Trump is called a deal-making maestro and a master negotiator. Here are some examples of the new dialogue style from the U.S. president and his team.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today, I am in Kyiv. It is now 07:40 in Kyiv. Today is March 10, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and in our souls.

On the Meaning of Words Link to heading

You know, lately, I keep coming across this idea. People of all kinds—not just those very Trumpists, about whom I released the third episode of my program Trumpophrenia yesterday, but even those with fairly similar views—say, “Don’t pay attention to what they say, just watch what they do.” In general, I find this idea extremely unconstructive, destructive, harmful, and simply very mistaken. Not only because “in the beginning was the Word.” Not only because we live in a world of words, a world of information, and ignoring what people say is, at the very least, a mistake.

Yes, words often conceal intentions, but that is precisely why we must learn to recognize them, to build a culture of accountability, to analyze and understand what lies behind them. Words are a crucial thing. And in fact, I want to start by discussing the words of the most important actor in today’s global politics. I mean not only Trump himself but also his team. After that, we’ll talk a bit about the actions that will inevitably follow.

Of course, actions matter, and we will definitely discuss them today. So, let’s take a look at what Trump’s team is saying and doing today.

First of all, Trump is called a deal-making maestro and a master negotiator. Here are some examples of his team’s negotiation style. I just want to quote them because I think they are relevant.

One of the key members of Trump’s team, Elon Musk, recently stated: “My Starlink system is the foundation of the Ukrainian army. If I turn it off, their entire front line will collapse.” Clearly, this statement contains a threat—how else could it be interpreted? “My system is the foundation of the Ukrainian army. I turn it off, and the entire front collapses.”

In response, Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski pointed out that Starlink for Ukraine is funded by Poland’s Ministry of Digitalization at a cost of $50 million per year. He added that even if one ignores the ethical side of making threats against a victim of aggression, if Musk’s company proves to be an unreliable provider, alternative solutions will have to be found. This was a firm but polite response.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio then joined the debate, stating that “no one threatened to disconnect Ukraine from Starlink.” But he added: “You should say thank you.” In other words—apparently, Ukraine forgot to express its gratitude. “Without Starlink, Ukraine would have lost this war long ago, and the Russians would now be at Poland’s border.” So, once again, there’s this recurring theme: say thank you. You forgot to be grateful, and you also forgot to apologize—greetings to Ramzan Kadyrov.

And finally, Elon Musk—who is, after all, just a private U.S. citizen with no official position—addressed Poland’s Foreign Minister Sikorski with the following message: “Calm down, baby.” Baby. Just like he once called the Canadian Prime Minister “a girl,” and so on. This is the kind of argumentation style we’re dealing with—the rhetoric of street toughs. This is the debate style of Trump’s team.

It Matters Who Holds the Cards Link to heading

A bit less about Trump himself and more about Trumpism—some relatively recent examples. Trump states: “I believe Putin.” He trusts Putin. “Everything is great in Russia.” Meanwhile, they are bombing Ukraine. Everything is great—except for the small issue of bombing Ukraine.

And then he concludes: “Honestly, dealing with Ukraine is harder for me because they don’t have any trump cards.” Do you see the main problem here? The cards are currently in Moscow’s hands. This is a worldview where what matters most is who holds the cards. Since Moscow has the cards and Ukraine has no winning hand, dealing with them is harder. In other words, you can negotiate with those who have leverage, and those who were dealt a bad hand—well, too bad for them.

Then he continues: “If Ukraine doesn’t want to settle, we’re leaving.”

Additionally, due to the United States restricting Ukraine’s access to intelligence data, Trump confirmed that Putin is taking advantage of this and, with apparent understanding, noted that “anyone in his position would do the same.” So, sure, Putin is an aggressor—but anyone in his place would have attacked. Putin is now exploiting the fact that Trump has put Ukraine in a disadvantageous position by essentially cutting off its intelligence access. And well, who wouldn’t?

Trump Reconsiders Borders Link to heading

And then there’s Trump’s very characteristic negotiation style with Canada. He declared that he considers the 1908 border agreement between the two countries invalid and is demanding negotiations to revise the border.

Sounds reasonable, right? The entire post-war world order is being thrown out the window because Trump has arrived and now insists on redrawing borders—something that hasn’t been questioned for 80 years.

He also demands that Canada renegotiate agreements on the distribution of water resources along the border. And that’s a whole separate story—a never-ending stream of lies and disinformation.

