Merz announced the lifting of range restrictions on missiles supplied to Ukraine, Trump stated that Putin had gone mad, and Peskov explained that Trump was experiencing emotional overload.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is the 27th. May 27th. It’s 07:42 in Kyiv right now, and we continue our regular morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Europe Lifts Restrictions on Long-Range Missiles Link to heading
Well, I’ll probably start with some good news. Yesterday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that the West has lifted the restrictions on the range of weapons supplied to Ukraine. According to him, those restrictions no longer exist. This restriction has been lifted by Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States of America. Now, of course, there is a problem here, because there’s no information that the very same Tauruses, which have been discussed for so long, are already—excuse me—already being delivered to Ukraine. There’s no such information. And this may seem strange to some—that ideally, something should be delivered first, and only then should the restrictions be lifted. But in fact, as the saying goes, changing the order of the addends doesn’t change the sum. So in any case, it’s good news. Again, the question is, how many will be transferred? As far as I understand, the total stock of Tauruses in Germany is about 600 units. So how many can they transfer? Maybe a hundred and fifty. But in any case, at least military experts generally agree on that figure. It’s decent support. Not decisive, of course.
In general, with Merz’s arrival, one can cautiously say that the leadership of the Western world is gradually shifting to Europe and, in particular, to Germany. Although one should be careful with such sweeping statements. I’d prefer to be more cautious. But there is definitely movement in that direction. At least on the issue that interests us most—namely, the war of Russia against Ukraine—Zelensky is set to visit Berlin tomorrow. This has already been reported by Der Spiegel. And apparently, some steps regarding possible negotiations between Ukraine and Russia will be discussed there, although I think this will likely be pointless. But the new sanctions package from the European Union against Russia—that’s more serious. And besides all that, I think the discussion will, of course, include further military support for Ukraine. That’s the most serious point.
If we rank them by importance, the least significant are negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Next in importance are sanctions. And finally, the most important is military support for Ukraine. It’s very telling that the new German leadership no longer plans to publicly discuss specific arms deliveries as openly as before. That’s logical, really. What was happening before—this kind of military-informational striptease, where every missile delivery was publicly detailed—basically put spies, intelligence officers, and undercover agents out of work. I mean, it’s a shame for those people. Why keep agents when everything is being said openly anyway? Now, it seems this is gradually being curbed. Although some politicians still come out and talk about how much of what is being supplied. But it’s clear that the Federal Republic of Germany will undoubtedly remain one of Ukraine’s most important partners.
U.S. Support Remains Decisive Link to heading
Well, about Germany’s leadership—I did, of course, get a bit carried away saying that so broadly, couldn’t resist—but of course, it’s still far from actual leadership, because it might show itself in the intensity of support for Ukraine. But overall, Europe is still a long way from leadership, because if we look at indicators like the share of individual currencies in international reserves—for example, as of today, although Trump is working very hard to ruin the United States of America, it’s still a very strong country. He’s not succeeding very well, because the dollar’s share in international reserves has been declining recently, and today it stands at 58%. That’s the lowest figure in decades. Trump is still working on that—constantly undermining the prestige of the United States, staging these American rollercoasters, showing the world that the U.S. is not a reliable partner. But even so, more than half—58%—of reserves are in dollars, while euros account for much less—just 20%. So there’s still a long way to go before Europe can claim leadership. That’s an important indicator, and there’s also the military factor. It’s clear that the military power of the United States today significantly exceeds the combined military power of Europe. So there’s a long way to go.
But here, it’s not only objective indicators that matter—it’s also subjective ones, such as the actual leadership of a person who acts, proves themselves to be reasonable and responsible, and makes sound decisions. And this is exactly where Trump has serious problems.
Trump’s Reaction to the Bombings Link to heading
So, moving on to the events related to Trump—the events that led to this stream being titled “Mad Vladimir”—this is about Trump’s reaction to the massive attacks on Ukrainian cities with Russian missiles and drones. Let me remind you of his reaction yesterday. His response was: “I’m not happy with what Putin is doing. He’s killing a lot of people. And I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin? I’ve known him for a long time, always got along with him. But he’s sending missiles, killing people, and I really don’t like it. What the hell happened to him?” And so on.
Then came his next reaction, after Putin continued the bombings and things really escalated. Trump said, and I quote again: “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but something happened to him. He’s totally lost it, he’s killing a lot of people for no reason. And I’m not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are hitting Ukrainian cities without any cause.” Again, Trump’s inadequacy is obvious here, because—well, how? We’ve already discussed this, not only in my morning streams but also in conversations with various guests. This reaction shows Trump’s own inadequacy. Because—what exactly happened to Putin? When did it happen? Just now? Was he normal until recently and then suddenly went crazy? When exactly did this occur? What day, what specific moment, what month, what year?
