Trump is scaring Putin with “terrible things,” Medvedev is scaring Trump with World War III, and Russia continues to receive money from all over the world to keep the war going.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 28. It’s 7:41 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, and in our souls.
Trump’s Threats Link to heading
Well, here we go again. What else can we do? I’ll start with some loud — or rather, thunderous — statements from Donald, our Trump. Here’s what he had to say about what’s going on: What Vladimir Putin doesn’t understand is that if it weren’t for me, truly terrible things would have already happened to Russia. And I mean truly terrible things. He’s playing with fire. That’s what Trump said yesterday. Again, one of the topics I wanted to discuss with you today, dear friends, is: What are these terrible things?
Well, naturally, there was a response. A response did come. Medvedev was tasked with replying. He said, as for Trump’s words about Putin playing with fire and very bad things — well, it’s interpreted differently. But the only really bad thing I know for Russia is World War III. I hope Trump understands that, Dmitry Medvedev pronounced on social media as well.
So, Medvedev responded via his blog — they had a little back-and-forth. Then Trump’s side replied via social media: Ha, stoking fear of World War III is an unfortunate, reckless comment by Dmitry Medvedev, unworthy of a world power. President Trump is working to stop this war and put an end to the killings. We are waiting for the memorandum you promised a week ago, the post reminded — whom exactly, Medvedev, Putin, someone else — that’s unclear.
Once again, the question arises: What are these terrible things? What are we talking about here? Let’s try the method of elimination. What terrible things could Trump be referring to — things he supposedly prevented? What kind of terrible things?
Someone dropping an atomic bomb on Russia? Most likely not. Someone, say, providing Ukraine with thousands of long-range missiles, at least some Tomahawks or aircraft? Again, probably not — at least that’s not currently on the table.
The only truly terrible thing that could be meant is the Lindsey Graham bill, already signed by 80–82 senators, and which clearly awaits Trump’s signal. The House is ready, the Senate is ready — the entire U.S. Congress is ready to act, and it will pass smoothly the moment Trump gives the go-ahead. What happens next is unclear. But let’s talk about how terrible this would really be for Russia.
I have some observations on this, based on a number of Western media outlets. Just how terrible could Trump’s actions toward Russia be? Let’s take a look.
According to forecasts from several Western analysts and media sources, in 2025 Russia will receive about €20 billion from the EU from energy and raw materials exports. That’s several times more than Europe is spending on military aid to Ukraine — despite the EU’s 17 sanctions packages and everything else. In total, Russia will receive about €233 billion from energy and raw material exports in 2025. Of that, €20 billion will come from the EU.
So, trade with Russia continues on a vast, cosmic scale, despite all the sanctions, the 17th, 18th, 20th, the Lindsey Graham bill. The Kremlin receives revenue from exports of gas, oil, coal, liquefied natural gas, and uranium. The main buyers? Understand this: all these “terrible things” Trump hints at are things dependent on the West’s capabilities. But the West is not the whole world. There’s what’s called the Global South, and the Global East.
The main buyers that make up that €233 billion? China, India, Turkey. And that €20 billion from the EU is no small sum either. In February alone this year, the EU bought over €2 billion worth of oil, gas, and uranium from Russia.
So what’s the result? Putin has allocated over 6% of GDP — roughly 6.5%, if I recall correctly — to military industry. That’s more than 40% of the state budget. Russia today is building hundreds of new tanks per year and restoring over 300. But most importantly, there is a sharp increase in the production of strike drones.
According to Ukrainian analysts, not Western ones, by 2025 Moscow will produce over 150,000 long-range drones. So all these sanctions haven’t disrupted the main, key deals. Restrictions on supplies to China, India, Turkey — they won’t work.
And so what? Let’s take China. The Lindsey Graham law proposes 500% tariffs on countries trading with Russia. Okay, so how do you scare China? There’s already a trade war with China. There’s a trade war with India, and with other countries too. How can you both fight a trade war and threaten with sanctions at the same time? What do you scare them with?
At this point, it’s a classic case of “don’t scare me, you fool, I’m already terrified.” Trump has already scared the world to death, and now he’s going to keep scaring with more sanctions?
It’s obvious China won’t be scared. India likely won’t either. So the blows will hit the U.S. itself.
So again, there’s a strong feeling that these “terrible things” Trump threatens with are, well… yes, he does have terrible things — like thousands of Tomahawks he could hand over to Ukraine. But he’s not going to do that. Clearly, that’s not what he means.
So it feels like this is Trump the Almighty, like in that movie. Or like the Great and Terrible Oz — scary, but somehow, not really. Why isn’t it scary? Maybe because Trump’s word has devalued so much recently — down to $0.01, if that.
And as long as the Kremlin has resources to continue the war, amid this background of American politicians, I increasingly find the new German chancellor, Friedrich Katz, more reasonable. He said he doesn’t expect the war in Ukraine to end soon. He said Russia’s unwillingness to enter real negotiations indicates that the war will continue for a long time. And that means the EU must support Ukraine even more actively.
By the way, this was stated yesterday at a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Finland. A significant event — though not as recent — was Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
I fully agree that wars typically end due to economic or military exhaustion of one or both sides. But in this war, as the mayor claims, we are still far from that point. And perhaps this is one of the most adequate views on the situation in the Western world.
Despite the fact that Germany’s military and economic potential is much smaller than America’s, reasonableness allows us to say that the center of the Western world is shifting toward Europe. It’s difficult, it’s hard. We talked yesterday about how Europe still cannot replace the U.S. — not financially, and certainly not militarily.
But financially — maybe. In terms of volume — not yet. As for the role of the euro — yes, it’s clear that for now, the dollar remains the main reserve currency. That’s obvious, though its share is decreasing.
But in general, I want to emphasize again that, in my opinion, the center of the Western world is indeed shifting toward Europe. That is where the growth point lies.
