The U.S. has authorized the sale of $50 million worth of weapons to Ukraine (not billion, but million). The U.S. State Department stated that the U.S. will no longer act as a mediator in the negotiations, while Vance announced that America will continue peace talks over the next hundred days.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 2nd, in Kyiv. It’s currently 7:41 AM, and we continue our daily morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Osama bin Laden Link to heading
A small historical rhyme. On this day, May 2nd, 2011, Osama bin Laden, terrorist number one, was eliminated by U.S. Special Forces. This operation, codenamed Neptune Spear, was authorized by the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Well, what can I say? Today’s terrorist number one is feeling just fine, and so far, there is no political will for his elimination—an action that would be entirely lawful. That’s the kind of historical rhyme we have.
Another Wave of Strikes on Ukraine’s Civilian Population Link to heading
And what is happening now? What we see is a smokescreen in the form of a negotiation process that, frankly, is unclear in how it’s progressing. Meanwhile, Russian occupiers continue to destroy Ukrainian civilians. Late last night, there were drone strikes on Zaporizhzhia. One person was killed, and eight were injured. Well, at least as of a few hours ago, when I last checked Ukrainian sources, one was reported dead and 88 injured. In addition, Ukraine was attacked by five Iskander ballistic missiles and 107 drones. There were strikes on the Odesa, Kharkiv, Sumy, Donetsk, and Kyiv regions. In Odesa, two people were killed and another 15 injured. So this is the kind of “peaceful” negotiation process coming from Russia.
The U.S. State Department Has Authorized the Sale of $50 Million Worth of Weapons to Ukraine Link to heading
Among the important developments, aside from this deal—which I mentioned yesterday in the morning and which Igor Vladimirovich Lipsits provided a detailed analysis of—by the way, I think it was quite thoroughly examined. Livshits offered an in-depth analysis yesterday, both of the economic results from Trump’s first 100 days and of what this deal means for Ukraine. Also, the political aspect of this deal was analyzed. And now it’s become known that the U.S. Department of State has authorized the sale of weapons to Ukraine totaling $50,000,000. That is, let me emphasize again—50 million, not billion, and it’s a sale, not a transfer.
And somehow it brings to mind how we all—my humble self included—used to constantly criticize Biden, calling his aid “a trickle” and “a pathetic trickle.” Well, now we might want to recall the size of that “trickle.” The fact is that under Biden, Ukraine received $183 billion in total aid—note: billion, not million. Of that, about $65–66 billion was military aid. That’s Biden’s trickle. Now let’s see—let Trump show us his “trickle.” So far, it’s $50 million. We’ll see what happens in the end.
Nevertheless, it can be seen as a beginning. This decision is reportedly connected to the U.S. wanting to ensure stability in regions where key mineral deposits are located, such as titanium ore in Zaporizhzhia and coal seams in Donbas. But it’s worth noting that people from Donbas have left, and the deposits are located exclusively in the occupied territories. So I don’t really understand how air defense systems and so on are supposed to ensure U.S. control over those deposits, especially considering that just recently Marco Rubio said Ukraine has no chance of liberating the occupied territories. So how they intend to control the coal seams with $50 million is unclear. Oh well.
The U.S. Is Withdrawing from Negotiations Link to heading
Now, regarding a significant statement: an official spokesperson for the U.S. State Department announced that the United States is stepping back from its role as a mediator in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. She stated that the U.S. will no longer serve as a mediator and that it’s time for direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv. Specifically, the quote was: “The style and methodology of our approach to this issue are changing. We will not be mediators; we will not rush across the globe in an instant to moderate meetings.”
That’s one position. The European Union responded to this statement, noting that the White House is considering exiting the negotiation process because it is too difficult. The EU is now preparing an action plan in case the U.S. indeed abandons Ukraine and lifts part of the sanctions against Russia.
A particular feature of the current 47th U.S. administration is this constant swinging—up, down, right, left. The so-called negotiation process, which can only conditionally be called negotiations because it’s unclear who is negotiating with whom—sometimes it feels like Ukraine is at war with the United States. Because the negotiations seem to be between Ukraine and the U.S., or Russia and the U.S., so it’s hard to even call them negotiations.
So, just now there was a statement from the State Department saying that the U.S. will no longer be a mediator. And immediately after, there was a statement from U.S. Vice President Vance, who said that the United States will continue peace negotiations regarding Ukraine over the next 100 days.
