The U.S. urged the G7 not to call Russia an “aggressor,” halted arms sales to Ukraine, and is pushing through a deal on minerals. It’s no longer Trump, but the U.S., and not against Zelensky, but against Ukraine.
News Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 21, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and our souls at night.
The U.S. Against Ukraine Link to heading
Last night, the occupiers once again attacked Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles and drones. Ballistic missiles targeted the Odesa region. Explosions also rocked Kyiv, mostly caused by drones. In short, everything continues. That is, against the backdrop of negotiations between the United States and Russia, Russia continues to kill Ukrainians, including civilians.
And against this backdrop, the sharp shift in the position of the United States looks especially cynical. I emphasize—no longer Trump. Just a day ago, one could say this was a shift in Trump’s position. But not anymore. Now, it is a shift in the position of the United States itself. And it’s no longer just against Zelensky personally, but against Ukraine as a whole. What do I mean?
Let’s go step by step—calmly, methodically, point by point.
First. The United States urged the G7 not to call Russia an aggressor. That is, in the statement by the Sejm on the occasion of the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine—and as we understand, this date, the third anniversary of the war, will be this Monday, February 24—the Trump administration is insisting that everything happening be referred to as a “conflict.” A conflict in Ukraine. As if some kind of conflict just happened there. I don’t know, maybe Zelensky had a falling out with someone? Maybe with Klitschko or Poroshenko? Some kind of internal conflict in Ukraine. In other words, the United States is blocking the phrase “Russian aggression.”
Moreover, this year, the United States will not be a co-author of the UN resolution that reaffirms Ukraine’s territorial integrity and condemns Russian aggression. None of that will happen.
This is a very serious shift in U.S. policy toward framing what is happening as merely some kind of “Ukrainian conflict.” Just an internal matter—something domestic, a family affair. A conflict within the country. Moreover, these exact terms are already being used in U.S. State Department statements and in reports on negotiations between Marco Rubio and Lavrov. In Riyadh, the word “conflict” is being used—not war, not Russian aggression. No, just a “conflict in Ukraine.”
Again, I understand that Trumpists are people with a severe form of brain disease. They will continue to say, “But these are just words, you understand, it’s just words.”
Now, secondly—let’s talk about actions. The United States has suspended arms sales to Ukraine. This was stated by the head of the Rada’s defense committee. Roman Kostenko said that the companies responsible for supplying weapons are now waiting for a decision on resuming deliveries. The situation remains uncertain.
Third. The United States does not plan to continue financial support for Ukraine. This became clear after Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives—the same Mike Johnson who, under Trump’s direction, blocked the $61 billion aid package to Ukraine for six months—made his position known.
By the way, I had a very interesting conversation yesterday with Boris, a Republican who campaigned for Trump. Looking straight into the camera, he insisted that Trump had nothing to do with it—that it was just a few evil Republicans who twisted Mike Johnson’s arm and forced him to pull the bill from the vote.
It’s remarkable. This will actually be a separate topic—likely on Saturday or Sunday. I’m currently preparing material on what I call “Trump of the brain.” About a dozen well-known and, unfortunately, influential Russian-speaking Trotskyists in the Russian and Ukrainian media space will be the main subjects of this piece.
Third, the United States does not plan to continue financial support for Ukraine. This became clear after Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives—the same Mike Johnson who, under Trump’s direction, blocked the $61 billion aid package to Ukraine for six months—made his position known.
By the way, I had a very interesting conversation yesterday with Boris, a Republican who campaigned for Trump. Looking straight into the camera, he insisted that Trump had nothing to do with it—that it was just a few ruthless Republicans who twisted Mike Johnson’s arm and forced him to pull the bill from the vote.
It’s remarkable. This will actually be a separate topic—likely on Saturday or Sunday. I’m currently preparing material on what I call “Trump Brain.” About a dozen well-known and, unfortunately, influential Russian-speaking Trotskyists in the Russian and Ukrainian media space will be the main subjects of this piece.
Fourth, there is a shift in Pentagon funding priorities. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Head has ordered Pentagon leadership to develop plans for an annual 80% reduction in the defense budget.
But that’s not the main issue. The real problem lies elsewhere—the outlined priorities. While the Pentagon’s overall budget is being reduced by 8% annually, certain areas remain protected. These priority areas include funding for military construction in the Pacific region, as well as financing for the Indo-Pacific and Northern Commands.
But on the list of budget cuts—the areas that will bear the reductions—the top priority is the European Command, which plays a key role in supporting Ukraine. In reality, this means a shift in priorities is happening right before our eyes. This is not just rhetoric—these are concrete actions.
The European Command, which is essentially the Pentagon’s structure responsible for protecting Europe and supporting Ukraine, is facing significant cuts. If the overall budget is reduced by 8% while certain areas remain protected, it naturally means a substantial reduction in funding for U.S. forces in Europe—the very forces that are crucial to supporting Ukraine.
What else is happening? I would call the fifth point the aggressive push for a mineral resources deal.
Right now, the U.S. administration has urgently presented Ukraine with an updated draft agreement on rare earth elements. After Zelensky rejected the initial proposal, a revised version was submitted. I haven’t seen the document myself, so I can’t assess how significant the changes are in making it more acceptable.
