US strike on Iran, its consequences, and the reaction of the global press. Lukashenko has released Sergei Tikhanovsky, who looks like a prisoner of Auschwitz.
News Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 23. It’s 7:41 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls. Today we’re having a kind of stream of good news. Two pieces of news—one global, the other local. Both are good news. And both are, in one way or another, connected to Donald Trump, paradoxical as that may seem. Well, I’ve said many times before that the main contradiction of Donald Trump is that, on the one hand, he is a fascist-type leader, and on the other hand, he heads a democratic country. And so sometimes, very good news comes into the world through him. That happens.
The US Attacked Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Link to heading
So, the first global news item is that last night, on the night of June 22, the United States of America attacked nuclear facilities on Iranian territory. Assessments vary greatly. Donald Trump himself and senior American military officials believe the strike was extremely successful, claiming Iran’s nuclear program has been eliminated. Naturally, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the damage was not critical. What will happen? The United States has received an indelible response. Indeed, strikes on Israel followed, and they were quite massive. Let’s take a detailed look—try, at least—to analyze what happened. What’s important here is what occurred, how people are reacting to it, and what the potential consequences are.
So, what happened? First, the facts. Six B-2 bombers dropped twelve 14-ton anti-gas and anti-missile bombs, primarily on Iran’s main nuclear facility in Fordow. U.S. Navy submarines launched 30 Tomahawk missiles at facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, where other nuclear sites are located. From what I understand, this is the first known use of the 16-ton bunker-buster bombs. So, what resulted? Based not on the words of people with vested interests, but on imagery—we can see destruction and smoke. Two key observations suggest destruction did occur but may not be catastrophic. Iran claims they managed to evacuate everything in time, and satellite images show trucks, which somewhat supports this. Secondly, there’s been no recorded rise in radiation levels, which would likely have occurred if ready-to-use nuclear bombs had been destroyed.
In any case, it’s clear that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back by several years. Iran invested over half a trillion dollars into it, and if we include all militarization spending, the numbers are astronomical. Specialists could probably assess that more precisely. But this joint attack—first by Israel, then the United States—has effectively turned all of it into dust.
A few words about the reaction. There was the expected response from those who always take a critical stance toward the U.S., no matter what it does. Chief among them is UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who called the strike a dangerous escalation and a direct threat to international peace. Same usual speech—no military solution exists, only diplomacy is the way forward, and a hope for peace. Standard rhetoric that, frankly, has grown tiresome—it’s the same thing we always hear from the likes of Guterres and other bureaucrats and international organizations.
No need to list the countries that condemned the U.S.—we all know who they are: Cuba, Venezuela, and of course Russia. Nothing surprising there.
What’s more interesting, I think, is the reaction of the global media. I’m not talking about Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban, or Chinese outlets—that’s predictable. For example, Bloomberg reports that Trump had long argued against U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars, and yet yesterday made a sharp geopolitical U-turn. Indeed. And now practically every global media outlet reminds us that this strike on Iran came just days after Trump said he was willing to wait two weeks for negotiations on the nuclear deal.
At this point, I’ll briefly step aside from the media analysis to say I think this has become a standard tactic—using heads of state in disinformation campaigns. Just recently, we heard about deep disagreements within Trump’s team, with figures like Vance saying no strike should happen. Trump himself said he’d wait two weeks, and then suddenly—boom. I don’t think the military acted behind Trump’s back. More likely, it was a disinformation campaign. This kind of involvement by political leaders in information warfare is becoming the norm. It’s a sign of the times and also a reason to treat leaders’ statements as mere background noise. You just can’t take them seriously anymore. So, Bloomberg’s critique seems outdated.
The New York Times wrote, and I quote: “For Mr. Trump, the decision to strike at the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile country represents the most significant and potentially dangerous gamble of his second term.” A fairly critical tone.
Al Jazeera, understandably, leans more toward Iran’s side. Le Figaro writes: “Two weeks of calm before a new storm.” A relatively restrained stance.
Reuters says the dramatic U.S. strike—including on Iran’s most fortified nuclear facility located deep underground—marks the most significant foreign policy gamble of Trump’s two presidential terms, fraught with uncertainty. These actions could lead to a more prolonged and larger-scale conflict than Trump anticipated, evoking the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he once mocked and vowed to avoid.
CNN offers a measured critique, stating that if Trump’s actions don’t actually eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, despite his claims, then an often lawless president could be steering the U.S. and the world down a catastrophic path. The risk now is that the Iranian regime may retaliate against U.S. forces, sparking a full-scale war. He can’t know what the consequences will be of fully backing Israel’s strike on Iran. A president who came to power promising to end wars now looks like he’s started another one.
The Washington Post asks: “What happens next?” and notes that it will have profound implications for Trump’s presidency.
That’s the tone of the global press—cautious, measured criticism. But in my view, the editorial stance of these outlets is puzzling, because if Trump had refrained from striking, the criticism might have been just as harsh—if not harsher.
Now about Iran’s response. There are three likely scenarios. First: quick and forceful retaliation. There are about 20 U.S. bases in the Middle East. After the strikes on Israel, Iran reportedly retains around 1,500 missiles of various ranges. So, Iran could feasibly hit U.S. bases—particularly in Syria, Iraq, and Bahrain. There’s also the option of targeting U.S. Navy ships using drones or fast-attack boats. The Houthis in Yemen, known for being reckless, might join in as well.
Another possible response is economic: the infamous threat of blocking or mining the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global oil transit passes. That would instantly turn Iran into a sworn enemy of the Persian Gulf states. But again, based on open sources, it appears that Iran’s parliament and other decision-making bodies have already voted to close the Strait, pending final approval by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Interestingly, I’ve found no response from Khamenei since the U.S. strike. It’s as if he’s hiding in a bunker, cut off from information—or something else is going on. In any case, we’ve heard no response from him yet. And he must personally approve any decision about the Strait of Hormuz.
The second option is a delayed and asymmetric response—like Israel often does—operating on the principle that revenge is a dish best served cold. Iran could later strike U.S. trade or diplomatic missions, or even take hostages, echoing the notorious 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. If that happens, the U.S. would likely respond with extreme force.
The third and least likely option is no response at all, which currently seems hard to imagine—but who knows.
