Trumpists are divided over the Iran issue, and Trump called Tucker Carlson “crazy.” At the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, they paraded the children and grandchildren of the “elite,” as well as the Taliban.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 19, and the time is 07:41, Kyiv time. We continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Trump’s Rumbles Link to heading
Well, unfortunately, not a single broadcast goes by without some transmission of some rumbling from Donald “Empty Bucket” Trump. When asked by journalists whether the United States would strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump replied, “I might do it, or I might not. And really, no one knows what I’m going to do,” said Donald Trump. An empty bucket. I mean, it’s a truly stunning statement—no one knows what I’ll do. Everyone’s just been suffering in speculation. Because I might strike, I might not; I’ll do whatever I want.
The thing is, the core Trumpist camp, Musk’s camp, is split over the Iran issue. On one hand, Trump is back. The second coming of Trump. He’s back. Back in the U.S., back in the presidential chair with the slogan “America First” and a promise not to start or finish wars. On the other hand, the United States has been trying for decades to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And so the very prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict has split the Musk camp—unclear in what proportion if we’re talking voters—but the most prominent Musk allies are split about 50/50.
People like Tucker Carlson, Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon, and one of the most prominent congresswomen, Taylor Greene—they’re staunch isolationists, demanding that Trump not get involved in a Middle East war. Carlson even said that Trump should abandon Netanyahu, and Taylor Greene declared that those who support a U.S. strike on Iran cannot be “America First” politicians.
As for the opposing side—let’s call them hawks, though they’re not really hawks, just people who believe Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons—this includes, first of all, Senator Lindsey Graham and some TV hosts who counter Tucker Carlson’s position. Lindsey Graham, in particular, said, “If we need to give bombs to Israel, if we need to fly with them—wouldn’t the world be better if the ayatollahs disappeared?”
The spat between TV hosts Carlson and Levin is quite telling: Levin called Carlson a lying propagandist, and Carlson accused Levin of campaigning for bombing Iran.
Trump’s immediate circle is waiting it out, because they understand that getting into a conflict with Trump is more trouble than it’s worth. The GOP mostly takes a cautious, wait-and-see approach. For instance, Vance said that Trump deserves trust, so he won’t express his own opinion.
As for Trump, he said that the meaning of “America First” will be defined by him personally, since he invented that policy, and he gave a bit of a rebuke. So, apparently, at least rhetorically for now, he leans toward supporting Israel. He stated that “those who want peace can’t have it if Iran has nuclear weapons.” And he called Tucker Carlson “crazy” for not understanding that Iran should not have nuclear bombs.
I don’t know how Carlson responded to that, but in any case, things are fairly clear here. There’s a problem: the American expert and intelligence communities are also somewhat divided. Until very recently, U.S. intelligence reported that Iran had not made a political decision to develop nuclear weapons. At the same time, IAEA experts, as we discussed yesterday, stated that Iran is just days away from producing a nuclear bomb.
But now, the Director of National Intelligence, speaking on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community, stated in March that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. And after Trump said yesterday that the Iranians were very close to creating a bomb, journalists immediately asked how that squared with what Hubbard said. Trump responded that he doesn’t care what she said.
Trump’s habit of disregarding his own intelligence community goes back to his first term. Remember the press conference after the meeting with Putin in Helsinki? Journalists asked Trump what he thought about the U.S. intelligence community’s belief that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election. Trump said he didn’t believe his own intelligence services—he believed Putin. “Well, Putin said Russia didn’t interfere, so that means they didn’t.” That’s his tradition: to disregard and humiliate his own intelligence.
Indeed, a number of experts believe Israel has not provided convincing evidence that Iran is on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. In any case, whether Iran is days or weeks away, the threat is real. And if efforts to destroy these developments have begun, it’s clear they must be completed—and probably can’t be without the U.S. The war is clearly dragging on.
There’s a general expectation that internal processes in Iran might lead to regime change. But most expert assessments are pessimistic. Despite the fact that, according to the IMF, the standard of living in Iran has dropped fourfold over the past 12 years, with official inflation at 40% and real inflation closer to 200%, the Iranian regime remains fairly stable. It’s not North Korea. Iran has many well-educated, thinking people—it’s a much more advanced society. It’s hard to compare Iran to Russia, but Iran is a much younger society than Russia’s. So the prospects for some kind of social upheaval are more realistic.
Nevertheless, for now, there’s no protest movement. So it looks like the war will drag on. It’s clear that U.S. involvement could significantly alter the situation regarding the destruction of Iran’s nuclear and military potential, but it’s unlikely to end the war quickly. Because without a ground operation, the war won’t end. And neither Trump nor Israel seems willing to conduct one.
