

Trotskyism is another faction within Marxism. Its defining feature is the theory of permanent revolution—Trotsky rejected Lenin’s idea that socialism could be built in a single country. He believed that only a global revolution could create true socialism. Trotsky also developed theories about the deformed workers’ state and proletarian Bonapartism, arguing that the Soviet Union was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a bureaucratic dictatorship. In this, Trotsky was actually right—the USSR was ruled by a privileged bureaucratic elite, not the working class.

Trotskyism represents the ultra-left wing of Marxism—if Marxism as a whole is far-left, then Trotskyism is its extreme flank. To paraphrase a famous pre-revolutionary Russian politician: to the left of Trotsky, there is only the wall.

Marxism-Leninism is different. Leninism itself was a highly pragmatic adaptation of Marxism. Lenin wasn’t a great philosopher or economist, but he was a brilliant politician—he understood power, how to seize it, and how to keep it. Unlike rigid Marxist theorists, Lenin was flexible.

For instance, classical Marxism held that socialism could only emerge in developed capitalist countries. When Lenin saw that this wasn’t happening, he simply discarded that part of Marxism and declared that revolution could begin in the weakest link—Russia. Later, when his economic policies led to disaster, he abandoned the idea of “barracks communism” and introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP), which allowed limited capitalism. Lenin was ruthless but adaptable—he saw Marxism as a tool rather than a rigid doctrine.

However, after Lenin’s death, Marxism-Leninism turned into a frozen dogma. What had once been Lenin’s tactical flexibility became an official, unchangeable ideology.

Stalinism was the final stage in this process—the complete ossification and perversion of Marxism into a doctrine of absolute power. By Stalin’s time, Marxism was no longer an evolving political theory but a justification for totalitarianism, personality cults, and mass repression. Lenin, for all his brutality, at least believed in raising the cultural and educational level of the masses. Stalin, in contrast, saw the population as something to be manipulated through brute force and administrative control.

While Marx had no concept of a “vanguard party” ruling over the workers, Lenin introduced it as a practical necessity. Stalin took this further—he transformed the Communist Party into an arm of the state, merging it with the government and turning Marxism into an ideological straightjacket for society.

Thus, we can trace Marxism’s degeneration:

1. Marxism – an influential political-economic philosophy.
2. Leninism – Marxism adapted for seizing and holding power.
3. Stalinism – Marxism turned into a rigid, repressive state ideology.

Even today, Marxism still exists in various forms—some theorists try to modernize it for contemporary conditions. But in the territories of the former USSR and in China, Marxism was completely deformed and used as a justification for dictatorship.

That’s how these ideas evolved—and how they ultimately led to their own destruction.

Why Mikhail Savva Is a Ukrainian Political Analyst Link to heading

Question from O.M. O.M. writes:
Why do you insist on calling Mikhail Savva a Ukrainian expert and political analyst when he was born in Russia, lived in Russia until 2015, and even held leadership positions in the Krasnodar mayor’s office?

Dear colleague, first of all, regarding the Krasnodar mayor’s office—I remember that period very well. Mikhail Valentinovich and I have known each other for quite a long time, and we were part of the same political structure—the Republican Party. At that time, the mayor of Krasnodar was essentially a member of the Republican Party. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were cases where democratic mayors emerged, and some regional councils had a significant number of deputies with democratic views. Mikhail Valentinovich led some kind of research center associated with a democratic mayor in Krasnodar, if I’m not mistaken. These things happened.

Now, as for the argument about his birthplace—let me ask you this: should I call Valentina Matvienko, an international criminal under sanctions and one of Putin’s most rabid supporters, a Ukrainian politician just because she was born in Ukraine? Does it matter where someone was born? Should I refer to Russian generals currently killing Ukrainians as Ukrainian military officers just because they were born in Ukraine?

Mikhail Valentinovich Savva lives and works in Ukraine. He has fully embraced a Ukrainian identity. Personally, I still consider myself Russian—that’s my choice, my feeling. But Mikhail Valentinovich identifies as Ukrainian. He resides in Kyiv, and his work focuses on documenting the crimes of Russian occupiers.

So who is he? He is, without a doubt, a Ukrainian political analyst. I don’t care what passport he holds. He is Ukrainian in spirit, in his self-identification, in his actions. And if birthplace is your criterion, then fine—I’ll start calling Valentina Matvienko a Ukrainian politician. Who would that satisfy?

Does Putin Have Compromising Material on Trump? Link to heading

Andrey Meshkov:
Like you, I reject the idea that Trump is a Kremlin sleeper agent.

