Trump decided to “punish” China for its “disrespect,” while putting everyone else on hold. The coalition of the willing and the meeting in the Ramstein format may formalize the split between Europe and the U.S.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 10. It’s 7:41 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Historical Rhyme: Referendum in Austria Link to heading
First, a small, small but rather weighty historical rhyme. On this day, April 10, 1938, a large-scale sociological experiment was conducted. It was a referendum in Austria on the Anschluss with Germany. It was held in parallel with a similar referendum in Germany. The referendum was conducted under enormous pressure from the Third Reich. And well, I won’t describe the whole situation—after all, this isn’t a history program—but overall, it had everything. There was the actual occupation of Austria by German troops, and even the format: in that dangerous piece of paper, the referendum ballot, the size of the checkbox for Anschluss was twice as large as the one against it. As a result, the published results showed that 99.73%, practically 100%, of the votes were in favor of merging with Germany, with an almost 100% turnout. If I’m not mistaken, it was 99.7%. In short, 100% turnout and 100% “yes.” Both the results and the format made it effectively a no-alternative, North Korea–style referendum.
Why do I think this large-scale sociological experiment, staged on April 10, 1938, is important? Because this was Austria, not North Korea. All the talk about some kind of genetic servility, and so on, is disproved by this referendum. Because what is Austria? Austria in 1938 was the core of the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire, one of the largest European empires before World War I. And there, well, it’s hard to claim there was some kind of genetic servility or slave consciousness. And yet, here is the result. So actually, you can say that with almost any nation, through violence and propaganda, you can do practically anything. And what’s happening now in the United States confirms this once again. So to those talking about so-called genetic slaves and the like—let’s remember this historical experiment in Austria, which ended in Anschluss. So, this isn’t an attempt to whitewash anyone or make excuses. It’s just reflections on a historical theme.
Trump Punished China for Disrespect Link to heading
Let’s return to the present day. Well, I don’t know what to make of this, but all the events—all the major events—are connected to this not-so-young organism known as, shall we say, the form of existence of protein-based bodies called Trump. This time, Trump acted as a great educator, a great disciplinarian. He did two things. First, he announced an increase in tariffs on Chinese goods from 104% to 125%. He explained this decision not with economic or political reasoning, but with disrespect. You see, respect is very important here. He said it was due to the disrespect China shows toward global markets. And this change went into effect immediately. In fact, it’s essentially a ban on trade with China. The announcement came with the following remark: Quote: “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will understand that ripping off the USA and other countries can no longer continue and is unacceptable.” So this is a disciplinary measure, you see? China was quickly sent to the corner, facing the wall—or rather, told to leave the classroom.
At the same time, Trump stated that more than 75 countries had approached the U.S. to hold talks on tariffs and had taken no retaliatory measures against the U.S. In connection with this, Trump announced he had decided to delay the introduction of additional tariffs against these countries for 90 days. In other words, a reward for good behavior: if you behave, you get a 90-day reprieve. What happens next is unknown. “We’ll see how you behave,” says Teacher Trump. As for China—well, China, having been kicked out of class for bad behavior, is not to return without a parent, Trump declared.
China is clearly not ready. Before this, Trump had said that all countries wanting to avoid tariffs should line up behind him—with the aim of kissing Trump’s, well, posterior. That’s not being discussed at the moment, but this phrase will likely be remembered. All national leaders trying to negotiate with Trump will find themselves mocked at home—with cartoons showing them kissing Trump. “Good job.” Really, an astonishingly high level of negotiation skill. The EU announced it would introduce retaliatory measures against U.S. tariffs starting April 15. I’m not sure how this ties in with the 90-day reprieve—perhaps there’ll be some kind of freeze too. These swings—I don’t know. Some are already speculating that Trump has turned this into a stunning business.
Because, you see, the prices of American and other stocks are soaring and crashing. And people who know Trump’s next moves—perhaps Trump himself—can instantly become multibillionaires by playing the market, knowing what Trump will do next. Possibly, it’s not such a crazy idea that Trump is taking advantage of this chaos. Because in this murky water, you can catch a fish big enough to make someone—maybe even himself—a millionaire.
Europe Is Not Discussing Weapons Supplies to Ukraine Link to heading
So. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury has warned Europe that if it sides with China, it will be cutting its own throat. Why exactly? Unclear. Simply because objective circumstances are pushing Europe into China’s arms. Communication between Chinese and European representatives has clearly intensified. Today and tomorrow, two events will take place in Europe. Shifting from this American madness, we move to Europe, where today and tomorrow two events will take place that, in my opinion, will formalize the split between the Old and New Worlds that is clearly unfolding.