St. Petersburg Economic Forum Link to heading
Let’s move over to Russia for just a few words. Last night, Putin met with the heads of international news agencies. I had written down a bunch of quotes from Putin’s speech from the Kremlin website, but you know what? I think I won’t read them out loud. It’s just too unpleasant to quote both Trump and Putin in the same stream. Really, it’s too much. So I’ll put it in my own words—many of you probably already know, but I’ll say it anyway, through commentary.
Naturally, Putin once again said that Russia didn’t start the war. He claimed that Ukraine started the war on its own territory and that Russia has nothing to do with it at all. And, of course, he showered flattery on Donald Trump, saying he’s absolutely right that there wouldn’t have been a war if he had been president instead of Joe Biden. And he naturally went on to blame Joe Biden. In this, he and Trump are in full agreement. And, of course, he again praised Trump for his sincere desire to resolve—what he called—the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
A couple of words about the event known as the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. I’ve been trying to figure out the difference between the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum. I kept trying to pinpoint the difference and never really did—because just as there was no jurisprudence at the legal forum, there was practically no economics at this one. So what was there?
Well, mainly, a mass parade of the children and grandchildren of the Russian elite—and also a showing off of the Taliban. It was a kind of demonstration that the aging elite apparently intends to pass down power and property through inheritance. Both of Putin’s daughters were there—at least the ones he acknowledges (or doesn’t, though there’s a public consensus that they are his): Katerina Tikhonova and Maria Vorontsova, the elder. Shoigu’s daughter, Ksenia Shoigu, was there too. So were the children of Kiriyenko, Wagner, Rotenberg, Kovalchuk, and Fradkov.
Clearly, the idea is to show them off, to introduce them to society, to groom them as public opinion leaders. It’s going poorly—very poorly—because none of these offspring can speak without a script. Not one of them said anything beyond “two plus two equals four.” But they are clearly trying to pass something on to them—if not power, then certainly property.
And of course, the Taliban have now become regulars in the society pages. Former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl also showed up, now apparently posing as an expert in fighting physicists.
So it’s a fairly high-society affair. Again, I’ll say it: there’s practically no difference between the St. Petersburg Economic and Legal Forums—just different names. Otherwise, it’s the same social gathering.
Perhaps the most striking commentary on the event came from Ksenia Anatolyevna Sobchak. She was very saddened and deeply concerned by the fact that there were no escort workers at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. I have to quote her—these are her words. Ksenia Anatolyevna Sobchak said, with sadness and outrage: “So far, I have only one impression of the forum, and it’s the main one: no whores. What happened?” Like I said, I’m just quoting here.
Ksenia Anatolyevna’s sadness is understandable—after all, as she put it, “Gandhi is dead, there’s no one to talk to.” And here, apparently, she also had no one to talk to due to the absence of this important category of Russian citizens.
And with that, I’ll wrap up the first part of our conversation.
Q&A Link to heading
So. And let me remind you that today we’re going to have, I think, a very interesting conversation with Israeli expert Grigory Omar. This is his first time on our broadcast, and I hope it will be a very engaging discussion, because he’s truly a highly knowledgeable expert on the issues we’re currently concerned with—not only the Middle East, but also Ukraine. Now I’ll move on to answering your questions.
Do the Media Interfere in the Internal Affairs of States? Link to heading
So? A question from Leonid: What is meant by interference in the internal affairs of a state? You’re often accused of interfering in another country’s internal affairs. Official representatives or state media may be able to do this, but they shouldn’t. Or am I wrong? How can a blogger interfere? That is, influence government policy or the structure of a state? That can only be done by the wealthy and network owners.
Well, you know, again—no one can be forbidden from expressing their opinion about the internal situation in any given country. That’s impossible. You can’t forbid politicians, you can’t forbid bloggers, you can’t forbid experts, you can’t forbid journalists. Each of us says what we believe is appropriate. Each of us shares our opinions or assessments, or presents certain facts regarding the domestic and foreign policies of any country, if we believe it’s personally interesting or of interest to our audience. Trying to ban anything like that—well, it’s strange, it’s an assault on freedom of speech, and it’s impossible.
As for who influences what—that, sorry, depends on the size of one’s audience and the level of trust in one’s words. Personally, I—Igor Yakovenko—generally avoid passing judgment on Ukraine’s internal and foreign policy. But that’s my personal choice, my personal decision. And when someone accuses me of something—well, excuse me, they simply don’t understand how the modern world works.