Actually, Andrey, I don’t reject it—I just don’t know. I have no evidence. Many people criticize me for being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge the obvious—that Trump is actually General Krasnov, or Colonel Krasnov, or whatever. But the truth is, I simply don’t know. I have other explanations for his behavior. That said, I do agree with you that, at the very least, there are no solid grounds to claim he is a Kremlin agent.

Can you comment on the likelihood that the Kremlin has serious kompromat on Trump? Otherwise, I can’t find a rational explanation for his actions. What do you think?

I have my doubts about this theory. Here’s why: there is already so much compromising material on Trump. He has been accused of countless crimes, and in some cases, there are actual court rulings against him. What more could possibly be revealed that would shake his position? Allegations of sexual assault, corruption, financial crimes—you name it. What could be so damaging that it would suddenly cause his reputation to collapse? His public image is practically Teflon-coated at this point.

Maybe, theoretically, there exists some kompromat that would be personally embarrassing for Trump. But I’m not convinced.

I have a different explanation—one that makes sense to me. Trump and Putin share a similar worldview. They don’t have ideological conflicts. Each represents their own version of fascism, rooted in the belief that power should belong to the strong.

For Trump, an alliance with a “strong” Russia is more natural than supporting what he sees as a “weak” Ukraine. He believes in the right of the strong to dominate, in a kind of modern “White Man’s Burden.” Putin frames this in terms of Russian imperialism and the “Russian World”; Trump’s version is Make America Great Again. But the underlying mentality is the same—they are, in many ways, ideological twins. Not identical, of course, but similar at their core.

From Trump’s perspective, it makes sense to align with Putin rather than Ukraine. Russia is strong; Ukraine is weak. He and Putin both despise liberalism, which they associate with Europe. So naturally, they are both against Europe.

That’s why I believe Trump’s stance is not necessarily the result of blackmail or kompromat. It’s simply a logical alliance for him. Of course, it’s possible that he was recruited or is being blackmailed—but I can’t prove that.

What I can explain, and what seems to fit, is that Trump finds an alliance with Putin ideologically and strategically reasonable. That, to me, is a rational explanation.

On Maxim Katz’s Analysis Link to heading

Staník:
Can you comment on Maxim Katz’s latest analysis, in which he claims that the root of the conflict lies in Zelensky’s lack of democracy?

Dear colleague, I haven’t watched Katz’s video—it just came out, as far as I understand. However, I’ve seen a few comments summarizing his position, and I don’t agree with it.

When preparing the next episode of Trumpophrenia, I’ll likely have to watch several videos, and maybe I’ll check this one out. If I find it relevant, I might comment on it then. For now, I can only say that I strongly disagree with the main conclusion—but no, I haven’t watched the video yet.

On Turkey Link to heading

Almaz Sadykova:
Why has everyone forgotten about Turkey? It has a huge army and a massive military economy. And let’s not follow the lead of the very respectable exile community—Erdogan is Putin’s best friend. Has there ever been a time in history when Turkey sided with Russia? Europe doesn’t like Turkey—could that be because of U.S. influence? Or will they just have to get along eventually? Or are there other possibilities?

Dear Alma, I agree with everything you wrote—except your first sentence: Why has everyone forgotten about Turkey? Maybe some people have, but European leaders certainly haven’t. Turkey was represented at the last summit in London—granted, not at the level of Erdogan himself, but at the ministerial level.

And I believe that if what many are now fearing—namely, Trump’s moves leading to the collapse of NATO—actually happens, a new military-political alliance will emerge. This alliance would likely include Ukraine, Turkey, and possibly several other countries, including some unexpected ones. But no one has forgotten Turkey—how could you forget such a major player? That would be like not noticing an elephant in the room.

The real issue is that some people are trapped in rigid ideological frameworks that don’t allow them to see Turkey as a potential ally. But Turkey is an ally. Remember the old Ukrainian joke about drones? (Referring to the Bayraktar TB2 drones that played a major role in Ukraine’s defense.)

So, dear Sadykova, aside from that one point, I fully agree with everything you wrote.

Request to Mention Usernames When They Send Warm Words Link to heading

Viktoria from Ukraine:
Please, at least highlight the username in bold. Even if you don’t feel comfortable reading out praise directed at you, we really want to know that you receive these messages from us—your dedicated fans and supporters.

Dear Viktoria, I’ve already explained why I can’t read aloud messages that include too many warm words about me. Put yourself in my place for a moment. Imagine someone asks you a question, but before that, they go on about how great you are. Now picture a fully grown, not-so-young man sitting there, reading out compliments about himself—what’s next, patting myself on the head and saying, Oh, what a good boy I am? I simply don’t want to look like an idiot.

That being said, I do appreciate your idea. I am grateful to everyone who expresses words of support. I truly see them as encouragement, and of course, they’re much more pleasant to read than criticism or insults—that’s only natural.