Was Putin “normal” when he attacked Ukraine, annexed Crimea, started the war in Donbas? Was he “normal” when, on February 24, 2022, he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine? Was he “normal” when he killed hundreds of thousands in Ukraine? And now suddenly, this past weekend, he went mad from grief and anxiety? Really? This clearly shows Trump’s own irrationality.
Trump’s Statement About Putin’s Madness Link to heading
Nevertheless, the main character of today’s conversation is, of course, Putin. Medically speaking, he is probably still healthy—although I’m not his doctor, so I won’t presume to diagnose him. But socially, he is undoubtedly mad. And he truly deserves the nickname “Vladimir the Mad.” But this has been clear long before Trump. This diagnosis was made by Nemtsov in a sharper and more vivid form. But that doesn’t matter now. The diagnosis has long been known. What is significant, however, is that Trump has now voiced this diagnosis. That matters.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is considering imposing sanctions against Russia this week. That’s a specific forecast, and we’ll discuss it more today. As for which sanctions—I won’t go into that now, since there are many different versions and hypotheses. Nevertheless, I think they could be sanctions drawn from the large package prepared by Lindsey Graham, which is already practically at the starting line, ready to leave the U.S. Congress. But I don’t want to discuss the details right now—that would just be speculation.
Yes, Trump himself spoke about it. He mentioned it the day before yesterday, on Sunday. He said he was considering sanctions after that Sunday’s strike on Ukraine. So we’ll see—this really is significant.
What’s very telling is the Kremlin’s reaction to Trump’s statement that Putin has gone mad. It was very soft, very gentle. Peskov, responding to a question from the BBC, called Trump’s statement an “emotional reaction” and once again emphasized that Moscow is grateful to Trump for his role in launching the negotiation process between Russia and Ukraine. You see, it’s this unique state of affairs in the Kremlin: someone calls the main occupant of the Kremlin insane, and in response, there’s this soft, sympathetic scolding—from the Kremlin’s side, or at least from Peskov.
Let me quote what Peskov said: “It’s a very serious moment, clearly tied to emotional overload.” You see, “emotional overload”—they’re really careful with Trump, trying not to irritate him, trying not to quarrel with him. In the Kremlin, that is. On TV, of course, they’ll keep attacking him—that’s to be expected. But the official Russian stance remains very gentle toward Trump. So I think they’ll tolerate some of his sharp statements. But what will actually happen—what will Trump really do? I think he’ll do nothing. We’ll see soon enough.
In general, the degree of madness among rulers has appeared many times in human history. And we must admit, countries have existed under mad kings, mad monarchs. You could make a whole series of programs on “Mad Rulers in Human History.” For example, there was Charles VI, the mad king of France at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century. He was a normal king—until he suddenly began attacking people, smashing everything around him, and telling everyone he was made of glass and needed armor so he wouldn’t shatter. He’s quite well known.
Ibrahim I, the Mad—Ottoman sultan of the 17th century—didn’t reign long, didn’t live long, because he was mad. Although, when I read about his madness, I expected something truly horrific—but really, he was just like any other sultan. According to legend, he once drowned 300 concubines in the Bosporus. Well, is that madness compared to Putin? I think their criteria for madness were very strict. If they got a look at Putin, I don’t even know what they’d call him.
Then there was the quietly mad Christian VII, king of Denmark and Norway, who liked to frequent Copenhagen’s brothels. As he got older, his peculiar behavior became more pronounced, and historians associate it with his madness. There’s even talk of schizophrenia, though it’s unclear what the actual complaints were. He was removed from power, sat quietly in a room drawing pictures.
You know, compared to those mad kings, Putin—or rather, they compared to Putin—seem like very quiet, sweet, and utterly harmless people. Putin’s madness, of course, is wildly off the charts compared to most rulers in history who’ve been called mad. Well, we’ll see. It’s actually progressing. If you remember how it all started—it started with a petty street thug from St. Petersburg coming to power for the money. And then came the stages of madness: the Munich speech of 2007, and so on. And then it all snowballed.
Voting on the Channel Link to heading
Let’s see how this all turns out. So today’s main topic—besides Putin’s madness—is also an attempt to understand, to take a small glimpse into the future. And therefore, before moving on to your questions, I want to say that I’m going to post a poll now—in our usual spot where we do these kinds of polls, on the Echo website under the “Recordings” section. A poll will be published there titled: “Trump may impose sanctions on Moscow this week, writes The Wall Street Journal.” Do you believe that the U.S. will impose sanctions on Russia this week?