Both events, as far as I know, are taking place in Brussels. The first meeting is today—defense ministers of the so-called coalition of the willing are gathering in Brussels. This includes not only European countries but also Canada and Australia. Around 30 countries make up this group—the coalition of the willing, or as Andrei Illarionov calls it, the Coalition of Will. It formed right after the infamous scandal in the Oval Office. These are countries that want to support Ukraine amid decreasing—or virtually nonexistent—support from Donald Trump. The United States is not part of this coalition. Most likely—and we’ll check this hypothesis today—the U.S. will not be participating. This still needs to be verified, but it’s clear that the U.S. feels out of place here and isn’t involved.
The main issue I see with this coalition is that most of the discussion centers around a mystical entity. What do I mean? Talks are circulating about a possible military contingent from the coalition of the willing—30 countries, mostly European—on Ukrainian territory. This entire military force, composed of European armies, can only be deployed under one condition: if there is no war in Ukraine at that time. But there’s a second condition too—Russia must agree to it. Otherwise, even if a miracle happens (and I do consider it a miracle) and peace is established in Ukraine this year, we all understand that Russia, Putin, will never agree to the presence of European troops in Ukraine. Naturally, in that case, all these European forces will become targets—targets Putin will consider legitimate for Russian aircraft, missiles, and drones.
In this situation, the likelihood of the coalition sending troops to Ukraine, in my opinion, is zero. So I really don’t understand what they’re talking about, but still, European leaders are eagerly discussing it. Some agree, some don’t, but the debate is mostly centered around this. In my view, this is happening instead of discussing arms supplies to Ukraine. I don’t consider myself smarter than European diplomats and defense ministers, of course, but I honestly don’t understand the reason for such lively discussion of deploying troops to a war-torn country while clearly being unwilling to enter the war themselves. A mystery.
The second event will follow. Today is the coalition of the willing; tomorrow is the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, the so-called Ramstein format. It will also take place in Brussels. And here the key issue is the glaring absence of the United States. This will likely be the first Ramstein meeting without U.S. participation. Until now, Ramstein meetings were led by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Now, his successor Pete Head clearly plans to skip this event—at least, that’s what’s been announced. And moreover—excuse me—there’s already a statement from the Pentagon that he’ll be in Panama at the time. So this will clearly be a symbolic event, effectively formalizing the rift between the U.S. and Europe regarding Ukraine.
I won’t quote everything that’s been said—it’s all more or less clear. The message is that Europe must take responsibility for events in Ukraine. The U.S. is not going to stand in for values or defend them. A lot has been said, but the message is clear: the absence of the U.S. indicates that it has no new support package for Ukraine or Europe to announce. These two events taking place today and tomorrow, I believe, will make absolutely clear the U.S. policy of non-involvement in European—and, accordingly, Ukrainian—affairs.
The U.S. Is Losing Control Link to heading
So, in addition to everything else, this whole deal around Ukraine and natural resources is increasingly coming across as an indecent proposal—one that, if refused, becomes a reason to stop helping Ukraine altogether. In other words, a partner is given an indecent offer, completely inappropriate and impossible to accept, and then, with a shrug, it’s said: “Well, in that case, that’s it. We’re done.” That’s the situation as it stands today.
Is it bad? Yes, it is bad. Is it catastrophic? No, it’s not catastrophic, because in this situation Trump, positioning himself against the whole world, demanding that everyone kiss his behind, and acting not even as a sheriff anymore, but as a teacher—well, he’s the kind of teacher that some still obey out of inertia, but others are already ready to stand up to, as China has clearly done, and as certain European countries and Canada have also signaled.
In this scenario, if we continue with the teacher analogy, it’s the case where a teacher, trying to enforce strict order, ends up completely losing control of the classroom—where the worst student becomes the main beneficiary. Because when no one is listening and no one is following the rules, it becomes the moment of the slacker, the worker bee, and so on. Informal leaders start to emerge—essentially what we’re seeing now. So Trump’s pedagogy is clearly, clearly failing.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to mention that we have two very interesting guests joining us today. At 5:00 PM, for the first time on our channel, Alexander Genis—I think it will be a very engaging conversation. And at 9:30 PM, Vitaly Portnikov, also a regular guest of ours, who always sparks interest with his sharp and, shall we say, sometimes controversial, but always compelling and vivid remarks. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.
What Will Happen to the Far East Link to heading
Question from Anton
What will happen to the Far East after the collapse of the Russian Federation?
China. Well, as we know, on Chinese government maps, the territory of the Far East—from Vladivostok to Lake Baikal—essentially the entire left bank of the Amur River, is considered Chinese territory. I believe the likelihood of the Far East being absorbed by China is becoming very, very high. Now, forecasting any further in the current climate of uncertainty would be irresponsible. But I want to emphasize again—the probability is very high. Especially since even now, China is already digesting the Far East at a fairly rapid pace. So, if the connection with Moscow is severed, this process will accelerate dramatically.