Lastly, there’s a lot of talk about possible regime change. The son of the deposed Shah says the Islamic Republic is in its final days. Some analysts agree. Personally, I hesitate to comment—I’m no Iran expert. But from surface-level observation, there seems to be no organized opposition in Iran. It’s been crushed, exiled, imprisoned, or killed. So, no visible protest potential—at least for now.
That said, Iran is a young society—60% of its 90 million citizens are youth. That’s potentially explosive. Add to that a strong women’s movement, and ethnic minorities like the Iranian Azeris (who make up nearly a third of the population) and Kurds, and you get a volatile mix. So the protest potential is real, though currently dormant.
All this creates a state of great uncertainty. This U.S. strike has opened a major unknown. I still believe it’s good news, though much depends on how resolute Donald Trump proves to be. So far, it seems he’s set aside his Nobel Peace Prize ambitions and is aiming instead for the glory of defeating Iran—becoming the president who crushed one of the world’s two most dangerous regimes: Putin’s and Khamenei’s. We’ll see. Much now depends on Iran’s response and Trump’s willingness to continue down this path.
Release of Sergei Tikhanovsky Link to heading
Here. Well, here’s another piece of good news. Unlike the previous one, which is of global significance, this is a local story, but still, it’s very good news. And also, strangely enough — sorry, again, strangely enough — it’s connected to Trump. Because the release of Sergei Tikhanovsky, and that’s exactly the good news I wanted to tell you about today, to share this joy with you, also undoubtedly happened after Lukashenko’s meeting with Trump’s representative, China. Clearly, at Trump’s initiative — or rather, at China’s initiative — Lukashenko decided to release another group of political prisoners, including Sergei Tikhanovsky. So, he held his first press conference after spending five years in prison. And here, it seems very important to me to look at what happened to him. Sometimes photographs speak volumes. So look — on the left is Sergei Tikhanovsky before imprisonment, and on the right is after imprisonment, after being released. Half the man is left. And despite the obvious joy of his release, despite his fighting spirit, we can see that, in reality, he looks like a prisoner of Buchenwald or Auschwitz. Even though, as Sergei himself explained, during the last month — or last two months, I don’t remember the exact quote — he was being fattened up, given meat, double rations, and so on. In general, what he told about the conditions — the conditions of confinement in one of Lukashenko’s prisons — is beyond belief. He didn’t receive a single letter from his family, couldn’t even buy a toothbrush in the prison shop. And? He was in solitary confinement and had to clean up four times a day. Each time, as he explains, someone would run a finger over a surface, find a speck of dust, and he’d immediately be sent to solitary punishment. And as Tikhanovsky explained, the maniacs and murderers in neighboring cells had TVs. But the inmates — and this rhymes all too well with Hitler’s camps — who wore a yellow patch, just like the Jews in Hitler’s camps, were entitled to nothing. And so we saw what happened to him after Lukashenko’s concentration camp. Also important, as he says, is that Lukashenko released him expecting to create some kind of competition and blow up the Belarusian opposition from within. But Tikhanovsky clearly stated that the leader of the opposition is Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, and he will be focusing on blogging. Well, I believe this is one of those good pieces of news that we should, or at least can, be happy about. That’s how it is. It would seem — Donald Trump — and yet, since he is still the leader of a democratic country, occasionally good news does come from him.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that today is Monday, and at 8:00 p.m., as usual, Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy will cover the military aspect. Specifically, the military aspect of this strike on Iran and the possible military consequences of the very war that is going to take place — I think we will discuss all this with Serhiy Maratovych, relying on his professionalism. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.
Netanyahu’s Venture – a Gamble? Link to heading
So, Vadim Igor Aleksandrovich, don’t you think that the war initiated by the strong-willed leader Netanyahu is a gamble in every sense? First of all, Israeli civilians are dying from retaliatory strikes. Secondly, no one and nothing has joined the war.
But this question, apparently, was asked before the United States’ strike.
And without a ground operation, victory is impossible. Such an operation won’t take place, especially considering that between Israel and Iran lies another state. The people of Iran haven’t risen up, and still won’t. He — meaning Netanyahu — couldn’t free the hostages or clear Gaza of Hamas. What a horror! Why talk about Iran at all? In my opinion, Netanyahu, in an attempt to redeem himself for October 7, is now recklessly dragging the people of Israel into a long-term crisis with unjustified losses. Doesn’t it look like this is also a one-man war?
Dear Vadim! Well, first of all, it’s well known that the June 13 attack — I understand that’s what we’re talking about — had been in the works for a long time and was a response to the massive terrorist attack with a huge number of casualties on October 7. So, in fact, on October 7, 2023, there was a very serious shift both in the collective consciousness of Israelis and in the political awareness — that is, among the elites. If before that Israel, and Netanyahu in particular, had pursued an extremely restrained policy, trying to avoid involvement in conflicts, especially with Iran, then after what happened — this catastrophe, I would call it a mini-Holocaust that occurred on October 7 — I think, well, opinions vary, some say that Israel lost its sense of restraint. But it really was a catastrophe out of nowhere. And naturally, it became clear that things couldn’t continue this way. That is undoubtedly a crucial fact.
Since Iran is, of course, behind Hamas, a war to eliminate Hamas began, and preparations also started for a strike on Iran. The second issue is the nuclear threat. You see, when expert assessments from all sides say that Iran is just about to produce nuclear bombs, and we know full well that Iran’s foreign policy goal is the destruction of Israel — this is an officially declared goal, which Iran’s Supreme Leader has repeatedly spoken of — well then, in your opinion, dear Vadim, should Israel just sit back and wait until Iran has a nuclear bomb, and the next missile strike is nuclear? It’s clear that this is impossible.
So, when you say this is a one-man war — in reality, the strikes on Iran enjoy broad support among Israelis. I’ll refer to a poll. You know that I constantly follow public opinion polls in various countries. In particular, this week a poll was conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It was a large-scale poll, with a breakdown between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis. So, 83% of Jewish Israelis support Israel’s military operations, believe they are necessary, and express readiness even for a prolonged conflict. As for Arab citizens of Israel, they prefer diplomacy to military action. So, since Jews are the majority in the Jewish state, overall public support for Netanyahu’s actions in this matter is clear and very strong. So this is definitely not a one-man war.
And to some extent, there is a certain political consensus regarding the current strikes on Iran. And regarding your claim that no one has joined the war — I think the U.S. strikes disprove that point.