The Incompetence of Musk and His Team Link to heading

And here’s a very curious episode—another one of those supposedly massive expenses that Elon Musk and his brilliant teenage team have heroically exposed. These constant stories about uncovering horrific and wasteful spending…

For example, in the third episode of Trumpophrenia yesterday, I didn’t even bother bringing this up. I decided not to add yet another absurdity to the mix. But let’s talk about it now. Weinstein, with a mix of indignation, mockery, and dramatic flair, recounted this shocking discovery made by Musk’s team.

So, speaking before Congress, Trump presented an example of Musk’s effectiveness—the shutdown of an outrageous $8 million program for breeding transgender mice. Yes, really. Apparently, $8 million was being spent on breeding transgender mice. A scandal! Outrageous! And, of course, animal cruelty! But when people actually looked into it, they found that… this program never even existed. It simply wasn’t real.

What did exist was a scientific research project studying the effects of hormone therapy—including testosterone—on the development of various diseases. The program was called Transgenic Mice. Not transgender—transgenic. As in, genetically modified. A common term in medical research.

But Musk’s young Red Guards saw the word transgenic, fixated on their obsession with transgender issues, and immediately decided it was about transgender mice. Outrage ensued, and the program was shut down.

This all reminds me of Putin’s mocking rants about transgenders, transformers, and so on.

In the end, this is just one example of how effective Musk’s loyal enforcers really are. They are shutting down programs left and right, firing employees en masse. This entire purge Musk has unleashed in the U.S.—with Trump’s full backing—deserves a separate, thorough investigation. What exactly have they done? Who have they fired? What programs have they shut down? This will all require serious scrutiny.

Trump Has No Intention of Resuming Support for Ukraine Link to heading

Now, regarding the suspension of aid—whether this suspension is temporary or permanent is a separate issue in itself. On this topic, NBC News has published an investigation suggesting that Trump has no intention of resuming military aid to Ukraine, even after the signing of the mineral resources agreement.

They cite sources from within Trump’s circle, who claim that in private conversations with his aides, Trump has made it clear: the mere signing of this agreement will not be enough to restore military aid or intelligence sharing.

According to Trump, the key condition is that Zelensky must change his stance on peace negotiations and be willing to make territorial concessions. What kind of concessions? Presumably, whatever Putin demands—because, after all, Putin holds the cards, while Zelensky has none.

Additionally, sources close to Trump indicate that he wants Zelensky to possibly leave office. This, of course, is not exactly breaking news. Right now, the attacks on the Ukrainian president are coming from all directions, as aggressively as possible.

So, we’ve talked about the words—now let’s discuss the actions.

The U.S. Is No Longer an Ally Link to heading

Now, let’s talk about actions. It increasingly feels like the United States has so drastically changed its global stance that neither Europe—let alone Ukraine—should still consider the U.S. an ally. And perhaps this is already a fait accompli.

Of course, European leaders are still trying to steer the U.S. back onto its previous course, still viewing it as an ally, deeply afraid of losing the American security umbrella. But there are serious doubts that this is even possible. It seems increasingly evident that, if not an outright alliance with Russia, then at least a serious partnership with Russia is a priority for Trump.

His approach doesn’t just involve distancing the U.S. from Ukraine—it goes further. There is a clear intent not only to abandon Ukraine but also to reduce it to a geopolitical irrelevance. Trump is clearly uncomfortable with Ukraine as an independent actor on the world stage—too defiant, too unwilling to fall in line.

And it’s not just about Zelensky personally. Regardless of whether there are elections, whether Zelensky remains president or not, any Ukrainian leader would be inconvenient for Trump. The idea that Ukraine could be led by a politician who obediently swallows whatever Trump passes down via Putin is simply unrealistic.

At this point, I understand that sharp rhetoric isn’t necessary—neither from European politicians nor from Ukrainian leaders. Bold declarations and open confrontations would be counterproductive. But what is undeniably clear now—for both Ukraine and Europe—is that they must start considering their security without the United States.

This evening, at 8:00 PM, I will be speaking with Serhiy Ivanovych Hrabskiy about the possibilities of a new European-Ukrainian security system without U.S. involvement. I fear this discussion is more relevant than ever. Of course, having the U.S. on board would be preferable. It would be more comfortable. But for the next four years—or at least two, though realistically four—there will be no Euro-Atlantic civilization as we knew it. Instead, Europe must start thinking of itself as an independent civilization.

The upcoming midterm elections in Congress may slightly limit Trump’s capabilities, but they won’t change the overall trajectory. That’s why, for the foreseeable future, Europe will need to define its own path—without relying on Washington.