That’s the poll. Let’s test our collective predictive abilities. At the end of today’s stream, after I’ve answered all the questions, I’ll publish the results of your votes. Let’s see how good we are at forecasting. Although predicting Trump’s actions is quite difficult. But still—go ahead, log on, vote. It’ll be interesting to check at the end of the week. We’ll definitely do that.
And in general, with your permission, I’d like to periodically include interactive elements like this. I think it will be interesting. It’s fun to test our own ability to foresee events.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Alright. I’m moving on to answering your questions.
Should Osechkin Have Expressed Condolences to Portnov’s Family Link to heading
And football? The other day, Vladimir Osechkin, commenting on Portnov’s murder, began with “We offer condolences to his children and family.” The question concerns the ethics of such a condolence. At first glance, the question seems absurd. After all, it appears to be a basic human expression of sympathy. But first of all, Portnov’s family has plenty of others to offer them sympathy. Secondly, any reasonable person, no matter their opinion of the murdered man, would not rejoice in the grief of his children, who had nothing to do with their father’s actions. That, as they say, goes without saying. Thus, Osechkin’s sympathy is not only unnecessary but plays into the hands of propaganda. It’s easy to predict how this would be interpreted: “Here’s a Russian, Osechkin—yes, he’s on the enemy’s side, but still not devoid of empathy and compassion.” Though frankly, I didn’t quite understand: on which enemy’s side is Osechkin supposedly playing? Osechkin takes an obvious, clear, and firm pro-Ukrainian position. So what’s this about the enemy? On the Ukrainian side, no one expressed sympathy. So Ukrainians are supposedly completely devoid of empathy, even for innocent children? That’s exactly how it works on a suggestible audience. And in this connection, the question is: if Portnov had gone to trial and been sentenced to life imprisonment, should Osechkin have then expressed sympathy to his family, since that too would surely have been a heavy blow for them?
Dear colleague! First of all, the question itself—specifically, the lead-in to the question—contains some strange assertions. In particular, what makes you claim that Russian citizen Osechkin is playing on the side of the enemy? And then you go on to say “Ukrainians,” implying—by the construction of the sentence—that Osechkin is on the side of Ukraine’s enemy. But that’s not true. It’s simply factually untrue. That’s the first point.
Second, well, I don’t even know… If you’ve asked the question, it must be important to you, and of course I’ll answer. But honestly, the whole construction of the question is very strange. Because, you see, this is a reflexive kind of thing. Someone dies—you offer condolences. That’s just how it is. It’s a completely automatic reaction. I’m not sure Vladimir Osechkin is particularly grieving over Portnov’s murder. I doubt that. But it’s just a standard, almost obligatory phrase—like when you say “Hello” to someone even if you don’t really wish them good health. “Hello” is just a form of politeness.
When someone is imprisoned, there’s no such ritualized expression. That’s all. So I don’t think there’s any need to build elaborate constructions or layers of meaning on top of this situation. It’s all just banal—at the level of ordinary decency.
Invitation of Boris Kagarlitsky Link to heading
Inter. Anna Wouldn’t you like to invite political strategist Boris Kagarlitsky to your channel?
Why not? If I’m not mistaken, he’s even been on our channel once before. He’s a good person. Why not invite him?
Invitation of Andriy Baumeister Link to heading
Yuriy Zhigalov Igor, you promised to invite Andriy Baumeister.
Dear Yuriy, no, that’s not true. There was a time—but that was at the very beginning of the war, even before it started, when, let’s say, a few years ago, I was more interested in Andriy. You know what interested me? The kind of aura that had formed around him—that he was supposedly one of Ukraine’s most prominent thinkers. But then I took a closer look, and as I’ve said in recent years, I’ve had no desire whatsoever to invite Baumeister. I never promised anyone that.
Yes, several years ago, I even asked our colleagues to send him an invitation. As far as I understand, he didn’t respond. And now I simply don’t want to. I’ll explain why. First of all, Mr. Baumeister is undoubtedly a very erudite scholar of philosophy. He knows a lot, he’s read a lot of primary sources—ancient philosophy, and as I understand it, also German philosophy. So yes, he’s an extremely well-educated person.
But if we talk about his philosophical views—they’re very far from mine. He is a religious philosopher. I’m an atheist. So frankly, I’m not very interested in engaging with him, because his worldview is entirely alien to me. Organizing a philosophical debate is, as we know, pointless. Playing out some kind of argument between Bishop Vvedensky and Commissar Lunacharsky—it’s all been done before, and it’s unproductive. So I don’t think a format like that would be interesting.
