Pope Francis – an epilogue. The U.S. makes Ukraine an indecent proposal, after which Witkoff will go to Putin to discuss the division of the world.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 22nd, April 22nd, and. It’s 07:41 in Kyiv right now, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.

Kant and Lenin Link to heading

On this day, April 22nd in different years, two people were born who represent two poles of human thought and human activity. They are truly antagonists. On April 22, 1724, Immanuel Kant was born—one of the deepest thinkers in the history of human civilization and an outstanding humanist. He was a proponent of the idea—an idea he justified in his works—that eternal peace could be achieved through universal democracy, international cooperation, and that this could become the culminating stage of world history. Kant’s ideas about eternal peace formed the foundation of the postwar world order. There were attempts to establish a postwar order after World War I and during the creation of a united Europe—truly one of the greatest projects in human history. Immanuel Kant represents the pole of humanism, which continues to influence modern history.

And the second pole is a person who represents the opposite end. He was born on April 22, 1870. He was one of the three greatest villains of the 20th century—one of the greatest villains of the 20th century. His name was Vladimir Ulyanov. Lenin was a man who created one of the most titanic states in human history—the Soviet Union. He developed the theory and practice of cannibalistic policies, mass terror, the expulsion of the intelligentsia, and the oppression of peoples. In short, everything associated with the Soviet Union and its practices. So, here is April 22nd—a day that gave birth to two people who represent opposing poles of human civilization.

Pope Francis Has Died Link to heading

And now to today’s, or rather yesterday’s, news. Yesterday, Pope Francis passed away. He was the 266th head of the Catholic Church, who profoundly changed the Catholic world and differed greatly from all previous occupants of the Roman throne. He was the first pope from the Western Hemisphere, the first Jesuit pope, and the first pontiff in over a thousand years to be born outside Europe. He was born in Argentina and chose the name Francis in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi. This was symbolic of his intentions for the Catholic Church—to make it a church for the poor. Caring for the poor, humility, a focus on mercy, social justice, and environmental protection were his guiding principles. He once stated his main mission like this: “How I would love a church that is poor and for the poor.”

He had a unique biography: he studied to be a chemical technician while also working as a bouncer at a nightclub in Argentina, a janitor, and a lab assistant. Upon ascending to the papacy, he significantly altered the Vatican’s social policy. He accepted the theory of evolution, asserting it does not contradict the divine creation of the world. He said that God should not be viewed as a magician with a magic wand and that the Big Bang theory and biological evolution do not contradict the divine acts of creation described in the Bible. He believed the biblical story of creation should not be taken literally. This was quite a revolutionary shift in the Vatican’s worldview.

Additionally, his approach to today’s most pressing issues—such as homosexuality—was marked by tolerance. While he did not endorse same-sex marriages or promote same-sex relationships, his attitude was nonetheless accepting. His famous quote: “If someone is gay and is seeking God and has good will, who am I to judge?” Regarding the key issue that concerns us now—his stance on Ukraine—he faced significant criticism, particularly for his comments about the courage of the white flag. But he repeatedly clarified that he was not urging Ukraine to surrender, but calling for negotiations.

In truth, the legacy of the departed Francis is not just a personal one, but a reflection of the tectonic shift underway in Catholicism. The center of gravity has moved from Europe to the Global South, particularly Latin America. Today, the five countries with the largest Catholic populations are Brazil (the largest Catholic country in the world), Mexico, the Philippines, the U.S., and Italy. Since the early 21st century, the Catholic Church has firmly set out on the path of transforming from a Western institution into a global one—bringing together believers from a variety of civilizations in Latin America, Asia, and rapidly growing Catholic regions in Africa. This shift toward the Global South has, unsurprisingly, led to tectonic changes. What is taken for granted in Christian European culture is not so in African or Latin American contexts.

This explains why Francis could not take a hard, unequivocal stance. He condemned Russia for its aggression but also tried to mediate. It’s a position that may be puzzling to many of us, but is understandable in light of what’s happening within the Catholic Church.