Politically, the U.S. Is No Longer Part of European Civilization Link to heading

Has the United States ceased to exist as part of this civilization? Yes, the people remain. Yes, the culture remains—it is undeniably part of the Euro-Atlantic world. But politically, the United States can now be considered a severed limb. That’s the reality.

Now, it’s just a matter of calculating the available resources. And from my own observations, I can say that European resources—combined with Ukraine’s exceptionally strong army—are more than substantial.

All this talk that Ukraine has no army left, that there’s no one left to fight—what nonsense! Who, then, is holding the front? If Ukraine supposedly has no army, then why hasn’t the Russian military managed to capture a single regional capital? Ukraine still has a massive army—one of the strongest in the world today.

And beyond that, there are enormous resources. One of the key factors in this war is the drone force—an entirely new dimension of warfare. Ukraine is arguably leading the world in this domain, if not outright holding the top position.

As for Europe, there is this ingrained notion that Europe has no army, no military potential. But it’s time to actually do the math. The emerging hypothesis is that if Ukraine’s existing military power—including its army of drones—is combined with Europe’s material, financial, and defense-industrial resources, the result could be a formidable defensive alliance.

And it seems that this is precisely the direction in which Europe is now moving.

On the Situation in Syria Link to heading

I haven’t said anything today about the very serious developments unfolding in Syria—a situation that essentially amounts to an Alawite uprising, with a significant number of casualties. I haven’t mentioned it because, frankly, I have nothing to add beyond the obvious.

I believe we should invite an expert in the near future. However, I have many reservations about the experts I’m familiar with. Ideally, we need someone who does not take a one-sided position.

This discussion is ahead of us, and I consider it extremely important. What happens in the Middle East reverberates across the entire world, and Syria remains one of the region’s key countries. But that’s a conversation for another time.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Before moving on to your questions, I want to remind you that today at 20:00, we will be joined by Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy to discuss the current situation on the front lines and in the surrounding areas. Given the circumstances, I believe this conversation will be highly important.

So, Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy at 20:00. And now, let’s move on to your questions.

About Lyubarsky Link to heading

A question from Elena Komova.
I really need to know your opinion on what the not-so-respected Lyubarsky was doing in Ukraine. He went to the front, lived in Kharkiv, made some statements. And the fact that the last dialogue with Petro Krupa got 1,000 likes just finished me off. Especially the comments under the broadcast. To sum up—why the hell is Lyubarsky in Ukraine, who brought him there, and for what purpose?

Well, the story of his visit—Lyubarsky in Ukraine—is well known, so I won’t repeat it. A certain dialogue emerged with Vitaly Portnikov, supposedly a debate challenge. Then Lyubarsky arrives, and Portnikov refuses. I think Portnikov made a mistake by even initiating this conversation with Lyubarsky in the first place. You see, I’ve hosted debates on our channel. Lyubarsky—well, I can just say that we saw this whole process from the inside. And you see, arguing with Lyubarsky… There’s a great story by Shukshin called Srezal (Cut Down). The main character, Gleb Kapustin, was skilled at “cutting down” visiting celebrities—a semi-literate collective farmer who knew how to take them down a notch. Well, Lyubarsky is pretty much the same type. Yes, he presents arguments on the surface and so on, but a real dialogue with him is absolutely impossible. I realized this firsthand when we held debates on our channel—just observing the way he approaches discussions. But that’s a separate issue. So, I believe Portnikov simply made a mistake by engaging with Lyubarsky from the start.

As for why Lyubarsky is in Ukraine—well, he has the right to be. Why not? The Security Service of Ukraine deemed his presence non-threatening to the country. So, fine. Ukraine lets all sorts of people in. For example, as far as I understand, Harry Tabach is in Ukraine right now. So in this case, I’m not going to substitute myself for the Security Service of Ukraine. If they consider it safe, then it’s safe—everything’s fine.

Freedom of speech, by the way. Those who scream at the top of their lungs that Ukraine is a dictatorship—I get it, any wartime restriction of rights may seem like dictatorship. But as they say in such cases: go to Russia yourself, and you’ll see what a real dictatorship looks like.

About Heydar Jemal Link to heading

A question from Sasha S.
I’m interested in your opinion on Heydar Jemal as a person and a thinker. How well did you know him?

You know, dear colleague, I met him twice. We were acquainted, though not closely, because our worldviews are so drastically different that a close acquaintance was unlikely. I met with him for a specific reason—it was my initiative. After completing a large, comprehensive study on the Jewish people in Russia, I had an incredibly ambitious idea to conduct research on the Islamic world. A wildly ambitious idea, of course, but I thought it had a chance of being realized. I met with Heydar Jemal as someone who might be inspired by this idea. I was hoping for his support.