The Fight Against Books in Russia Link to heading
As for the terrible things Trump mentioned, they are indeed happening to Russia — but Trump has absolutely nothing to do with them. Moreover, these terrible things are happening in the exact opposite direction from what Trump’s worldview sees as promising. Specifically, among these terrible things is the brain drain, primarily of scientific minds and programmers. And the latest news — following the publishing scandal involving Eksmo — is that bookstores recently received a list of books the publisher is requesting be returned or destroyed. Among them are works by the philosopher Slavoj Žižek, as well as works by Viktor Erofeev and Murakami.
I mean, I don’t know — I’m not a huge fan of Slavoj Žižek, but nevertheless, he is a major philosopher. And his books are quite useful, undoubtedly useful. You don’t have to agree with them, but he’s clearly a major thinker. Having his books available in Russian, Moscow bookstores was the right thing. The same goes for Viktor Erofeev and especially Murakami — they are major authors. And of course, this removal — and in fact, it’s essentially the destruction of literary classics — can certainly be seen as an act against culture. You could consider Erofeev, and even more so Murakami, part of the literary canon.
This all strongly resembles the book burnings of the Third Reich. That’s the real terrible stuff. But in Trump’s worldview, that kind of thing seems fine. Whereas what he threatens — I have strong doubts, first of all, that Putin would be frightened by it, and second, that Trump is even capable of carrying it out.
By the way, we had a poll on our channel. Ninety percent of you, dear friends, believe that Trump won’t introduce any terrible sanctions by the end of the week — that was the time frame. Ninety percent said no, that by the end of the week he definitely won’t do it. We’ll see. On Friday we’ll review the results. And on Monday, for a final recap of the week, I’ll remind you again about the poll — let’s compare it to what actually happened.
Q&A Link to heading
Now, before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that our weekly conversation with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky has been rescheduled from Friday to today, Wednesday. So at 8:00 PM, Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky will be presenting. Now, moving on to your questions.
Why Nikki Haley Lost the Primaries Link to heading
Two questions about Trump. From a user named OON Koster: You, like many others, see Trump’s reaction as a response to the Democrats. Some use that to justify the Americans. Then why did Nikki Haley lose the primaries so badly? If people were unhappy with the Democrats, they could’ve chosen her. But they can’t elect a woman or a Trumpist. It’s a self-sustaining infection.
Dear colleague! First of all, you’ve somewhat distorted my point of view. I believe — and have believed — that Trumpism is not only a reaction to the Democrats; it is much broader than that. It’s a reaction to the post-industrial revolution. Yes, in Trumpism — and among those 77 million who voted for Trump — there are several components. One of them is what can be called the “hardcore Trumpists.” That’s the core — by some estimates, about 33 to 35 million people. These are people who will follow Trump no matter what. It’s essentially a sect. And this is important: Trump as a politician is indeed the leader of a kind of totalitarian sect. His followers don’t question him. This is tied to his populism, his charisma, and so on.
Nikki Haley doesn’t have such a sect — and that matters.
Secondly, I want to reiterate that within the structure of Trumpism, it’s not just — and not primarily — a rejection of Democrats. It’s a rejection of the post-industrial revolution, of the modern economic and societal structures. The people who can’t accept this shift are the ones voting for Trump. It’s a kind of revenge movement — a large-scale rollback. That connects it with all kinds of revanchist movements, including fascism.
So Nikki Haley, without a doubt, could have been a response to the Democrats, but she couldn’t have been a response to the post-industrial revolution — not a protest against it.
I also don’t entirely agree that the reason she wasn’t chosen is because Americans can’t elect a woman. I don’t believe that gender attitudes were dominant here. Yes, there are gender prejudices, just like there are racial prejudices. But racial prejudices didn’t prevent Barack Obama from being elected, right?
As for the gender factor — it may have played a role to some extent, because a lack of gender bias is more characteristic of Democrats, and Haley is still a Republican. So within that specific environment — the one protesting the post-industrial revolution — gender prejudices are fairly strong. That was one of the reasons.
But overall, I think Trumpism is a much broader phenomenon than just a reaction to the Democrats.
Will Trump Make It to the End of His Term? Link to heading
Vladimir ARD: Do you have a sense that Trump won’t make it to the end of his presidential term? That he’ll be killed or just die — that Trump will be gone? That midway through his term, power will pass to someone who proves themselves and gets re-elected? We just don’t know whether China or Russia will suffer as a result. A big game is underway.
Dear Vladimir, Naturally, I can’t rule out catastrophic outcomes like assassination or death — it’s impossible to rule that out for any of us. But to predict such a thing — I wouldn’t go that far.
As I see it — and not taking into account his mental state, which, frankly, is troubling — the situation with Trump’s mind is a broader human concern. Because when someone with serious cognitive issues leads the most powerful country in the world, it becomes a problem for all of humanity.
But as for his physical health — he plays golf, stays active, dances. So in terms of his physical condition, he appears to be in quite good shape. I’m not Trump’s personal doctor, as you understand, but he looks healthy. So I don’t really understand where such opinions come from that he might die soon.
Now, as for being killed — yes, that’s possible. In America, presidents have been assassinated — it happens. But I wouldn’t make any kind of bet on that. Nor would I celebrate it. Yes, Trump is a major global menace, but still, this isn’t a case where he deserves a violent death.
So, let’s leave it at that — that’s my response to your question, Vladimir.
On Music and Consciousness Link to heading
Several questions came in about music and consciousness. Olga Vilkova — that’s how I read your name: The emergence of music is connected to the emergence of consciousness, according to… But where does consciousness come from? Igor Aleksandrovich, could you perhaps agree to the existence of cosmic consciousness? Or do you, as always, have your own opinion on the origin of consciousness?
Dear Olga, the way your question is phrased — something like, “Well, everyone already agrees that cosmic consciousness exists, so can you finally agree too? Or are you going to cling to your own prejudices again?” — I’m exaggerating a bit, of course, but the tone of the question does come across that way.