I’m really hoping that we can find someone who, on the one hand, understands the issue in depth, knows the historical parallels, and can provide a competent expert analysis of what is currently being proposed.
Nevertheless, there are some expert opinions—though it’s not entirely clear what they are based on—that suggest the likelihood of the deal being signed is increasing. At the very least, there is hope for that.
Zelensky is now going to face unprecedented pressure to sign this deal. Specifically, White House National Security Advisor Michael Watts stated yesterday that Ukraine must return to the negotiating table on mineral resources. He explicitly said the following: “These are negotiations, and in negotiations, agreements must be reached. Ukraine wants to negotiate on mineral resources—we are talking about it.”
In other words, pressure is being applied. Again, to understand whether Ukraine’s interests were considered in this new version, a detailed analysis is needed—something I am not in a position to do myself. That’s why I need an expert to discuss this with.
Let’s summarize briefly.
It is now clear that this is not just an attack on Zelensky—it is a significant shift in course, a shift toward Russia. In this war between Russia and Ukraine, the United States—not just Trump personally, but essentially his entire administration—is changing its stance. This is no longer just a personal whim.
Of course, the U.S. is a country where leadership matters, but at the same time, this situation is similar to what happened with Putin. Putin started the war, but soon it was all of Russia that was fighting.
It is now absolutely clear that the U.S. is shifting its course toward Russia. There is no direct support yet, although Trump has already stated that Ukraine started the war. So, how far this shift toward Russia will go is hard to predict.
But at the very least, it is already certain that the United States is no longer on Ukraine’s side. Everything I just outlined makes it obvious—not only is the U.S. not supporting Ukraine, but to some extent, it is acting against Ukraine.
So now the question arises—what options are there? What we are seeing today suggests several possible scenarios.
The first and softest option—the best possible outcome—is that the updated deal, particularly the one concerning mineral resources, turns out to be at least somewhat acceptable.
Ukraine, without a doubt, must consider the importance of not losing such a key ally—or at least a partner, or at the very least, a leading Western nation with which it is still better to maintain good relations than bad ones. So, a compromise on mineral resources might be possible.
In this scenario, Zelensky signs the agreement, and the most aggressive attacks against him subside. More importantly, these attacks do not escalate into concrete actions—actions that I will discuss shortly. This would be the best-case scenario given the current unfavorable circumstances.
In this case, there would be no ironclad demand for Zelensky’s removal from the political arena. Some level of financial support might even resume. In short, this is the ideal option within the narrow corridor of possibilities we see today.
The second option is the extreme hardline scenario. This is a scenario that has already surfaced in some preliminary reports—one where Trump’s and, consequently, Putin’s primary goal of removing Zelensky from the political arena starts taking a concrete, actionable form.
It’s fairly clear how this could be done. Trump’s statements about withholding billions in aid, combined with Zelensky’s remarks that Ukraine has not received a significant portion of U.S. assistance, are being reframed—not as proof that the aid wasn’t delivered, but as an allegation that it was stolen.
Furthermore, the U.S. has a well-established and protected legal framework. Independent prosecutors—those who were involved in investigations against Trump or who have maintained professional independence—have either already resigned or will be forced out soon. This leaves Trump with a group of prosecutors fully prepared to carry out any directive he gives.
In this scenario, the next step is relatively straightforward: launching criminal investigations against Zelensky’s inner circle, focusing on alleged mismanagement or corruption related to U.S. aid. From there, these cases could be expanded to directly target Zelensky himself.
This would be the blueprint for such a campaign.
It’s clear that Ukrainian society is extremely frustrated right now. There have already been reports of Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel removing patches with the American flag.
This shift in U.S. rhetoric and policy, along with the direct attacks on Ukraine’s president, is undoubtedly causing deep outrage across the country.
But if criminal cases are indeed initiated, and prosecutors formally charge Zelensky, this would make the situation irreversible.
Even now, it’s hard to imagine how, after everything that has been said, any form of direct interaction between Zelensky and Trump could still be possible. However, there is at least some chance—Trump, in this sense, is remarkably flexible in his thinking and can easily change course if it suits him.
Zelensky’s room for maneuver is extremely limited, and it’s clear that he cannot afford to take this personally. If he were just a private citizen, then of course, after everything that has happened, shaking Trump’s hand would be unthinkable.
But in the current situation, personal pride has to be set aside. He will engage with Trump if necessary. However, if a criminal case is officially launched against him—which seems increasingly likely—then the situation could become truly irreversible.
This is the absolute worst-case scenario. But there are many intermediate options where, in the end, Trump’s so-called peace initiative leads nowhere.
Most likely, Trump will eventually just wash his hands of the situation—much like he did with Hamas. He initially threatened to “open the gates of hell” if all hostages weren’t released by last Saturday. But when Hamas completely ignored his demands, Trump suddenly shifted, saying the U.S. would step aside and let Israel handle it.
A similar hands-off approach could easily be applied to Ukraine. And honestly, that might not be the worst outcome. Because in this scenario, even if U.S. support is reduced, it wouldn’t be entirely cut off.
Well, obviously, he says one thing today, and if Trump tells him to say something else tomorrow, he’ll say something else.