So, Viktoria, here’s what I’ll do: I’ll make an effort to acknowledge these messages in the discussion itself—whether through recognition, reactions, or small gestures of appreciation for everyone who supports me verbally. Yes, I will do this, so you all know that I’m grateful for your moral support.

On Boldyrev Link to heading

Lyuba:
Does anyone know where Yuri Yuryevich Boldyrev has disappeared to?

You know, I stopped following Yuri Yuryevich closely sometime around late 1994–early 1995, when he gradually started shifting toward the red-brown side of the political spectrum.

It’s quite surprising—he was a charismatic, principled, and bright young politician. At first, as we know, he was in Yabloko (the B in “Yabloko” actually comes from him). But then he parted ways with Yavlinsky, initially over disagreements on production-sharing legislation—Boldyrev saw it as a betrayal of Russia’s interests. After that, he left Yabloko entirely and gradually drifted into the red-brown camp.

Lately, I’ve seen his name mentioned occasionally in the Telegram channel of Alexander Viktorovich Krasnov—I follow that channel, and Boldyrev appears there from time to time. I don’t actively track his activities, but I assume he’s doing fine.

Politically, he has aligned more with figures like Zyuganov and Prokhanov (though, of course, they are different people). That’s simply not a space that interests me. In some cases, he could even be a subject for Mediafrenia, but he isn’t a prominent enough red-brown figure for me to focus on.

That said, he remains in opposition to the government—just from a red-brown perspective.

On Solonin Link to heading

David Bakuradze:
Which category should Solonin be placed in?

You know, I see Solonin as a potential subject for Trumpophrenia. The thing about him is that when it comes to Trump, he behaves in a very inconsistent way—one moment he spits on him, the next he kisses him and presses him to his heart, only to send him to hell again. He oscillates between harsh criticism and full-blown apologetics.

I haven’t yet watched Solonin’s latest video where he analyzes the Oval Office incident—the events in the White House. But from what I’ve heard, he takes a rather pro-Trump stance in this analysis. If that’s the case, then maybe I’ll address it in the next episode of Trumpophrenia.

That said, Solonin is a significant, weighty figure, so if he does become a subject of Trumpophrenia, I will prepare that segment very carefully. One thing is certain—he is strongly right-wing. But whether he can be classified as a Trumpist—I’m not sure yet. We’ll see. I haven’t watched his latest video.

On Illarionov Link to heading

Galina Trotzenko:
“Illarionov is an intelligent, meticulous person who understands what’s happening in the world. Igor Sanych, why are you saying this?” writes Galina. “For eight years, Illarionov was an active propagandist for Trump, running campaigns for his election. Are you saying he didn’t understand who Trump was? That he failed to see what was obvious to any rational person, despite his deep involvement in the process? Once he realized Trump had lost, a decent person wouldn’t continue making videos. I feel that on the issue of Illarionov, your usual honesty and principled stance have failed you.”

Dear Galina, you’ve essentially repeated exactly what I’ve said about Illarionov. That doesn’t negate the fact that he is, without a doubt, an intelligent person—I stand by that. I believe he is meticulous and understands global affairs. But it also doesn’t change the fact that for the past eight years, Andrey Nikolaevich has engaged in incredibly harmful work, campaigning for Trump.

With all due respect, Galina, accusing me of sympathy for Illarionov simply means not knowing the history of this issue. I have personally had very poor relations with Andrey Nikolaevich precisely because of his Trumpism and conspiratorial rhetoric—I have criticized him very harshly. We had a period of intense polemics, to the point where, even while I was in the hospital, just coming out of treatment and still under IV drips, I resumed writing and criticizing him. In response, Illarionov claimed that my brain had been destroyed by “Soviet indoctrination”—that only someone brain-dead could write what I was writing. And what was I writing about? His political stance, which I strongly opposed.

So, if anything, I am trying to remain objective and principled.

Not all Trumpists are the same. There’s someone like Veller—that’s a lost cause, just pure nonsense. Illarionov, on the other hand, still tries to maintain a reputation as an analyst. That’s undeniable. It’s similar to Solonin—he also strives for some level of objectivity. That’s why I don’t lump everyone together.

I dislike the attitude of “I don’t bother distinguishing between different kinds of garbage.” If you’re an analyst, you have to distinguish. You can’t throw everything into one pile. I genuinely try to be fair—whether I succeed or not is another matter.

But one thing is clear: Illarionov has now turned against Trump. That’s a fact. And what I’ve been saying is exactly what you pointed out—he’s made a complete 180-degree turn without any explanation. That is something his audience—whom he misled for eight years—has every right to question.

On Nationalism and Its Role in Building a Free State Link to heading

Masha:
Could you explain what role nationalism plays in building a free and independent state?