Dear Olga, I will not agree to the existence of cosmic consciousness, because the kind of consciousness we know and encounter is a state of mental life in an organism that manifests itself in the subjective experience of one’s own life and external events, and in response to those events. That is, it’s something that happens within a person, the product of brain activity — this is the kind of consciousness we can observe.
There’s also what’s called collective or social consciousness — a social phenomenon that arises from the interaction of individual consciousnesses. For example, when I say “let’s think together,” that’s a kind of seed of social consciousness. It exists in the form of public moods, public opinion, and so on. A body of knowledge about the world can also be seen as a different kind of consciousness.
But there is no evidence whatsoever of consciousness existing in space — none. You see, the kind of consciousness I’m talking about is a fact. It can be studied scientifically and is, in fact, the subject of scientific research. Social consciousness is also a fact and can be studied scientifically. We can identify and analyze facts related to it.
As for the “cosmic consciousness” that you seem to want me to finally acknowledge — I don’t see any trace of it. I simply don’t. So I cannot acknowledge it, despite your appeal — sorry.
On Music in Nature Link to heading
Arkady Mikhailov: A question for you. A correction on your behalf. Your interlocutor asked where music comes from. In my view, the roots of music have always existed in nature, just before the emergence of consciousness. Whether it’s the howling of the wind, the sound of surf, a volcanic eruption — all of it belongs to the musical world, without the false notes sometimes introduced by humans. And it’s easier to just say — listen to how pretty girls click their heels. That’s in tune too. Even that Parisian street cleaner with a broom who knocked the whole block off rhythm — he’s part of it too. A correction to the correction for inattentive readers: I repeat, the roots of Euclid are the origins of music, without which so-called conscious music wouldn’t have been possible.
Dear Arkady, I’ll keep it short. There’s no need to get lost in the weeds — this is actually quite simple. When we talk about music, we mean it as a form of art — the creation of musical works that are, undoubtedly, based on something embedded in nature. Everything Euclid or Pythagoras wrote — harmony, the harmony of the spheres, etc. — points to this.
In a sense, all art is based on natural factors, natural patterns. For instance, painting reflects what exists in nature and in humans, and is based on phenomena like light, color, and so on. But that doesn’t mean painting existed before humans.
It’s simple: musical compositions did not exist before the emergence of consciousness, before the emergence of humans. Yes, some kind of sound harmony may have existed before — nature did produce sounds. But calling that music is a stretch. It’s more accurate to call it sound, not music.
So, when a musician creates a piece, of course, they rely on nature’s harmony. But they process it through their inner world — and the result is a work of art that didn’t exist before, and couldn’t exist before the emergence of consciousness.
To me, this is pretty straightforward. No one disputes that art, literature, and even science are grounded in the laws of nature. That’s obvious. But nature itself is not a work of science, nor of art, nor of literature. Those are reflections — interpretations. That’s the distinction, and I think it’s quite clear.
What Will Brain Evolution Look Like? Link to heading
Friend of a Chekist: Which theory of consciousness origin have you personally settled on? And in your view, what will the next qualitative leap in brain evolution look like — for example, telepathy or something like that?
Well, regarding the origin of consciousness, I’ve spoken on that several times already, so I don’t see much point in repeating myself. As for evolution — the evolution of the brain and a qualitative leap:
Here, it’s more or less clear that since the emergence of humans — even before the appearance of the Homo sapiens species — the brain hasn’t evolved all that much. That is, the brain of a Stone Age human doesn’t differ significantly from that of a modern human, neither in size nor in basic characteristics. So the evolution of the brain itself is happening very slowly.
Expecting some kind of qualitative leap — like the development of telepathy or something of that sort — I find hard to imagine. Most progress is happening through artificial enhancements. Artificial intelligence, and even before that — various tools and aids.
To some extent, these are intellectual crutches — intellectual prosthetics that humans create. Just as humans haven’t seen a dramatic leap in physical strength over the past tens of thousands of years — yes, there have been some changes, but not radical ones — physical capabilities have increased thanks to mastering technology, creating tools and machines.
And the same goes for intelligence, for the brain. Future progress will come through the development of artificial mechanisms that expand brain capabilities. That’s the direction I see things moving — not through any kind of revolutionary biological evolution of the brain itself.
Is the Western coalition ready to act Link to heading
A question from Natalia. One of the well-known Stalinist obscurantists we both know, upon hearing that Chancellor Merkel announced the lifting of restrictions on long-range strikes deep into Russia, reported the following quote. But then the Social Democrats, partners in the governing coalition, voiced their outrage. The leader of the SPD, SPD, SPD. Or rather, excuse me, at the same time the Vice Chancellor clearly stated that the German government had not discussed lifting restrictions on arms supplies to Ukraine, which means the man was making things up. The new Chancellor, who was in Finland, was forced to hedge, saying that for now the supply of Taurus cruise missiles, with a range of over 500 kilometers, to Ukraine is not on the agenda. And so we end up with the following twist, as Yeltsin, a great friend of the American people, used to say. It is precisely Scholz’s party that continues to restrain the German government from supplying long-range Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, and therefore holds back World War III. End, as far as I understand. End of quote. And now the question for me. I would like to clarify with you whether the mentioned restriction has indeed been adopted by the German government, which, according to your previous stream, has been joined by France, Britain, and Spain? Or is it still? Is it still just talk? And the Western coalition is not ready to act.
Dear Natalia! I think relying on some Stalinists who say whatever they say is still not right. There is a clear statement, which no one has refuted, that the West has lifted—long ago, notably—all restrictions on the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine. Period. There has been no denial of this. And in this case, the Stalinists—well, yes, they might be making something up. So in that sense, the West is ready to act. As for internal resistance within Germany, that was obvious.