In any case, European aid remains, and Ukraine continues to survive, continues to fight, and has the means to do so.
These are the possible scenarios. I think we’ll soon see how events unfold and which path this situation takes. But one thing is clear—there has been a very sharp shift.
Well, everything that’s happening right now is truly unprecedented—unprecedented in American history and unprecedented in the context of this large-scale war.
The U.S. is now fully shifting to a position against Ukraine. Everything we’re seeing points to that. It’s essentially an alliance with Russia against Ukraine—not in the most extreme form, but the trajectory is clearly heading in that direction.
Well, what can I say? Quite a surprise as we approach the three-year mark of this full-scale war.
Just as we reflect on what these three years have meant, the U.S. has made a sharp turn.
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that we have two very interesting guests today.
At 14:00, we will be joined by Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak. This is important because it gives us an official perspective. I fully understand that the official stance may not be as bold as we’d like, but nonetheless, it’s crucial to hear how the Office of the President of Ukraine views all of this.
Just as it was important for me yesterday to hear from Boris—to understand how those who campaigned for Trump explain what’s happening now.
And at 19:00, we will be joined by Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky.
So, at 14:00—Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak, and at 19:00—Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky.
Now, moving on to your questions. Shall we?
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Can Yermak Seize Power in Ukraine? Link to heading
Oleg Litvin:
If Yermak in Ukraine holds a position like Stalin as chief of staff, could he eventually seize power?
I won’t evaluate the role of the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine in personal terms—that’s not my focus. If you want that kind of analysis, let Mr. Shvets discuss it. My position is more fundamental.
The key difference—regardless of who Yermak is as a person—is structural. Unlike Stalin, Yermak’s power is entirely derivative of the president’s authority. That’s the fundamental distinction between the head of Ukraine’s presidential office and Stalin’s role.
Stalin came to power as General Secretary of the Communist Party. Initially, he controlled only the party’s secretariat—essentially just administrative functions. But the difference is that controlling the party’s secretariat meant controlling the entire party’s internal processes. That, in turn, allowed him to become its de facto leader.
In contrast, the head of the Ukrainian presidential office has no such systemic power. His position does not grant him the ability to become superior to the president. The president can dismiss him at any moment, without consulting anyone.
Stalin, on the other hand, had no single superior who could remove him. Any decision regarding his position had to be made collectively. But since Stalin controlled party personnel appointments, he was able to shape the very collective that would have been responsible for deciding his fate. That was the core of his power.
The Soviet party system allowed Stalin, through control of the secretariat and later the party’s organizational department, to rule the country by managing party structures. This kind of power structure simply does not exist in Ukraine’s government today.
So, no—there is absolutely no real analogy between Yermak and Stalin.
On “Philosophy-Studying” Link to heading
Marat writes, inspired by discussions on the study of philosophy:
“I graduated from the Mechanics and Mathematics Faculty of Moscow State University, and my diploma says ‘mathematician.’ Of course, I wouldn’t compare myself to Galois, Poincaré, Hilbert, Kolmogorov, or many others. By analogy, should I then call myself a ‘mathematics-studier’?”
Dear Marat, there is no real analogy here. Let me explain.
You can learn mathematics, but you cannot learn philosophy in the same way. You can thoroughly study the works of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, and so on, but that alone does not make you a philosopher.
The fundamental difference is this: originally, all sciences were part of philosophy. This is a well-known historical fact. Aristotle’s philosophy included physics, metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics—essentially everything. Physics, chemistry, and biology were all once housed within philosophy.
Over time, as these fields developed and became structured disciplines, they separated from philosophy. This happened when these sciences began producing definitive answers to their questions.
Mathematics, for example, builds knowledge systematically, forming a growing pyramid of truths. No one questions the multiplication table or the fundamental theorems of geometry. They may be refined or expanded upon, but their foundations remain unquestioned. That’s why you can learn mathematics and become a mathematician.
Philosophy doesn’t work this way. Its core questions are constantly being reinterpreted. There is no fixed pyramid of knowledge. A true philosopher, while drawing on the works of predecessors, always starts from scratch in some sense.
Philosophy is not merely a collection of knowledge but a distinct way of thinking—one that cannot simply be learned.
So no, you are not a “mathematics-studier,” you are a mathematician. But as for me—am I a philosopher? Who knows. Probably not. Becoming one would have required an entirely different path in life.
That’s the fundamental dividing line: philosophy is not just a science; it is a unique intellectual approach to understanding the world.
Was Stalin a Man of Integrity? Link to heading
Question from Vera:
“Is it true that there was minimal corruption under Stalin, which helped boost Russia’s economy? Some call him a man of integrity. But I also know from my parents about the extreme measures taken against ordinary people—how they were imprisoned or even executed for collecting leftover grain from the fields.”
Dear Vera,
Stalin certainly had no personal need for money. The idea of Stalin himself engaging in corruption is absurd because he effectively owned the entire country.
It’s similar to asking whether Nicholas II or Alexander III were corrupt. Of course not—because they owned all the land in the Russian Empire. Likewise, Stalin ruled over the entire Soviet Union.