Nationalism is inevitably a tool in the creation of a free and independent state—especially when that state is breaking away from an empire. You simply cannot establish a national state through a liberation struggle without nationalism. Every single national liberation movement in history has been driven by it.

That’s its primary role: nationalism helps forge national states, particularly in the context of decolonization and gaining independence from imperial rule. In such cases, nationalism plays a crucial role.

Beyond that, the key question becomes: At what point does nationalism cross into xenophobia? That is a matter of degree—of how high the temperature rises.

On Mentality in Modern Society Link to heading

As a sociologist, what can you say about mentality in modern society? I see major differences between the mentality in Russia and in Europe, for example.

Well, I dedicate a significant portion of our discussions to this topic. The difference between Russian and European mentalities is enormous—I constantly try to illustrate this with examples.

First, a key distinction is the lack of empathy in Russia—a major contrast. Then there’s the deeply ingrained imperial mindset, which is widespread in Russian society but absent in Europe. In Europe, you find empathy and no imperial thinking; in Russia, the reverse is true—imperial thinking exists, but empathy is lacking (at least as a mass phenomenon).

Other major differences include:

• A high level of social atomization in Russia, whereas European societies have stronger social cohesion.
• A view of power as sacred in Russia, compared to a much more pragmatic and accountable approach to authority in Europe.
• Low levels of trust in Russia, while trust in institutions and in other people remains relatively high in Europe.

This isn’t a complete list, of course, but the differences are truly profound.

About Veller’s Video on the Author Link to heading

Postanyuk
Please comment on the two recent episodes mentioning you. First, Veller released a separate video exposing you, where, among other things, he made a very serious accusation of embezzling funds from the Union of Journalists.

Let me respond right away. So, I’ve already received a bunch of links to this Veller video. I haven’t watched it. I have a general idea of what it’s about. There have been several videos with similar accusations made by Vladimir Solovyov, known under the pseudonyms “Solovyinny Pomet” (Nightingale Droppings) or “Vecherniy Mudozvon” (Evening Dumbbell). Solovyov has released similar videos, also around 40 minutes long, exposing me. Allegedly, I stole funds from the Union of Journalists of Russia, built some castles in the Czech Republic, Britain, and elsewhere. Well, I have responded—I think three times—to such accusations in detail. There are several responses available on our channel. They are titled Answer from the Cesspit.

Why that title? Simply because, as you know, I analyze the activities of Russian propagandists. The Mediafrenia program is dedicated to this. Several times, in response, Solovyov tried to publish some accusations against me. Back then, he involved a well-known slanderer, provocateur, and informant, Lurie, who he invited on his show to dump all this filth and slander on me. So, should I respond to this yet again? Well, check out my previous responses—they’re all on our channel under Answer from the Cesspit. I go over everything in detail there. In short, I’m not sure whether I should respond once more. Let me know in the comments—do you think it’s worth addressing again? I’ve responded to Solovyov, responded to Lurie, then another provocateur of a similar level posted something identical. They all copy from each other. Now, should I respond to Veller? Honestly, I didn’t even bother watching his video because I already know the usual set of accusations.

To put it briefly: throughout the ten years that I was Secretary-General of the Union of Journalists of Russia, there were relentless attempts to remove me from this position. After all, the leader of one of the largest public organizations—the Union of Journalists is undeniably a major public organization—took a firm anti-Putin stance from day one. I organized rallies against Putin, protests, wrote, and spoke out a lot. Naturally, this led to efforts to push me out. Several special congresses were convened, orchestrated by the Presidential Administration and the FSB, but they failed to oust me. So, a criminal case was fabricated—completely fake—and dragged on for several years. My lawyers repeatedly proved that no embezzlement occurred, and the case kept falling apart. Eventually, the authorities decided to imprison me, and the case was reopened. They failed to prove anything, but I was told in no uncertain terms that the law no longer mattered, that a decision had been made, and I would be sent to prison. I was advised to leave, and I did. I lived in the Czech Republic for two years. Later, my lawyer, a very strong one, managed to get the case dropped. Naturally, there was no embezzlement.

The funny thing is that, due to how my life turned out, I don’t own a single square centimeter of property anywhere in the world. I have no assets, aside from the books I left behind in Russia. No car, no bicycle, no motorcycle—nothing. For many years now, I’ve been living in rented apartments, and I’m perfectly fine with that. I’m not a poor man, and this lifestyle suits me completely. But all these claims that I stole millions or billions are pure lies. There’s no proof because it never happened.