Are the Baltic States in Danger? Link to heading
Vladimir,
In your opinion, are the Baltics a risk zone? If so, in what year will direct aggression occur? With what outcomes? If not, what is Putin’s rationale for stopping, especially if appetite comes after Crimea?
Dear Vladimir, as you know, on Mondays we usually have conversations with Sergey Ivanovich Hrabskiy. He believes—and I emphasize, this is his expert opinion—that there is a possibility Putin may attack the Baltic states even before the war in Ukraine ends. Frankly, whenever I invite an expert, I generally try not to argue with them, because you hear my point of view every day. And the expert’s perspective is what matters in these cases. I simply suggest listening to the guest.
That said, I’ve expressed doubts about this particular position more than once. And in this case, I don’t fully agree with the highly respected Sergey Maratovich Hrabskiy. I don’t quite understand how Putin could launch an attack on the Baltic states before the war in Ukraine is over. I’m operating on the understanding that, as far as we know, over 90% of Russia’s actual military potential is currently being used in Ukraine—not theoretical resources, but actual ones. That means both the manpower and weapons capable of fighting are mostly tied up in Ukraine. Putin does not have a spare army for invading European countries.
So I believe that the Baltics—more precisely, let’s use the human term, the Baltic states—are definitely a risk zone. Why do I say “Baltic states” instead of “the Baltics”? Well, Kaliningrad (formerly Königsberg) is also part of the Baltics in a way. Even Saint Petersburg could be called part of the Baltics. So again, no offense to you, Vladimir—I just prefer the more accurate term.
The Baltic states are definitely a risk zone, but direct aggression will most likely come only after the war in Ukraine ends, in one form or another. Will Putin even be in a position to attack anyone after this war? Will Putin even still be around after this war? That’s a rhetorical question, because I honestly don’t have an answer. There’s just a range of probabilities.
Of course, if Putin does launch aggression against the Baltic states, the consequences would be extremely grim. It’s fairly obvious that the military potential of the Baltic states is not sufficient to withstand such aggression. However, the timing of such aggression matters. If it happens after Europe succeeds in creating a real collective security system—which is, I believe, one of the goals of the coalition of the willing—then we’ll have to see. In any case, yes, the threat is real.
On Teaching in Soviet Times Link to heading
Lesnoy Bagi? asks the question:
Igor Aleksandrovich, you taught a lot during Soviet times. In your opinion, could a Soviet person grasp terms and phenomena not embedded in communist doctrine? Or did it all just fly past like Chinese characters? And a second question…
Let me answer the first one first. You know, I taught during Soviet times at several universities, and let me explain why I’m starting with a list of them. One of them was MGIMO—actually, no, that was already in the post-Soviet period. During Soviet times, I taught at the Moscow Institute of Railway Engineers (MIIT). When I walked into the classroom, I taught in several departments—bridges and tunnels, cybernetics, automation and mechanics, computer technology—in other words, across a range of faculties, at least three if memory serves. At MIIT, I taught, as you might guess, philosophy—more precisely, Marxist-Leninist philosophy.
And I encountered something quite extraordinary there. MIIT was a kind of channel for directing gold medalists—winners of various school math competitions, brilliant young mathematicians—who, due to the infamous “fifth point” (nationality line in passports), weren’t admitted to Moscow State University’s Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics. For anyone who lived in the Soviet Union, it’s no secret that a kind of slow-burn state anti-Semitism existed. One manifestation of that was local surges of discrimination—like in the case of MSU’s Mech-Math department, where Jews, for some unclear reason, were simply not admitted. Jews could get into the journalism or biology departments, but not Mech-Math.
So what were math-obsessed gold medalists supposed to do? They were promptly told, “You don’t belong here. Go to MIIT. Here’s the address.” And so they went en masse. When I walked into a lecture hall—if I remember correctly, it was the Cybernetics department (though the Bridges and Tunnels department had a similar student profile)—I opened the class register and immediately understood it was going to be tough. I had a pretty good idea why there was such a high concentration of Jewish surnames. As you can imagine, given their experience with state anti-Semitism, all these young men and women had a very particular attitude toward Marxism-Leninism, including the Marxist-Leninist philosophy I was teaching.
This turned out to be a great training ground for me because everything I tried to say was initially met with resistance. So I built the course as an attempt at actual philosophizing—an attempt to think. I taught the history of philosophy as much as I could, arranging the classes as a kind of Socratic dialogue. Over time, I developed a friendly rapport with a number of students from MIIT, and even kept in touch with some of them for years—usually remotely, but occasionally in person.