He had no need for money when everything was already at his disposal. He had around 20 state-owned dachas that he used at will, and anything he desired was available to him. In that sense, money was simply unnecessary. Perhaps Nicholas II or Alexander III carried cash on hand, but they ruled over everything, making personal wealth irrelevant.
This is a hallmark of the so-called Russian style of power, which remained unchanged regardless of whether the state was called the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Tsardom of Russia, the Russian Empire, or the Soviet Union. The ruler owned everything and everyone.
So yes, Stalin was a “man of integrity” in the sense that he had no need for silver when he already possessed everything.
As for whether he boosted Russia’s economy—that’s a separate discussion. Yes, industrialization did take place, but it came at the cost of catastrophic social degradation, and much of it was made possible through American assistance.
And regarding repression—it went far beyond just the infamous Law of Three Spikelets. There were mass purges aimed at eliminating the intellectual and cultural elite. The most intelligent, educated, and talented individuals were simply wiped out. Stalin’s repressions led to a devastating decline in the overall quality of the population.
Is Christianity Beneficial or Harmful? Link to heading
Yulia asks:
“In your opinion, is Christianity a beneficial or harmful experience for humanity? The Russian Orthodox Church is a criminal organization. Don’t be under any illusions about the Pope either. But I’ve personally read the works of Isaac of Nineveh, and his analysis helped me overcome my tendency to take offense and much more. I especially liked his chapters on ‘the merciful heart.’ So, in your opinion, is Christianity a plus or a minus?”
Despite being a non-believer—as I’ve said a thousand times—I consider myself an agnostic with a strong leaning toward atheism. However, I am absolutely convinced that Christianity has been, without a doubt, a positive force and remains one of the foundational pillars of Euro-Atlantic civilization.
I’ve explained this before, and the evidence is simple: just look at the U.S. dollar—In God We Trust. Look at how American presidents take their oath, placing their hands on the Bible. Out of 46 presidents, only one or two have deviated from this tradition. It’s clear that Christianity is part of the foundation.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that everyone must believe in God. Today, the role of Christianity is not as dominant as it once was. But historically, the choice of religion largely determined the direction of civilization’s development.
Yes, there were Dark Ages. Yes, Christian authorities destroyed ancient cultural heritage. Yes, there was the Inquisition. All of that is true. But even through those dark periods, the foundation of Christianity remained progressive. In the end, antiquity survived and resurfaced, even after centuries of suppression.
Interestingly, if we’re being historically fair, Islam actually played a key role in bringing ancient knowledge back to Europe. It was the translation movement in the Islamic Caliphate that helped reintroduce classical philosophy and science to Europe.
So, while today’s Islam presents a complex picture, history has seen moments when it contributed significantly to intellectual progress.
But overall, on balance, Christianity has been a net positive.
Is the American People Responsible for Their President? Link to heading
Question from Svetlana:
“Is the American people collectively responsible for the actions and words of their president?”
Well, yes, of course they are. How could it be otherwise?
If we believe that the Russian population bears collective responsibility for Putin’s actions, then the same principle must apply to the U.S. population. The key difference is that Putin has not been legitimately elected for a long time—he is a usurper. But the U.S. president is elected by a significant number of people—77 million voted for Trump.
So how can we argue that Russians are responsible for Putin, but Americans are not responsible for Trump?
That said, the scale of responsibility is different. Putin is actively killing people. Trump, at least for now, is not. So the degree of responsibility varies. But in general, yes—the American people do bear responsibility.
Will Trump Be Overthrown? Link to heading
Question:
“How long do you think Trump will stay in power, and could a civil war break out in the U.S. because of him?”
I don’t know for sure. But for now, my assumption is that he will last the full four years.
Trump has significant support, and Americans primarily react to domestic issues. Right now, what he does on the international stage doesn’t concern most people. The average American doesn’t care much about foreign policy—only politically engaged individuals, like myself, for example, get outraged by Trump’s actions abroad.
But the majority of people focus on inflation, unemployment, and crime rates—that’s what drives their opinions. And so far, there’s no domestic catastrophe. If that changes, then we might see a shift.
Elections in the Trenches? Link to heading
Vladislav from Latvia, a supporter of our channel (for which we thank him), writes:
“I was a bit stunned to see how many people in Latvia believe that if parliament is functioning, then elections must be held—otherwise, it’s not a democracy. Fortunately, I have people to ask about this. What do soldiers in the trenches think about this obsession with Ukraine’s ‘legitimacy’ and Trump’s insistence on elections?
From what I’ve been told, Ukrainian soldiers have plenty of words to describe both Trump and Putin—but legitimacy isn’t something they discuss. My friend, who is now on the front lines defending Ukraine, told me over the phone just before I sat down to write this:
‘If Trump needs these elections so badly, let him organize them himself. He can send American soldiers to deliver ballots and voting boxes to the trenches—we’ll gladly vote between waves of enemy assaults. As election observers, let’s send Republican congressmen to make sure the votes aren’t rigged. Better yet, Trump himself and his inner circle should personally oversee the process. And while he’s at it, he should arrange for the U.S. ambassador to Russia to collect ballots from Ukrainians forcibly deported there.’
All of this boiled down to one position: What have the Armed Forces of Ukraine been fighting for over three years if not for the right to free choice? And now, what kind of ‘choice’ is there when the only priority is to keep shooting at the enemy? What’s the point of elections if, at this moment, Ukraine’s political course can only be one?
