Trump suspected that Putin was messing with his head and said that he had a deadline, but did not specify what it was; Lavrov explained that haste hinders “real politics,” and Shmyhal stated that Ukraine owes nothing to the U.S.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 28, and I am in Kyiv. It is now 7:40 AM, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls. I have titled today’s stream: What is born from the current chaos? That is the question. But no less important is another question: who benefits from this chaos? Is it the one who creates it, namely Donald Trump? After all, Trump is the father of global chaos, both economic and political. Or is it someone else? Let’s try to figure it out.
Beneficiaries of Chaos Link to heading
So, what happened? After a brief meeting between Trump and Zelensky in the Vatican. First of all, there were important statements from Marco Rubio, who reminded once again of the classic phrase: “Our patience is not unlimited.” He said that the coming week would be extremely important for peace talks on Ukraine, and he said this on NBC. According to him, during this week, the U.S. must assess — precisely this week — whether they will continue peace efforts or focus on other issues. In addition, he answered a journalist’s question about why the U.S. administration is not currently tightening sanctions against Russia to pressure it into peace. This is significant because it was through the threat of tightening sanctions that Trump repeatedly promised to achieve peace. However, Rubio responded as follows: once you start doing that, it would mean that you are stepping out of the negotiations and committing yourself to two more years of war. So, a question arises: what about Trump’s statements that he would pressure with stricter sanctions? It turns out — this is classic — Trump and his team are known for writing with one hand and reading with another at the same time. It’s the same story with tariffs: they impose them, cancel them, freeze them, reimpose them, and so on. And here it’s the same: talking about draconian sanctions, and then Rubio immediately refutes it, saying that it cannot be done because it would mean exiting the negotiation process. Well then, how is pressure on Putin supposed to be applied?
Trump, after the meeting with Zelensky — although initially there was an agreement, at least according to the press, that after sitting opposite each other on chairs, they would have a more detailed meeting there in the Vatican — immediately after the funeral, got on a plane and left. After meeting with Zelensky, he wrote the following: that Putin had no reason to launch missiles at civilian targets, and this leads Trump to think that maybe Putin does not want to stop the war but is just messing with his head. And that he needs to be dealt with differently — through banking or secondary sanctions. Well, how exactly — I don’t know. Trump started to suspect something, yes? That Putin might be deceiving him — as they say, even the bees started to suspect something.
Additionally, another completely puzzling phrase caught my attention — I must admit, I didn’t check the primary source; I read it on RBC Ukraine, citing Sky News. Trump’s words are quoted there, saying that Zelensky is ready to give up Crimea in exchange for ending the fighting and achieving long-awaited peace. Honestly, this statement confused me a bit. Because what does “Zelensky ready to give up Crimea” mean? Zelensky does not currently control Crimea. So what does it mean? Does it mean that Zelensky is ready to recognize Crimea as Russian? I am confident that this is impossible. So what Trump’s phrase really means — I do not know.
But overall, Trump’s attitude toward Zelensky, at least as of today, has changed sharply. He now assesses that Zelensky has become calmer, thinks he understands the situation, and wants to make a deal. However, since Trump is notoriously inconsistent, who knows what he will say after, for example, a phone call with Putin.
As for relations with Putin, Trump said: “I am very disappointed with the Russian strikes on Ukraine. I will answer whether I trust Putin in about two weeks.” This seems to be the size of the deadline Trump now has. When journalists asked him about the deadline for signing a ceasefire agreement, Trump said he had his own deadline but did not specify when it would be. “We have a deadline; after that, there will be a completely different approach.” Again, the deadline’s size is unknown. This is a very peculiar thing — a kind of rubber deadline. The latest reports suggest the deadline is two weeks. We’ll see.
What’s noteworthy is the difference in positions. On one hand, there’s the American side: Marco Rubio says time is pressing; Trump says he now has a two-week deadline. On the other hand, there’s the Russian side, which follows the saying popular among Russian criminals or street thugs: “He who understands life does not rush.” Lavrov’s statements perfectly illustrate this approach. A quote: “Haste hinders real politics. Americans are in a hurry because they have only four years.” Lavrov’s logic is clear: Americans are rushing because their political cycle is four years, and especially crucial are the first 100 days. Hence all these deadlines. But Putin and his cronies think they have eternity in their pocket, allowing themselves a leisurely pace.