As for his political views, he’s associated—more or less—with that crowd, or I’d even say sect, around Arestovych. Politically, he’s not close to me. Philosophically, not close. Debating? I’m not sure. You see, it seems to me nothing good would come of it. I might be wrong. Maybe some form of communication could be built—I don’t know. And it’s not that I only want to talk with like-minded people—not at all. It’s just that my intuition tells me that no spark will arise from which a new idea could be born.
Can Supporters of Peace Effectively Unite Link to heading
Question from Vika Why can supporters of war unite effectively, while supporters of peace cannot? Good, to resist aggression, must come with fists, not flashlights.
Dear colleague, you know, I actually disagree with the very premise. Supporters of war are united by a fascist state—without the state, war supporters cannot unite. Take note: how many supporters of Girkin, Kvachkov, and those ultra-war advocates—those who criticize Putin for being too peaceful, too cautious—have actually united? We don’t see it happening, and I know for sure we won’t.
In fact, I’d even say that peace supporters unite more effectively. We’ve seen mass events—or at least attempts—up until the moment they were harshly suppressed. Back then, peace supporters were actually more cohesive than war supporters. War supporters are people who only come together if the state calls them, if the state is on their side. If not, they don’t unite. So I would actually refute the premise of the question. I believe this has been demonstrated.
Evaluation of Trump’s Actions Link to heading
Viktor Kats Trying to make sense of the question’s construction, Mr. Yakovenko. THEN IN ALL CAPS: REALLY, IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RESPOND IN KIND? Question: I’ve written it a million times—Trump acts solely in the interests of Mordor. And the West, following the policies of this freak, looks like a pathetic, miserable impotent.
Well, let’s put it this way—if we strip away the expressive language, I don’t really see what the question is. I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing, just in different words.
On the Identity of the Udmurts Link to heading
So, Andrey? Igor Alexandrovich, today you said that the Udmurts may still preserve their identity. Until 2014, I had contact with colleagues from Izhevsk who said the level of Russification was comparable to that in Belarus. That young people knew nothing of the Udmurt language or culture. And it’s unlikely that anything has improved in the last 10 years. Is that realistic? Are those real data, or just an assumption? I haven’t been to Udmurtia, unlike Belarus, so I have no personal assessment.
You know, Andrey, I think there’s been a misunderstanding again. Because what I actually said was that in Udmurtia, the Udmurt people have a very weakly developed sense of national identity. And here I’m specifically relying on concrete sociological research. Back in the 2000s, I had a graduate student who defended a master’s thesis on Udmurtia and the Udmurt language. She herself was from Udmurtia, from Izhevsk. She conducted a specific study on Udmurt self-identification and their relationship to the Russian language.
And she concluded—based on concrete data—that Udmurts in cities like Izhevsk and elsewhere were ashamed of their nationality. Even if they knew some Udmurt words and could speak the language, they avoided using it in public transport, because it marked them out. That’s just the reality. I’m not trying to sow any kind of national discord here—I hope you understand that. But it’s a fact: the Udmurt language is perceived as something inferior, something that causes shame. People are embarrassed by their nationality.
This is due to Russification, state policy, and the fact that knowing Udmurt brings no advantages—no career boost, no social advancement, and so on. It’s a particular feature of the Udmurt situation: they never had their own statehood. They were always integrated into other nations. That’s why there’s not much in the way of historical memory or strong national identity—unlike, for example, the Tatars, who had significant statehood, or many Caucasian peoples. Even the Yakuts had a sort of proto-statehood, without question.
So you must have misunderstood me, because I actually know the Udmurts fairly well. I’ve visited Izhevsk and other cities in Udmurtia more than once. So I have my own impressions. And that thesis I mentioned—it was a very solid piece of academic work, professionally done. It taught me a lot as well.
Although, when we defended it—or rather, the student defended it, and I was present as her advisor—there was some pushback. General Leonid Ivashov, who was always the chair of the dissertation commission at MGIMO, really went after her: “How can you talk about your people and society like that?” I couldn’t help but speak up to defend her—and it seems she got through it. So, yes, I have concrete knowledge in this area.
What Can Be Considered a Christian Religion Link to heading
Irina Ivanova If the Russian Orthodox Church has nothing to do with Christianity, then which Christian denomination does? From your point of view, does Christianity have a theoretical foundation? For example, can the Bible be considered the standard of Christian teachings as expressed by Jesus Christ? After all, He founded one Christianity, not the hundreds we see today.
Well, the ROC—it really is a totalitarian, satanic sect. Its teachings clearly contradict Christianity. No true Christian would ever think of blessing a weapon named “Satan.” So yes, it’s a satanic sect—plain and simple.