If Ukraine ‘doesn’t understand’ democracy and elections, then let the U.S. come and teach them. After a guided tour of the trenches, they’ll surely have a better grasp of how to conduct democracy under shelling.”
Well, to be honest, I read this to the end and didn’t see an actual question. If there was one, I must have missed it.
That being said, I fully share your sarcasm and your perspective. So, while there’s no direct question here to answer, I can at least say—I completely agree with the tone and logic of your comment.
Is an Attack on the Baltic States Possible? Link to heading
Farit Hafizov asks:
“Do you really believe that Russia will attack the Baltic states?”
People constantly say that economics is everything. Well, that’s what they say. But I’m not convinced that economics is the only possible way to interpret reality. In fact, economics is one of the reasons Russia has become what it is today. That’s why I don’t subscribe to a purely cynical, economy-first worldview. Yes, economics matters tremendously, but there are other factors at play as well.
Now, regarding your question. We live in a probabilistic world.
As of today, the probability of Russia attacking the Baltic states is close to zero. Right now, at this very moment, I don’t see it happening. But beyond that? It depends on how things unfold.
If Trump and Putin work together to crush Ukraine, Russia might develop a taste for more. Appetite grows with eating, as the saying goes. If Ukraine is crushed through their joint efforts, an attack on the Baltic states could become a real possibility.
That said, I still consider this scenario highly unlikely, mainly because I don’t believe they will be able to completely destroy Ukraine. Even in the worst-case scenario, Ukraine will continue resisting.
But a small chance of escalation? It exists. For now, it remains low.
Could Trump Be Deceiving Us About His Support for Putin? Link to heading
Question from “The Artist”:
“Igor Alexandrovich, you once said that politicians are forced to say what people expect from them. Could it be that Trump and Zelensky are actually playing a game against Putin—making him believe he’s in control, that Trump is his friend—just to lure him out and arrest him in a country under the Rome Statute? Could this be a complex strategic plan?”
I think this is a conspiracy theory without any real foundation.
First of all, Putin will never travel to a country that recognizes the Rome Statute—that’s obvious. Not even under Trump’s guarantees. He simply won’t go, period.
He traveled to Mongolia because he knew there was zero risk of arrest. Most likely, he went there with a security detail larger than the entire Mongolian army. And logistically, extracting Putin from Mongolia—wedged between Russia and China—would be nearly impossible.
Putin will only travel to places where his safety is absolutely guaranteed. That alone makes this scenario highly improbable.
But beyond that, there are even stronger reasons to dismiss this theory. Nothing that is happening right now suggests this scenario is at all likely.
The Influence of Curtis Yarvin on Musk Link to heading
Georgiy Svatkovsky asks:
“Are you familiar with the work of an American thinker, philosopher, and blogger named Curtis Yarvin? I came across a mention of him in a film by Stanislav Kucher. It is claimed that he has influenced Elon Musk, billionaire Peter Thiel, and others. His main concept is fundamentally incompatible with freedom and democracy—he promotes the idea that governments should be run like corporations, rejects militarism, and supports authoritarian rule. How do you assess his influence on these figures and their actions?”
Yes, I am familiar with the works of this figure. If I were to compare his level of reactionary mysticism to a well-known Russian counterpart, I’d call him the American Dugin. Not identical in wording, of course, but similar in ideological trajectory.
Yarvin is the founder of a movement called Dark Enlightenment, which argues that American democracy is a failed experiment that should be replaced by a monarchic, corporate-style system.
He has openly defended slavery, claiming that some races are inherently more suited for servitude than others. Simply put—he is a racist.
If I’m not mistaken, he attended Trump’s inauguration, which suggests that his ideas have at least some reach within influential circles. J.D. Vance, for example, has publicly acknowledged Yarvin’s influence on him, though I don’t recall the exact wording.
So yes, Yarvin’s influence is real and significant. Unlike the often exaggerated claims about Dugin’s influence in Russia, Yarvin’s impact is backed by concrete facts.
And this is a problem. In many ways, the ideological closeness between Putin’s and Trump’s circles is becoming more evident. Yarvin’s prominence is just one more symptom of this broader phenomenon.
The Idea of a New Russian Elite Has Failed Link to heading
Ilya asks:
“Have you been following how Russia’s so-called elite has changed since Putin’s statements about replacing them with ‘heroes’ from the war in Ukraine? It seems the old guard has no intention of stepping aside and quickly crushes anyone trying to rise through the ranks. Meanwhile, officials have created their own ’elite battalion,’ where they can comfortably serve, keep their ties on, and still be hailed as heroes. So, has yet another one of Putin’s ideas collapsed?”
What can I say?
I don’t think Putin ever truly intended to create a new elite. Most likely, this was just a performance—a way to motivate those heading off to kill Ukrainians, despite the risk of ending up buried in Ukrainian soil themselves.
For Putin, this was never a matter of principle. I doubt he actually wanted to replace his inner circle with a bunch of war-hardened idiots who volunteered to fight. This whole narrative was more of a propaganda set piece than a genuine political strategy.
So no, I don’t think Putin is losing sleep over the fact that his government isn’t being overrun by “heroes” from the front lines.