I can say right away that we met twice and discussed the concept of the research. I believe the conversation was quite productive, but nothing came of it beyond that. We didn’t even take the first step. Jemal had promised to arrange some contacts with the religious leadership of Azerbaijan so that we could start the research there. But in the end, nothing happened. It became clear that the Islamic world, so to speak, did not want to let me in. Even though there seemed to be some potential interlocutors, they evidently decided against it. They likely feared that the research would not be complimentary but objective—and this objectivity was unwelcome. So our collaboration didn’t lead to anything constructive.

That said, I found talking to him interesting because he had completely different views. As for how I regard him—as a personality, he was intriguing and striking. But as a thinker? Well, he had a very problematic political background. We know that at one point, along with Dugin, he joined that exotic group, the “Black Order of the SS”—an openly extremist organization. He was also a member of the Pamyat society. He was a peculiar figure, representing a fusion—or rather, a synthesis—of Islamism and leftist political views, a highly explosive mix. He was a revolutionary, though I wouldn’t call him a terrorist. A spiritual terrorist, perhaps. But he certainly justified violence—he not only supported jihad but also defended terrorists. His views were strongly inclined toward extremism—both leftist and Islamist. This combination made for a particularly volatile ideology.

At the same time, Heydar Jemal was a deep thinker. Despite his rigid anti-Israel stance, I wouldn’t go so far as to call him an outright antisemite. He was, in some sense, a proponent of uniting Jews, Christians, and Muslims—an advocate of the idea of a singular Abrahamic religion, which, in his view, carried the spirit of freedom. Before meeting him, I read some of his works, and one of his core ideas was that Moses challenged Pharaoh, and this struggle continues to this day. It’s hard to call such ideas antisemitic. However, he was strongly opposed to Israel—he held very negative views of it. He passed away, if I recall correctly, about ten years ago.

Some consider him an antisemite, and indeed, he did make some antisemitic statements. But at the same time, he was deeply invested in the Abrahamic idea of freedom, which, undeniably, has its origins in Judaism. One thing is certain—he was staunchly anti-liberal.

In general, he held views entirely alien to me, yet he was a fascinating figure. A vivid personality, no doubt. But I never intended to debate with him—it would have been pointless. For a meaningful debate, you need at least some common ground. Perhaps his notion of striving for freedom could have been such a foundation. But there are too many different opponents out there to spend one’s life arguing with them all—especially when a debate with Heydar Jemal was unlikely to lead anywhere.

Is China’s Attitude Toward the War in Ukraine Changing? Link to heading

A question from Ilya
Do you think China’s attitude toward the war in Ukraine is changing in light of the growing closeness—essentially an alliance—between the U.S. and Russia? Surely Chairman Xi remembers the humiliation from the Americans when, despite China’s public protests, Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. And the current policy of the new old President Trump is quite aggressively directed against the Eastern superpower. Is a rapprochement between China and the European Union possible?

It is happening. It is not just possible—it is already taking place. China, without a doubt, is filling this space, especially considering Trump’s anti-European policies. Just as the effective dismantling of America’s soft power strategy created a vacuum, China has naturally moved in to occupy it. So, to answer your question—do I think rapprochement is possible? I believe it is not only possible, but already underway.

About Trump and His Pre-Election Views on the War Link to heading

Here are a few questions from that bastard Jones.
The first $100 million question, as Jones puts it: Do you really believe that when Trump ran for president, as you said, he had no idea what he was getting into? That he didn’t understand what it meant to solve the problem of war? You claim that Trump only started to realize after being elected that the idea of peace negotiations was unfeasible. But before the election process itself, he didn’t grasp this seriously? Do you truly believe that?

Yes, I truly believe that. I see it. I see it because, you see, Trump is a person who very easily makes campaign promises without thinking about the consequences. His goal is to win the election. He won. After that, he started figuring things out. And it turned out to be difficult. I think he will eventually come to the conclusion that it’s impossible.

His utterly irresponsible, reckless proposal for peace in the Middle East—when he suggested relocating 2 million Palestinians—proves that he genuinely doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. I really do believe this. It’s not just an opinion—I simply see it. I have no other way to explain what’s happening.

The Difference Between “Trump Was Recruited” and “Trump Was Bought” Link to heading

The second question from that bastard Jones.
Given that you constantly belittle and insult me.

I don’t recall ever belittling or insulting you.

Explain the difference between “Trump was recruited” and “Trump was bought” as you understand it. For me, this is a huge difference. Your perspective is important—please clarify.