Julius Malema Link to heading
Two questions about South Africa. A question from Belenky. Well, that’s what the person calls himself. You called the scandalous South African politician a marginal loner. At one time, Hitler could also have been called that, until he evolved or degenerated into the Führer. Now Putler is ripe, and Trump seems to be heading in that direction too. The question is: why do such inhumane people periodically come to lead states throughout human history?
Well, first of all, I should say that Julius—I’m not sure where the stress should go in Malema—but he is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters movement. Again, the movement itself is not entirely marginal—it does get a certain percentage of the vote in elections. But the figure himself, without a doubt, is marginal. Overall, all his shouts of “Shoot the Boer,” they don’t have widespread support. I don’t think he has a real chance to lead the South African republic. As for this trend in general, the fact that such people end up leading countries—populism, populism, playing on, you see, playing on the basest instincts—is an effective thing. Drugs have a certain success, and this is psychologically similar to drugs. That’s why, unfortunately, it’s quite difficult to fight. Just like it’s difficult to fight drug addiction. It’s like picking at some sort of wounds, aggravating some long-standing complexes. It’s a constant appeal to phantom pains, and so on. So it’s very effective—about as effective as getting people hooked on drugs. The mechanism is very similar.
Terrorists and nationalists are not marginal figures in South Africa Link to heading
A question from OP, from MTS In South Africa, the terrorist party “Spear of the Nation” received 14% in 2004. It is a neo-Nazi party. The Economic Freedom Fighters got 10%. And these are considered marginal?
Such an indignant question. I agree, well—again, marginality can be not only quantitative, but also qualitative, in the sense that—well, let’s break it down. Alternative for Germany is currently leading—it’s now leading in the polls. But nevertheless, it is considered marginal in the sense that it is rejected by the overwhelming majority. The overwhelming majority still rejects them and, overall, does not see them as potential allies. In this sense, they are marginal. Although yes, in terms of numbers they have much more than these South African parties. So it’s a matter of terminology, a matter of terminology. As for this Julius, he is still perceived as marginal, although he represents, well, a 10% party. But precisely because—well, I want to emphasize again that I do not claim to be an expert on the internal politics of the Republic of South Africa—but from what I’ve read, there is still a rejection of such extremes. Although, of course, racism exists in the Republic of South Africa. And the monstrous, monstrous rise in crime that occurred after the current regime came to power—that’s all fairly obvious. And there is black racism. And crime is enormous. All of that is true. But still, such extreme positions as those held by this Julius, it seems to me, are marginal in South Africa.
What happened to Sheitelman’s cats Link to heading
So? Two specific questions about the cats. Mikhail Sheitelman is being asked: What happened to Mikhail Sheitelman’s cats? They seemed to have shown up on a stream not so long ago.
I have no idea. I’m not that close to Mikhail Pavlovich to be involved in his personal affairs. Usually, when we meet in the studio a few seconds before the stream starts, we exchange greetings. I always asked him the routine question: “How are your cats?” To which Mikhail Mikhaylovich would reply, “I don’t have cats anymore, I have dogs now.” So that’s what I was told, and that’s what I’m passing on. Again, I’m not a big fan of over-familiarity. So, well, I don’t let people too close into my personal life and try not to pry into theirs. Friendly, warm relations—yes. But why it’s no longer cats and now dogs—I have no idea.
Suggestion to ask Sheitelman about his pets Link to heading
Nadya VOLGINA Why reinvent the wheel? Do it like Lusya Green. Start with politics, and at the end, where you usually offer the guest to answer questions you didn’t ask, invite Mikhail to share news from his domestic animal world. Believe me, those viewer numbers go through the roof.
I don’t know. Thank you, dear colleague, for the suggestion. I don’t know, I’ll think about it. Again, it has to feel organic. You see, again, there has to be a clear reason for it. Although, in principle, a conversation—so to speak—about something non-political is entirely possible. Why not?
Rebuke to the author regarding the explanation of Osechkin’s statement Link to heading
Two questions—or rather, several questions—about the condolences Osechkin expressed to Portnov’s family. Anna German And when Putin dies, will you also offer condolences to Alina Kabaeva and all his offspring?
Dear Anna! You somehow smoothly shifted from Osechkin to me. You’re mixing things up. I didn’t express condolences to Portnov—I simply explained why, as it seems to me, Osechkin did. I personally didn’t do that, and for me, it would be impossible. You know, trying to understand why Osechkin did something does not mean agreeing with his point of view. That’s clear, right? So please, don’t direct this anger at me. I have absolutely nothing to do with it. And of course, I will not be expressing condolences to Kabaeva or anyone else in connection with Putin’s death. I don’t think Osechkin will either. So, you see, this smooth transition—like “today he’s dancing jazz, tomorrow he’ll sell out the Motherland”—that’s really not appropriate. It’s not even decent. Yes, I believe that Osechkin—well, maybe he shouldn’t have done that, maybe. Let’s just say I wouldn’t have done it. I wouldn’t have expressed condolences regarding Portnov. But he did. I explained why. And people just won’t let go of these condolences to Portnov.
Outrage at Osechkin for expressing condolences Link to heading
Concrete, steel, wood? asks: Igor. If one of the Russian propagandists or Ukrainian traitors dies, should Osechkin also express condolences to their families, or does Osechkin not understand who Portnov was?
Dear friends, let’s put the dots over the i’s. I tried to explain why Vladimir Osechkin let slip—so to speak—that he expressed condolences. It seemed to me like an automatic reaction—someone died, so you say condolences. I don’t think that if—or when, God willing—something like that happens and Putin dies, Osechkin will express condolences. No. Again, let’s be clear. I’m not Vladimir Osechkin’s lawyer. He doesn’t need one. I was asked, and I explained. That’s it. But to turn this into some sort of comrades’ court over Osechkin—I think that’s wrong.