Did the U.S. Open Pandora’s Box in Kosovo? Link to heading
Svetlana asks:
“Do you agree that the U.S. opened Pandora’s box with its actions in Europe, particularly in Kosovo, effectively handing Putin a justification? And their invasion of Iraq reinforced the idea that ’the strong can do anything.’ So now the orange, ignorant fool with signs of impending dementia is simply acting within the same paradigm as the world’s powerful.”
I don’t see it that way.
Yes, we can discuss the mistakes and imbalances in previous U.S. administrations’ decisions, but nothing even remotely comparable to what Trump is doing has ever happened before.
And no, I don’t believe that Putin’s aggression is a direct consequence of how the U.S. handled Iraq or Kosovo. That’s a false narrative.
There will always be an excuse—just like the classic Soviet trope: “And in America, they lynch Black people.” It doesn’t matter whether they actually do or whether they elect them as presidents—the argument is always available when needed.
The logic of “everyone steals, so I steal,” or “everyone kills, so I kill,” is a well-worn propaganda trick.
So no, the U.S. did not open Pandora’s box—Putin opened it himself.
Maybe he didn’t have the right key, but he found a lockpick.
Why Invite Trump Supporters to the Channel Link to heading
Natalia.
Don’t you want to ask Trump analyst Ostapenko about this? Haven’t you lost the desire to invite even more Trotskyists to your side?
Well, apparently this comment was made before the author became familiar with our conversation yesterday with Boris Pinkus. You know, it depends on who you’re talking to.
If Trump is willing to engage in dialogue rather than simply, so to speak, fight, then why not? Yesterday, there was, I think, a very useful conversation. It was useful because I was convinced myself—it was interesting to me—and the entire audience saw just how complicated, so to speak, the ideological-political situation turned out to be among those who, not long ago, were convincing us that Trump is the salvation of humanity.
Today, for some it is difficult, while for others it isn’t. But I have the impression that none of them ever feel ashamed. I appreciate that. Although it was tough for me—I don’t know, it was hard for me when our dear Boris spent more than half an hour trying not to answer the simplest questions.
I asked him, “How do you feel about Trump’s statements from yesterday and the day before?” And he started recounting how terrible they were, how horribly the previous one—how all those previous presidents before Trump—behaved. And how, so to speak, well people inside the United States are living now, because under Trump everything was fine, whereas under the Maidan it was all bad.
In short, it was important for me to hear all of that.
Was World War II Inevitable? Link to heading
VERSHBOU Thank you for the previous answer. Regarding Stalin’s genius, I also wanted to hear your opinion. If possible, please share your thoughts on the inevitability of war. The brilliant Stalin is associated with the fact that he foresaw the war 10 years before Hitler came to power. What was the purpose behind initiating industrialization? Do you think that war was truly inevitable in those times?
I have always found this thesis about the inevitability of war in general—even including the current aggression—to be dubious. I believe that war was indeed inevitable. Yes, indeed, Stalin, unlike Trotsky for example, was not a proponent of the idea of world revolution. However, he did not categorically reject it. He simply was not an adventurer, unlike Trotsky, and, so to speak, was not a slave to that idea.
Fundamentally, though, Stalin was preparing for war. He believed that the expansion of the Soviet Union was a goal regardless. This differs somewhat from the world revolution that Trotsky, so to speak, wanted and defended. But Stalin was an unconditional imperialist—a Russian imperialist—and he undoubtedly planned for war. So, besides everything else, you see, war was inevitable at least for the simple reason that, well, if anyone, it was Hitler who definitely planned this war. He was simply moving in that direction. War was one of the central political theses: the necessity of war, the inevitability of war, and even, ideally, the positive aspects of war. All of this was embedded in Hitler’s political concept.
Therefore, the war was, of course, inevitable. As soon as Hitler came to power, war became inevitable. There were simply no alternatives.
As for today’s war, it, too, was inevitable in a certain sense. You see, history places us in a probabilistic world. War became inevitable in August 1999 when Putin was made Prime Minister and it became clear that he would be the next president. Everything was already in motion. It was, so to speak, apparent as early as August 1999 that war was coming. The current war was already visible.
Is Trump on the FSB’s Hook? Link to heading
Georgiy Gavrilyuk.
I believe that the KGB defeated Trump. What’s your opinion? I have great respect for you, dear Gennady. I have a few questions regarding whether Trump is a KGB agent or, so to speak, a person on whom the KGB possesses kompromat.
You know very well whom you’re dealing with. I try not to support or refute things for which I lack sufficient information. I don’t see enough evidence to consider Trump as being on the FSB’s hook or anything of that sort.
Perhaps there is some kompromat on Trump. But listen, there is so much kompromat on Trump. Excuse me, when they say that Putin has kompromat on Trump—claiming that he was involved with girls of questionable social responsibility back in the Soviet days in the ’70s—so what?
Trump is burdened with criminal allegations for the fact that he maintained such relationships. He allegedly even financed it, not exactly with state funds, but with some public funds. He paid for escorts, and so on. So what? And Trump, so to speak, wears this “necklace” of criminal cases around his neck. And so what? He sees it as an adornment. And the fact that he had some ties, so to speak, in Russia—oh my God, the public disclosure of this would only boost Trump’s ratings. Good on you, man!