From the very beginning, he had a terrible relationship with Trump—both during Trump’s first term and now. It’s worth recalling one of Trump’s most outrageous statements: “Nobody has done more for Christianity, nobody has done more for religion of all types than me.” A jaw-dropping declaration that could serve as an epigraph for all of Trump’s speeches. “No one more than me.” Jesus Christ, Buddha, Jehovah, Muhammad—all are to pale in comparison to Trump’s grandeur as a religious figure. By comparison, the departed Pope Francis is just a small fry.

This is, in a nutshell, very characteristic of the 47th president of the United States.

As for Francis, I believe that while he didn’t accomplish the full reform of the Catholic Church that many hoped for, he did set its direction. He pointed the way toward humanism, toward mercy. It was a quest for a modern form of Christianity—not mercy in the canonical sense of “love thy neighbor,” but in the sense of tolerance. It was an attempt to understand what Catholicism in the 21st century really means. Still, today’s global processes are unfolding with only weak influence from the Catholic Church—nothing like the era of John Paul II, when the Church played a significant role in the collapse of communism.

Now, the situation is different. And we can probably note that the influence of the Church in the world has sharply—excuse me—has decreased, of course. It has weakened compared to what it was at the end of the 20th century.

Indecent Proposal to Ukraine Link to heading

Let’s move on to the main topic of our conversation today. Tomorrow in London, negotiations will take place between delegations from the United States, European countries, and Ukraine. The topic is clear—it’s clear what these delegations will be discussing tomorrow in London. The U.S. delegation will be of a very high level: it includes Rubio, Witkoff, and Kloke. In other words, only the stars are higher—meaning Trump is the highest level of representation. From Europe, foreign ministers from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine will be present.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Washington will be pushing an absolutely indecent proposal toward Ukraine. Specifically, the United States is ready to recognize the annexation of Crimea, to recognize Crimea as Russian, and to propose that Ukraine abandon its pursuit of NATO membership. The proposal to be discussed is one that Ukraine, in principle, cannot accept. And it must be said that even Russia cannot accept it, because it does not include recognition of Russia’s claims to Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions. No one will support that tomorrow.

Also, according to media reports, no one tomorrow will support the reduction of the Ukrainian army or demand that Western countries stop supporting Ukraine. These are undoubtedly points whose absence will not be accepted by Russia. I very much doubt that Putin will support Trump’s idea that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant be placed under U.S. control, since it is currently controlled by Russian occupiers. I don’t really understand—well, I don’t know, theoretically it’s possible to imagine that if the United States were to support all of Russia’s occupation and imperial plans, then perhaps there could be some conversation about U.S. involvement in controlling the Zaporizhzhia plant. But in principle, such gifts—of course not. For Putin, the Zaporizhzhia NPP is a very serious conquest of the occupiers. So he certainly won’t just give it away.

To summarize what the American, European, and Ukrainian delegations are preparing to meet about tomorrow: this absolutely indecent proposal will be met with a guaranteed rejection from Ukraine. I cannot imagine any composition of a Ukrainian delegation that would support this proposal. Every point of this proposal is unacceptable for Ukraine—from the official recognition of Crimea as Russian to the abandonment of NATO membership. Not because anyone believes Ukraine will join NATO in the near future, but because that aspiration is enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution. Regardless of whether it’s a utopia in the short term, allowing an external partner to change the Ukrainian Constitution is impossible. That would mean a loss of sovereignty. This is something Ukrainians must decide for themselves—it cannot be a topic of discussion with other countries.

Therefore, I believe tomorrow’s London meeting, tomorrow’s London summit, will end with this proposal being rejected.