In that environment, anything coming from communist ideology was totally rejected. I also taught at Moscow State University for a time, and that was a different experience. The student body there was more mixed—still mostly skeptical of Marxism-Leninism, but not to the same degree as at MIIT.
Lastly, I taught at the Higher Party School of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There, it was classic doublethink. On a personal level, most of the students—mainly party functionaries—were already skeptical of communist ideology by the early to mid-1980s. Over tea, they’d say as much. But in the classroom, everything had to be by the book. I even had two formal complaints filed against me by student groups for “revisionism.” Thankfully, the school’s rector, Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Shestakov—who later became a dear friend—understood what was going on and handled it appropriately.
So that’s the picture. Most students at the time viewed communist terms and concepts critically. As for terms outside communist doctrine—well, Marxism severely limited access to alternative literature, so people simply didn’t have exposure to them. In my course, I tried to teach the section “Critique of Bourgeois Philosophy” not as a critique, but as a way to introduce students to positivism, existentialism, etc., within the limits of what was possible. So yes.
On Professors’ Salaries in Soviet Times Link to heading
And the second question from Lesnoy Bagi:
What was your salary at a Soviet university? How does it compare to what you received during Putin’s time?
Well, there’s a particular nuance here. Teaching was almost never my main source of income. It was always some kind of side job for me. So I… I… I had periods when I was officially on staff, but mostly I worked by the hour. And as for the salary I got as an hourly lecturer—it wasn’t very significant for me. Mainly, it was just interesting work. So, to be honest, I don’t even remember my exact salary very well, but I do know from colleagues that in Soviet universities, compared to Russian ones under Putin, teacher salaries were definitely higher.
I know, for instance, that some of my colleagues—department heads—were earning about 500 rubles in the mid-1980s. That was a good salary. Nowadays, compared to the price index and salaries in other fields, a university lecturer’s income is significantly lower.
About Mikhail Lapshin Link to heading
So, Aleksandr Lapshin asks:
In the first convocation of the State Duma, your fellow deputy was Mikhail Ivanovich Lapshin, leader of the Agrarian faction. What do you know about this man? Could you share your opinion of him?
You know, I met Mikhail Ivanovich Lapshin even before 1993, when we both became deputies of the State Duma. It was in 1992, when I initiated a petition campaign for private land ownership. Televised debates were held at the time. I participated as a proponent of private land ownership, while Lapshin, then a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, argued the opposing view. The positions were clear—I was for private ownership of land, and Mikhail Ivanovich was against it. There was a studio audience, viewer voting, and so on. I won those debates quite convincingly—not because I was smarter or better educated than Lapshin, but because public sentiment in 1992 was full of the energy of liberation and strong anti-Sovietism. Support for private land ownership was the dominant mood. So I don’t link the outcome of that debate to any personal superiority.
Mikhail Ivanovich Lapshin was the founder and leader of the Agrarian Party of Russia—essentially the rural wing of the Communist Party (CPRF). And that wasn’t a secret; Lapshin held firmly traditional communist views. In fact, he was a member of the CPRF Central Committee Presidium while simultaneously leading another faction. In the first convocation of the Duma, the Agrarian Party almost always voted exactly as the CPRF did. It was just the communists marching in two columns.
As for personal impressions—Lapshin held staunchly Soviet, communist views, and was therefore my political opponent and antagonist. That said, he didn’t have the nastiness that Zhirinovsky had—and still has. If we’re talking about communist politicians—and Lapshin, although officially the leader of another party, was clearly a communist and a post-Soviet one nostalgic for the USSR—then within that line, he at least tried to remain a decent person. I never noticed any particular meanness in him. But I wouldn’t say we had any kind of close personal relationship. Clearly, we were ideological opponents—and that says it all.
On the Possibility of Shadow Schemes via Russia and Belarus Amid Tariffs Link to heading
Alex asks:
Question about global backstage dealings. Don’t you see a collusion between China, Russia, Belarus, and the U.S. to disrupt direct trade between China and the U.S., so that Russia or Belarus could act as intermediaries and quietly split the profits among themselves? All legal, untouchable. Tariffs over 100% for China, zero for Russia—that opens a lot of room. Trump will heroically fight to restore normal conditions for business. Putin gets shadow revenues to continue the war. Trade between China and Russia, Belarus grows. And personal capital won’t lag behind either.
Dear Alex! Well, I think you probably know—judging by your question—that I generally take a negative view of all this talk of global backstage conspiracies and conspiracy theories. In this case, I find it hard to imagine. You see, if we imagine everything you’re describing as being put into practice, then what?