And what kind of kompromat could the FSB—or the KGB—have on Trump that would scare him and force him to change his position? No, of course, I don’t see that, you understand?
Can the USA Improve Relations with Ukraine Again? Link to heading
Olga Donezkaya, a sponsor of our channel—many thanks to her—writes:
What do you think? Can U.S. policy toward Ukraine change in the near future regarding President Zelensky, considering Trump’s position? After all, Ukraine and President Zelensky enjoyed bipartisan support before Trump’s election.
Dear Olga, I don’t know. I can only say that the cost of that bipartisan support is now becoming clear. Just yesterday, during a conversation with Boris Pinkus, he mentioned that these are Republicans—the narrow wing of Reagan. Now they’re preparing a serious appeal to Trump, urging him to stop engaging in such anti-Ukrainian actions. And what? There’s a protest brewing within the Republican Party, and so on. I’m not seeing that yet. I only see that some individual voices are opposing Trump’s stance aimed at attacking Zelensky and turning against Ukraine.
But I don’t see a mass movement; it appears to be merely isolated statements. For instance, Michael Johnson quite openly supports Trump. I didn’t quote large fragments of his interview, but he said things like, “Well, the great Trump is busy, so don’t bother him. Therefore, don’t give money to Ukraine—it will misuse it, and it will wage war with that money.”
So, where do you see any changes? I don’t see them yet. I hope it can happen. I truly hope so. But I don’t know; I’m not deeply familiar with the current situation within the Republican Party. There was Mike Rubio—well, Rubio, the current Secretary of State—and he was part of that bipartisan consensus. He was a significant part of it; he called Putin a murderer, said that it was completely impossible to deal with him, and ridiculed those European leaders who tried to talk to Putin. And now? He’s talking with Lavrov, so to speak, obediently and quietly, claiming that there is no war in Ukraine—only a Ukrainian conflict. That’s the price of that bipartisan support.
So, I don’t know, I’m not sure. I hope you’re right. I really do. But for now, I have no grounds to believe that such a turnaround is possible.
Can There Be Protests Against Trump? Link to heading
Question from Tata:
It’s obvious that Trump lies. He might say something, but I don’t recall him ever promising to end the war justly in 24 hours—that’s pure populism. Voters couldn’t help but see that this too is a lie, yet they chose him. The President is the face of the nation. The nation hasn’t reacted at all to his brazen attempt to grab everything that comes to his mind. If the nation now stays silent and agrees that he will trample over bodies to achieve his goals, that would mean the nation is just as hypocritical. What kind of democracy are we talking about? Those who claim it’s a clever ploy—that he is really lying to confuse and outsmart Putin, and that he will even help out by not associating with terrorists—on what basis are they sure he’s misleading Putin about them? I’d like to hear Andrey Piontkovsky’s opinion. What turn of events could happen now? First, American society will become disillusioned and regret its choice. What can you do? They’ll have to endure four years. American society will eventually be outraged by Trump’s behavior, and protests will begin. Trump will stick to the Kremlin’s line as long as it grants him access to resources. And a fourth option: Trump might say that his account was hacked. Everything else is just a flaw. It’s even possible that Musk was joking. Asperger’s syndrome is merely a consequence of illness.
Well, let’s set aside the ironic, so-called “Singaporean” type scenarios. I’m not Andrey Andreevich, but since the question came up in the comments to my broadcast, here’s my response.
I don’t think they’ll now claim that everything was hacked—no, that’s out of the question. The more likely scenario is that mass protests aren’t expected for now because all this concerns issues far removed from the average American’s everyday interests. American society will only start to get seriously upset when consumer prices soar, when healthcare, gasoline, and so on become unaffordable. And when, despite Trump’s assurances, prices, crime, and unemployment rise, then yes, there will be outrage—when their own interests are directly affected, not some distant situation like what’s happening in Ukraine. We’ll revert to our own concerns.
As Trump himself said, a beautiful ocean separates us from Ukraine—a beautiful ocean. Just think about it: what a magnificent, marvelous ocean separates the United States of America from Ukraine. So, anything beyond that beautiful ocean—let it burn with blue flames.
Is Trump Crazy? Link to heading
Lilia, Liliana, Alexander.
What do you personally think— is Trump crazy, or is this just a game on his part? His behavior appears extremely irrational and shocking. It’s hard to accuse him of lacking cynicism. So if he hasn’t lost his mind, there must be some logic behind his actions. Or are we living in an upside-down world where patients in a manic ward try to prove that their condition is the norm? Wishing the people of Ukraine and President Zelensky good luck and patience.
Well, since the question is whether he’s crazy—no, he isn’t crazy. But then, what is madness? Is it that he is genuinely trying to betray Ukraine, that he is now sharply drifting toward Putin—and what’s mad about that?
It’s a disgrace for the United States of America. Yes, a disgrace. Well, excuse me, in our eyes it’s a disgrace, but in Trump’s eyes it’s perfectly acceptable. He’s a real politician; he acts as he sees fit in the interests of the United States of America. Understand? Trump essentially excludes the value aspect of politics. The moral aspect of politics simply does not exist for him. For him, it’s all about the deal—everything is just a transaction. And what about morality, what values, what democracy? Liberalism is a derogatory term for him, just as it is for Putin. In that regard, they are like twin brothers.