The Big Deal with Russia Link to heading

Following this, Steve Witkoff is expected to visit Russia. And this, in my view, is the continuation—the next step. Witkoff’s visit to Russia, apparently, according to a number of sources supplying the press from both the Kremlin and Washington, is intended to discuss a big deal. A big deal involving the global redistribution of spheres of influence. That is, Witkoff is going to Putin to preliminarily negotiate how he and Trump will divide the world.

Essentially, this is about Russia extending its influence over the post-Soviet space, including, naturally, Ukraine. On the other hand, it implies recognizing Moscow’s influence in Europe. To get Trump involved in such an unseemly scheme, Witkoff, together with Kirill Dmitriev, will be talking about deals—Trump’s favorite word. This concerns all kinds of deals, including those involving rare earth metals, as well as how Russia’s influence on Iran and North Korea can be leveraged. There are also specific projects, such as building a Trump Tower in the Moscow-City district.

So, essentially, everything Witkoff is bringing to Moscow is an idea to create a personal project for Trump that could be very appealing financially and in the media—and designed for the next 3.5 years, or four years. In fact, it’s all intended to be implemented during Trump’s remaining term in the White House. According to reports circulating in the Russian press, proposals related to this economic cooperation with the U.S. have been entrusted to Russia’s top corporations: Rosatom, Rosneft, Rusal, and so on.

On the American side, Witkoff is preparing this global deal. On Putin’s side, it’s Maxim Oreshkin, deputy head of the administration, and of course, Kirill Dmitriev. Apparently, Dmitriev plays the lead role in this tandem. So now, Putin’s main task is to get the most out of Trump—constantly feeding him various ideas and deals in order to effectively neutralize the United States and ultimately ensure that the U.S. stops financing and supporting Ukraine. Or, at the very least, to drag out negotiations or push the U.S. out of the negotiating process and blame Ukraine for the failure.

This is exactly what the idea of an Easter truce is aimed at—to make it seem like Putin is making a goodwill gesture. And after that, everything else becomes more or less clear. This, in my opinion, is the scenario for the coming days.

How significant is all of this? Yes, it is undoubtedly significant. But it’s also becoming increasingly clear that Europe is becoming the main base of support for Ukraine. And here, I think we can speak of a certain cautious optimism. We’ll see tomorrow how much of what I’m saying will actually materialize. Most likely, tomorrow will show just that.

I think after tomorrow, we should have a separate conversation—maybe even invite a guest who understands American politics better than I do. Because the question is not whether the Witkoff-Dmitriev deal will be accepted by Trump—it certainly will be. But the real question is whether this plan will be accepted by the American establishment. That’s where we’ll need a guest to help unpack it.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to remind you that today at 7:00 PM we will have a conversation with Ukrainian journalist Larysa Voloshyna. I think it will be an interesting discussion. She has very clearly formulated views on global politics. So we’ll talk and listen. And I think it’s going to be interesting. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.

Novaya Gazeta and Ichkeria Link to heading

Tamara, a retiree
Don’t you think that the position of Milashina and Novaya Gazeta in general—that Chechnya is part of Russia—is imperialist? Do you believe Ichkeria had a right to independence?

Dear Tamara, regarding your second question, well, it’s kind of like asking me now “Whose is Crimea?” Yes, it’s about that level. Of course, Ichkeria had every right to independence. Chechnya was occupied, it was conquered, and the Chechen people were subjected to brutal repression, harsh deportations, and mass persecution. That’s why they continued to resist for many decades of occupation and never gave up. The two Chechen wars are evidence of how the Chechen people fought for their independence. So naturally, Ichkeria has the right to independence. Honestly, I find it strange you’re asking me this question.

As for the position of Novaya Gazeta that Chechnya is part of Russia—I’d really like to see the texts that form the basis for your accusation against Milashina and Novaya Gazeta on the internet. Because, to be honest, maybe I just didn’t pay attention, but I haven’t heard such imperialist statements from journalist Milashina. Maybe I’m wrong? We need to look at the original sources. As you know, I really don’t like judging things I haven’t seen myself, even with all due respect to you. So, unfortunately, I can’t answer your first question without the actual text.