There would have to be intermediated trade through Russia. But first of all, this can be detected instantly. If, as a result of China being sent to the corner by Teacher Trump, trade between China and the U.S. is simply rerouted through Russia, then U.S.-Russia trade should spike dramatically. I think you understand that this won’t happen.
How would it even look? China, for example, was selling iPhones to the U.S. before the 125% tariffs were introduced. So now, what? China sells iPhones to Russia, and Russia sells them to the U.S.? That’s absurd. It’s not going to happen. Same goes for U.S. exports to China. For instance, one of the top export items is soybeans, used as feed for China’s vast pig population. What now—all those thousands of tons of soybeans will be shipped to Russia, and then from Russia to China? I don’t know. To me, this all seems like science fiction—or at the very least, something that would be very easy to detect.
What Made Humans So Contradictory Link to heading
Alexander asks:
Humans will talk about morality and immorality for as long as they live. The moral law within each of us demands it—morality, ethics, abstract thinking on one hand, and animal instincts and needs on the other. Who or what is the creator of this dichotomy in humans? Your opinion?
I think—well, as you know, I’m a person of almost atheistic views, or more accurately, I usually call myself an agnostic. That is, I’m not ready to debate the existence of God, since I’m not personally acquainted with this character. So who created this dichotomy? I’d say no one.
As for the dichotomy itself, I believe that the most reasonable concept today that helps explain it is that the biological and social aspects of a person have formed a kind of synthesis. And that as history has progressed, we’ve seen a growing socialization of human biological traits. The contradiction between the biological and the social has been gradually smoothed out over centuries through the process by which socially advantageous traits became more desirable—more successful.
Social characteristics have come to the forefront. This is reflected in the upward movement along Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It’s also reflected in the fact that today, social regulators are becoming the primary ones. So this dichotomy is being resolved in that way—by the increasingly dominant influence of social regulation.
As for who created the dichotomy—the answer is: the historical process itself, in which the biological plays less and less of a role, and the social more and more. That’s how it looks. Though of course, there are regressions and backslides—especially in times of war, catastrophe, or social epidemics—when the biological surges back to the forefront.
What to Do If You Despise Your Surroundings Link to heading
A question from Epsilon. Epsilon writes:
I don’t know how to ask questions properly, but inside me, bells are tolling—I’m starting to despise my country, to hate it, to despise Putin, my neighbors, because one of them willingly went off to kill for money. Most of my friends have double standards about the war and the government. How can this be? What should I do? Should I just get the hell out of Russia? I can’t do anything, and I don’t know what to do.
Well. Dear colleague, whenever I’m asked deeply personal questions like this, my first response is that giving some kind of universal answer without being inside your life situation would be a cliché—and a form of disrespect toward you as a person. Because I don’t know all the inner circumstances of your life.
Of course, the easiest advice is the obvious one—leave, right? Because if you’re someone who shares views similar to mine or close to them, then living in Russia is an ongoing ordeal. Every day, you’re surrounded by hostility. It’s like living in constant enemy territory.
If leaving isn’t an option, then recommending a course of action like Alexander Valeryevich Skobov’s would be madness—that’s not fair, because people like Skobov are one in a million. That path demands personal qualities I, for one, don’t have.
So, what’s the alternative? Internal emigration. Trying to find some kind of community—online or, if possible, offline. Seeking support in books, on the internet, in personal communication, if you can find like-minded people. That’s it.
Internal emigration and endurance. There are many things you can lean on—books, friends, animals, hobbies, and so on. These are banal suggestions—but what else can one do?
Media Recommendations Link to heading
Moscow Migrant asks:
Could you recommend a selection of sources—analytics, media, Telegram channels, newsletters, anything—that in your opinion provide an adequate picture of what’s happening in the world? I’m sure you review a huge volume of information yourself, but most people don’t have time for that. For example, today at 7:40 something came out. Later I tried to go through the news myself, but the flow is massive, and filtering the important stuff without preparation is very difficult. If you know of sources that save the reader time while offering important and high-quality analysis, I’d be grateful for your recommendations.
Dear colleague, look, I won’t recommend the sources I personally review out of professional habit—that’s mostly sociological literature, which I try to follow across different countries. That’s probably not useful for general recommendations.
If we’re talking about getting the news in five minutes and being practically guaranteed not to stumble into fake information, then it comes down to a basic trio. Three sources that you can rely on, knowing you won’t be lied to. That would still be the good old Radio Svoboda, BBC, and Deutsche Welle.
Yes, that’s a particular bubble—no doubt about it. But it’s a bubble without lies. Sure, there may be some bias or limited coverage, but you won’t be deceived. You can safely drink from these wells—they won’t poison you. And you’ll find a digest of the day’s most important news.