In an interview with CBS News, when asked to comment on Rubio’s and Trump’s threats to withdraw from negotiations, Lavrov responded condescendingly: “We understand the impatience — it’s part of American culture. You create expectations and build tension around them. It doesn’t help in real politics.” Of course, what really helps in real politics is striking peaceful cities and dragging out the process, betting that eventually the U.S. president will get tired and pull out of the talks.
So that’s the chaotic situation: Trump may or may not leave the negotiation process — it’s unclear. Pressure on Putin is apparently not planned. How Trump intends to end the war remains unclear. As for Russia, everything is quite clear: Putin has no intention of ending the war. This chaos, the back-and-forth movement from the American administration, creates uncertainty in politics, and everything remains in limbo.
Subsurface Agreement Link to heading
Good news. I usually start with good news, but this time the good news comes in the middle of the broadcast. The author of this news is the Prime Minister — the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Denis Shmyhal. Igor Denisov. Igor — sorry. Denisov announced that Ukraine and the United States have agreed that previously provided American aid will not be counted in the subsurface agreement. What is this about? It concerns the fact that earlier, the President of the United States, Trump, stated that Washington had allocated more than $300 billion — more precisely, $350 billion — to Kyiv since the start of the full-scale war. After that, he repeatedly said that the money should be repaid. In particular, this approach was foreseen in the subsurface deal. Essentially, the main question was how this deal would function.
Later, a huge success of Ukrainian diplomacy was presented: the supposed debt amount was allegedly reduced to $100 billion. But in reality — and this can be very easily verified — there was no $300 billion cost. The total value of the weapons used during the full-scale war, including domestically produced weapons and those provided by the United States and Europe, amounts to $320 billion. Of this, $120 billion is Ukrainian production, and $200 billion is from the United States and the European Union combined. Specifically, the United States provided $67 billion in military aid and another $31 billion in financial aid. So there is no question of $300 billion.
What is very important, and what the Prime Minister of Ukraine ultimately reported, is that at least in this case — and I think this is a huge success for Ukrainian diplomacy — the deal will not assume that Ukraine already owes something. Meaning that at the start of this conversation, at the start of this deal, Ukraine does not owe anything to the United States of America. In my opinion, this is very, very good news.
Zaluzhny’s Report Link to heading
Well, now I would like to talk about what, in my opinion, is a very important event. It seems to me that such an event was the report. The Friday report. The report by the distinguished Valerii Zaluzhnyi at the Ukraine-UK Defense Industries Forum. This report. It was published on the Ukrainska Pravda website. The full text of the report was published on the Ukrainska Pravda website, and, in my opinion, it deserves a lot of attention. Today, I would like to discuss this report in detail with Serhiy Ivanovych Hrabskiy, because it seems to me that it is quite a serious, fundamental piece of work. Although, generally speaking, much of what Zaluzhnyi reports in this document is more or less known, given that we constantly follow the news about this war. Nevertheless, in such a concentrated and conceptual form, I have not read anything similar, but the point is that Zaluzhnyi claims that the new nature of this war is changing the very essence of global security foundations. So, I will just read. I will read some excerpts from this text. And I think it will become clear what this is about. Here is what Zaluzhnyi said. He summarized the main theses of his report into six points. First, thanks to unmanned systems and digital technologies, the traditionally known types of weapons that have defined the nature of warfare for decades are now history. They are gone. Second, armored vehicles, which since 1915 had been the basis of offensive operations, have become defenseless against cheap drones. Therefore, their use in other types of combat today is impossible. In other words, tanks have lost, tanks and armored personnel carriers have lost their significance. Third, precision weapons that used GPS positioning have lost their effectiveness due to the development of electronic warfare. Fourth, air defense systems are undergoing perhaps the greatest transformations. The emergence of a large number of small and inexpensive drones has made the use of extremely expensive missiles in air defense systems economically impractical. That’s another minus. Fifth, the airspace over the battlefield has become inaccessible for manned aviation, turning it into an auxiliary tool for air defense. Aviation needs modernization, with the ability to conduct reconnaissance and strike at completely different distances. Sixth, the maritime space has gradually been taken over by naval drones. Now powerful ships hide in protected ports. This is not just about technology. All of this requires a complete rethinking of the forms and methods of implementation. As a consequence, a revision of military doctrine. And I also want to add a small quote that, in my opinion, really changes the understanding of what today’s war is. That is, due to complete transparency near the front