Is the U.S. Attacking Europe Through Ukraine? Link to heading

Alex Rashkin
I was deeply impressed by the conversation with Felshtinsky. You two laid out Putin’s strategy step by step: strike, propose a deal based on the Istanbul agreement, rejection, strike on a peaceful city, new proposal based on the same plan—and so on, in circles. I looked up what kind of project this is. The full text is in The New York Times. And here’s what’s interesting—Ukraine is not listed as a party to the agreement. It is left out; it is an object. With neutral status, a group of major European and global powers negotiates with Putin. All the world’s countries commit to Putin to disarm Ukraine and even monitor to ensure it doesn’t fall apart in the future. It’s mind-boggling. If you don’t believe it, look—Felshtinsky is right. Ukraine is the key to Europe’s lock. America, with China’s silent approval, is removing the world’s strongest economy from the global stage by breaking up its unity. We need to start writing about this, shouting about it, sounding the alarm. This is pure corporate raiding. We can’t just stay silent and be so thankful! (This isn’t directed at you, but at the majority of media, viewers, and especially those not addressing the core issue.)

Well, dear Alex, what made me include your text in the Q&A section is that the title initially made me think it was a question—but I don’t really see a question here. Overall, I’m ready to agree with what you wrote. I just don’t understand what exactly is the question here—this is more of a comment.

Should the Lubyanka Be Bombed? Link to heading

Pan Stepan
There are increasing signs that Ukraine will receive Taurus missiles. I understand that the threat of their use may be more effective than their actual deployment. Nevertheless, at the beginning, at least one strike could be carried out as a demonstration. It could be the Crimean Bridge, but it could also be Moscow. Tell me, please, wouldn’t it be possible to loudly articulate to the world—or simply float the idea—that this strike should target the Lubyanka? In military terms, a single strike won’t change anything, but psychologically, symbolically, and simply in terms of justice, it would be, I think, a powerful and much-needed blow. Personally, I want this almost as much as a strike on target number one—which won’t be hit anyway. But I just really want it.

Dear Pan Stepan! Well, first of all, I think you’re right that Taurus is, of course, a good thing, but there are very few of them, as we know. And so they obviously won’t turn the tide of war—well, in combination with other systems. The important thing here isn’t the name, but the total number and tonnage of these missile and bomb strikes being delivered against the enemy. And the tonnage here isn’t very large.

As for your dream—A STRIKE on the Lubyanka—yes, it’s a nice idea, but I’m not sure. You see? I’m not sure, first of all, that we’re really in a position to seriously propose it. We can certainly dream, sure, but to loudly announce it and turn it into a campaign—that’s another matter. You have to understand that Ukraine’s military-political leadership, apparently, makes decisions about striking specific targets based, on the one hand, on practicality—because, well, you mentioned the Crimean Bridge. But as far as I understand, to destroy the Crimean Bridge would require quite a large number of missiles. And so here, a military expert would be needed to assess how many missiles are actually required to destroy it. It may turn out that the number available in the foreseeable future is simply insufficient to bring down that illegal structure.

As for a strike on the Lubyanka, again, if I understand correctly, we also need to know what modification of the missile will be provided. It may well be one that doesn’t even reach Moscow. So there are a lot of questions here. But I’ll emphasize again—for me, what would be truly important is the determination of some country to strike what I think is now the most relevant target: terrorist number one. But in fact, today, that person is not at the Lubyanka.

So, to sum up—I support your mood. But I definitely won’t take part in any campaign calling on Ukraine’s military-political leadership to strike this or that target.

Will the U.S. Start Military Action in the Middle East? Link to heading

Tofik Mamedov
Please explain. The U.S. is ending its support for Europe and Ukraine with the intention of launching military operations in the Middle East. In particular, Israel has repeatedly demanded this in Gaza, Palestine, and Iran. Since the U.S. cannot fight on two fronts at once, it wants to freeze the war in Ukraine and redeploy its armed forces against Iran.