What was insane about Putin’s Munich speech Link to heading
Svetlana Trosheva Please tell me, what exactly do you consider insanely insane in Putin’s Munich speech?
Everything, really—everything. First of all, his sincere outrage about NATO’s eastward expansion. It wasn’t NATO that expanded eastward—and I don’t know if Putin understands this or not—it was the countries of Eastern Europe that ran headlong away from Russia into NATO, because Russia poses a threat. Isn’t that obvious? That’s the madness—the claim, so to speak, that, I don’t know, when someone hides in a shelter, it’s not the shelter attacking the source of the threat. It’s people hiding in the shelter. It’s just a complete misunderstanding of what’s going on. The statement that a country that doesn’t produce technology, a country that is essentially just a gas station, can represent some kind of global power center—that’s madness. The man simply doesn’t understand what’s happening. Nothing but large stockpiles of nuclear weapons can serve as an argument for Russia acting as a global power pole. And to make that claim—that’s madness, because it moves the world toward war—first a cold war, then a full-scale war. So in fact, without a doubt, that Munich speech was Russia’s turning point—turning its back to the West and facing… who knows what, because it wasn’t the East either. It was a turn toward stagnation, a pathless future. That’s where the madness lies. It’s a move toward the state Russia is in now: endless war with no clear resolution. War as a mode of existence. And that’s exactly where Putin’s Munich speech led. That’s why I think it’s madness.
Forecast for Russia in the next 3 years Link to heading
A question from Lilia. What are your approximate forecasts for the next one, two, or three years? Will the Russian army be withdrawn from Ukraine? Will the process of the empire’s collapse begin or not?
I think that, at least over the next year or two—say, 2025 and 2026—I don’t believe the withdrawal of the Russian army from Ukraine will happen voluntarily. Putin won’t do it. And I don’t currently see the real force necessary for Ukraine to expel Russian troops from its territory. So I think that in the next year or two—and maybe even three—the processes you’re talking about won’t happen. At least, that’s a very cautious forecast.
Why is Putin fixated on Ukraine Link to heading
The author of the question identifies as N. B. I’m curious—where does Putin’s fixation on Ukraine come from? What are the roots of this manic obsession? I had a boss who believed Ukrainians were bad and needed to be destroyed because, when he was a young man in Soviet times in Western Ukraine, he really wanted to buy some tasty Ukrainian sausage. But since he spoke Russian, they wouldn’t sell it to him. A fantastic scenario. But anyway—interesting. Maybe something like that happened to Putin too? Or did some Ukrainian once outdo or humiliate him?
I don’t think anything like that happened in Putin’s biography. I believe it’s a very simple story. It’s that the empire—the Russian Empire—is not an empire without Ukraine. It’s this idea that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, and that Putin sees himself as the one tasked with overcoming that catastrophe—rebuilding the Russian Empire. And that’s impossible without Ukraine. And beyond that, it’s also this false understanding that Ukraine is part of Russia that broke away. That Ukraine is a breakaway piece of Russia that is now choosing a completely different path—a path of development, a path of Western civilization, and so on. It’s, to some extent, hatred toward Ukraine as traitors. Like—“you betrayed this decaying, beloved Russian homeland and now you want to live cleanly, brightly, to develop, and so on. How dare you? We won’t allow it. Go home—go back to that same cesspool.” That’s the mix of factors that defines this fixation on Ukraine.
On inviting Serhiy Datsyuk Link to heading
Oksana, Would you consider reflecting on Ukraine’s future with Ukrainian philosopher Serhiy Datsyuk? He recently gave an interview to Natasha Vlashchenko. It would be interesting to hear a conversation between the two of you—as two very intelligent people.
Dear Oksana! You know, I tried to have a conversation with Ukrainian philosopher Serhiy Datsyuk, and I have no desire to repeat the experience. The thing is—well, first of all, I don’t want to offend some of our Ukrainian colleagues, but I don’t consider Serhiy Datsyuk—let’s just say—an interesting thinker. I didn’t find him engaging. You know, there’s this term—I forget the exact phrasing from screenwriting—it’s something like pseudo-intellectualizing. When someone says weighty-sounding things that don’t really mean much. That’s the impression I got from Datsyuk. That’s the first point. And second, it’s all that same circle—like Arystovych. It’s the same clique, you see. Very weighty, abstract discussions with little substance. That’s why I’m not interested. And politically, his views are also very far from mine. There was a time I was very interested in talking with some of them—even back when Arystovych started doing streams with Feygin, I was curious, I wanted to talk with him. Now—not anymore. My curiosity about Datsyuk is completely satisfied. No longer interested. Same with others—I had a phase where I wanted to talk to them. Now I don’t. He’s just too far removed from me in terms of worldview. And I don’t think it would be a meaningful joint reflection. You need a foundation to think together—and in this case, there isn’t one.
Will Ukraine dare to strike the FSB, FSO, and National Guard Link to heading
Yulia, What do you think—if Ukraine receives long-range weapons, will they dare to strike those who generate fear in the country? The FSB, FSO, National Guard? Because if those structures start fearing for their lives more than they fear Putin, things might start to shift. It’s precisely strikes on enforcers that can shake the regime. You’ll probably say “those higher up know better.” But you can go on playing nobility forever, targeting industrial and strategic sites. That’s important too. But you can’t win a war by making curtsies. Doesn’t the leadership understand that? Or Yakovenko?
Dear Yulia! I don’t know what you’re basing that on. I believe the leadership does understand it. I think the FSB, FSO, and National Guard are all legitimate targets for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I don’t know—look, there are documented cases of individual FSO and FSB officers being eliminated, and I think that will continue. These are legitimate targets for Ukraine. Now, if you mean a strike on Lubyanka, for example—yes, that’s quite possible. We may yet see that. At the moment, Ukraine clearly doesn’t have sufficient capabilities to hit every legitimate target. But I believe that’s coming. So I don’t see any contradiction here. I don’t think Serhiy or Zelenskyy have any taboos around striking FSO, FSB, National Guard sites, etc. Absolutely within bounds—yes.