The difference is obvious. I’m not sure whether Trump was recruited or bought. I think there’s another explanation for his behavior. But in this case, the distinction is clear.

If Trump was recruited, then he would be a documented agent of the KGB or FSB. That means he would have a formal relationship with these organizations. Recruitment involves a person submitting a written statement to the FSB expressing a willingness to cooperate. After that, a file is created for him, where all reports are collected. There would be a payroll record detailing how much money was transferred to him and so on. This is one kind of relationship.

Being bought is something else—it could mean he was given certain favors or financial incentives without formal recruitment. The difference is clear.

I’m not sure if Trump was recruited or bought—I have no such evidence. Although, of course, anything is possible. But I’m not very convinced by the numerous investigations being published, including those by former KGB officers. It’s all unsubstantiated, you see?

Moreover, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that before the FSB archives are opened, they will set up a few traps for the regime’s opponents. They could fabricate false files—removing real agents from the records and creating fake dossiers to discredit today’s opposition. I don’t think that would be difficult at all.

So when this regime finally collapses, we’ll see plenty of interesting things. I wouldn’t be surprised if some carefully planted “bombshells” are used against its enemies, while the records of real agents are simply destroyed. Frankly, I can’t see any other scenario. The only alternative would be if they simply don’t have enough time to do it. That’s the only way.

But I have no doubt that when the collapse comes, some very interesting things will be happening inside the Lubyanka building.

About Oxxxymiron Link to heading

So, that bastard Jones is quite active today. The question is—how?
Well, this is for a top-class journalist. Thanks. Inspired by the investigation into Oxxxymiron and Yevgeny Levkovich’s interview with a journalist. How persistent should a real journalist be in digging through dirty laundry, ignoring all other factors, just to highlight only one side of an investigation? And what’s most incorrect, in my opinion, is disregarding the era in which the described events took place. As you mentioned in the context of evolution, the conditions for the origin of life cannot be recreated. The same applies here. The accusers fail to realize that at the time of the events described in the investigation, such things were almost considered normal. But as I understand it, the investigation concerns interactions with minors. I don’t quite remember when exactly this happened. If I understood the question correctly… Then Jones continues: I don’t know how to formulate the question more clearly—something like, is it even real journalism to describe all the dirty details? But I think you’ll get the idea. For some reason, Prosecutor Skuratov immediately comes to mind.

No, there’s no need for that comparison. Because the Skuratov case was a Putin-orchestrated setup—it’s an entirely different story. Sorry, but that was an assignment from Yeltsin’s inner circle. I don’t know if Yeltsin himself directly instructed Putin—who was head of the FSB at the time—but it was a clear directive from Yeltsin’s family to take down Skuratov, who had begun investigating them. The goal was simply to frame him. And yes, indeed, Skuratov was lured into an FSB-controlled brothel, filmed, and so on. That was a personal accomplishment of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

I don’t see how this relates to the Mironov case. I’m not deeply familiar with the story, so I can’t judge its credibility or whether there’s a possibility of defamation. I simply don’t know. But the fact that this issue is being investigated is, in my opinion, very important. Because if I understand correctly, this is a widespread problem—a serious issue, especially in today’s world of social media. The remote grooming of minors via social networks has become a large-scale phenomenon. It’s a serious problem that can ruin a person’s life for years.

So I don’t believe journalists should ignore this topic. It’s an important issue. In general, I think it’s a good thing that journalists have raised awareness of the problem—it matters. And just because there’s a war going on and there are terrible wartime crises doesn’t mean we should ignore everything else. If you have the capacity to tackle this issue, do it. I support that.

I personally didn’t have the time or energy to thoroughly investigate this particular case—so, forgive me for that.

On Musk’s Statement About Empathy Link to heading

Viktor, good evening.
Musk’s statement that empathy is a weakness of Western civilization is so absurd that it can only be compared in scale to his space projects. Empathy—the ability to understand another person’s emotional state—is not only a moral trait but also one of the most important economic concepts, if not the primary tool of humanity in the development of commodity production. Then Viktor goes on to argue that the production of goods is based on the prior understanding of people’s needs, and without empathy, this is impossible. A misjudgment of needs leads to bankruptcy and the collapse of a producer. The necessity of predicting societal demand for products stimulates the development of empathy. And so, Musk criticizes Western society for possessing one of the very traits that allowed it to reach its current level of development—both in Europe and in America. That Musk himself may have some issues with empathy is easy to believe, looking at the design of one of Tesla’s latest models. And so on. What do you think?