Attitude Toward Netanyahu and Zelensky Link to heading
A question from Viktor Igor Aleksandrovich, you said that your opinion of Netanyahu is much worse than of Zelensky. Israeli society is, to put it mildly, complex. It’s practically impossible to pursue a policy there that satisfies all citizens. Could you explain, based on what information and facts, you personally formed such a negative view of Netanyahu?
I completely agree with you that Israeli society is extremely complex and not at all simple, and that it possesses a vast reserve of skepticism. There’s a saying that “two Jews — three opposing opinions,” and that’s only partly a joke. But Netanyahu is, nonetheless, a fairly obvious source of internal conflict, primarily within Israeli society itself.
So let me try to list some of my reasons. Since you asked why I personally have a large number of complaints about him — and I’ll speak about my personal attitude, since that’s what you’re asking, right? First of all, I deeply reject the idea that the ends justify the means. For example, the fact that Netanyahu took part in the creation of Hamas as an alternative to the administration in Ramallah — that is, to create a counterbalance to the Palestinian Authority. Specifically, the West Bank. That support for Hamas, which was seen merely as a limiting factor, an alternative — that came from Netanyahu. In effect, they raised a monster themselves. This is very characteristic of Netanyahu as someone for whom the ends justify the means. That’s the first thing I don’t like.
The second thing I don’t like is the religious bias in his domestic policy. Even though Netanyahu himself follows the Reform branch of Judaism — which, by the way, is the version I find most sympathetic in every respect, especially after studying the Jewish people in Russia — still, despite being a Reform Jew himself, he supports the ultra-Orthodox. Again, this is a case of the ends justifying the means, since they are his political allies, so he supports them.
Then, if we talk about the political aspect — the majority of protests against Netanyahu were related to his attempts to curtail the powers of the judiciary. This is a third block of reasons for my negative attitude toward him. That is, he is clearly trying to significantly restrict democracy in Israel, which, in my view, is a bad thing.
And finally, his excessively warm relations with Putin. His presence on the podium in Red Square with a St. George ribbon, his remarks alongside Putin during the “Immortal Regiment” march — in my opinion, that was excessive. Although I’ve heard many explanations for this — back when I was writing for the Israeli press for several years, I published critical articles about Netanyahu and would get indignant responses saying that the Israeli leadership was just trying to avoid potential retaliation from Russia — still, I don’t think that level of coziness was necessary. That, too, felt like an obvious excess. There was no need for such demonstrative support or such especially warm relations with Putin — a man who supports Israel’s most dangerous enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and so on.
So, all of that taken together is the set of reasons why I have a negative view of Netanyahu. Although I do believe that his current actions — I mean the strikes on Iran — are absolutely justified and correct.
Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Israel Link to heading
Question from Ivan. According to Russia’s official position, countries not included in the list of unfriendly states are considered friendly. That means Israel, which is not on the list, is a friendly country to Russia. Do you agree with this statement? Russian Foreign Ministry.
Well, what’s the issue here? What’s the question, from the perspective of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs? And indeed, Israel is not on the list of unfriendly countries. From the standpoint of the Russian Foreign Ministry, yes, it is considered a friendly country.
Should We Work With Trump? Link to heading
Question from Anton Maybe now, after the bombing of Iran, you’ll agree that Trump is a patient we can and should work with — despite his enormous flaws, not relying on his help, but precisely working with him, cooperating? Europe is not wholeheartedly invested in Ukraine’s victory. If Trump is a bucket, then Europe is a collection of hollow, noise-making objects. But their actions do not match the seriousness of the problems in the East. Europe hasn’t come to the war. It’s not even preparing seriously for the next war. Why isn’t there a powerful call for Europe to join, to mobilize all kinds of forces — not just economic ones? Europe isn’t fighting, but ideally, it should bear the main burden of responsibility.
You know, dear Anton, it seems to me that, well, first of all, regarding Trump, I really don’t see any problem here at all. Of course, we should work with him. Of course, it’s a given — Trump is a given, and people work with him. A brilliant example of working with Trump was shown by Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor. That is, he worked with him — he came, he knew how to work with him. You have to stay silent, stay more silent, listen more, and occasionally, very politely, tell him that he’s doing great — but that he needs to do even better. That’s the model for working with Trump. I think you’re absolutely right in that regard.
As for cooperation — well, that’s a big question. Cooperate in what? In his desire to make Canada the 51st state? No. Cooperate in his, let’s say, constant declarations about being ready to interact and make some deals with Russia? No. But cooperate in terms of him selling weapons to Ukraine? Yes. So it’s all very specific.
Regarding Europe, you say Europe isn’t fighting, Europe hasn’t come to the war. But what, do you think the European voter should now support war — war with Russia? No, that’s not going to happen. Europe is currently rearming. Assistance is being provided to Ukraine — and substantial assistance. It’s already clear that Europe is Ukraine’s main ally. Germany is setting up joint military ventures, military factories with Ukraine, producing long-range missiles. In France, they’re setting up military factories with Ukraine to produce drones. Europe is giving Ukraine money. Europe is providing Ukraine with planes, air defense systems, and so on.
So, really, to harshly blame Europe for not taking on the main burden of responsibility — it is, but again, the capabilities are limited. I don’t quite understand this kind of pathos — this fierce pathos of attacking Europe. What do you want? Putin isn’t attacking Europe at the moment. Do you want Europe to attack Putin? That’s not the best idea. I’m not Europe’s advocate, but at the very least, I don’t see a reason to treat what’s happening in Europe so dismissively. Especially since Europe is not monolithic. One thing is this herd — fortunately still a small one — of Trojan horses like Orbán, Fico, the Serbian leader Vučić, and so on. But another thing is, for example, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Baltic countries — which have practically handed over all their weapons to Ukraine, which are now rearming intensely and trying to create a barrier against a Russian attack.
So I don’t really understand this fury toward Europe.
Ushakov’s Quote on Negotiations With Ukraine Link to heading
Fausta, UN, quoting Putin’s lackey Ushakov: Russia has expressed its readiness to continue negotiations with the Ukrainians, as agreed after June 22. Trump acknowledged this information and once again emphasized his interest in the swift resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. And as of now — as of June 22 — the Iranian parliament has decided to block the Strait of Hormuz, which will inevitably lead to a spike in oil prices. Doesn’t this reek of collusion? Isn’t it possible that Putin sold Trump an empty pie? And that’s precisely why the feast looked so festive at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum?