So, people like Veller, Solovyov, and the rest of that scum resort to these tactics in response to well-founded, fact-based criticism. I criticize them based on their own words—I quote them, I show evidence from their own videos. I don’t invent anything. But they lie. What can you do? That’s life. You know, when you stare into a cesspit for too long, the cesspit starts staring back at you—and from there, the filth comes flying your way.

About Muzhdabaev and Babchenko’s Stream Link to heading

Here’s another question.
Muzhdabaev, in a joint media appearance with Babchenko, cited you as a prime example of someone whose predictions have never come true and who refuses to admit mistakes. He claimed that before the war, you mocked everyone who warned about its approach, calling such people Russophobes. To this day, you have not acknowledged your mistakes or apologized.

Muzhdabaev lies almost every time he opens his mouth. I have never called people who predicted the war Russophobes. That is a lie. I have never used that term for such people. Muzhdabaev lies constantly. You know, there was a very interesting moment at the Free Russia Forum back then. Muzhdabaev was still invited to those events—if I’m not mistaken, he still is. I was moderating a session there, and there were about 150 people in the audience. Muzhdabaev, looking these people straight in the eye, said that no Russian liberal had ever acknowledged the occupation of Crimea.

I was sitting next to him and said, “Listen, Ayder, do you realize you’re saying this to a room full of people who consider themselves Russian liberals, and every single one of them acknowledges that Crimea is Ukrainian and occupied?” Yet he, staring directly at these people, spewed this nonsense. Everyone in the room saw the blatant falsehood. It’s a favorite pastime of some—scratch a Russian liberal, and you’ll supposedly find an enemy of Ukraine. That was a lie, and he was immediately caught in it. He lies all the time.

As for me—no, I did not laugh at anyone. I simply believed that the probability of war was extremely low. That is an exact quote. I have admitted a thousand times that I was wrong. I have explained that we live in a probabilistic world, and I underestimated the level of insanity in Putin’s mind. But as for Muzhdabaev, he lies constantly. And he lied in this case, too.

Will Europe Appease Trump? Link to heading

Katarina, here’s a question.
First, Europe spent a long time trying to appease Putin, and now, obviously, it’s trying to do the same with Trump. The motives this time are absolutely clear. But is there any way to make Trump think even slightly in the interests of Europe and America? Naturally, he sees America’s interests differently. Could Europe offer him anything as part of a deal to get his attention? I think it’s hopeless. What about you?

I think the only thing that can “appease” Trump is American society itself. Europe can do absolutely nothing in this regard. There is no deal Europe could offer him. His stance—against Europe, against liberal Europe, against democratic Europe—stems from his worldview, which is deeply anti-liberal. Trump is a fascist—how do you appease a fascist?

The only contradiction here is this: Trump may be a fascist, but the United States is not a fascist state. And that means only the United States itself can change his position. The key to Trump lies solely within America. There is no key to Trump in Ukraine or Europe. I think it’s important to understand this and act accordingly. If mechanisms are found within the U.S. to force Trump to shift his stance, great. If not, then that’s it. Europe cannot appease Trump—at least, that’s my conviction.

Was the Oval Office Scandal Predictable? Link to heading

Tofik Mamedov.
Could Ukrainian officials have foreseen Zelensky’s unsuccessful visit to the Oval Office and declined negotiations in advance? Or was it something else?

The decision to visit the U.S. was made personally by Zelensky. He actively sought this trip. I believe that his advisors, Ukrainian officials, and Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Ms. Markarova, were in no position to change anything. Maybe they foresaw what would happen, but they had no power to prevent it. This was Zelensky’s decision.

If someone really wants to criticize him, I can say that, given the circumstances, perhaps it would have been better not to go. But in the end, the outcome would have been the same. If Zelensky had stayed away, Trump would have met with Putin first and then started pressuring Ukraine regardless.

The ending was inevitable, you see? It might have happened a little later, but it was unavoidable. Ukraine had no way to escape what happened—one way or another, it was bound to unfold. There could have been a different scenario: Trump meets with Putin first, then invites Zelensky in just to have him stand there and listen to the verdict that Trump and Putin had already decided for Ukraine. And it would have played out the same way, perhaps even in a worse form. So, Ukraine had absolutely no chance to avoid this.

On Ending Streams with Shelest Link to heading

Maksim Lebedev.
You stopped giving interviews to the Ukrainian journalist Shelest. Why did this happen? Who initiated the break?

You know, there was an episode—our last conversation. We had several discussions with Oleksandr Shelest, during which he allowed himself to make, well, I wouldn’t call them outright offensive, but rather rude remarks toward me. I responded accordingly. When Shelest stepped out of his role as an interviewer and instead began arguing with me from an anti-Ukrainian stance, naturally, it turned into a debate rather than an interview. And in principle, I was fine with that.