Is China Negotiating with Europe to End the War? Link to heading
Elena: Based on your conversation with Sheitelman, I’m convinced that Europe and China have been actively negotiating over the war in Ukraine, starting around March of this year. My conviction is based on a few details. For example, China stopped selling drones to Ukraine about a month ago but continues to sell to Russia. I assume the Chinese themselves made a proposal to Europe to stop the war, offering conditions that—for whatever reason—were unacceptable to the Europeans. After being rejected, China began to show its influence. I include Xi’s visit to Moscow on May 10 in this context.
No, but the fact that negotiations are ongoing is no secret. I was saying something else. I was saying that it’s highly unlikely that China’s relationship with Europe will influence China’s relationship with Russia. And overall, I’m not convinced that China will become—so to speak—a replacement for the United States as a partner. That’s out of the question. The political and value-based differences between China and the Europeans are simply too great.
Would Harris Allow a Strike on Iran? Link to heading
A question from Anton. Several questions. Please try to answer impartially.
Well, we’ll see how it goes.
In your opinion, hand on heart, would Harris allow Israel to strike Iran?
I don’t know, I don’t know. And besides—what does “allow” even mean? I think that starting from October 7, 2023, Israel made a decision. What happened on October 7, 2023, fundamentally changed Israel. Netanyahu, of course, understands what happened to the country. Israel became different—completely different. Israel stopped being cautious. It stopped being, let’s say, restrained. In a certain sense, what happened—that nightmare on October 7—burned out Israel’s brakes. And that’s understandable—it was essentially a mini-Holocaust. So everything just blew—fuses were blown.
And I don’t think Kamala Harris or Donald Trump could have stopped what’s been happening since June 13—Israel’s attack on Iran. This has clearly been in the works since right after October 7. It was a long-term preparation. So when I say Israel lost its caution—in quotation marks—that doesn’t mean Israel lost its composure. They spent more than a year and a half preparing for this strike, and the decision was made. No one can stop Israel in what it’s doing. Israel has made the decision to eliminate the possibility of another October 7 and to eliminate any threats to the safety of its citizens.
Was There a Green Light from Trump for the Strike on Iran? Link to heading
Second question: Do you really believe that Israel struck Iran without Trump’s green light?
I can only go by what Trump said. I don’t know what “green light” means in this context. Trump explicitly told Israel not to strike. He clearly and openly said, “You’ll ruin everything—don’t strike.”
So, in your worldview, it would look like this: Trump publicly says “don’t strike,” but secretly whispers to Netanyahu, “Go ahead, strike”? Gives him permission in private? I don’t think so.
But then again, Trump is Trump, you understand? He himself doesn’t know what he’s going to say next.
The Role of the Black Hundreds in the Formation of Fascism in Europe Link to heading
So, Alexander Ficha of the dynamic movement. That means we have a question from Alexander: There is a viewpoint that the Black Hundreds, a movement in Russia and an ultraright group, along with émigré philosophers from the Russian Empire, played a significant role in the formation and strengthening of fascist ideologies in Europe up to the beginning of World War II. In your opinion, how well-founded is this view?
If we were to answer your question very briefly, then this opinion is, of course, not well-founded. Are there any grounds for it? In particular, well, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as is well known, originated in Russia—that is true. And since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were one of the myths that helped shape the antisemitic direction of German National Socialist policy, then, well, one could say that among the foundations of fascist ideologies, there was a small contribution from Russian Black Hundred members. But, of course, the creation of fascist ideologies themselves was primarily not of Russian origin. That is, both Italian fascism and German National Socialism have completely different social and ideological roots. But some sort of small contribution by the Russian Black Hundreds—specifically this antisemitic fabrication—did play a certain, albeit limited, role.
Will Putin Face an Imminent End? Link to heading
So, Sergey? Please do take care of your health. Putin and his gang care very much and intend to rule forever. That’s true. I think 2025 or 2026 will bring catastrophe, the end.
You know, I’ve said more than once that I’m somewhat surprised by the near-unanimity among many experts who claim that 2025 will be the end for Putin. I just don’t see it. Maybe I have vision problems? I’m always ready to admit that. I’m always ready to admit I’m wrong. But I simply can’t say something I don’t believe. I just don’t see that ending. It’s just not visible to me, you understand? I don’t see any catastrophe for Putin in 2025. Unfortunately—I’d really like to see one. Tell me how? In what way? All the arguments, all the reasoning from many people, including those I talk to—Mikhail Valentinovich Savva, Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman—they all say it’ll be over in 2025. But I don’t see it. And none of them give me solid arguments. Again, I’d be very happy to be wrong.