line, a 10–15 kilometer wide death zone has formed. It is no longer surprising when a drone hunts not a group target or object, but even a single soldier. By the way, this zone is constantly expanding, and the probability of being destroyed there is growing. This essentially means that any kind of offensive, either Russian or Ukrainian, is fundamentally impossible. If we translate all this into the language of conclusions, it becomes clear that, essentially, any movement is completely paralyzed by this death zone. Neither armored vehicles nor infantry offensive operations are possible. Naturally, it could be overcome by numbers. But how can it be overcome by numbers when the number of cheap drones still vastly exceeds the number of armored vehicles? So everything is quite clear, in my opinion. This explains the frozen front, which has been standing for almost a year and a half now, and, most likely, allows us to predict that this front will stand for an indefinite period. This fundamentally changes the entire situation. It also changes the forecasts that were given as optimistic both by Russian propaganda, that they would capture something soon — no, they won’t. As well as optimistic forecasts from the Ukrainian side, that they would liberate something soon. Most likely, the analysis we saw and heard from General Zaluzhnyi does not allow for an optimistic view of the liberation of the occupied Ukrainian territories unless there is a technological breakthrough or the Russian regime simply collapses. Such two “black swans” could change the situation. Everything else suggests an inertial development of events. That’s the situation.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Today we have a lot of questions. But before moving on to them, to answering these questions, I want to remind you once again that we will conduct a detailed analysis of Zaluzhnyi’s report today at 8:00 PM, when we have a broadcast with Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy. Don’t miss it. I think it deserves attention. I am now moving on to answering your questions.
Were There Communists in the U.S. During the Civil War Link to heading
So, a question from a subscriber who calls themselves Faith:
Why are the terms reactionaries and progressives often confused? I’m listening to the U.S. Civil War. Communists were invited into the country not by the Democrats, but specifically by the conservatives. I’m confused in my understanding.
Dear colleague, I honestly don’t quite understand what you are talking about. Simply put, during the U.S. Civil War there were no communists there, and no one invited them anywhere. I’m at a loss as to what you mean. If by communists you mean something else — what exactly? Russia, perhaps? That is, some favorable reaction from whom? The Russian tsar, the Russian emperor, who indeed, considering his complicated relations with Great Britain, in one way or another supported the American revolution. But it’s hardly appropriate to call him a communist. The Communist Party of the United States of America was founded in 1919. No one invited it to America. It arose as a breakaway, let’s say, from the Socialist Party, which also was not invited to the United States. It arose from the needs of the labor movement. So, in my view, there is some confusion here. Either clarify what you mean, or it’s not cognitive dissonance you are experiencing — it’s simply confusion about dates and events.
Could Trump Have Started Negotiations as a Cover to Communicate with Putin Link to heading
Tatyana Dmitrievna:
Doesn’t it seem that Trump and his gang deliberately started this disgusting charade with a ceasefire and ending the war just to have a reason to start communicating with Putin? After all, out of nowhere, it would have looked extremely disgraceful in the eyes of the world community. Trump feels much closer to the bloody dwarf than to Ukraine. Like attracts like, but now this immoral scoundrel has a perfect excuse for further communication.
Dear Tatyana Dmitrievna! I don’t think that Trump deliberately initiated this operation to communicate with Putin. He has absolutely no moral or political restrictions preventing him from communicating with him for as long as he wishes. So there are no problems in that regard. And it is unlikely that he would have created this whole scheme. The war in Ukraine is truly a global event. Trump’s attempt to end this war was one of his key campaign promises. Therefore, I do not think your hypothesis is correct. No, I believe that, moreover, this very situation actually hinders Trump from getting closer to Putin, from conducting negotiations about cooperation, and so on. So I think there is no cause-and-effect relationship of the kind you are suggesting.
Does the Author Love Russia Link to heading
Several questions from Vadim:
First, in the context of questions about identity, my memory may fail me, as it does for everyone. But it seems to me that once, when answering a question about your identity, you said among other reasons for considering yourself Russian that you love Russia. Today you said you don’t really. Was that a figure of speech, a slip, a change of position, or something else?
Dear Vadim, your memory has clearly failed you. In my worldview, so to speak, the concept of such an emotion or feeling as love is not applicable to Russia or anything like that. I do not think or feel in such categories. I could never have said that I love Russia. It simply is not my language, not my words. Love is a completely different feeling, and it has completely different objects. Therefore, I definitely could not have said that. So your memory has simply let you down.