In short, this is the kind of rubber-deadline policy Trump is running. His position is like that of the donkey from the Winnie the Pooh cartoon, with a pot and a balloon—going in and out. And so does the U.S. President: the United States goes in and out of the negotiation process, with about the same level of effectiveness as the donkey.
Trump Renames Memorial Day to Victory Day Link to heading
And here’s another important detail, in my opinion, that reflects what’s happening in the 47th U.S. administration. It’s Trump’s statement regarding the celebration of May 8th. Trump has declared two dates—November 11 and May 8—as Victory Days in World War I and World War II, respectively. Previously, well—just to clarify—these two days had different meanings. November 11 was Veterans Day, not a celebration, and it was generally not treated as such. Now, it will be celebrated. May 8 was a day of remembrance, but definitely not Victory Day. Now, it is officially Victory Day.
Here’s a quote from Trump: “I am renaming May 8 as Victory Day in World War II, and November 11 as Victory Day in World War I.” Furthermore, Trump declared that the United States contributed far more than any other country to victory in World War II. Quote: “Many of our allies and friends observe May 8 as Victory Day.” It’s worth noting that Victory Day is actually a Russian tradition held on May 9, and May 8 is not really celebrated as Victory Day—it’s a remembrance day. But then Trump states: “It was us—we did more for victory in World War II than any other country. Incomparably more. Today I declare May 8 as Victory Day in World War II and November 11 as Victory Day in World War I. We won both wars. No one even came close to us in strength, bravery, and military skill. But we no longer celebrate anything, because we no longer have leaders who know how to do it. It’s time to start celebrating our victories again.”
And then Trump added: “We are a nation that bought the Panama Canal, won two world wars, sent a man to the moon, and brought communism to its knees.” End of quote. Well, what can I say? He hasn’t even met with Putin yet. Right.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
So, before moving on to your questions, I want to inform you that today is Friday, and we have our traditional meeting with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. At 19:00, we’ll also sum up the week’s results. We’ll discuss all these events—the deal, Trump’s negotiating position, and so on. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.
Can an Atheist Win a Presidential Election Link to heading
So, Ivan Goncharuk asks: What do you think—can a presidential candidate, who openly identifies as an atheist, win a presidential election, even if in every other respect they are the best candidate—for example, in a European country, the U.S., or Ukraine?
As for Ukraine, I don’t know. I’m not sure. But I think—again, let’s dot some i’s here. If a politician running for office emphasizes this—if they highlight their atheism as a key part of their identity, as in a militant atheist—then, of course, they have no chance. If a person says that faith is a private matter and tries not to emphasize it, then I think in Ukraine, perhaps, there is a chance.
As for the United States, there is absolutely no chance. In Poland, for example, also no chance. I think in Italy as well, atheists have no chance—someone who openly identifies as an atheist. But in some countries—I don’t know, this would require separate research—I can’t say off the top of my head. I think maybe in the Baltic states, there could be a chance, where it wouldn’t be a significant determining factor. Possibly in Scandinavian countries too, again, as long as it’s not emphasized.
But in countries like the U.S., Brazil, and others where religiosity is a significant factor, the chances are practically nonexistent.
Does the Civilian Use of Military Technologies Justify War Link to heading
Question from V. (just the letter V as a nickname).
There was a reply to a comment about the war, killing, and all the poverty and suffering it brings. War, like laziness, is said to drive progress. Sneakers were invented to help soldiers run more comfortably, but now they are widely used by civilians. The internet was created in 1969 to help military communication, and now it’s a vital part of civilian life. So—does that justify war?
Of course not, it doesn’t justify war. What it does confirm is the fact that a significant portion of a state’s resources go toward war and the military-industrial economy. Naturally, in this context, many things developed to meet military needs end up being used in the civilian economy. But it’s important to note that this is not a universal rule. For example, in the United States, many things developed for the military are later repurposed for civilian use. In Russia, however, such conversion is almost nonexistent. That’s a specific characteristic—a feature of the system. So yes, conversion and dual-use processes exist in the U.S., and not just there, but not in Russia, for instance. That’s also part of the picture.
So no, it certainly doesn’t justify war. If humanity didn’t spend insane amounts of money on war, all these innovations could have been developed much more productively. The fact that some discoveries are a side effect of military spending is true. But that in no way means that if that money had been spent on the civilian sector instead, the results wouldn’t have been even more impressive.