Dudaev and Zhirinovsky predicted Crimea and war Link to heading
Deutsche Poncho And the phenomenon of Zhirinovsky in terms of his predictions about the future of Ukraine, wars in the Middle East. Back in ‘91, he foresaw today’s events. Dudaev also, before his death, spoke of Crimea and racism. These politicians understood history well and knew how to analyze. Is that the case? Or did they know secret documents and plans for decades ahead?
As for Dudaev, that’s a separate question. Did he really predict something? I don’t think it was based on some kind of secret knowledge. As for Zhirinovsky, that’s really the main question. You know, when people analyze the forecasting ability of someone like Nostradamus, for example, it usually goes like this: he has a lot of statements—often quite vague—and among them, out of a hundred, there are a few that vaguely match future events. Say, there’s talk of battles and “iron-beaked birds,” which is then taken to mean airplanes. How that’s supposed to refer to airplanes is unclear. Or there are cryptic predictions about some monsters fighting, which are interpreted as the Allies versus Hitler. It doesn’t say that directly—but that’s how people choose to interpret it.
Now, back to the point. Mr. Zhirinovsky made a mass of predictions. And most of them missed the mark—by far. His most famous one: “Our soldiers will wash their boots in the Indian Ocean.” Well, where is the Indian Ocean? Where are the soldiers? Where are the boots? You see what I mean. I could give you dozens of predictions where Mr. Zhirinovsky completely flopped—and continues to flop posthumously. Yes, he guessed a few things—out of a hundred, a few hit the target. But again, when you’re firing off a burst from the hip, a couple of stray bullets are bound to hit the mark. It’s that kind of story.
On the TCC and mobilization in Ukraine Link to heading
Andreas? This is a question from the chat. What’s going on in Ukraine? From time to time, videos surface showing conflicts between Ukrainian citizens and the TCC. And each time there’s outrage from Ukrainian politicians and promises to rein in TCC staff. Then follow various discussions on the matter. To fully understand the situation, could you please explain who the TCC reports to—or doesn’t report to? Are they really staffed by brainless sadists? Despite numerous videos, that’s the impression people get. And your opinion? Basically, your thoughts on mobilization in Ukraine—its pros and cons, and whether there’s a less harsh alternative.
Dear Andreas, I’d like to remind you that I generally try not to comment on Ukraine’s internal politics. So I’ll approach this as follows: regarding mobilization and demobilization, we’ve discussed this in detail. Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskyi—I believe he’s a military expert who understands the situation much better—and he believes that there is no alternative to mobilization. That’s his position, and I’m prepared to agree with it.
As for the TCC, the only part of your question I’m ready to answer concerns factual information. TCC stands for Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers. In Ukraine, they report to the Ground Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Operational control over their activities is exercised by the relevant military command. TCCs fully replaced the former military commissariats and are directly subordinate to the Ground Forces Command. Naturally, the Ground Forces coordinate some aspects of TCC operations with the General Staff and its specific departments.
That’s the factual part I can provide. As for judgment or opinion—I’ll refrain. If this topic is of interest, we could arrange a review with a Ukrainian expert. After all, Ukraine’s internal affairs are its own, and I already have my hands full with what I do.
Proportionality of Israel’s actions toward Gaza Link to heading
Several questions about Israel. Okay. A? S. That’s the name of the subscriber. Help me understand the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Besides “you don’t understand the complexity,” it’s impossible to get any explanation of the horrifying humanitarian conditions from official Israeli sources in the media. This topic seems to be omitted from official outlets, such as Israel.com. Meanwhile, Western media are full of almost daily horrifying reports from Israel. Then follow many very emotional statements. The person is clearly taking an increasingly critical stance toward Israel.
So—let’s approach this from the basics. I generally proceed from the simple idea that Israel is defending its citizens. Whether the actions of the Israeli army in Gaza are proportional—that is the question. You know, I’d probably say this: not knowing all the facts—and again, not knowing, first of all, how many people are actually… sorry to stumble here, but it’s important—many Western media outlets base their reporting on sources in Gaza, which essentially means relying on Hamas’s perspective, on Hamas and its affiliated structures. That includes the Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas, as well as media structures affiliated with Hamas. And Western media often report their statements uncritically. That’s an important part of the media picture we’re all seeing.
I think we will, in the near future, conduct some analysis on our channel. This is important—there are key elements that shouldn’t be overlooked. So we’ll probably host a discussion. It’s important to find the right guests—for example, a representative from Israel on one side, and certainly not someone from Hamas, because that would be inappropriate, but perhaps a human rights advocate on the other side. That’s likely the right approach—bringing in credible experts from both perspectives. How proportional the actions of the Israeli army are—and what the actual way out of this situation is—that’s the most important question.
On the 500% tariffs Link to heading
So? Gloomy Donkey. He has two questions. Listening to experts—almost everyone admits that the so-called Graham bill on 500% tariffs for purchasing Russian oil would destroy the Russian economy. What do you think—why didn’t Biden adopt such a law? Especially since, as we recall, he was slow to approve lethal weapons for Ukraine, justifying it with the need to avoid further escalation. But he could’ve imposed crushing economic sanctions. There were all the grounds. Yet he didn’t. Turns out, it could’ve been done with a single stroke of the pen. The world might be in a completely different place now.
Dear colleague, let’s set a few things straight. First of all, Senator Lindsey Graham’s bill didn’t arise under Biden—it came up under Trump. And in fact, Trump hasn’t passed it either. So I don’t understand why the criticism is directed at Biden. I’m by no means a defender or great admirer of Biden, but in this case, you’re clearly pointing your critical reasoning in the wrong direction.
This bill came about under Trump. There was no such legislation during Biden’s time in office. And the bill still hasn’t been passed. So your question would be fair in relation to Trump—not Biden. Let’s be honest about that.