But during our final conversation, when he made, let’s say, rather insolent comments in my direction, I decided for myself that I probably wouldn’t go on his show again. And apparently, he came to the same conclusion. We didn’t have a public falling-out, nor even a private conflict. We didn’t exchange any final words—just both seemed to realize that further collaboration wasn’t of interest.

I used to appear on Shelest’s show fully aware of his views because I thought it was worthwhile to address his audience. But at some point, I took a look at the comments and realized that his audience was even worse than that of Russia-24 or Russia-1. These were die-hard vatniks who simply cannot be persuaded, and the overall level of discourse was quite low. So, I think this was a natural conclusion to the whole story. He doesn’t want me on his channel, and I don’t want to be there either. But at least it ended without a brawl.

Why Didn’t Zelensky Ask About Trump’s Plans? Link to heading

Andreas,
Why didn’t any journalists, including Zelensky himself, ask Trump about his plan to end the war? After the scandal, Trump can now easily accuse Zelensky of not wanting to end the war. Why did Zelensky say that Ukraine does not agree to a ceasefire? After Peskov and Lavrov stated that Russia is not interested in freezing the war along the front line, Ukraine should have taken a wait-and-see approach to make it clear that it’s Russia that opposes a freeze. Now, it looks like Zelensky is the one unwilling to stop the war. I feel that this press conference exposed Zelensky’s political inexperience, which Portnikov has often pointed out—unlike Trump, who dodged many tough questions and smoothed things over.

Dear Andreas, I think, once again, that Trump was on his home turf. He could say whatever he wanted, backtrack on his words if necessary. He was in a completely comfortable setting. And let’s not forget that the journalists present included representatives from TASS, while leading American and global media outlets were not invited. So, the conditions were very much in Trump’s favor.

As for Zelensky, I’ve said multiple times that his actions there didn’t change anything—the outcome was already decided. Zelensky had two options: either lower his eyes, stare at the floor, nod, and say, “Yes, Mr. President! Whatever you say, Mr. President! Hand me a pen, I’ll sign anything. We were always in the wrong, we started the war, Putin just wants peace,” agreeing to everything; or stand up for the honor and dignity—not his own, but that of Ukraine.

Zelensky didn’t even mention that his approval rating isn’t 4%. He didn’t respond to being called an unsuccessful clown or to Trump’s direct insults. What he did do was defend the honor and dignity of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Ukrainian people. As Commander-in-Chief, he simply could not return to Ukraine with unchallenged accusations that its military is incapable of fighting or that they would surrender the country in two weeks. That’s not how it works. He had to take the hit—and he did.

The argument that he should have stayed silent and endured everything assumes that this would have led to a different outcome. It wouldn’t have. This was planned in advance.

On American Agents Link to heading

A question from—well, the person calls himself Skif, but I checked—his real name is Semyon. So, a question from Semyon:
Do you think Ukrainian intelligence should be identifying more American agents within its ranks? After years of close ties, there must be many of them. Now, they are essentially the same as Russian agents.

I still don’t think they’re exactly the same, but yes, identifying them is necessary. I also don’t rule out the possibility that the U.S. could ultimately shift entirely to Russia’s side. Right now, such a scenario might seem far-fetched, but let me ask this: did anyone predict that Trump would completely halt the aid that Biden had been providing? I don’t know of a single person who foresaw what happened on Friday at the White House. I mean, an American president kicking out the president of a country at war—who could have predicted that?

Likewise, hardly anyone predicted that Biden would be providing assistance while Trump would come in and block it. Given that, I do think Ukrainian intelligence should carefully scrutinize the actions of their American counterparts. However, I don’t think Ukraine should adopt a hostile stance toward them right now. If a complete breakdown in relations happens, it should not be initiated by Ukraine.

What’s needed here is extreme restraint and composure. There’s no need to jump the gun. After all, one of the most critical forms of U.S. support for Ukraine has been intelligence sharing. Cutting ties with American intelligence preemptively would be a mistake. But at the same time, Ukraine must stay prepared for the possibility of having to counter them as well. The key is not to let the initiative for a rupture come from Ukraine.

Difficult times are ahead for Ukraine. In fact, they began the moment Trump was elected.

Will the U.S. Surrender Taiwan to China? Link to heading

Arkady,
Given the looming political rupture between the European Union and the United States, as well as Trump’s weakness in dealing with the leaders of China, North Korea, and Russia, is it possible that Taiwan could be “liberated” within three days in the next one to two years?

Yes, it’s possible. Yes, it is. Because for Trump, the priority is the rule of force. And China is strong. Taiwan, in comparison, is weak. That’s the logic.

Of course, Taiwan has enormous strategic importance for the United States as one of the world’s leading semiconductor manufacturers. That factor might play a role. But in principle, politically, surrendering Taiwan is not a major issue for Trump.