I agree. The functionality of empathy—setting aside its humanitarian aspect and looking purely at its functional role in human society—is obvious. Social Darwinism, in reality, has led societies built on its principles to disappear rather quickly. Meanwhile, societies that embraced empathy, solidarity, mutual aid, and cooperation managed to survive and persist.

So, for me, the functional role of empathy is absolutely clear.

Will Russia Attack After a Truce? Link to heading

Vladimir Savoysky.
Based on what you said yesterday, Russia will inevitably attack Ukraine again, taking advantage of its reduced army. But you can’t deny that the buildup of forces near the border doesn’t happen overnight—it’s impossible to hide, as we saw in the months leading up to February 2022. And you can’t deny that Putin avoids mass mobilization, preferring to buy soldiers for ever-increasing sums. After a truce on his terms, he won’t be able to keep such a massive contract army without active warfare—some of it will have to be disbanded.

At the same time, if the war stops, Ukrainian engineering units will be able to build strong fortifications along the entire frontline, similar to those in Maryinka, Avdiivka, and Udar. Organizationally, Ukraine could develop a mobilization system similar to Switzerland’s or Israel’s, where tens of thousands of trained soldiers—though no longer on active duty—could be redeployed within days. This would counter your argument about Russia’s ability to quickly overrun Ukraine and provide a viable alternative to the nearly inevitable lowering of the draft age to 18 and the endless bloodshed with no end in sight.

Dear colleague, I was speaking about a very simple reality. If Ukraine reduces its army to 60,000 soldiers, a sudden attack could leave it unable to respond in time. You simply wouldn’t be able to redeploy quickly enough. Do you understand the logistics of rapidly expanding a 60,000-strong force into at least 200,000? You wouldn’t make it in time.

If Ukraine agrees to all of Putin’s demands, it will cease to exist. That much is obvious to me. Your argument does not convince me.

About the Democrats’ Plans Link to heading

Igor Gladky. A question from my namesake.
Could it be that the Democrats are simply waiting for Trump and his team to dig themselves into a deeper hole, making it easier to take him down with greater public support—regardless of who suffers in the meantime? But that’s just how they are, all cynics.

I don’t think the Democrats have such a calculated plan—to just wait for Trump to collapse on his own. No, I believe what we’re seeing is the result of a lack of leadership and a deep crisis within the Democratic Party.

Dear namesake, we focus so much on the problems within the Republican Party because, at this point, they’ve become a problem for all of humanity. But let’s ask: who is the leader of the Democratic Party right now? Specifically, who?

When it comes to a political movement, there has to be a leader who articulates its message. Kamala Harris? Biden? Who is the actual leader of the Democratic Party right now—someone who can step up and address the real issues? Someone who can effectively challenge Trump on a national level?

Trump’s approval rating is falling, but Biden’s—and Kamala Harris’s—is dropping even further.

About the Pro-Ukrainian Demonstration in Brussels Link to heading

Zurab from Georgia.
Recently, there was a pro-Ukrainian demonstration in Brussels. Among the many Ukrainian flags, there were also flags of other countries and peoples—Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ichkeria, Poland. The EU flag was there too. But the blue-and-white Russian flag was absent. I know Kasparov and Ponomarev actively support this flag, but it wasn’t visible. This flag doesn’t seem to be popular. What do you think about this? Maybe it should be more actively promoted among Russians who oppose the Chekist imperial Russia?

You know, dear colleague, I think that, in general—well, a flag is a symbol. The question is: a symbol of what? And the real issue is how active and influential the segment of the Russian emigration you’re referring to actually is. That’s the real problem.

It’s not just about displaying the flag more often. The question is: what does this flag represent? And at the moment, it’s clear that those who advocate for this flag as a symbol of Russian opposition simply don’t have significant influence. Unfortunately.

I’m part of this opposition as well, and I understand that our influence is quite limited. And since this flag is merely a symbol of that movement, it naturally reflects the same level of influence.

Can the American Public Be Turned Against Ukraine? Link to heading

A question from Margarita.
Do you think most Americans don’t care about Ukraine? It seems to me that Trump keeps pushing the idea that Ukraine is just some rebellious, obscure country far away. And why, after all, should American taxpayers’ money go to support it? I even feel like a large portion of Americans might struggle to pinpoint Ukraine on a map. But the price of gas and groceries—that’s something the average American definitely cares about more.

Dear Margarita, I have nothing to argue with here. There are two factors at play—one constant and one variable.

The constant is obvious: Americans, like people in most normal countries, are more focused on domestic issues. They care about gas and food prices, pensions, healthcare, and security. That’s what normal people in a normal country prioritize. This is the constant.