Second, regarding the claim that the Russian economy could have been destroyed with a single stroke of the pen—I addressed this in detail in the main part of our stream. It’s absolutely clear that no stroke of a pen can destroy Russia’s economy through this bill. It wouldn’t apply to China, Russia’s main consumer and trading partner, simply because China is already… Well, I won’t repeat what I said earlier in the stream.
This bill is not, in its current form, likely to be passed, because it essentially escalates a trade war with the entire world. The whole world buys Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other resources that fund Putin’s war. Europe alone gives Putin $20 billion for the war. Russia is expected to earn $233 billion this year from trade.
So Lindsey Graham’s bill would amount to another U.S. trade war with the rest of the world. The question is: will it be signed, and if so, will it be implemented to its full extent?
These sweeping claims—that the Russian economy could be crushed with one stroke of the pen—are tempting, sure. But they’re wishful thinking. And blaming Biden for not signing a bill that emerged after he left office is, frankly, quite strange.
On Bulat Okudzhava’s statement Link to heading
And the second question from Gloomy Donkey. Here’s a quote from Okudzhava: “We are not just slaves who suffer from hardship. We are professional slaves who take pride in our slavery.” A wise, deep man who didn’t throw words around lightly—could he have been so fundamentally wrong, so mistaken in saying this?
I don’t know these words personally, but it seems to me they are a metaphor. I don’t see where he’s mistaken—I don’t understand the reproach directed at Okudzhava.
And then, a postscript: And that’s before he even lived to see Russians rejoicing wildly at the sight of Russian tanks in Gori, the seizure of Crimea, and hospitals and theaters in Kyiv and Mariupol blown up with people inside.
So I don’t understand—what’s the reproach aimed at Okudzhava? That he didn’t live long enough? Or that he was wrong? Regarding his assessment of Russians—it’s all quite unclear. It’s beautifully written, but I don’t catch the meaning.
Was voting for Zviad Gamsakhurdia a mistake Link to heading
Valery Voronkov Igor Aleksandrovich, do you still consider it a mistake that 90%–100% of Georgians once voted for Zviad Gamsakhurdia?
Yes, I consider it a mistake.
Reproach to Osechkin and the channel’s host for lack of discernment Link to heading
So? Several comments. Again, from the author of the question titled: “Russians on the enemy’s side” means—according to Russians—on Ukraine’s side. You misunderstood the question.
All right, thanks for the clarification, Nikolai. And here’s Nikolai’s comment: Osechkin is the same as Svetlov, just a different angle. Portnov was not a human being—he was an enemy of Ukraine. Osechkin expressed condolences. That alone shows he doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to understand who’s who in Ukrainian politics. And you, Mr. Yakovenko, also show a lack of discernment in your connections and contacts.
Well then—so the character isn’t Nordic, not Aryan. Lack of discernment in contacts—verdict delivered. Dear Nikolai! The difference between Osechkin and Svetlov is about the same as the difference between Portnov and Zelensky. That’s the level we’re talking about. Osechkin is 100% a supporter of Ukraine—he helps Ukraine as best he can. There’s a clear and simple criterion for who’s who: are you on Russia’s side or on Ukraine’s side? Osechkin is clearly on Ukraine’s side. Svetlov is on Russia’s side. So whether you look at these people from the side, the top, or the bottom—the difference is obvious. And you, dear Nikolai, just don’t understand people at all. You don’t understand, and you throw around judgments wildly.
As for my “lack of discernment” in connections—yes, I try to deal with different people. But I don’t want to deal with Svetlov. He’s not a subject for conversation—he’s an object. Just like Latynina, just like Solovyov, and so on. But Osechkin is a conversation partner for me, even if we may disagree on some points.
As for the phrase “on the enemy’s side” in my question about Osechkin—it was meant from the perspective of Russian propaganda. Osechkin’s openly pro-Ukrainian stance is well known.
Yes, I understand. But it just wasn’t clarified in the question.
On extremism in the Bible, Quran, and Old Testament Link to heading
So, a few comments on religion. Again, a question from N.: Why do the religious grab everything for themselves? Bulgakov’s novel is, first and foremost, philosophical. Morality exists, fortunately, outside of any religion. Pure morality and ethics do not call for stoning, killing, or punishing disbelief—as religions do. Better to be a nonbeliever than to follow this lawlessness. And when—when you spoke about the Quran, I was a bit jarred. I understand political correctness, but I’ve read it, just like the Bible. Both books are quite extremist—some surahs have even been recognized as such by courts. Look into the Kazakh court, for example. The Old Testament should also be reviewed. In general, it’s foolish to live by pre-flood worldviews in the modern world.
Well, again, of course—yes, the number of horrific scenes in the Old Testament is enormous. But we mustn’t forget that these are ancient Hebrew myths, and they’re quite old—customs back then were harsh. Or rather, not just harsh—completely different. So yes, that’s true. But what—there’s no blood and gore in Russian fairy tales? It’s all part of history. This is history. The Bible is one of the greatest historical monuments—and so is the Quran. That’s exactly how I treat them. These are part of world history—vast parts of it. They are among the treasures of human history. And that’s the way I see it.
On the pointlessness of discussions about religion Link to heading
Nelli Koshkina Druzhina Maybe instead of religion we could talk about Father Frost—his influence on minds and so on. Believers believe in something—let them talk among themselves. For the rest of us, the topic might be more interesting. In youth, when curiosity peaks, you read everything indiscriminately. But once satisfied, you choose what’s truly engaging—where there’s endless work for the brain. There’s been a lot of sunlight in my life, while believers keep trying to drag me into a world of dogma and darkness.
Well, Galina—I don’t really see anything to comment on here. Galina.
Jesus did not found any religions Link to heading
From VICH: When discussing Orthodoxy, the first thing that should be said is that Jesus didn’t found any religions. Didn’t you study religious studies?