Polish Military Campaign Link to heading
Second:
In the context of the so-called horseshoe theory, the Nazis had a national approach and the Holocaust. The Stalinists had a class-based approach and repression. How then should we understand the fierce pre-war national campaigns, especially the Polish one? It very much resembles genocide in scale — even against the Volga Germans after the war began, there was nothing comparable. I mean mass physical extermination.
Well, what is it that troubles you here? A horseshoe is a horseshoe. Indeed. The red — red, red — totalitarian regime gradually began to acquire a brown character from the moment when — what is called — the Leninist, or rather, Leninist-Trotskyist, I would say, internationalist approach gradually shifted to Stalin’s, which moved toward Nazism. Under Stalin, communism — that is, red terror, red totalitarianism — increasingly took on a brownish hue. This is well known. The horseshoe began to close. So I don’t see any contradiction with what you have said.
Is Trump a Follower of the Shchedrovitsky Sect Link to heading
And the third question from Vadim:
In the context of the topic of Trump’s PR, many continue to search for links between Trump and the intelligence services, first of the USSR, now of Russia. Don’t you think that the search for connections, if any, could start from another angle? After all, the behavior of Trump and his team, their rhetoric, methods — this is a vivid example of the implementation of the ideas of the Shchedrovitsky sect, don’t you think?
You know, your question assumes the hypothesis that the Shchedrovitsky sect has some kind of global character and somehow influenced the situation in the United States of America. That is somewhat of an exaggeration. I agree with the characterization — it is indeed a sect. This study of Shchedrovitsky’s methodology still has an exclusively Russian character, and I am not very aware — perhaps due to my own lack of education — of any serious influence of this methodological sect beyond Russia and the post-Soviet space. But as for the United States of America, Curtis Yarvin and his Dark Enlightenment, for instance, definitely did not experience any influence from the Shchedrovitsky sect — that is absolutely certain. So, over there, they have their own methodologies, which are much more sophisticated than ours. Therefore, I don’t think that such a construction could be justified.
Can Universities Unite Against Trump Link to heading
Yevgeny:
Can leading global media outlets, universities, NGOs, and so on, united by dissatisfaction with the current administration’s policies, jointly develop an IPO entirely based on open sources and Trump’s own statements, showing the world community how deeply he aligns with the Kremlin’s strategy? Are there forces capable of clearly stating that the U.S. is now a direct ally of Russia in this war, alongside Iran and North Korea? One of the goals would be to stir American society by appealing to their sense of shame. Or is this all utopian?
Well, first of all, let’s stay grounded in reality. Saying that today the United States of America is a direct ally of Russia in this war is an exaggeration. You see, North Korea today — by the way, when I was listing the main events of the day, I didn’t mention that Kim Jong-un, alongside Gerasimov, announced that yes, they were providing soldiers, supplying them with weapons. So this is all happening within a military alliance. In reality, the Russian-North Korean alliance has come out of the shadows, has become public and official. So it’s now a publicly acknowledged axis, at least.
Now, you see, the United States is not supplying shells, military equipment, or soldiers to Russia. Therefore, comparing it to the support from North Korea and Iran is probably inappropriate.
Second. I believe that trying by such methods to somehow open the eyes of Trump supporters is a futile task. It’s about as pointless as trying to do something with Putin’s admirers.
Last night, I talked in detail about what this devotion to Putin is like. I once again showed these “Putin squads,” and so on. And what can you do? These elderly women who love Putin — are you going to try to convince them otherwise? Or the young people I showed yesterday, who sincerely believe that capturing foreign territories will improve their lives — what have you done with them? Or people who sincerely hate Ukraine because they believe Ukraine poses a threat to them — how would you persuade them otherwise? It’s impossible. It’s brainwashing.
A similar situation exists with the Trumpist core.
These are not people you can persuade. It’s a certain “Teflon” group. Trump’s ratings are indeed dropping, but not among the core; they are dropping among the so-called “affiliated” supporters. Yes, those are peeling away. But the core — well, one American estimated this core at 30% of voters — those Trumpists will stick with him no matter what.
Therefore, relying on propaganda or information campaigns to change American public opinion is unlikely.
I think that changes in life itself, changes in living conditions, are what can influence the attitudes toward Trump among those who are not his core supporters.
The core won’t change. They will vote for him even if he goes out onto the streets and starts shooting Americans.