Well, you know, I didn’t quite grasp the full depth of your thought, dear colleague. But the only thing I can say is that, in my view, this seems like a very personal interpretation. I don’t think there’s any real connection between Trump’s conversations with Putin and events in the Middle East. Yes, Putin’s influence on Trump is obvious — but it’s not all-encompassing. Russia may be behind many things, but not everything.
How Did Fanatics So Easily Impose Horrific Norms on the Iranian People? Link to heading
So, a question from Linda — this is from the chat: How do you explain that in a prosperous, free Iran, the victorious fanatics so easily imposed such cave-like, hateful laws on the population?
You know, regarding the word “prosperous,” I take it you’re referring to Iran during the Shah’s era when you say “prosperous, free Iran.” First of all, compared to today’s Iran — yes, Iran under the Shah does seem like a kind of paradise. But it was a very conditional paradise, because it represented a radical Westernization of Iran, with full orientation toward the USA. Even so, you couldn’t call it a free country, because any opposition to the Shah was banned and brutally suppressed by the security services.
Just consider that many active supporters of the National Front of Iran — which was an opposition movement — were physically eliminated, fled the country, and, by destroying the opposition, the Shah essentially left only one force standing against his regime: the clergy. And the most prominent figure among the clergy was, of course, Khomeini. The clergy drew support from the poorest Islamic religious communities, who were in dire economic conditions and naturally held deep resentment toward the Shah.
Add to that the extreme corruption of the state apparatus. So, all these factors combined — first, the fact that even in the West, the Shah was seen as a human rights violator. The U.S. president at the time, Carter, during the Islamic Revolution, didn’t support the regime, because the Shah’s government was viewed in the West as infringing on civil liberties.
In addition, national minorities played a huge role in the Islamic Revolution — notably the Iranian Azerbaijanis. So what happened during the revolution, although not in content but in form, bears some resemblance to the October Revolution. Azerbaijani activists were fighting for democracy throughout Iran, hoping it would lead to some kind of autonomy for Iranian Azerbaijan. The Islamic Revolution was carried out under the slogan of equality among all ethnic groups — the idea being that Islam is universal, supra-national, and doesn’t distinguish by ethnicity.
Many representatives of ethnic minorities thought this was exactly what they needed — that they would be equal to Persians. It was seen as opposition to the Shah’s policy, which primarily favored Persians. So they supported the Islamic Revolution. But then, just as after the Bolshevik coup, almost immediately there followed what was called the Cultural Revolution — aimed at ensuring the constant reproduction of obedience.
This meant the Islamization of all spiritual life and mass repression. Just like in Russia, where many who supported change were later destroyed in the Red Terror, the same thing happened here. After the Islamic Revolution — which had been supported by many people who expected something entirely different, like freedom after the Shah’s repression — came brutal suppression.
The Shiite elite used not only traditional Islamic institutions like mosques and madrasas for repression, but also revolutionary bodies like the IRGC, which had hundreds of thousands of militants. As a result, the secular Iran you refer to was completely wiped out.
Universities were shut down, professors fired, students as well. The Western-style intelligentsia — those educated abroad — were purged. Recall one of Khomeini’s early speeches in which he called universities “centers of debauchery.” So, using the protest against the Shah’s corruption and repression, the Islamic Revolution, once in power, unleashed far greater repression — just as the Bolsheviks, relying on protest against the Russian Empire’s real flaws, imposed a far more brutal regime. That’s more or less the logic.
About Sergey Parkhomenko Link to heading
So, Mikhail Khazanov suggests saying: I closely follow Sergey PARKHOMENKO. Your views on world events are completely aligned. The only difference is in the assessment of FBK’s activities and the early Alexei Navalny. I would really love to see Sergey PARKHOMENKO as a guest on your program, not just on Olga Bychkova’s.
You know, dear Mikhail! Well, you’ve probably heard what Sergey PARKHOMENKO said about me when there was a proposal — during one of his broadcasts — to support my idea, a very obvious one, actually, about supporting political prisoners. The man treats me so dismissively that I honestly don’t quite understand why. But apparently, that’s just his attitude. So what do you expect me to do after that? What am I supposed to talk to him about? How am I supposed to invite him, only to be met with rudeness? It just didn’t work out, you see?
You know, like in that film, where someone says, “I feel such personal dislike for the victim that I can’t even eat.” Apparently, Sergey PARKHOMENKO feels that kind of personal dislike toward me. And there’s nothing I can do about it. And nothing needs to be done. Let him be. Let him be well.
About Svetlana Monakova Link to heading
Question from Marina Vladi Please invite historian and lawyer Svetlana Monakova to our wonderful channel.
All I can say is that I can’t claim to regularly watch broadcasts featuring her, but from what I’ve seen and heard — yes. The only question, you see, is that we need to come up with a reason, come up with a topic. That’s a separate matter. So, not a bad idea. Thank you.
About Josef Zissels Link to heading
So Igor suggests Regarding the Bandera issue and more. I propose to reflect on it together with Josef Zissels — should Jewish public figures in Ukraine do this here?
Dear Igor! As for Zissels, well, let’s say I’m more or less informed about his views and statements. I can’t say definitively that… Josef Zissels is certainly one side of a possible discussion, if and when it takes place on our channel, but by no means an expert — definitely not in the role of an expert. Because I followed this debate at the time regarding the relationship between Jews and Ukrainians, I know his position well. For example, he believes — or rather opposes the idea — that the Holodomor, not the Holocaust, is one of the most horrific tragedies of the 20th century. He is convinced that it is absolutely necessary to compile a list of crimes committed by the Jewish people against Ukrainians. At one point — I remember well — after a well-known speech in the Verkhovna Rada by the President of Israel, he quite rudely insulted the President of Israel, for which, by the way, he was later forced to apologize. Historians’ attitudes toward him — and not only Jewish historians, but also German ones and so on — are rather negative.