Methodology of the Religion Animal Project Link to heading
So, a question from Norka.
A question about the hypothetical project Religion and its research component. In your view, what methodology could be used here? What would be the method and subject of research, even if hypothetical for now? This question isn’t idle for me—it’s for personal use. I’ve developed principles for such interaction: every living being, anything that shows signs of life, has the right to exist. Bypass, step over, or move it to safety. Remove it from danger. And so on.
Well, I—honestly, it’s not yet clear to me exactly what should be studied. But a great many things definitely need to be studied, because the approach itself is valid. The idea of animal rights, like any expansion of humanism, naturally includes a huge number of contradictions. Some of these contradictions are often framed in caricature by people asking provocative questions, like someone recently asked—how can you support animal rights and still eat animals? I’ve explained in detail how that contradiction is resolved.
Or, for example, the claim that if you defend animal rights, then you must also defend the rights of tapeworms, mosquitoes, microbes, etc. Again, there are lots of research topics here. First of all, there’s the question of when and what specific rights animals have—at what level on the evolutionary ladder phenomena such as pain, suffering, empathy, and other traits arise, which in turn give rise to certain rights. That’s the research component.
Other directions in this research should focus on how humans, by refraining from certain types of interaction with nature, might still have complex effects. Essentially, this is a large research project on the relationships between one biological species—us—and all others. So it includes general questions, legislative issues, and various kinds of relationships with different animal species. It undoubtedly requires study.
Is it acceptable to call Solovyov a dickhead? Link to heading
So, a question from Ilya. In one of the debates with my opponents, I was accused of being uncultured. Or rather, of being rude in society. Specifically, when I referred to Solovyov by name — that is, well, as a dickhead. My counterpart argued that one shouldn’t stoop in rhetoric, even if the person in question might deserve it. I countered by saying that in this case, being well-mannered means calling things by their proper names. So the question is: In your opinion, where does tact end and hypocrisy begin? Is there a clear line between them, and how important are the circumstances? It’s obvious that Russia today is a Putinist Reich, not some hybrid authoritarian regime with democratic elements.
Dear Ilya! Here, I think that, first of all, the answer depends on the situation you’re in — what kind of arena this type of discussion is taking place in. That is, who you’re among. If it’s an academic discussion, then of course, no name-calling or offensive remarks are acceptable. If it’s a casual conversation — why not? I mean, I’m not thrilled about distorting names and surnames. But if there’s a certain established practice — for instance, the nickname “Nightingale Droppings” for Solovyov and so on — then I don’t see anything terribly wrong with that. I don’t consider that to reflect poorly on me or anything like that. As for calling things by their names — yes, I truly believe that’s important. I don’t see any problem with it. And yes, Russia today is a Putinist Reich, not some hybrid authoritarian regime with elements of democracy. Well, that’s just the truth. Why call truth an act of aggression?
Why hasn’t the U.S. made a deal with Russia yet? Link to heading
A question from Kirill. Regarding the deal — do you think it’s possible that Ukraine simply got lucky in securing it, based on its geographic location? That the Americans sat down, calculated the costs, finally looked at a map showing Russia and Ukraine, and realized where it made sense to dig in? That they were digging where it’s cold, when they could be digging where it’s warm, and so on? Could it be that they understood the Russians would definitely betray them and steal everything? Or even worse — leak all the technological secrets, scientific developments, and equipment to China and Iran? That’s Kirill’s first question.
Well, I can say right away that I don’t think that’s the main reason. It might have played a role to some extent, but the main issue lies elsewhere. The key point is that, despite all of Trump’s sympathies toward Putin, it’s clear that he still relies on the broader sentiment. The United States of America is still a NATO member. Despite Trump’s efforts, the U.S. remains a country that supports Ukraine, and the deal with Ukraine stems directly from that. On the other hand, entering into a similar kind of agreement with Russia would undoubtedly provoke very strong protests. Let’s just say that, for now, that would cross the red lines that even Trump still observes. So I think that’s the main reason.
Does Trump envy Putin? Link to heading
And Kirill’s second question: Is it reasonable to assume that Trump’s behavior is driven by envy of Putin? That to outdo Putin, one must simply copy everything he does — take control of the courts, shut down and ban independent media, call all truthful and critical information fake, constantly praise oneself, speak positively about oneself, and, of course, lay claim to other people’s lands — like Canada and Greenland.