As for which Christian denominations do have a connection to Christianity—well, all of them do. Catholicism, first and foremost—that’s what you might call the mother branch of Christianity. And Orthodoxy too—but not the Russian Orthodox Church. For example, Serbian Orthodoxy definitely has a connection to Christianity. So do Bulgarian, Greek, and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Protestantism—without a doubt—also has a connection to Christianity. The ROC does not.
Now, as for the foundations—of course, the Bible. The Bible is undoubtedly the foundation. Does Christianity have a theoretical basis? Of course—it has theology. But unlike some modern ideologues, I do not consider theology to be a science. Let’s put it this way: there is a science of Christianity—yes. For example, I taught the sociology of religion. But theology itself is not a science, because it is based on faith. That’s the key point. But a theoretical foundation does exist. It has a long history—starting with early Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine. They all, in one way or another, provided a theoretical basis for Christianity.
Do Yashin, Kara-Murza, and Navalnaya Believe in a Beautiful Future Russia Link to heading
Question from “Orange for Sorrow.” Well, if you’d like me to refer to you by name, feel free to sign your message. Otherwise, I’ll go with the translation of your nickname. What do you think—do all these so-called “good Russians” like Yashin, Kara-Murza, Navalnaya, etc., still believe in a future Russia where they themselves will hold some kind of power? That is, do they see themselves as having some kind of electorate? This is a statement. And what if, for example, the entire Russian population, after intensified Ukrainian drone strikes, turns into fascists—even those who stayed in the country? If we start shutting down airports and disturbing the so-called politically indifferent—will all these pseudo-opposition figures still want to lead such a country?
You know, as it seems to me, today’s belief in the so-called possible “Beautiful Russia of the Future” very much resembles the kind of belief late-Soviet communists had in communism as a future prospect. If Stalin-era communists largely did believe in the ideology, Khrushchev’s generation less so, and the Brezhnev-era even less—by Gorbachev’s time, they were openly laughing at it.
At this point, among the people you’ve listed, their belief in a “Beautiful Russia of the Future” is already on the level of those late-Brezhnev communists. They formally say, “Yes, we’re going to do something, somehow, we’ll get Russia back, we’ll return, and we’ll build a new Russia.” But the level of hypocrisy—or self-deception, or both—that I sense in them seems roughly equal to the hypocrisy and self-deception of the communists at the end of the ’80s. Because by then, no one really believed in communism anymore.
So I think this is more or less the same story.
About China Producing Engines for Russian Shaheds Link to heading
Igor Petukhov. Question How could Russia scale up Shahed production if the engine isn’t made in Russia? Who is this secret friend? Could it really be China?
It doesn’t seem like much of a secret. As far as I know, it’s pretty well known that the engines for the Shaheds are made in China. It’s basically an open secret.
Talking to Sheitelman About Animals Link to heading
Question from Marat I recently listened to Sheitelman on the Breakfast Show channel. After discussing current events, he started talking about his experience with our animal friends. I’d already heard him talk about dogs and cats, but this time it was about rats and snails—I really enjoyed it. When will Mikhail Pavlovich be a guest again? Maybe toward the end of the stream, you could talk about these topics for some emotional relief. Do you think you’d find common ground?
Well, of course we’d find common ground. You know, the only thing is—it’s a matter of timing and context. I don’t know... I’m not ready to say for sure—it depends on how things unfold. It has to happen naturally. Why force it? I always ask him about his pets before we go on air, when we’re just entering the studio. He used to have cats, now he has dogs.
But still, I don’t quite see a natural transition to a discussion about snails. We’ll see. If it happens—it happens. I always let the guest wrap up however they see fit. If he wants to talk about snails, I’ll be glad. If not—well, we’ll stick to politics.
Is It Acceptable to Charge Money for Debates Link to heading
So, a question from Lemeshev Igor Alexandrovich, how acceptable is it in the academic world to request payment for debating someone with an opposing viewpoint? Here’s the context: I once watched quite a few debates between scientific atheists and creationists. The atheists had much stronger, more compelling arguments—people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye. On the creationist side—Ken Hovind. I stress that these are popular figures in their respective circles. Each of them has participated in many debates, but the difference in stature was always heavily in favor of the atheists. So when Hovind invited Dawkins and Nye to debate, together or separately, both of them asked Hovind for $100,000 each. In my view, that’s shameful and disgraceful. What do you think about this? And I repeat—both Dawkins and Nye are strong speakers.
Well, and so on. So—look, I can’t really say for sure. It does sound strange. I don’t know the circumstances. If things are exactly as you describe—and I usually trust my interlocutors, including you—but I also have a rule: once burned, twice shy. And in this case, my rule is not to make categorical statements. I’ve made serious mistakes before, by trusting third-party accounts and jumping to sharp conclusions about someone—only to find out later that the situation wasn’t accurate.