Well, if we speak about the attitude from Israeli representatives, I can quote the head of the Jewish-Israeli branch of the Wiesenthal Center — that’s Efraim Zuroff — who says that Zissels, as always, distorts historical reality in order to curry favor with the Ukrainian government. Again, there are quite a lot of reviews of what he does and says. For example, the Israeli historian Aron Schneerson, a staff member at Yad Vashem, said the following about him: Zissels is an absolutely court Jew — a Jew whose speeches and descriptions justify Bandera and Shukhevych and so on. I can name a number of other statements that indicate that he has a very relaxed attitude toward antisemitism, including from some representatives of Ukrainian politics. For example, when one of them — one of the Ukrainian politicians — calls his opponent a “zhidovka” [derogatory term for Jewess], he says: Well, what’s the problem? What’s the big deal? So what if he called her a ‘zhidovka’? It’s fine.
So, you see, once again — Zissels is undoubtedly a side in this conflict. He absolutely cannot serve as an expert. If and when the discussion takes place, it’s quite possible that Josef Samuilovich may be invited. But again, whether anyone agrees to speak with him — that’s still an open question.
At the end of our conversation, I’ll just say a couple of words about the fairly large number of comments and questions related to the topic we’re touching on — the relations between the Jewish and Ukrainian peoples.
About Oleg Zhdanov Link to heading
A question from Egor Do a stream with Oleg Zhdanov.
Dear Egor! Quite possibly. You see, Oleg Zhdanov is a military expert, if I’m not mistaken. Our colleagues once invited him to our channel, but, as I recall, he, so to speak, didn’t find the time. But in principle, it’s possible.
About Kharebin Link to heading
Elena Zakharova Can you invite Alexander Kharebin to your streams? I think his opinion on the issues of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the Iran-Israel war differs from many others. Most importantly, he doesn’t push for Poroshenko in every stream.
What does that have to do with it? Well, dear Elena, thank you very much. A good suggestion. I don’t see any limitations here for now. I also don’t watch his appearances very often, but from what I see and hear, it’s generally quite decent. So, probably yes, probably interesting. We’ll keep it in mind.
About the Freedom of Russia Legion and Their “March” Link to heading
A question from Denis When will a representative of the Freedom of Russia Legion be on your show again? Please ask them when they are planning their march? In what year? To put it mildly, this whole endeavor is dragging on. They must understand that they are needed now. Well, at most within a year. How many more tens, hundreds, thousands of victims will there be, and the modern-day Hitler will bring everything to a complete collapse. We’ve heard many statements from them. Frankly, there’s been no real action. Sadly, that’s the reality. Yes, they help Ukraine, but the main help would be stopping the crimes of the main monster. I really don’t want to think that these statements will remain just statements, and the real help should come now or in the near future, not after the war. And if the war lasts five more years, will they just wait it out?
Dear colleague, to be honest, I didn’t quite understand the essence. The Freedom of Russia Legion consists of Russian citizens who are fighting side by side with the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. What do you want from them? Do you want them, as part of their unit, to march on the Kremlin? Is that what this is about? Then you don’t really understand the reality. They are risking their lives right now, dying at the front, fighting against the Russian fascist regime. In my opinion, that’s already far more than what the vast majority of those who are sometimes called the Russian opposition are doing. What more do you expect from them? What else? Yes, they publicly declare that their goal is the elimination of the Putin regime. They are pursuing that goal by destroying representatives of the occupying army, fighting against the occupiers. What else do you want from them? What do you expect them to do to meet your approval? I just don’t understand.
Does the Whole World Really Not Care? Russia Is Stuck. Ukraine Is Suffering. How Can This Be Changed? Link to heading
Yulia Vishnevskaya It seems like everyone is fine with what’s happening in Ukraine. Russia is busy with Ukraine. That means it can’t go after others — for example, the Baltic countries, Finland, Armenia. For NATO, it’s all a win — no need to make painful decisions in the event of an attack on a NATO country. For India and China — cheap oil. For Arab oil countries — no competition, since Russia can’t currently focus on efficient oil production. Same goes for gas — it’s beneficial for Norway, for example. China, Taiwan, Korea are learning from the Ukraine-Russia war, improving their own production. It suits them all just fine. I won’t even write about Trump’s America — it’s now something like Brownian motion. Everything is subject to the momentary whims — the whims of the little guy, Trump — and over there everything’s just fine. Russia is stuck in Ukraine, breaking its teeth on it, and everyone benefits from this. Only Ukraine is suffering, along with those who care about it. The question is — how can Ukraine break this devil’s circle? What will help do that?
You know, first of all, dear Yulia, I think you’re exaggerating a bit. Ukraine is receiving help. Europe is helping. Things aren’t exactly rosy in Europe either right now. Military capabilities are being ramped up there, and that comes at the expense of social programs. I won’t say Europe is suffering the same way as Ukraine — of course not. But what can we expect? Ukraine is being supported.
Now, as for how to break this devil’s circle — well, there’s no magic pill. What’s being done is what can be done under the circumstances. Let me stress again — there’s no magic wand that can break all this. What we have is Ukraine fighting. European countries providing assistance. The United States still offering donor support — I really hope that Trump will, at the very least, sell weapons using European money. There are no miracles. That’s what the situation looks like.
We know very well how bad things are for Ukraine. But I don’t quite understand what your message is aimed at. Whom is your appeal directed to? If it’s just a “how long can this go on” type of appeal — then yes, I stand in solidarity with you. But concretely — what proposals are there? Who is supposed to do what? Who, and what?
About Events in Lithuania Link to heading
So, a question from John Could you cover the recent events in Lithuania? There’s little information in the news about the farmers’ tractor march. Ideally, we’d see a report and communication with both sides of this confrontation. Unfortunately, modern journalists are often too lazy to produce such materials.
Dear John! You know, regarding this march — the farmers’ march — I don’t fully understand what’s going on there. These are Lithuanian grain producers protesting against tax laws that, in their view, disproportionately harm farmers. I’m aware of this tractor march — I’ve seen coverage, for example, from the Delfi channel, with which I collaborate and where I occasionally appear and give interviews upon request. I understand what’s happening there. But I’ll say this right away: I’m not sure I want to become a Lithuanian journalist, you see?
Not because it’s some kind of taboo. For example, for myself, I’ve mostly made it a taboo to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs. I don’t have that kind of taboo regarding Lithuania. But you see, the topic you’re talking about — it’s something that should be covered by Lithuanian journalists. Journalists who feel Lithuania’s politics from the inside, who are immersed in it, who speak the Lithuanian language. That matters. I have no intention of becoming a Lithuanian journalist and covering Lithuania’s internal issues.