So, if you want things fast—and it sounds like you do—those are the first sources that come to mind where you won’t be misled.
Why Europe Doesn’t Close the Sky Over Ukraine Link to heading
Svetlana asks:
Why do you think Europe doesn’t close the skies over Ukrainian cities to prevent civilian deaths? Could it be that they’re trying to weaken Russia’s military potential in this way?
Dear Svetlana, the reason is quite straightforward: European leaders are simply afraid of World War III. What does closing the sky over Ukraine mean? It means shooting down aircraft. It means shooting down missiles. It means direct participation in the war. That’s all.
I believe it would be the right thing to do. I believe the risks of a world war in this case are minimal. But the fact remains—it would be direct involvement in the war. Supplying weapons is not direct participation. Even though Russia accuses Europe and the U.S. of being involved, closing the skies would indeed be full-fledged involvement. And that’s what they don’t want—that’s what they’re afraid of.
In short, I believe it’s the wrong decision—but it is the position of European countries, and really, of the entire West.
Will Global Chaos Affect Weapons Procurement for Ukraine Link to heading
Irina Goncharenko asks:
Good evening. How will all this Trump madness affect the procurement of weapons and ammunition for Ukraine?
You’ve caught me a bit off guard, because here we’re seeing conflicting trends. On the one hand, yes, overall, it’s a plus—because, clearly, the United States is stepping back from supporting Ukraine. On the other hand, the confrontation that Trump has stirred up with Europe is bringing Europe and Ukraine closer together.
So I think that, overall, all this Trump and tariff madness does—well, I’d avoid the wording that it “benefits” Ukraine. A more accurate phrasing would be that it creates a window of opportunity for Ukraine. That’s the key distinction—“benefit” implies immediate gain, while “window of opportunity” implies potential in the future.
So I believe that this Trump-induced chaos is indeed creating a window of opportunity for Ukraine.
Is There an Agreement Between Trump and Putin to “Give Up” Ukraine Link to heading
Alex Rashkin asks:
At this point, I believe that Putin and his clique have long planned and are executing a classic criminal raider takeover scheme—of Ukraine through control of Europe, via Ukraine. The plan was originally fast, but now it’s going long-term. Putin’s goal is to force America to give up its client, handing the passenger from Trump’s authority to Putin’s authority. So everything since the Oval Office reception is part of a collusion to hand over Ukraine to Putin without losing face. They are giving it up. If that’s the case, then only the spiritual strength of Ukraine’s army, refusal to negotiate on Putin’s terms, and the resilience of its allies can guarantee a free and peaceful life. Europeans, do you agree with me, or am I wrong somewhere?
Dear Alex, I don’t think there is currently any kind of collusion between Putin and Trump. I’m not convinced of it—in fact, I believe it doesn’t exist. The only phrase I disagree with in everything you said is the idea of a “collusion to hand over Ukraine to Putin without losing face.” That, I don’t think is true.
What I do think is happening is this: Trump’s actions are being used by Putin. Putin is taking advantage of Trump. But that’s not the same as collusion. I agree with everything else you said. Again, the idea that Trump is a direct agent of Putin—I don’t think so. Nor do I think there’s any kind of direct conspiracy.
But I want to stress again: there’s a difference. There’s a distinction between Putin exploiting Trump—undoubtedly making use of his traits, his peculiarities, his distortions—and the notion that they’re in some kind of secret agreement. That image of Putin and Trump sitting together whispering and drawing up a shared plan—I don’t think that’s happening.
Why Didn’t Democrats Emphasize That Trump Is a Convicted Criminal During the Campaign Link to heading
Alex Ivanov asks:
I’m a lawyer. I absolutely don’t understand why, during the election campaign, the Democrats didn’t make a central point out of the fact that Trump was actually convicted by a jury—American citizens like everyone else. Convicted as a criminal in the porn star case on all 34 counts. Not 33—every single one. And not by a judge, but by the highest instance of justice—a jury. From every angle, he’s a criminal in many cases, and he’s only running for president to avoid going to jail. It’s so obvious—“Mommy, just don’t let me go to prison!” Why wasn’t this emphasized? It was only lightly mentioned, not forcefully, despite the blatant and incompetent—excuse me, Dugin-like—nature of the case.
Dear Alex, I think if you were following—and it’s clear you were—the debates and the Democratic Party campaign, you’d have noticed that the Democrats did try to use that argument. It just didn’t work, you see? It didn’t work.
I’m currently preparing another episode of the Trumpophrenia program, and you see, for a Trump supporter, the argument that “Trump is a criminal” simply doesn’t register. Because for them, it’s all part of a conspiracy: “They’re trying to smear our good Donald,” “It’s all corrupt courts,” “The jury was bought,” “It’s all lies.” That’s how it goes.