Why Was the Memorial Concert for Navalny Cancelled? Link to heading
Raisa, why, in your opinion, was the memorial concert for Navalny cancelled?
You know, there’s the official position from the organizers—that it was cancelled for reasons beyond their control. That exists. Of course, I’ve read plenty of versions, including from all sorts of scum like Russia Today. I don’t want to repeat those versions—they’re just speculation. So, since I don’t have a version of my own, I’ll stick with what the organizers said.
Lungin and Mikhalkov Link to heading
Question from—I unfortunately couldn’t make out how the person identifies themselves. The name… question from MUS, from a user. It’s known that Nikita Mikhalkov is in conflict with Pavel Semyonovich Lungin. He even criticized him for the film “Bratstvo” recently at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Someone asked Nikita to name the top three films, and among others, he named Lungin’s “The Island.” Nikita is strange.
No, Nikita isn’t strange at all. You mean Nikita Mikhalkov? He’s definitely not strange. There’s nothing strange about it. The thing is, Bratstvo is a film about the Afghan war. And Mikhalkov, as an imperial ultra-patriot, joined in the harassment and condemnation of Lungin’s film for allegedly tarnishing the image of Soviet soldiers in the Afghan war. So Mikhalkov’s imperial, state-driven ultra-patriotism didn’t take kindly to it. As for the film The Island, it’s a film steeped in religious themes—cells, holy fools, and so on—and that’s something Mikhalkov is very fond of. So in this case, it all makes perfect sense.
Bridget Brink Link to heading
So, Master Orban asks: What do you think of Bridget Brink, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine? I saw her campaign message on Twitter addressed to the residents of Michigan, where she talks about fighting for democracy, opposes Trump, and stands against dictatorship. Is she a worthy candidate or a populist?
Dear colleague, well, first of all, I can immediately say that I’m definitely not an Americanist, and I’m not prepared to give advice to American voters. So I’ll just share my perspective. Brink worked for three years as ambassador to Ukraine. Throughout those three years, she unconditionally supported Ukraine and condemned Russia. But as soon as Trump came to power, problems started for her. She was too pro-Ukrainian for Trump. She tried to adjust—after all, there’s a president—and she tried to shift her position to align with Trump. But immediately there were difficulties. Zelensky… Well, there were specific comments she made where she didn’t mention Russia in connection with the missile strike on Kryvyi Rih, and Zelensky expressed his displeasure. Then she adjusted her position. In short, right from the start… Well, there’s no way around it. If you try to align your position with Trump’s, it naturally causes outrage from Ukraine. After that, she resigned. She realized that it was impossible to fulfill the role of ambassador to Ukraine under Trump. So after that, she began to sharply criticize Trump. So essentially, her position was quite impeccable. Afterward, she announced her intention to run for Congress in 2026. So, what can I say? I can’t say anything about her as a politician—I won’t say anything on that because I don’t know. So, I don’t know whether she has any real chances. I don’t know if she’s a populist either. But the fact that lately she has been very critical of Trump and has held an absolutely pro-Ukrainian position—that’s good, that’s a big plus. As for the rest, I don’t know.
Is a Broadcast with Svitan Possible? Link to heading
So, Arkady Mikhailov: This Monday you accidentally called Grabsky “Svitan.” All the more reason it would be interesting to hear a conversation between Yakovenko and Svitan. Is that possible?
No, dear colleague, that’s not possible. Such a conversation already took place. As you know, Roman Grigorievich Svitan was, for quite a while, a regular expert on our channel. Later, after I became aware of his antisemitic—not just anti-Israeli, but antisemitic—statements, I asked him about it during one of our broadcasts. After that, there was an exchange of opinions, and it became clear that we could no longer continue to collaborate. Essentially, it was a mutual decision. Roman Grigorievich informed us that we should no longer count on his participation. And all of us on the team shared that view. So that was our last broadcast with him in any meaningful sense. To reiterate: first, it’s not possible, and second, it’s not necessary. So, no such conversation will take place.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, at this point I am unfortunately forced to end our conversation. A large portion of the questions remained unanswered, but this isn’t the end—because tomorrow I will definitely respond, and tomorrow’s broadcast will also be much longer. I’ll try to answer all the questions. And if I don’t manage to, I’ve even started thinking that maybe on Saturday I’ll do a special broadcast mainly devoted to answering questions. With that, I conclude our morning conversation—unfortunately a very short one, which feels unusual. So I bid you farewell. A reminder that at 21:00 we’ll have Grigory Tomchin. It’ll be a very interesting conversation. Glory to Ukraine! Take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov and to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 21:00!
Source: https://youtu.be/C1bXzrHYsY8