Dear Tofik! Honestly, I don’t quite understand what you’re talking about. What redeployment of Armed Forces are you referring to? The United States of America is not participating in the war in Ukraine. That’s just a fact. There are no U.S. troops there that could be redeployed to Iran or the Middle East. They simply do not exist there physically.

So I really don’t understand the very idea. You say the United States can’t fight on two fronts at once. But they aren’t fighting on any front at the moment. So it’s not clear what this is all about.

Why Is Hungary Harming Ukraine, and Can Anything Be Done About It? Link to heading

Margarita
I’d like to ask you a question about Hungary, and also about other countries neighboring Ukraine—for example, Poland. I was planning to meet up with a friend from Kyiv this summer. Looks like our project won’t happen for now. And here’s why. It feels a bit scary to travel to Kyiv. And as we know, Ukrainians must travel long distances—more than a day by bus—to get to an airport in another country. These countries might be Poland, Hungary, or even Moldova. Now, rumors are circulating in Ukraine that if, for instance, Hungary decides not to serve as a transit country for Ukrainians trying to leave—could Orbán really go that far? Forgive the bluntness. My question is this: is there really no way to rein in this Trojan horse? Even if it’s just rumors, they didn’t come out of nowhere. I remember you once said there’s no option to expel a country from the EU. Maybe I’m wrong, but what can be done to influence Orbán? Hungary isn’t as rich as it pretends to be. Without EU subsidies, Hungary would probably struggle a lot. Yet the country seems to do everything it can to hurt Ukraine—even by undermining its ability to endure this war. There are even whispers in Ukraine about Poland possibly restricting Ukrainian movement too, since I recall some sort of conflict between the two countries.

Well, dear Margarita, the main question here is about Hungary. Let’s put it this way: indeed, Hungary cannot be expelled from the European Union. That option simply does not exist. But pressure is being applied to Hungary—and it can be effective. Hungary has repeatedly tried to use blackmail, threatening not to support military aid, but under pressure, it has been forced to back down. The pressure is simple: Hungary survives on EU subsidies, and withholding those subsidies is a very powerful tool.

In addition to that, there is some hope because Hungary currently has a fairly strong opposition to Orbán, and we can hope that he will lose in the upcoming elections. At the very least, there is hope for that.

Should We Feel Sympathy for MMM Victims? Link to heading

So, the question—unfortunately, I didn’t write down the name of the person who asked.
As a sociologist and author of the advertising law, what do you think the percentage is of people who would feel sympathy for MMM shareholders and others like them, now rummaging through garbage bins to survive? Do these people deserve sympathy? They were driven by greed and stupidity. Why pity them? Please answer—your opinion is very interesting.

Dear colleague, I apologize for not noting your name, but you know—sympathy is not something given based on merit, or let’s say, not only based on merit. Greedy and foolish people are still worthy of pity. They are. I think they deserve sympathy. These are deceived people. And the fact that they were foolish and greedy doesn’t mean we should gloat. That’s exactly what humanism is about, if you will—to have sympathy not only for those who you believe are highly deserving, but also for people you might consider foolish and greedy. So, in short—yes, I believe they deserve sympathy.

On the Claim That Israel Created Hamas Link to heading

Eduard Yanovich, right?
Following your example, I’ll hit not by weight but by facts. Did you hear what you yourself said? You admitted that Al-Qaeda was financed by the CIA and Hamas by Israel—and yet you conclude that it’s all nonsense? Isn’t the task of intelligence agencies to fight terrorism, not fund it? How does that work in your view? Regarding Heydar Jemal’s words, I provide the exact quote from Sergey Korzun’s show on terrorism and intelligence. At the nine-minute mark, Jemal says: “We can consider it proven and substantiated that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA, and that the 9/11 operation was part of a broad set of measures carried out by a specific group within the American government—neoconservatives who came to power with Bush and decided to use the situation to drastically reshape the global political landscape.” Later in the same program, when asked about Palestinian resistance movements carrying out not just targeted attacks but also mass bombings in Israel, Jemal says: “First, we know Mossad has repeatedly said it to a large extent manages Hamas’s operational methods—sometimes preventing, sometimes even accelerating certain actions when necessary.” Jemal then elaborates on the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how Hamas was created with Israeli support.