So, I don’t know all the details. If things happened exactly as you describe, then yes—it’s odd. And it certainly doesn’t reflect well on the scientists involved.
Is the Chemical Theory of Life’s Origin Beautiful Link to heading
Question from Yulia Yesterday, you brought up the topic of the origin of life. The fact that the inorganic, under certain conditions, turns into the organic has a right to exist. But I still don’t understand where music comes from, and how music fits into the hypothesis of dead organic matter turning into life. I’m not a fan of the Bible, but the phrase “In the beginning was the Word” seems mathematically beautiful and concise to me. In contrast, the idea of turning sand into amoebas through chemistry feels clunky. Have you noticed that all things truly genius are beautiful—both in form and in simplicity? The idea of life originating from organics just doesn’t seem to belong in the world of Einstein, Newton, Poincaré. It feels like some kind of caricature. What do you think about this?
Dear Yulia! I greatly value our ongoing long-distance conversations. But here, I think—in your pursuit of elegance—you’ve crossed over into the language of that famous Chekhov character from “A Letter to a Learned Neighbor.” Please don’t be offended, but hear me out.
You’re talking about the idea of sand turning into amoebas. Doesn’t it seem, dear Yulia, that you’re simply echoing the style of Chekhov’s character who mocks Darwin’s theory by saying something like, “If we came from monkeys, we’d have tails and wild voices, and gypsies would parade us at fairs,” right? So yes, you can reduce the theory of life’s origin to the idea of sand turning into amoebas—but that’s about as fair as the caricature in Chekhov. It’s vulgar; it’s a straw man.
Now, regarding music—music doesn’t appear at the moment inorganic turns into organic. Music is a result. A result of the emergence of consciousness, and at certain levels of consciousness at that. I believe that before consciousness arose, there was no music, no harmony—because all of that is tied directly to consciousness.
And not necessarily to human consciousness, by the way. I think there are elements of musicality in nature itself—there are living beings with a sense of beauty, including musical beauty.
Could Trump Have Acted This Way Toward the President of South Africa Link to heading
So, a question from MTS. You’ve mentioned two broadcasts in a row that South Africa quickly found the killers of two farmers. Statistically, about 60 people are killed there annually—and this has gone on for years. Why does the left-wing press stay silent on this issue? Also—presumably referring to the president of South Africa—he’s a homophobe who came asking for money. Trump showed a video where one of the parliamentary parties staged a performance calling for the killing of white farmers. If you were in Trump’s place, would you allocate American taxpayer dollars to South Africa?
First of all, unlike you, I don’t know the details of the South African president’s visit to the U.S. If he came simply to ask for money, then yes—maybe. But in any case, the core issue lies in Trump’s absolute, outrageous dishonesty. He was fed completely fake videos.
Let’s clarify: South Africa truly has an incredibly high crime rate—it may well be one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The number of crimes, murders, and violent acts is staggering. That’s an established fact.
But what Trump showed—that video—was stitched together from two out-of-context clips. First, it featured a marginal political figure, not a parliamentary party. He’s a well-known provocateur, not unlike some far-right fringe figure—someone even more extreme than Zhirinovsky. He constantly calls for taking land from white farmers and shooting them. But again—he’s a fringe figure.
Then the video cut to rows of white crosses along a rural roadside. Trump claimed this was a burial site for white farmers—more than a thousand graves. That’s complete nonsense. There are no graves under those crosses. It was a protest performance—an art installation in memory of two white farmers murdered in 2020. Their killers were tried and convicted. Yes, they were murdered—that part is true. But the crosses were symbolic. No burials.
Then Trump waved around a printed article about horrific violence. In reality, it wasn’t about South Africa at all—it was about a woman killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So—everything he pointed to was completely off-base.
Yes, South Africa has major problems—including Black racism. But showing fake footage? That’s something else entirely. Of the roughly 20,000 murders recently reported in South Africa, only about 36 were connected to farmers. And not all of those victims were white.
So, yes, there’s animosity toward whites. About a million white South Africans have emigrated—mostly to Australia. But if you want to confront the South African president with these issues, you should present real data and serious analysis—not shove fake news in his face.
And what’s the point? Does Trump or his supporters think that humiliating the South African president with falsehoods will somehow fix the situation? Why invite a president only to publicly shame him with lies? What’s the purpose?
If they really wanted to send a message, it would’ve been better to deny the visit entirely. Say clearly: “You’re a Black racist, we won’t host you.” But to humiliate someone publicly, on camera—as Trump tried to do with Zelensky, and then with South Africa’s president—that’s a grave mistake. It’s another sign of the American administration’s degradation.