The variable is the perception of Ukraine. Clearly, the winning political force in the U.S. influences public opinion to some extent. The shift toward declining support for Ukraine among Americans is a direct result of the fact that Trump and his team are currently dominating the narrative. And you are absolutely right—your previous question touched on the Democrats’ lack of activity. They have indeed gone quiet, which allows the Trump camp to shape public opinion largely unchallenged.

On Forced Emigration and the Language Barrier Link to heading

Stanok—who is a sponsor of our project and channel, for which we are very grateful—has two questions.
The first is about forced emigration. How easy has it been for you to integrate into life in your host country? Are cultural and language barriers significant? Have you encountered xenophobia toward yourself on the street or in the press?

I can say right away that the nature of my stay in Lithuania is such that I spend almost 24 hours a day in the same state I am in now—working and communicating online. I rarely leave the house; that’s just how my life is structured. Maybe I’d like it to be different, to spend more time walking around beautiful Vilnius. But as things stand, I am primarily engaged in my work, in conversations with you, in discussions with experts, Ukrainians, and others fighting against the fascist regime. That’s where I am integrated. But in terms of life in Lithuania itself, real integration hasn’t happened, despite my long stay here.

As for cultural and language barriers, they aren’t an issue for me at all. People here either speak at least some Russian or English, so there are no communication problems.

Xenophobia? I have never encountered it. And judging by what I see, it simply doesn’t seem to exist here. Overall, of course, the general attitude toward Russians isn’t great, but I haven’t personally experienced any incidents. Quite the opposite—since I am relatively active not only on this channel, I often get recognized. Taxi drivers, people on the street—they recognize me and express their support. So, no, there’s no xenophobia.

On the Politics of Eastern European Countries and the Upcoming Elections in Poland Link to heading

And the second question from our channel sponsor, Nik A.
Are you interested in the politics of Eastern European countries, including the Baltics and Poland? How deeply? Could a Donbas-like scenario theoretically unfold there, given that NATO practically no longer exists? Can you give advice on whom to vote for in the upcoming presidential elections in Poland?

As for the last question—I’m not entirely sure I’m in a position to give voting advice. What I do know about the presidential elections in Poland is that, first and foremost, one should vote for a candidate who has at least some realistic chance of winning.

From what I know about the candidates—and this is a very amateur, surface-level opinion—the most preferable option seems to be Rafał Trzaskowski from the Civic Coalition. His views as a liberal conservative are relatively close to mine, and he doesn’t seem like the worst choice. But again, I could be mistaken—this is just a superficial assessment.

Based on the public opinion polls I’ve been following, he currently leads with around 40% support. However, the elections are still some time away—I believe they are in June or July, though I don’t remember the exact date—so things could change. But for now, he is the clear frontrunner.

Regarding Eastern European politics in general, I do follow it, though not in great depth. As for the possibility of a Donbas-like scenario, I think it is highly unlikely—almost impossible. Russian aggression is always a threat, of course, but an exact repeat of the Donbas scenario in these countries seems unrealistic.

About Germans and the Alternative for Germany Party Link to heading

Lenin AI.
How can one clearly explain to Germans living in Germany and voting for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) that their lives won’t improve if the party comes to power? Or maybe they will? I’m talking about native Germans from Western Germany who have no connection to the USSR. They are against Putin and support Ukraine, but domestic policy matters more to them, so they choose AfD. Their arguments:

First of all, as far as I know, AfD has far less support in Western Germany. It’s primarily an issue in Eastern Germany. But of course, there are people in the former West Germany who vote for AfD as well.

Their arguments: migrant lawlessness (as they see it), where criminals are not deported even after committing offenses; the shutdown of nuclear power plants; economic decline; the general threat of Islamization. They feel that the government does not protect the rights of ordinary white heterosexual people, who are still the majority in the country, but instead prioritizes the rights of migrants and transgender individuals while focusing on imaginary problems and ignoring real ones.

You know, I… and then—

The question’s author goes on to say that Germany is increasingly fighting for women’s rights, even though women here are not actually discriminated against. And that some university researchers conducted a study claiming that certain domestic animals—like cows—are discriminated against in children’s fairy tales, which supposedly negatively affects children’s psychology, teaching them discrimination from kindergarten.

I take it that the author is citing examples of what they see as “imaginary problems” the government focuses on. I’m not sure about this specific case of cow discrimination, but overall, I wouldn’t say that protecting women’s rights, addressing environmental concerns, or advocating for animal welfare are imaginary problems. These are real issues. The question is whether they should come at the expense of security and crime prevention. They shouldn’t.