So this kind of messaging doesn’t land. It’s not effective. Everyone knew it—this was widely known: that he’s a convicted criminal. And the response? “So what? We like him. He’s not a criminal. You’re the liars.” That’s it. It doesn’t work, you see?
Same story with Putin. Everyone who needed to know had read the Salye Report. So what? “At least he shoots terrorists in toilets.” And here it’s the same thing—yes, Trump’s a criminal, but “everyone kisses his ass.” And that sparks a sense of national pride.
I think this feeling in the American working-class heartland is not so different from what we’ve seen in Russia. Sure, there are differences—American work ethic and all that—but politically, those deep-country instincts are strikingly similar: “He’s our guy, and they have to show him respect.” And that inflates national pride.
On Two Types of Evil in Europe Link to heading
What do you think, Igor—does Europe recognize two types of evil? Series A: fascism, which is universally accepted as absolute evil. And Series B: communist dictatorships, which are sort of not really seen as evil. That is, Stalin, Lenin, who killed millions, and the zombification of hundreds of millions over 70 years—is kind of not viewed as evil. In Europe, there are streets named after Stalin, Stalingrad, Lenin. For 25 years, Putin, 30 years of Lukashenko… well, kind of meh.
Well, dear colleague, I’m not 100% sure there’s a street named after 25 years of Putin in Europe. I’m not saying you’re wrong—I just don’t know. That needs to be fact-checked. Now, regarding your main point.
You know, even relatively recently, one might have agreed with your thesis that fascism is universally recognized as absolute evil in Europe. But that’s no longer the case. Not everyone in Europe today considers fascism absolute evil. So I would say there’s been a certain shift—a creeping sentiment of “maybe fascism isn’t so bad after all.”
For example, Alternative for Germany (AfD) is currently a leading force in Germany. And while they don’t explicitly wave Nazi slogans, there is an internal tolerance toward fascist ideas. One of AfD’s former leaders openly supported fascism and was still met with relatively tolerant public reaction. So, I can’t fully agree with your statement that Evil #1 is seen as absolutely unacceptable in Europe anymore.
Le Pen—no, she’s not a fascist in the pure sense. But her movement leans in that direction, and she enjoys massive popularity in France. So, that’s one thing.
Now, as for your main point—why is it that Stalin, Lenin, etc., aren’t perceived as total evil? The reason lies in history. The defining event of the 20th century was World War II. And in that war, the Soviet Union—Stalin’s USSR—was among the victors. After WWII, there was a huge fascination with communism and socialism. McCarthyism in America didn’t emerge from nowhere—it was a reaction, albeit an ugly one, to the dominance of pro-communist and pro-socialist sentiment in Western universities and intellectual circles.
So that’s where it all comes from—the USSR, a communist dictatorship, was an ally of the West and part of the winning coalition. Those are the roots. That’s how it all played out historically.
Despite McCarthyism, that sympathy for left-wing views was never fully extinguished. There’s another layer to it: humanism—the core value of the West—was, in many ways, co-opted by the left. Historically, the left aligned itself with empathy for the weak, the oppressed. Humanism, as interpreted through leftist ideology, contributed to the ongoing sympathy.
So, in short, all of this is tied to those historical circumstances.
Why Doesn’t Ukraine Bomb Russian Cities? Link to heading
So, Andriy Trofymenko. Dnipro, Ukraine
What do you think, why doesn’t Ukraine direct its hatred? I mean, drones on Russians to truly feel like it’s a war? It’s not cost-effective. But oh, how we wish for as many destroyed Russian cities as possible, for grief to strike as many Russians as possible. Europe? Europe won’t understand.
You know, before giving my own answers, I looked at how one of the subscribers replied to you. His name is Viktor. Here’s what he wrote: Even if we set aside moral aspects and political consequences, it’s simply irrational. Agree that Ukraine’s limited number of drones and missiles should prioritize depots, weapons storage, airfields, military units, and oil infrastructure. Residential buildings, markets, theaters — that’s barbarism. A useless waste of ammunition. I generally agree with the comment in response to your question. Viktor’s. But, dear Andriy, I want to add that the concept followed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the military and political leadership of Ukraine is, first and foremost, based on military expediency. That’s the main argument. Simply destroying — destroying residential neighborhoods in Russia doesn’t change the situation at the front in any way. Just doesn’t. That’s the first and most important point. Indeed, it’s really a waste of ammunition. And secondly — I’m not even going to consider humanitarian reasoning or anything like that. I’ll just take the rational component. Undoubtedly, a large number of civilian casualties in Russia would naturally be widely broadcast by Russian propaganda — in every possible way. Russia’s propaganda capabilities are far greater than Ukraine’s. Just compare the potential of Russia Today and Sputnik to any way of broadcasting the Ukrainian point of view to the world. Of course, it’s incomparable. And so, if what you want were to happen — I understand your desire, I do — but if what you want were to happen, I think it would lead to a serious shift in Western public opinion and, as a result, a sharp decrease in military aid — a sharp decrease. That’s 100% certain, at least. I think Ukraine’s military and political leadership understands this perfectly well.