I still see myself as a Russian journalist — one who is fully on Ukraine’s side. These are the issues I’m close to. For now, I want to stay within that scope. I don’t know how my life, or what’s left of it, will turn out in the future — I have no idea. But I don’t think I’ll ever want to become a true Lithuanian journalist, covering Lithuanian elections, municipal elections, environmental issues in Lithuania, and so on.
I am endlessly grateful to the Lithuanian people and the Lithuanian state for giving me temporary refuge. Truly grateful. That doesn’t mean I won’t criticize if there’s reason to — I will. But specifically your idea, dear John, of covering this deeply internal Lithuanian situation — it’s just not close to me. To do that, one would have to become a Lithuanian journalist. And I’m not ready for that.
About Merkel and the Criticism She Faces Link to heading
So, Antonina, the talk about “leftists” is itself a straw man. For example, your viewer Olga criticized Merkel for leftist kindness, and blamed American leftists for homeless feces and used syringes. Let’s start with the fact that Merkel was the chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union, a center-right conservative party. If you’re going to criticize Merkel, it should be for Christian mercy, not for leftist compassion. But the most important question here is why Germany was the one to take in all the refugees in 2015, thus ending the European migration crisis. The answer is simple: only Germany learned the lessons of World War II and the Holocaust. No country in the world wanted to accept European Jews trying to escape Nazi persecution. One can recall the story of the MS St. Louis or the fact that Anne Frank’s family was denied a U.S. visa. In 2015, refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries found themselves in the same position as European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s: people that no one wanted. Naturally, it was Germany—still burdened with guilt for the Nazis’ crimes—that took them in. So what do leftists have to do with this? As for the feces and used syringes, dear Olga, you should be blaming the Republicans. The problem of homelessness can only be solved by a more socially-oriented state. But any idea of building even a mildly socially-oriented market economy in the U.S. is met by Republicans with cries of “Communism!” They’ve been dreaming of stripping AOC and Ilhan Omar of their powers for the past 15 years. But again, what do leftists have to do with it? I believe the left-right dichotomy is hopelessly outdated. Monstrous and complex word-constructions like “leftist” or “rightist” don’t solve the issue. If with provocations from Trumpists and Putinists things are more or less clear—they’re fascists—then with leftists nothing is clear. Where, for instance, should someone like me go? I support trans people. But I’m against the Free Palestine movement, and I supported the war in Iraq and the war in Iran. What ideas do you have about this, dear Igor Alexandrovich? I think the focus has clearly shifted from a clash of economic models to a battle of moral and ethical principles. The division between right and left no longer works. The political compass is better, but even it fails to adequately describe the political spectrum.
So, dear Antonina, let’s proceed. Yes, it’s indeed very long, but it’s worth it. Let’s clarify some things. First, it’s good that you’ve already agreed on the issue of prophets. But it’s completely unclear why you deny the existence of leftists. Judging by what you’ve written, you’re not a leftist at all. You’re either a moderate centrist or a completely normal left-wing person. So then, leftists. What are leftists? They are those who, in fact, support Hamas out of sympathy for the suffering Palestinian people. Just read, for example, one of the brightest and, I’d say, greatest leftists of our time—Noam Chomsky. A typical leftist who supports any form of terrorism as long as it’s somehow directed against the United States. That’s a leftist. A typical leftist. These are the typical leftists who support any terrorism if it’s in defense of the suffering and oppressed. NATO, yes. And, by the way, the conflict of economic models hasn’t gone anywhere either. Just look at the debates over taxation. So everything is still in place, nothing has become outdated. Yes, there’s a dynamic, there’s been a certain shift toward moral values, but nothing has become obsolete. Economic models are still around. There are still right-wing and left-wing economic models. Less government—right-wing. More government, more social protection—left-wing. That’s still quite clear.
Tatiana. Did you watch the debate between Latynina and Shevchenko?
I have it saved to watch later. I haven’t had time yet. I’ve put the video aside for later viewing. Hopefully, when I have a moment, I’ll definitely watch it.
About the Levada Center Survey on Great Figures Link to heading
Question from Ilya I’m interested in your comment on the recent Levada Center poll about the greatest figures of all time, in which the top three were three unequivocal personalities: Stalin, Putin, Lenin. And the question isn’t even about these individuals themselves, but about why political figures, rather than scientists—whose names are generally well known—are at the top. Names like Tesla, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Lobachevsky, and many others are widely recognized.
Dear Ilya, I think the answer is quite obvious—it’s the politicization of consciousness through, so to speak, this general process of media mediation. To put it more plainly: tell me, dear Ilya, is Tesla’s work, for example, the center of public discussion? Or Copernicus’s work? Or Lobachevsky’s? Do you see many people in livestreams or on social media passionately arguing about Tesla? No. Are there many public articles or debates about, say… Well, there are still some discussions about Einstein, but they’re incomparably—vastly—fewer than those about, for example, Trump. It’s all about the politicization of consciousness.
Article About “Trump the Empty Bucket” Link to heading
Yulia Maybe write an article in the American press with a headline like “Donald Trump: The Empty Bucket” or “Donald Trump: Best Friend of the Indians”? An empty bucket. I wish that could become his middle name. The article could be short, in a satirical style. At the top, there should definitely be a portrait of Trump in a Native American headdress with feathers. Write about Greenland, Canada, the Gaza Strip, rubber deadlines, and the like. There’s a lot of criticism of him in America. A vivid image of Trump in feathers. An Indian nickname will stick and push toward impeachment. Ask Garry Kasparov for a platform—he might even write it himself.
Well, dear Yulia, that’s not really my battlefield. There’s Kasparov, there’s Piontkovsky. Let’s put it this way: I have, on a few occasions, written articles for the foreign press, but only as an exception. My main audience is the Russian-speaking one. So, on the front you’re talking about, it’s primarily Garry Kasparov and Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky who are fighting. Right? Yes, and then Yulia adds a postscript: “About that little cloud regarding your jokes—hopefully you didn’t take my suggestion seriously?” Of course not, I totally get that it was a joke.