Yes, I think that… well, elements of this are definitely present. It’s no coincidence that Trump always speaks of Putin with a certain reverence — the same goes for Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping. So yes, he obviously envies dictators, because he wants to be one himself. But so far, it hasn’t worked out. And hopefully, it never will.
Has Putin read Orwell? Link to heading
Tatyana, are you sure that Putin and his crew have read books like Orwell’s?
I don’t know. Naturally, I can’t say for certain about Putin, but many in his inner circle definitely have. It’s very curious how they themselves interpret what is essentially a behavioral blueprint. Perhaps some of them see it as a manual. Perhaps others, as often happens in such cases, think Orwell was writing about Europe, about America, and so on — but definitely not about Russia. That viewpoint does exist. So yes, people around Putin have certainly read it.
Is Trumpism a consequence of capitalism? Link to heading
Two questions from Pavel. Here’s the first one: The ability to think and act in market terms determines one’s efficiency and success in a capitalist economy. But many people struggle to leave the calculator on the desk after work and start thinking with their heart. What happens, excuse me, is the inevitable commercialization of state-forming social institutions, which are fundamentally incompatible with a market-based approach — politics, the military, ideology, and worse yet, personal relationships. And since morality, conscience, and compassion are not market factors — correct me if there’s a theory that includes these — the actions of many people, often successful in the economy, become heartless, unscrupulous, and immoral. Do you believe that this type of person forms the basis of mass support for Trumpism or fascism? Do you believe the emergence of such people is inevitable in a society with a capitalist economy? And do you believe that under certain conditions, the number of such people in a capitalist society might reach a critical, dangerous threshold, where they can impose their approach on society, and society cannot reject it through democratic means?
I’ll answer right away — it’s just that the preamble is very long, so I’ll respond directly. The point is, the concept of a moral economy — which includes notions of conscience, empathy, and trust — is a semantic field that is indeed used in economic theory. In its concentrated form, the term “moral economy” appears in historical anthropology, social history, and economics, for example, in the work of economist Alexander Chayanov. Later, the term was also used by British historian Edward Thompson, whose concept was based on the people’s own ideas of what is legal or illegal, moral or immoral. Anthropologist James Scott, in his book The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia, also explores this.
As for the general relationship between morality and economics, one can speak of the role of religion — for instance, the famous work on the role of Protestantism in the emergence and development of capitalism. The role of religion as a moral and ethical foundation of society can have a major impact on its success and prosperity, depending on which religion it is.
Now, speaking more broadly about the present day: look at philanthropy — today’s movement of the world’s richest people refusing to pass their wealth down through inheritance and instead directing most of it toward charitable causes. The wealthiest people on the planet are engaged in this — not all, but many. Giving a billion dollars to charity is clearly tied to conscience and a sense of duty — these are moral categories.
And if we go even further, a purely moral category like trust is actually the foundation of the economy. The moral economy — the economy of conscience, of duty — is profitable. So yes, morality is absolutely an economic category. A clearly economic category.
Is the war a revenge of the Ukrainian oligarchy? Link to heading
So, the second question. Well, it’s a very long lead-in. I’ll still try to get to the point: What happened in Ukraine in 2014 — the Revolution of Dignity — had a distinctly anti-oligarchic character. So the question is: to what extent do you think what’s happening to Ukraine now is a consequence of the oligarch class trying to increase its wealth? Or trying to make an example of a people who dared to rise up against the oligarchy?
Well, Pavel, when you talk about “what’s happening in Ukraine,” I don’t quite understand what you mean. What’s happening in Ukraine is war. That is the central reality in Ukraine right now. So where does this idea come from — that it’s the result of the oligarch class trying to increase its wealth or make an example of a rebellious people? There is a war going on. What public execution? Who is carrying it out?
That’s why, to me, the question itself seems… I don’t know, I guess we have different perceptions of what’s happening in Ukraine. I see a war happening there, and I don’t see anything resembling what you describe. And neither do my numerous conversation partners in Ukraine. So clearly, we’re imagining two very different Ukraines.
Closing remarks Link to heading
So, this concludes our conversation for today. Let me remind you once again that at 7:00 PM we’ll be discussing current events with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky. I think it’s going to be interesting. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian POWs. See you at 7:00 PM! Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/trx6F7LymRE