For other presidents—not just Democrats but also Republicans—values mattered. A democratic Taiwan versus a totalitarian China was a fundamental position. Defending Taiwan was about standing up for democracy against authoritarianism. That was a matter of principle.

For Trump, principles don’t exist. He doesn’t care about democracy versus totalitarianism—it’s all the same to him. So, protecting Taiwan just because it is a democracy while China is an authoritarian state is not an argument that matters to him. So yes, such a scenario is entirely possible.

Have You Played Chess with Kasparov? Link to heading

Vladimir,
It seems that you know Kasparov personally. Have you ever played chess with him, and would you if given the chance?

Yes, of course, I know Garry Kimovich. I consider him a friend, and I think he sees me the same way.

But the idea of playing chess with him? You know, I’m not personally acquainted with Tyson, Usyk, or either of the Klitschko brothers. But the thought of stepping into the ring with them—maybe it has come to me in a dream at some point, though I don’t recall.

I mean, what’s the point of playing chess against Kasparov? Sure, it’s an interesting thought, but it’s like stepping into the ring with Usyk—pretty ridiculous. Thanks for the idea, Vladimir, but it never even crossed my mind.

On Pastukhov’s Statement Link to heading

Alyona Basova
Recently, in an interview, Pastukhov said that after the Oval Office meeting, it became clear that Ukraine in general, and Zelensky in particular, do not want peace. Could you comment on this?

Pastukhov is like Latynina 2.0. It’s hard to suspect him of idiotic Trumpism, so that leaves only an even nastier explanation. Yes, Pastukhov is certainly not a Trumpist—100%. Unlike her, he is definitely not Latynina 2 in that sense. He can’t be accused of Trumpism, that’s for sure.

You know, I don’t listen to his broadcasts, but I do sometimes read his Telegram channel, and I haven’t come across statements like this. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I personally haven’t seen such claims. But in general, Pastukhov tends to change his position frequently. One day he says one thing, the next day something else—he argues with himself, agrees, then disagrees. It’s, well… let’s call it dialectics.

Overall, he has a very detached perspective. He speaks about his Ukrainian identity since he was born in Ukraine, unlike, say, Mikhail Valentinovich Savva. But ultimately, I think it would be worth doing a separate analysis of Pastukhov’s work. The key point is that Pastukhov has an imperial mindset. A very specific kind of imperialism, but imperialism nonetheless.

If anything connects him to Latynina—though she is a clear Trumpist and he is not—it’s this imperial outlook. And perhaps that is precisely what is showing through in this case.

On Trump’s Statement That Zelensky Doesn’t Want Peace Link to heading

Pan Stepan. Two questions.
Trump said that Zelensky doesn’t want peace. If that’s the case, then Trump won’t be able to broker any peace deal, since it’s impossible without Ukraine’s participation. Does Trump understand this? After all, he keeps insisting that he wants to establish peace immediately.

Well, yes, he has probably realized it by now. That’s likely why he has halted arms deliveries. He simply sides with Putin now—he’s against Ukraine. If he couldn’t hand Ukraine over to Putin, then in his view, it must be destroyed. That’s all there is to it.

On the Norwegian Parliament Link to heading

And the Norwegian Parliament? Second question.
The Norwegian Parliament is convening an emergency session to discuss a significant increase in aid to Ukraine—already substantial as it is. If there is a bipartisan agreement on such an increase, the only question is by how much. Do you think Ukraine’s role in the war’s outcome will remain as crucial if Europe finally pulls itself together and does everything it can and should do?

The issue isn’t money. Europe has the funds, though there are doubts about whether it’s truly willing to allocate such large sums. But most likely, they will provide the money—yes, Ukraine can count on European financial support.

The real issue is weapons. Until last night, I still believed in a scenario where American weapons could reach Ukraine using European funding. I had hoped that Trump, as a businessman and a dealmaker, wouldn’t refuse to let Europeans buy American arms for Ukraine. After all, Trump heavily relies on support from the military-industrial complex—such sales mean money flowing into the U.S., creating American jobs, and so on. Selling weapons is profitable for America.

But now, it seems that for Trump, the priority is not U.S. interests—it’s destroying Ukraine. Humiliating Zelensky and crushing Ukraine matters more to him than America’s own economic benefits. That raises serious concerns. Because if that’s the case, then the U.S. remains critically important in this war. If it refuses to sell weapons to Ukraine, Europe alone won’t be enough.

On Mark Solonin Link to heading

A question from Tatyana:
What do you think of Mark Solonin? Have you seen his latest video? I think it’s called “The Triumph of Two Great Patriotic Wars.” And a second question: Do you think Ukraine’s victory could ever look like something other than a Russian defeat? If no agreement is reached and the war continues, what’s next? I can’t imagine Putin accepting a military defeat—he will stop at nothing. If that does happen, then what? Nuclear apocalypse?