Now, I’m not going to dispute whether Jemal actually said this or not. Let’s assume he did. I’m also not going to verify the quote or its precision—I’ll focus on the core thesis. Yes, indeed, Al-Qaeda was at some point supported by the CIA. But what follows from that? Then comes pure nonsense. It absolutely does not follow that the attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11—or on the Pentagon—were part of some inside operation. That U.S. intelligence agencies organized them. That simply does not follow logically.

Yes, the U.S. once provided some support to Al-Qaeda back when the Soviet Union was fighting in Afghanistan. But later, Al-Qaeda functioned independently, without U.S. control. Do you understand? Now listen to the kind of nonsense you—or maybe Jemal—are saying. Let’s break this down, because I think it’s important.

Let me ask you this: did Stalin contribute to Hitler’s rise to power? Obviously, he did. It’s a well-known fact that Stalin used the Comintern to block leftist unity, pitting communists against social democrats and clearing the way for Hitler. Stalin unquestionably played a role in Hitler’s rise.

But does that mean Hitler’s later attack on the Soviet Union was Stalin’s plan? That Stalin basically helped organize the invasion of his own country? Think about it—that’s obviously ridiculous. Yet that’s exactly the kind of logic you’re using when you say American intelligence “bombed itself” because it once helped create Al-Qaeda.

At some stage, these actors—Al-Qaeda, Hamas—outgrew and detached from their creators. They acted independently. The same applies to Hamas. Yes, I still believe it was a major mistake by the Israeli government to support Hamas in order to weaken the more moderate Palestinian organization, Fatah. It was clearly a mistake.

But to say that Israeli intelligence “controls” Hamas today is absurd. Just absurd. Please follow the logic here. At what point does the chain of reasoning break? That’s where the nonsense begins.

Was the Ceasefire a Camouflaged Military Redeployment? Link to heading

Arkady Mikhailov
Isn’t the ceasefire actually just a disguised regrouping of military forces?

Well, I don’t know. I don’t think so. I believe the reasons are different. I laid them out in detail during yesterday’s morning stream.

Is Veller Being Paid to Support Trump? Link to heading

Question from Viktor
Veller seems like a smart person, yet he’s aligned with Trump. Why? Could it be that he’s simply being paid?

You know, this is one of those cases where I’m certain the answer is no. Absolutely not. I’d highlight two parts of your question. First, the very debatable claim that Veller is a smart person. I’m not so sure about that. Of course, that’s a subjective assessment. But based on what I see, hear, and read—his various statements—I wouldn’t agree that he’s particularly smart.

That said, I am 100% sure he isn’t being paid. He’s genuinely convinced of the nonsense he’s spouting.

Three Questions from Telegram Link to heading

And here’s a continuing series of questions from Pavel on the Telegram channel.
Question:
As Igor Aleksandrovich rightly noted, we must define our terms—conservatism as a socio-political philosophy based on traditional customs, institutions, and values. I’m saying that conservatism doesn’t necessarily mean preserving the current order. I want to note that conservatism is a collective term, and it takes on different meanings in different countries. It’s not always about preserving the status quo—it’s sometimes about changing it in favor of conservative values. So, after this long preamble, I’ll highlight my questions: 1. Do you agree that democracy hinders Trumpism, since by nature it is a social system? 2. Do you agree that national feelings—including a sense of national unity—are a process, not a constant? Right now, national unity is at a peak of crystallization, but I wrote about a time when the factors causing this crystallization will cease—when the war ends—and factors that once caused division in society will return. 3. Do you know of another country with such wealthy neighbors that are so different in mentality and culture as Poland and Russia? I don’t. By fate, I’ve dealt with Ukrainians traveling to both countries for work—and along with money, they brought back the spirit of those countries. Don’t you think if they again are forced to go work in Russia and Poland, the same thing will happen? Ukraine’s economic decline began long before 2014. And although Poroshenko saw the key to returning the occupied territories in the country’s economic rise, he couldn’t achieve it even with Europe’s help.
And finally, on fascism—maybe we should look to Marx for a cure for Trump? It worked last time.