What’s the point of elections if you have to protest right after them? Link to heading
Olga. Olga Alexeyeva.
So what’s the point of elections in America, with all its freedoms and democracy, if there are protests against the elected president almost immediately?
Well, that’s exactly what democracy is. Citizens elect their leaders — essentially hire them — and then hold them accountable. That’s perfectly normal. I don’t see any violation of democracy here.
Probability of a U.S.-Russia Military Alliance Link to heading
Nikolai.
Do you think it’s possible that in the current war in Ukraine — which many observers are calling either the Third or even the Fourth World War — there could be a situation where Ukrainian tanks, say Musk-branded Leopards, Panthers, or Challengers, are attacked from the air by Russian military aircraft of American types, like F-16s or F-35s? An unexpected twist. Is it possible? What’s the likelihood of such a twist?
Dear Nikolai! I think the likelihood of such a twist is very close to zero. Is it possible at all? What would have to be behind this twist? It would require Trump turning the United States into a direct military ally of Russia. I think — and I say this despite my own anti-Trump stance — that the probability of this happening is simply zero. Because American society is entirely on Ukraine’s side. In America, there are very few people like Elon Musk’s father, who really likes Putin. There are very few such people. Musk is an outlier, a deviation, along with his father. There are polls. I want to emphasize again that Western public opinion polls are a real reflection of sentiment. And here in America, the overwhelming majority supports Ukraine. Sure, there are a lot of people who just don’t care either way. But if you look at those who do take a side — the majority clearly favors Ukraine. And it’s just not possible. Even with all his personal control and hardline stance, Trump simply can’t go completely against public opinion. That’s why I consider such a twist impossible.
On Renaming Streets Link to heading
A question from Pushkin
Sooner or later, the dark times in Russia will pass. If we believe the poet, Russia will awaken from its slumber, and so on. Then the question of renaming streets and squares will arise, many of which today bear shameful names. In any case, I really want to believe that both things will eventually happen. Although, in the meantime, the authorities continue to honor Zhirinovsky. Putting aside outstanding figures in science and culture, and focusing only on politicians and public figures who gave their lives or are ready to give them for the bright future of their homeland — who, in your opinion, is most worthy of such an honor, besides Nemtsov, Navalny, and of course, Skobov? I’m sure you have no objections to this list, right? They are well-known and will not be forgotten. But what about those less frequently mentioned in the media? I understand this is symbolic, but it seems to me that it’s important. Or do you believe this issue is not significant? Will it be possible for the authorities in Russia to gain recognition in the West without it? Without this obvious step, in my opinion? After all, it would be like if Berlin still had a Hitler Avenue or, say, Goebbels Square. I believe a nation’s memory must be cleansed of this filth.
Dear falcon Kukushkin, I agree with everything you wrote. Fully agree. And I think this really is important. Personally, though, I probably wouldn’t take part in any renaming commissions. I don’t know, I just don’t feel close to weighing the legacy of historical figures on some kind of scale. Yes, I completely agree that Voikovskaya metro station is, frankly, a disgrace. Same with, say, Kadyrov Street. I think if I were unlucky enough to live on Kadyrov Street, I’d sell that apartment at a big loss and buy a smaller one somewhere else. Living on Kadyrov Street is unbearable, just as living… well. Again, Voikov Street — I used to love walking around Moscow, and when I realized who Kalyagin was, it made me uncomfortable. I used to stroll along Kalyagin Street — it felt strange. So yes, a kind of topographic, or rather toponymic, sanitation is needed. But this leads us into that murky issue of, “Well, was Stolypin good or bad?” Or someone else, and so on. So, to sum it up — it’s not my thing. Even though I completely agree with you. Let others handle it. That’s my ostrich policy, so to speak — stepped out of the shadows.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Alright. Dear friends, this concludes our morning stream. Let me remind you that today we have two very interesting guests. Denis at 5:00 PM and Portnikov at 9:30 PM. I believe both conversations are worth your attention. Glory to Ukraine, please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov and all Russian political prisoners, as well as Ukrainian POWs! All the best! See you at 5:00 PM. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/WiUr8REJfi8