First, about Solonin—I haven’t seen it. But I’ll definitely watch it because I’m preparing the third episode of Trumpophrenia, and if the worst assessments turn out to be true, we’ll discuss him as a subject of that program. For now, I can’t give you an answer.

As for your second, more important question—I do think that a total Russian military defeat is an extremely unlikely scenario. Full capitulation is unrealistic. However, a severe military setback is possible. And if that happens, internal fractures could emerge.

We don’t know the level of internal tension, especially at the top—in the military leadership. There’s a lot of talk about Ukraine’s exhaustion, but Russia is also worn down. And depending on a range of factors—if Europe actually steps up and provides at least the weapons it already has, if some serious support mechanisms materialize—then in a prolonged war, internal cracks within Russia could appear.

We’ve discussed this possibility many times. A scenario where Ukrainian troops march into Moscow is impossible. But a scenario where Russia fractures from within—leading to defeat through internal upheaval, the collapse of the state, Putin’s ousting, or even his death—is entirely plausible.

On the Humiliating Slap to Trump from Britain Link to heading

Viktor Khripun
Is it true that King Charles usually doesn’t meet with foreign leaders more than once, and that the invitation to Trump from Prime Minister Sunak was something exclusive? If so, then the King has now met with Zelensky twice in less than a year. Don’t you think this was a humiliating slap to Trump?

You know, I don’t think the British leadership deliberately set out to slap Trump in the face. Publicly, they have taken a very measured stance. The UK has unconditionally supported Zelensky—just like almost all European leaders, with the exception of Orbán and Fico.

Yes, this was clearly a show of demonstrative support for Ukraine. But I’m not sure it was intentionally meant as an insult to Trump. It just happened that way. Above all, it was a gesture of support for Zelensky personally and, of course, for Ukraine.

At the same time, let’s not forget that the “Old World” has long emphasized the importance of maintaining relations with the United States and has openly stated that this remains a priority.

Is Trump a Russian Agent in the U.S.? Link to heading

Semyon,
Do you agree that Trump is a Russian agent of influence in the U.S., similar to Yanukovych or Medvedchuk in Ukraine? Everything he does—both domestically and internationally—directly benefits Russia. A real American leader, even one who is simply misguided, wouldn’t so blatantly serve a foreign country, weaken his own military and intelligence agencies, destroy long-standing alliances, ruin America’s reputation by quarreling with its neighbors, and side with the country’s historical adversaries. If you disagree, I can’t even imagine what your argument would be—unless you won’t agree until you see his official agent dossier.

Dear Semyon,

I’ve answered similar questions many times. For me, there’s a different explanation. Take Stalin and Hitler, for example—they were allies at the start of World War II, but that wasn’t because one was an agent of the other. Their interests simply aligned. The same goes for Trump, Vance, and Musk—they just have a different understanding of U.S. interests.

Maybe Trump is an agent, maybe he isn’t. But there’s another, much clearer explanation: they genuinely believe in siding with strength. They see the world through a might-makes-right lens. Russia is a strong nuclear state. Ukraine is weaker and lacks nuclear weapons. So, logically, who should be a U.S. ally? From their perspective, it’s Russia.

Russia also has significant economic potential, particularly in oil and gas, which the U.S. could exploit. Ukraine, meanwhile, has valuable rare earth minerals. That’s what this is really about.

Trump, Musk, Vance, and the rest of that crowd are simply on the side of power. Their values align with authoritarianism. They despise liberal democracy, which defines Europe. They hate Ukraine precisely because Ukraine aspires to join liberal-democratic Europe—not some “Nazi” vision they try to project onto it. That’s the key issue here: an alignment of values.

As for their actions inside the U.S., there’s no special desire to “please Putin”—everything they do is aimed at consolidating their own power. They are dismantling the American state because that state stands in the way of their ideology and their own brand of fascism.

This explanation is far more logical than a conspiracy theory about them being Kremlin agents. But, of course, everyone has their own way of interpreting events.

Closing word Link to heading

Okay, it looks like that’s it. Once again, I want to remind you that I wasn’t able to read all 2,000 comments from this morning’s Saturday stream, but I’ll gradually catch up.

With that, I’m wrapping up this morning’s stream. Just a quick reminder—today at 17:00, we’ll have Caesar, a representative of the Freedom of Russia Legion, and at 19:00, Hristonson, a Ukrainian political analyst.

That’s it for our morning conversation. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives!

All the best! See you at 17:00. Goodbye.

Source: https://youtu.be/3AXYRpbYpj8