About the Conversation with Tamar Link to heading
So, another question from Yulia I watched your conversation with Tamar. It’s not just what he said. Back in 2022, I was already telling my friends that it’s not weapons that win, but people. And about that torch of heroism that must be preserved above all, and that it’s not about liberating your own territories, but about striking Moscow—primarily the FSB, Rosgvardiya, Lubyanka. Tamar simply voiced my thoughts. Do you think the Ukrainian leadership will eventually get to the idea of attacks on Moscow? Even if brief, but powerful ones. And Lubyanka, as the main punitive body, should be target number one.
You know, I think what we’re seeing now is a shift—so to speak, the war is coming to Russia, and this process is unstoppable. The development of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex for long-range missiles is inevitable, and it will inevitably lead to strikes on Lubyanka and on key military and political leadership targets in Russia. I believe this will happen.
About Sergio Gor and His Influence in Trump’s Team Link to heading
Question from Vladislav in Latvia about Sergio Sergio Gor, Gor is throwing mud at Musk, writing political commentary. Over the past week, there have been many unflattering articles about Sergio in the U.S. media space. Please comment: who is Sergio Gor and what influence does he have in Trump’s team?
Well, Sergio is the director of personnel operations. Essentially, he’s the head of HR—he handles loyalty screening for Trump. The administration involves about 4,000 people. His task is to make sure that political appointees support Trump and haven’t donated to Democrats. The conflict with Musk stems from the fact that Musk recommended someone for the post of NASA director—a person who, just days before Senate confirmation, was withdrawn from consideration at Gor’s initiative. Naturally, Musk—true to his impulsive nature—called Gor a snake, accused him of lying, and so on. But Gor stayed, and Musk walked away. At this point, Gor is a close and very loyal Trump ally. So, Musk may be out, but Gor is still in.
About Laws Passed During Putin’s Rule. Why Not Make Russia Prosperous and Well-Off? Link to heading
Sokol Kruzhki. Two questions. I can’t recall any laws passed during Putin’s rule that actually allowed the population to do anything. Except maybe the law on collecting fallen branches, which felt more like a legal act on the free use of fresh air. And so on. Next question: Ordinary people who can’t even articulate the difference between parliament and government—do they, in your opinion, have any understanding of what’s happening in the country? Or are they mostly just herd-like TV-watchers? And one more question: why do you think it’s beneficial for the Russian authorities to keep people under tight control? In civilized countries, it’s not like that. Why not make Russia—a country, let’s not forget, immensely rich in natural resources—a prosperous state where people, pardon the expression, actually have something to be proud of? The people would strongly support that. I understand that a well-fed electorate is unpredictable, but in normal countries that’s not an issue. Are their people just made of different stuff? How can this situation be changed? Only surgically? Or is it a cancerous tumor that will keep manifesting aggression both internally and beyond its borders?
As for the second question, I think the answer is quite simple: the authorities have no interest in creating a prosperous state because prosperity implies democracy, separation of powers, and—most unpleasantly for those in power—rotation of leadership. That means, firstly, a real fight against corruption—not just in words but in practice. And secondly, the rotation of power. Isn’t that obvious? It’s clear that people whose way of life is built on corruption and futility have no interest in transitioning the country into a system of genuine anti-corruption efforts and leadership change. Who needs that? Naturally, this kind of regime is chosen instead.
As for the ordinary people, a significant portion of them rely on television as their main source of information—as the basis for shaping their way of thinking. And that’s it. It’s all quite straightforward. It’s from television that they draw the standards and patterns of thought we now see reflected in their minds. In fact, public opinion research essentially shows that we are studying the waste product of what’s broadcast on TV. You can look at what’s on TV and then find exactly the same content in the minds of the average citizen.
About Weekend Analysis Link to heading
Alexander. Alexander. Dear Igor Alexandrovich! Where is your analysis on Saturdays and Sundays?
Well, by way of a mild excuse, I want to say that every Sunday I do release a weekly wrap-up. As for the rest—yes, that’s a valid issue. It’s a problem related to some temporary setbacks, primarily health-related. This problem is currently being addressed. It’s partially medical, partially technical in nature. Your criticism is fair, dear Alexander! I’m working on correcting it.
Where Does the Conviction Come From That a Nuclear Strike by Putin Would Be Suicide? Link to heading
So, Ivan Goncharuk, with your permission, I’m putting on the devil’s advocate robe. Where does this widespread belief come from—including from you—that Putin using nuclear weapons would be suicide? Especially now, when the planet’s chief sheriff is an empty bucket. Let’s consider this: Putin nukes one of Ukraine’s cities. What happens next? Who retaliates? The bucket will just shrug and maybe make a call, saying something’s wrong with Putin. Frankly, there wouldn’t have been a war if I were China’s president. But France won’t strike back. Britain will say it’s unacceptable. India, Pakistan… no point continuing. Sure, more sanctions will follow, maybe even China and India fully cut ties, etc. But why is it suicide? I’m not asking about the reasonableness or logic of the action. I mean physically—for Putin, it’s not dangerous. So he might decide it’s worth trying. What if Ukraine surrenders?
I think Putin still senses a serious risk. This is that very shift into a state of uncertainty—where the question arises. Right now, the uncertainty lies with the West: they’re wondering whether Putin will strike or not. But if Putin carries out a nuclear strike, the uncertainty shifts to his side. Then it’s Putin who has to worry—will there be a response or not? At one point, Putin was clearly warned that in the event of a nuclear strike, he personally would be physically eliminated. And I believe he keeps that in mind. How realistic that threat is—it’s hard to say. But that Putin perceives it as real—I believe that’s true.
About a “Mirror Response” Targeting the State Duma and Lubyanka Link to heading
Arkady Mikhailov In the June 20 stream, you responded to a question about a mirror response. I agree with your answer. But what do you say about the State Duma?
I understand this refers to the comment addressed to Viktor Katz, who was insisting on a mirror response from Ukraine to Russia. It’s not entirely clear what the State Duma has to do with that. If you mean a strike on the State Duma, I don’t see any point in it, since it’s a purely decorative body. What’s the point of hitting the State Duma? I agree with a previous comment that named Lubyanka as a target—Lubyanka, the Kremlin, Staraya Ploshchad—that’s all fair game. The State Duma… yes, it’s a very unpleasant institution, but it’s entirely decorative.