Does Trump Want a Major War in Europe Link to heading
Cheerful Dacha Owner.
After Trump’s recent statements—statements that were not even critical but rather humiliating—regarding Zelensky, and at the same time not a hint of criticism from Trump toward dictator Putin’s war crimes, don’t you come to the conclusion that perhaps Putin has some killer kompromat on today’s, forgive me, U.S. President? How can a man who became U.S. President, a billionaire, be so stupid as not to answer who attacked whom? And secondly, there’s an online theory that it’s to Trump’s advantage if a large-scale war breaks out in Europe. After all, the history of the last war in Europe showed that the USA only benefited—boosting Europe’s economy with food, European weapons, currency, gold. Maybe that’s why Trump is suggesting to Putin that he unleash a full-scale war in Europe?
I don’t have confidence in that second thesis. I don’t think this kind of conspiracy theory—that Trump is deliberately orchestrating everything so that a major war, a third world war, ensues, allowing the United States to rise on European blood—is true. I’m not convinced this is some long, intricate multi-move strategy.
As for the kompromat on Trump, I’ve already answered that question. I can’t imagine what additional kompromat would be needed to force Trump to do something.
I believe things are much simpler. For Trump, Putin is socially close. He genuinely doesn’t understand why he should, so to speak, support Ukraine against Putin. He truly doesn’t understand because, for him, Putin is completely… He eliminates that issue, you see? What we are witnessing—and what we saw before—is that Trump essentially removes the value and moral aspect from politics. And if you run a thought experiment—please, dear colleagues, conduct a thought experiment—eliminating, as Trump does, all the moral aspects, all the whining, all the tears from politics, what remains? Only bare self-interest. Then Putin stops being seen as a criminal. You’ve removed the moral aspect. That’s it. Putin becomes a normal, pragmatic politician. Who is it more advantageous to cooperate with—Putin or Zelensky? Certainly with Putin; he has more resources and more influence. So, what can you really get from Zelensky? Therefore, if the moral aspect is removed, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s a dictatorship or a democracy; whether one is a murderer or not, it’s just a matter of life. One must look at interests. Is there an interest in cooperating with Putin? Yes, there is. Putin has some resources, and he, so to speak, commands a large army. Everything is fine.
And there’s no need for any conspiracy theory. As for the idea that Trump intends to unleash a third world war in order to rise on a river of blood—I don’t think so. I believe that, well, at least I don’t trust that version.
On a Government of National Unity Link to heading
Anatoly Dovzhenko.
What do you think—could the formation of a government of national unity nullify Trump’s trump card about the illegitimacy of Ukrainian authorities?
I’m convinced it will not. Moreover, the creation of national unity—we’ve discussed this topic before, including in conversations with Vitaly Portnikov. Vitaly is one of my regular interlocutors; as you may know, he believes that the Ukrainian people made a mistake in 2019 by electing Zelensky, and he is consistent in that view. In fact, he is one of the proponents of the idea of forming a government of national unity.
When we discussed this idea, he said, “Well, why not appoint Poroshenko as Prime Minister, for example?” In this arrangement, it’s clear that if we are talking about national unity, then there should be some designated positions for, say, Tymoshenko—perhaps Poroshenko as Prime Minister, Tymoshenko handling the economy, and so on. It reminds me most of the fable of the swan, the crayfish, and the pike, you know? Because imagine that all three are actually involved in a situation where there is war—and war always imposes a very strong limitation on democracy. In times of war, instead of pluralism, military censorship emerges. Instead of collective leadership, there is a single command. The experience of democracy in the military is well known.
I’m not trying to extrapolate military practices to the country’s order, but in wartime—especially in such a total war where every inch of Ukrainian land is involved in the conflict, at least passively—such collective leadership increasingly resembles the swan, the crayfish, and the pike. I think that any attempt to create what is called a government of national unity is a disaster for Ukraine, at least in my view. In this situation, well, yes—you see, these are opponents; after all, when we talk about inviting the opposition into government, that’s it. Then political struggles begin. During war, it turns into a tug-of-war, with orders and decisions being torpedoed left and right. That’s a deadly situation, and that’s why I think so.
As for its influence on Trump—Frankly, Trump doesn’t care about it. You see, you’re to blame for Trump having a position like that of the wolf from the fable “You’re in trouble just because you want to eat,” you understand? He simply doesn’t like Zelensky. Zelensky must disappear because he will undoubtedly, so to speak, block some of Putin’s wishes. And Trump is clearly determined to indulge him.
So, I believe that this option won’t resolve anything, and it will certainly ruin Ukraine. It seems there were more than 1,000 comments today, so I think I’ve tried to analyze them and answer the questions as best as I could. Thank you to everyone who listened until the end. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for political prisoner Alexander Sokolov and Ukrainian captives! Once again, I remind you that at 14:00 we will have a conversation with Mikhail Mikhailovich Alik, and at 19:00 with Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky. I think the conversation is well worth listening to and analyzing. All the best to you. See you at 14:00. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/Sd5URC9bYp4