Trump was lying at every step. For example, when that radical politician—Julius Malema—sang the song “Kill the Boer,” Trump claimed this was sung by those in power. That’s false. Malema holds no state power. He’s a fringe figure. Every word was a lie.
Trump is constantly falling flat on his face.
On Reverse Discrimination Link to heading
So, some commentary on the analytical part—two opposing views on affirmative action. One is from Arkady Mikhaylov, who criticizes reverse discrimination. Here’s what he writes: You watch American films, and often the smartest characters are played by Black actors. But where are they among the Nobel laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine? They simply don’t exist.
First of all, in our previous conversation, I did point out that there are Nobel laureates with Black skin. Yes, specifically in physics, chemistry, and medicine—no, not yet. But they do exist in other fields—in economics, in the Nobel Peace Prize, in literature. So you’re not entirely right. That said, it’s clear that due to a number of historical factors and the way American society has developed, Black individuals haven’t achieved as much in the sciences—yet. But things are changing. While there may not be Nobel Prizes, Black scientists are not such a rarity anymore. Nor are Black doctors, or politicians. I don’t know why, for instance, you would take issue with the last U.S. Secretary of Defense, who was Black—he seemed to me quite competent and responsible. So I think you’re overreaching in one direction.
Now to Antonina, who, I think, overreaches in the other direction. Here’s what she writes about the overreach and practice of affirmative action: You said people are often appointed to positions just because they belong to minority groups. That’s not true. That’s the same straw man argument I wrote to you about. If you break down every particular case of “overreach,” it becomes clear that prophets always distort the facts to fit their narrative that liberalism is madness. And despite all the imperfections of affirmative action, there is currently no alternative. The alternative is Trump-style meritocracy. That’s how you end up with the U.S. Secretary of Defense being replaced not by a Black general like Austin, but by a former Fox News host—an alcoholic, a dilettante, and a not particularly bright man named Hyde.
Well, dear Antonina. Look, I’m not going to list a ton of examples, but there are court cases where people were denied a job because they were white, and someone Black was hired instead. There are plenty of such cases. So, just as your counterpart denied any positive aspects of affirmative action, you, in turn, are denying the obvious—that within the framework of political correctness, people have indeed been hired or chosen for roles and awards not based on merit or performance, but on gender, race, and other identity markers. That is a fact. There are enough examples.
Court cases exist in which people have demonstrably suffered injustice due to these policies of political correctness. That’s real. Now, the key point is—I personally support efforts to fight discrimination against minorities. I support that. But there should be no overcorrection. Trump’s rise to power, to a large extent, was a reaction to these very excesses. I don’t see how that can be denied.
Harvard Link to heading
So, the topic of Harvard comes up again. By the way, the comment expands: Harvard refused to provide police with video recordings of antisemitic speeches, so instead of punishing the guilty, it seems everyone was punished. All foreign students were offered to leave Harvard and transfer to other universities. They weren’t banned from studying in the U.S.
Let’s start from the end. You understand, of course, that if someone got into Harvard—this is the most prestigious university in the United States—and they’re being told to transfer elsewhere… why, exactly? Just why?
And here’s another important point: the reason for what happened with Harvard is somewhat different. It’s not because Harvard refused to give the police video recordings of antisemitic… speeches. First of all, the police are perfectly capable of recording those speeches themselves—which they did. The police broke up certain protests and rallies. There’s no such thing as “extraterritoriality” when it comes to a university. The police enter campus buildings and restore order—nobody stops them. So that’s complete nonsense.
So what did Harvard actually suffer for? For refusing, under orders from the White House, to change its academic programs. That was the real issue. The demand was to alter the curriculum—remove gender-related courses, eliminate certain topics, and so on. On what grounds? That’s a serious matter. It’s an attack on university independence, on academic autonomy—one of the cornerstones of Western civilization.
And it’s this cornerstone that the administration of the 47th President of the United States attempted to violate. The outrage over this was widespread—and not just in the U.S. Israeli students, too, were furious. And there was also a demand to somehow “correct” students’ positions. How? Of course, if someone is promoting antisemitic slogans, then under certain conditions, they can be subject to deportation or other legal measures.
But to demand that a university alter its curriculum, or interfere with its internal affairs—that is absolutely unacceptable. That’s exactly what happens in Russia, in totalitarian countries. So in this case, Harvard was absolutely right not to let the state—with its boots—trample on university autonomy.
Yes, fighting antisemitic rhetoric is important. But the police already have all the tools they need—to record, to identify, to disperse if laws are broken, and so on.