About the Italian Communist Party Link to heading
So? A question from Royal Tiger. One response was very strange. The fact that the Italian Communist Party opposed the CPSU during the Sino-Soviet split doesn’t prove the independence of communist parties. The situation after World War II became fundamentally different. Before that, all communist parties unquestioningly followed Stalin’s orders through the Comintern. And after ’43, without it. When alternative communist forces like Mao, Tito, Hoxha emerged, there was a choice—some sided with the Russians, others with the Chinese. This hardly disproves that communist parties in Western countries were puppets. Of course, this doesn’t apply to ordinary communists, some of whom sincerely believed in the ideals while simultaneously obeying top-down orders that often contradicted those ideals.
I still disagree with you. In various Western communist parties, there were leaders who were not willing to dance to Stalin’s tune. Take Gramsci, for example—one of the early leaders of the Italian Communist Party. He was absolutely not a puppet. A free-thinking individual who, yes, held Marxist beliefs, but couldn’t be called a puppet of Stalin in any way.
The fact that the Italian Communist Party opposed the USSR—they did so consistently and independently, and were in no way a Kremlin puppet. Their opposition to the Soviet Union wasn’t about senility or the rise of Tito. It was simply that—when more than a third of Italy’s population voted for them—the Italian Communist Party was a product of Italy, not of the Soviet Union. So you can’t call them a puppet.
What is a puppet? That’s a structure like, say, the Communist Party of the United States of America—which, to a large extent, was a puppet, yes? Because it was funded by the Soviet Union and never had any significant support within the U.S.
But the Italian Communist Party had internal support in Italy—up to 40% voted for them. And because of that domestic backing, they openly opposed the Soviet Union, opposed the suppression of the Prague Spring, directly confronted Brezhnev, and openly declared it unacceptable. They opposed the very Brezhnev Doctrine itself—remember what that was? The “limited sovereignty” of people’s democracies and the Soviet Union’s “right” to interfere in their internal affairs.
They also openly opposed the war in Afghanistan. So I believe it’s a mistake to say that all communism—all communist movements—were exclusively Soviet puppets. Yes, there were many Soviet puppets, but by no means all.
About Cortez and U.S. Politics Link to heading
Arkady Neiman You’ve disappointed me, writes Arkady. How can someone misunderstand American politics as much as Trump, the UN, and Alexander Fitch? Cortez—Cortez is not a communist and not far-left. On your stream, you literally said: Alexandria Cortez, who is considered—emphasis on considered—almost a communist, meaning far-left.
Well, let’s put it this way. I have no problem with having disappointed you—I’m not trying to charm anyone. This isn’t about sympathies, it’s about facts. Alexandria Cortez identifies herself as a democratic socialist.
But I have a question for you: do you consider, for example, Bernie Sanders to be far-left? She was—and I think you’d agree—associated with him. If not, then who, in your view, is far-left?
She helped organize Bernie Sanders’s election campaign. She was an activist in the Democratic Socialists of America. One of her most famous statements was when she was asked if it’s morally acceptable for billionaires to exist. She gave a firm answer: no. She explained that she condemns a system in which billionaires exist while, for example, people in parts of Alabama suffer from lack of access to healthcare.
So, you see, that’s a left-wing position—obviously a left-wing position. To argue that the existence of the rich is immoral because the poor lack basic needs—that’s a leftist stance, isn’t it?
Comments about Ukrainians and Jews Link to heading
And a very large number, more than 10 questions and comments, were about the relationship between Ukrainians and Jews. I can say right away that I’m not going to develop this discussion on our channel. What are we? You see, there are certain topics that, if you keep promoting them, can simply deform the channel. For example, there was recently a sudden surge of interest in the topic of the attitude toward—toward, the attitude of the cosmic mind. Well, actually the attitude toward the religion of the cosmic mind. To turn our channel into a channel of struggle between atheists and believers. That is precisely what I do not want, and I will not allow it. So, I unilaterally ended that conversation, and I also do not intend to turn our channel into a place for sorting out the relations between Ukrainians and Jews. I answered because there is indeed a problem—an obvious problem. And I answered the question of why the relationship between Ukraine and Israel, which in fact have a common enemy, is not a back-to-back alliance, so to speak. That is, they are not allied in that way. I answered because I don’t think we should stick our heads in the sand. I answered as best I could. There are obvious things. And some commentators are trying to say that no problem exists at all. How can there be no problem when Ukraine and Israel regularly vote in the United Nations? Israel participates in almost all anti-Ukrainian resolutions, supports the majority of them, and Ukraine supports the majority of anti-Israeli resolutions. So how can there be no problem? There is a problem, and it’s obvious. Now, as for— you see—attempts and demands to prove that pogroms existed in Ukraine’s history, and so on. You see, again you’re dragging me into, so to speak, some anti-Ukrainian narrative. I don’t want that. So, I think we’ll handle it this way. I think I will try to organize a discussion between historians. That’s it. But then we will end it there. Again, I stress, there is a problem. I was asked a question, I answered it, and I am ending the discussion on our channel. Now, regarding whether a discussion between historians is appropriate—I believe it is. That’s precisely what constitutes a kind of understanding of the problem. Let the historians discuss it, let them bring facts and counter-facts, and so on. I’m absolutely—yes. Here I’m also being asked: what kind of competition is there, that Israel and Ukraine participate in tenders where the one who offers the highest price wins? Yes, the very fact that the United States just transferred to Israel the weapons that were intended for Ukraine—there you have real competition. It exists. And therefore, it’s pointless to turn a blind eye to it. So let’s do it this way. Yes, and here people are demanding facts, asking why Jews deny the Holodomor of 1932–33. Excuse me, is it only Jews who deny it? You see? Again, again, some kind of wild—completely wild ideas about the world. Why has Israel stayed on the sidelines for three years of military aid, even though Ukraine is fighting the main ally of its main enemy? Don’t you think that the Ukrainian people have a greater and more justified set of questions for Israel? Shouldn’t Jews somehow move toward reconciliation if they’re demanding repentance from us? You see, this kind of stance is exactly what shows that the problem exists and that it needs to be addressed both by historians and by politicians. That is undeniable. So then. I think we’ll try to organize the discussion, though it will be difficult, because it’s hard to find historians on both sides who would treat each other respectfully and agree to a discussion. But I will try to do that to close the topic once and for all. Yes. I even see the discussion continuing in the chat.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
That concludes our conversation for today. Let me remind you that at 8:00 PM we have Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskyi. So, see you at 8:00 PM. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Aleksandr Skobov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/AgdkXRyxq38