Let me start from the end. I don’t know how Marxism helped last time. What kind of medicine was that, and whom did it help? If you’re referring to the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany, then we saw what kind of “cure” Marxism brought to East Germany—and it wasn’t very effective. Meanwhile, in West Germany, under Western occupation, the cure wasn’t Marxism. So specifically on this point—curing Trumpism with Marxism—this is one of those rare cases where the cure might be worse than the disease. I completely disagree with your suggestion and reject it.

Now, on your idea that after the war Ukrainians will once again go to Russia for work. Frankly, we can’t predict the future, but I find it completely unrealistic to imagine a scenario where Ukraine simply reverts to what it was before the war. Likewise, the idea that postwar Russia will be in a position where it’s attractive to work there—that, too, seems far-fetched to me. Also, the level of hatred—not just resentment, but hatred—toward Russia and Russians in Ukraine today makes it hard to imagine large numbers of Ukrainians going there for work afterward. And besides, we don’t even know what Russia itself will look like after the war—that’s a crucial part of the equation.

As for Ukraine, yes, the crystallization and concentration of political and moral unity we’re seeing now will definitely dissipate after the war—that’s obvious. But there won’t be any kind of split along wartime lines. That much is clear.

Now, regarding your statement that democracy interferes with Trumpism because it’s a social system: democracy interferes with Trumpism—and with Trump personally and his followers—for many reasons, fundamental ones. First, democracy is primarily about humanism. Democracy is about the rule of law. Trump and Trumpism operate on arbitrariness: do what I want, when I want. Naturally, democracy doesn’t suit him. He opposes the separation of powers not because he believes in centralized authority, but because it blocks his ability to act unilaterally. Trumpism also resists the social focus that inevitably comes with democratic governance. So yes, Trumpism and democracy are antagonists on many levels.

Finally, your deeply skeptical view of Ukraine. Ukraine is currently at war—and that’s the key fact. What happens after the war depends greatly on its outcome. Criticizing Ukraine now for being poorer than Poland or for not having achieved a certain standard—yes, on paper, Russia has higher GDP per capita and wages. But you also have to consider quality of life. Russia has an immense gap between its rich regions like Moscow and St. Petersburg and its vast impoverished provinces.

It’s no coincidence that when Russian occupiers entered Ukraine, they were astonished by how well Ukrainians lived. That’s not fiction—we saw that. So, despite “objective” indicators, the average quality of life in Ukraine is higher. Yes, Russia is richer on paper, but its wealth is concentrated at the top—among oligarchs whose numbers only grew during the war—and in a handful of large cities. The rest of Russia suffers from wild, devastating poverty and collapse. In Ukraine, you don’t see the same destroyed towns, the inhumane conditions in regions with no sanitation, and so on.

So the idea that Ukrainians will once again travel to Russia to earn money after the war—that seems highly unlikely. I think you underestimate a whole range of factors that are fundamentally reshaping the global picture.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

So, with that, I conclude our morning stream. A reminder: at 7:00 PM we’ll be joined by Voloshyna. I think it’ll be an interesting conversation. Wrapping up our talk—Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov, to all Ukrainian prisoners and Russian prisoners, both Ukrainian captives and Russian political prisoners. See you at 7:00 PM! Goodbye!

Source: https://youtu.be/9eqR_PEtw6M