Well yes, practically speaking—if we’re talking about practical actions—he didn’t found a religion. But in effect, yes. What this Jewish preacher did was, in essence, lay the foundation for a new religion. What began as a sect within Judaism eventually became an independent religion. So I don’t see what’s wrong here. Through his activity, this one among many Jewish preachers essentially created a new religion. What’s the issue with that?
Comment on Trump’s reputation Link to heading
Max also comments: Trump’s remarks about Putin’s insanity have a specific meaning. Trump says, “I always got along with him, I’m talking to him even now. Doesn’t he understand his actions hurt my reputation? He’s totally lost it.” Putin’s madness isn’t that he’s bombing people—it’s that he’s doing it now. With his trademark smirk, Putin is, with one hand, sending portraits, and with the other, in front of everyone, metaphorically smashing a trash can on Trump’s head via the globe. Who would like that?
Well, I suppose that’s a valid perspective on what’s happening.
On master’s theses Link to heading
But Vlast-to makes the following remark: Again, pan Igor, you’re confusing postgraduates and master’s students. These are different levels. Yes, after postgraduate studies, you can defend a dissertation, but not after a master’s program. Maybe in Rashka they didn’t get that, but it’s elementary.
What always amuses me is this condescending tone—when people explain to me, “You know, you keep saying that two plus two is four, but everyone knows it’s 98 plus a bucket of sauerkraut.” Dear Vlast-to, I’d be happy to agree that two plus two is 98 and a bucket of sauerkraut in repeating decimals—if I hadn’t spent many years as an academic advisor for master’s theses myself, you see?
I don’t know—again, why speak on a subject you know nothing about? A master’s program ends with the defense of a master’s thesis. That’s exactly what it is—there are doctoral dissertations, candidate’s dissertations, and master’s dissertations. A master’s thesis is a text that must meet certain academic standards. And as much as I tried to avoid it, I was occasionally asked to supervise such work—and I did. And they defended exactly that: a master’s thesis.
There’s nothing new here. It’s elementary. So if you’re unfamiliar with this, just type “магистерская диссертация” into a search bar—and an unfamiliar world will open up before you. Often, this kind of condescending tone simply masks outright ignorance.
ChatGPT on Igor Yakovenko Link to heading
With all due respect, dear Vlast-to, Igor Aleksandrovich, today I’m listening to your stream—“Vladimir the Mad.” Something amusing happened to me, and I’d like to share. Not for the first time, I came across the phrase “straw man,” and to make sure I understood it correctly, I turned to ChatGPT. It not only explained the term but praised me for listening so attentively to your stream. It asked who I was listening to. I replied, “Don’t you know? It’s Igor Yakovenko.” To which it immediately responded: “Actually, I do know who Igor Yakovenko is. He’s a well-known Russian journalist, sociologist, public figure, former Secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists, and a State Duma deputy from the Yabloko bloc.”
That’s false. False. Four or five. I can tell you right away—I was not a State Duma deputy from the Yabloko bloc. When I was a deputy, there was no Yabloko yet. So, let’s just say—that’s incorrect.
Then it went on: “He often speaks critically of the Russian authorities and analyzes the media. His interviews are usually very substantive.” And then it offered to analyze your stream together. Personally, I just want to say—yes, yes. And finally—it’s very hard. I’m 63. I don’t know how to go on living. Any advice on how to live further?”
Dear Alexander, I can’t give you advice. I can only say this: “Going on living”—materially, that’s one thing. But I think that—if you are in Russia, as I understand—you know, communicating online really does help form a kind of healthy social skin. So let’s keep thinking, let’s keep talking. That’s what I live and work for.
As for the amusing episode—yes, artificial intelligence gathers information from everywhere. I don’t know what internal fact-checking it uses, but this little thing—well, I never was in Yabloko. That’s a historical fact. And here it says I was a deputy from Yabloko. A small error, of course—but a reminder that artificial intelligence can be wrong too.
On advertising on the channel Link to heading
So, Sergey Bebeshko: Igor Aleksandrovich, the amount of advertising in your broadcasts is degrading to viewers and distorts the meaning of your content. You should think about this and definitely come up with some optimization. With regret, I’ll be forced to give up my habit of watching your material. A real shame.
Dear Sergey, I’m very sorry too. Truly, I sincerely regret that you—and perhaps some others—choose to stop watching because of the ads in the broadcasts. You believe there’s an offensively large amount of it?
You see, I’m not going to make excuses, but I’ll say right away: I won’t and can’t change anything, because I don’t place the ads—YouTube does. Probably in the settings of the stream I could—well, as far as I know—I could disable ads altogether. But in that case, YouTube will severely throttle my streams.
And beyond that, I would lose any and all income. I have no other sources of income—I don’t receive a pension, I don’t engage in any activity other than running my YouTube channel. I have no other earnings.
So, doing what you ask would basically mean shutting down the channel. I’m not talking about ending my life—that’s irrelevant here—but it would mean the end of the channel. Or I’d have to look for completely different ways to earn a living.
That’s just the problem. As far as I know, there is a way to watch YouTube without ads—but you have to pay something. Not to me—to YouTube.
So yes, free content always comes with a price. I understand that ads are annoying—probably very much so. But there are different ways to deal with it: either pay to remove the ads, or simply endure them. You can skip ads after a few seconds.
There is no magic solution that eliminates all downsides. So unfortunately, if this is intolerable for you—well, I’m very sorry too.
Closing remarks Link to heading
That concludes all the questions and comments from today’s stream. Once again, a reminder: today, unusually on a Wednesday, we’ll be speaking with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky at 19:00. With that, I wrap up today’s conversation. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov, Darya Korneeva, Gorina, and many other Russian political prisoners. And of course, to Ukrainian prisoners of war. See you at 19:00. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/Ejp7MO7xXz8