On the Religious Theme in The Master and Margarita Link to heading
Is that so? Alex Dugin for the sake of truth. The Master and Margarita has nothing to do with religion. Is this a mistake or a slip of the tongue? There are a thousand academic works around the world on the subject of religion in this novel by Bulgakov. At the time the novel was written, religion was banned in the USSR. For many generations raised in atheism in the USSR, this was their first encounter with the Christian religion. Half of this novel is a loose retelling of the New Testament and philosophical reflections on the subject of religion. Bulgakov’s father, Afanasiy Ivanovich Bulgakov, was a professor, by the way, at the Kyiv Theological Academy. Bulgakov knew the subject well.
I’m not arguing with you on that. I just want to stress once again that, overall, this is not a novel about religion—it is a novel about a person, first and foremost. Yes, it contains religious themes, religious plots, religious issues. For me, this novel was in no way a path to Christianity, and simply, you see, since it’s a cult novel, practically everyone, all my acquaintances have read The Master and Margarita. And I don’t know anyone for whom it was a path to Christianity. Absolutely no one. Well, maybe I was lucky or unlucky, I don’t know. But yes, it’s interesting. I mean, the part of the novel directly connected with the Master, with Jesus Christ—well, rather, with Yeshua and the curator—that is indeed an important part of the novel, no doubt. But still, it’s not a religious reading. And by the way, since we’ve started this kind of discussion, I want to say that for a significant majority of church figures, this novel was considered blasphemous, because it interpreted sacred texts very freely—very freely, so to speak. That is to say, to put it in literary terms, in the language of literary criticism, it is a novel inspired by the Holy Scripture, but by no means a Christian work. And many people, by the way, condemned Bulgakov for this.
On the Quran and Adultery Link to heading
Aura writes: I would like to clarify a quote from the Quran. In the canonical text about adultery, it says that four men must witness the act. The question is how the Quran is interpreted in cases of mass rape.
First of all, I don’t really understand what the clarification is. Essentially, she just repeated what was written yesterday. That is, the author of the first comment you’re referring to. And you said almost the same thing. So it’s quite hard to imagine a regular act of adultery being witnessed in detail by four men. That’s why, in fact, Elena said that under no circumstances can the act of adultery be established according to the Quran. Because four men must witness the details of the act, including anatomical details. As for cases of mass rape—sorry, to be honest, I don’t really know how things work in such cases. As far as I understand, in practice, it is the woman who is accused.
Trump Facilitated the 1000-for-1000 Exchange Link to heading
Right. MTS Igor Aleksandrovich, you forgot to mention the exchange. Excuse me, but you forgot to say that the exchange of 2,000 people happened thanks to Trump. Without him, there would have been no exchange.
Well, yeah—without him, the sun wouldn’t rise in the morning either. Here’s my point. Yes, you’re probably right, such an exchange did happen. Exchanges were happening—just this year alone, there have been many. So, most likely, those 2,000 wouldn’t have been exchanged all at once, but they would have been exchanged in batches—300 here, 100 there. Eventually, the process got underway. But the number of people who died as a result of the six-month delay in aid—which was specifically caused by Trump—that’s a whole other issue. So I just wouldn’t go that far. There might not have been that particular moment, but there also wouldn’t have been so many deaths.
Can Conscripts and Propagandists Be Equated? Link to heading
A question from Tatyana With all due respect, I disagree with putting propagandists and workers at military factories in the same group. Even war participants can’t be compared to propagandists. Some conscripts signed contracts under pressure, some were mobilized against their will. Others, simply brainwashed by propaganda, sincerely believe in the Just Cause. How can they be compared to those ghoulish ideologues who incite hatred? I believe propagandists should be ranked alongside Putin and his inner circle.
Dear Tatyana! I’m not arguing with you at all. I was simply listing groups—I wasn’t equating them. Moreover, I firmly believe that propagandists who incite and fuel the war should be prosecuted. But nowhere, in any country in the world, have workers at military factories ever been prosecuted. I believe their moral responsibility is very high, but there is no legal liability whatsoever. So, there won’t be any accountability. But there will be for propagandists. So you are right. You are absolutely, undoubtedly right.
Poll Results Link to heading
So, as we agreed, I’d like to sum up. I’d like to sum up our broadcast. And here are the results. The poll results. 1,200 people voted. And in response to the question “Do you believe U.S. sanctions against Russia will be introduced this week?” only 10% believe they will be. 90% believe they won’t. So that’s the forecast. We’ll see on Friday and review the outcome.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, thank you for your patience and attention. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. This week is very eventful for us. We’ll be meeting often. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov and all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you soon! Goodbye!
Source: https://youtu.be/F4hrmPl4QTU