Now, if we go back to your main question—how to talk to Germans about AfD—there’s a very recent and striking example from Germany’s own history.

At one point, Germans tried to solve a persistent headache with a guillotine. To address the very real problems of the Weimar Republic, they chose Hitler. Great! No more headaches—because there was no more head. The problems of unemployment? Solved. Road construction? Done. But then Germany ceased to exist as a unified state. In fact, for a time, Germany ceased to exist altogether.

Using a guillotine to treat dandruff—that’s what AfD represents. If this example doesn’t convince someone, then the patient is beyond saving.

About Feigin’s Stream with Felshtinsky Link to heading

Alisa Konstantinova.
Yesterday, I listened to a stream with Felshtinsky on Feigin’s channel and heard his interpretation of the real meaning behind MAGA: strengthening America by weakening Europe and Trump using the war in Ukraine to support Putin and trigger destructive processes in Europe. This perspective is frightening, but it sounds logical. What do you think?

I haven’t heard Felshtinsky’s remarks, but overall, yes—I think so too.

About Latynina on Echo of Moscow Link to heading

The author of the question calls themselves “the one who looks straight in the eye” and writes the following:
I always watched and listened to Yulia Latynina on Echo of Moscow when it still existed. She had two stubborn narratives: first, that the FSB didn’t blow up the apartment buildings. And second, the constant mantra of how smart and consistent Musk is—followed by a long list of his great achievements. Why do I now have this nagging feeling? Probably because she praised him every single time. At the very least, this makes her a Kremlin useful idiot—she promotes him so much.

You know, I think Latynina simply has an ideological alignment with Musk. Like him, she believes that strength is always right. She supports the right of the strong. In reality, Musk is a kindred spirit for her—just like Trump, by the way.

Does Putin Have Charisma? Link to heading

A question from two ladies in the Telegram chat—Victoria and Lara. On Thursday, March 6, Lara asked:
In your opinion, does Putin or his inner circle have charisma?

And Victoria added:
Do you see a difference in the behavior of past tyrants compared to their 21st-century counterparts? If so, what is it?

You know, if we take the classic definition of charisma—personal magnetism that makes someone a natural leader, drawing people to follow them—then Putin has never had it, does not have it, and never will. He did not come to power because of personal appeal. He would never have won any elections if not for the Operation Successor scheme.

Putin has never engaged in politics in the traditional sense, meaning public politics that requires charisma. He never had any. The idea that he does was artificially manufactured—like a wig, plastic surgery, or body enhancements. This is exactly what happened with Putin: a PR-fabricated image.

The moment someone gains power, people are drawn to it like moths to a flame. All those songs about “I want someone like Putin”—this is just an artificially created narrative. His “charisma” is the result of PR plastic surgery. It never existed naturally.

As for the difference between him and past tyrants, I think the contrasts are obvious. First, all those past tyrants actually had charisma to some degree—they were real politicians who fought their way to power. No one handed it to them. They rose to the top through their own drive and political instincts.

Second, they all had ideas. Take Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, or even Khomeini—they all came to power fueled by a strong ideological vision. Their ideas came first.

Putin, on the other hand, came to power without any ideology at all. His primary goal was theft. He didn’t even particularly want to be president—it’s well known that he would have been quite satisfied as head of Gazprom, controlling Russia’s most lucrative asset. But once he became president—without earning it and without even initially wanting it—he realized: Why settle for Gazprom when I can own all of Russia?

At first, he ruled simply as a kleptocrat, looting as much as possible. Only later did he start embracing the idea of restoring the Soviet imperial project. It wasn’t his driving force from the start—his first priority was just accumulating wealth. Then came the shift to imperial delusions.

But even now, he has no vision for the future—no program for where he is leading the country. This fundamentally sets him apart from figures like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Khomeini, and other dictators.

And of course, there’s the crucial point—his complete lack of charisma. That makes perfect sense because he didn’t come to power through personal qualities. He was installed.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

So, with that, I’m wrapping up our morning stream. A reminder that today is Monday, which means at 20:00 we’ll have Sergey Maratovich Grabsky joining us. I think it’s going to be an interesting discussion—we have a lot of accumulated questions. The situation in the Kursk region is difficult, and we’ll talk about it with Sergey Maratovich. Plus, we’ll cover everything related to Trump’s latest antics and try to understand how serious it all is.

Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov and all Russian political prisoners, as well as Ukrainian POWs! See you at 20:00! All the best!

Source: https://youtu.be/VyZNwdoMWz0