Did Putin Teach Trump How to Rig Elections Link to heading
Natalya Zykova:
Thanks to a wonderful conversation, I think, along with Alexander Filippenko, I have unexpectedly put together the puzzle on the Trump-Putin topic. If everyone in Trump’s administration is so pious — it’s a copy of Putin’s administration. The Russian authorities glued their “unity” together on this lubricant, and now America is following the same well-trodden path. How can you blame the people for your own successes? Question: Could it be that Vova taught Trump bad things when he interfered in the U.S. elections during Trump’s first term? Then today it becomes clear what successes Trump is paying Putin for.
I don’t think there was a teacher-student relationship here. No, rather it is simply a real, genuine coincidence — a closeness of positions, a coincidence of values, a similarity in their worldview. That is, they are, so to speak, fascist twin brothers.
Why Does Russia Seem Cursed Link to heading
A subscriber calling themselves Don Vito Corleone asks a philosophical question:
Why is it like this? Why is Russia always in some kind of mess, why are we always cursed? Let me explain. All countries somehow recover after wars. With us, nothing happens and nothing is learned. There is no memory, no responsibility, nothing. We are barbarians. Why is it like this, please. Question: Why don’t we learn? Why are we like this? Such an emotional question.
And I will immediately read two comments to this question from other subscribers. The answer is partly in the question itself. Because there is no memory, no responsibility, no awareness or acknowledgment of guilt for atrocities. No repentance, no proper conclusions.
And with your permission, I just want to refer you to a work that was once published in a journal I edited, Rubezhi. This work, printed over several issues during the course of a year, was authored by Academician Pivovarov and his then-coauthor Fursov. It is called “The Russian System.” They thoroughly explain what this enduring “Russian system” has been over the centuries, incorporating, on the one hand, the external legacy of the Horde, and on the other, being seasoned with Orthodoxy — specifically a Russian kind of Orthodoxy — and a number of other factors.
Because of this, a specific structure was formed, with power being in absolute fusion with property, and a population initially deprived of agency. I have often pointed out that in Russia, starting from the times of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, there was never a situation where power changed through elections. Not once.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the alternative historical source to modern Russia, had a tradition of changing power through elections. Here, it never happened. The Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and post-Soviet Russia — never has power changed via elections. There was always one ruler, and after some “elections,” there was another — but not by the people’s will.
This is tied to the peculiarities of this Russian system, where power, having seized not only the state but society as a whole, drains agency from the population. It’s a feature of the structure, passed down through the centuries. It’s not about genetics; it’s about a socio-cultural archetype.
This is something that has never changed. I think it’s connected to the sheer size of the territory and the imperial nature of authority from the very beginning — and the imperial nature of power began with the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
Thus, the fundamental problem lies in the absolute lack of agency among the population — a population entirely stripped of its subjectivity. There are individual people who rebel, and this touches also on the debate between Kasparov and Podrabinek: Podrabinek tries to argue for the subjectivity of not just individuals like himself, Alexander Skobov, Darya Kozyreva, and others, but for the entire Russian population. That won’t work. Kasparov is absolutely right here.
So I believe the issue is rooted in this very resilient structure, which Pivovarov and Fursov called the Russian System.
Question of Identity Link to heading
A comment from Yana to my earlier answer during the stream:
Just to clarify, I do not feel any complex about citizenship or about having a Russian passport. What I meant is that I feel a connection to a specific locality. For me, there is a kind of small homeland — I am attached to it, not to the rest of the country. This question was not about political responsibility or evasion of it. It was simply interesting to compare the feeling of homeland. It would be curious, for example, to ask Chechens what being “Russian” means to them — they also have a Russian Federation passport. Also, it would be interesting to know whether some native residents of Macedonia, Montenegro, and so on still feel like Yugoslavs.
Yes, this is an interesting question. It is a question of identity. It has many dimensions, by the way.
Should Children Be Held Responsible for Their Parents’ Crimes Link to heading
So, the next question. A question from Elena:
Do you think Putin’s children should be punished along with him? Many believe that children should not be responsible for their parents. But not so fast! His children live like in a fairy tale, enjoying his fabulous wealth, supporting him in the war against Ukraine. What do you think?
You know, dear Elena, I may lose your favor, but I think — moreover, I am convinced — that being related to Putin alone should not be grounds for any additional punishment. If they support the war, they should answer for that. If they support it in such a way that they become complicit in crimes, then they must be held accountable.
If the property they use was obtained by criminal means, it must be confiscated. But the mere fact that these people are Putin’s children, in my view, should not be grounds for prosecution. Morally — yes.
It’s well known that relatives of leading Nazi war criminals often tried to change their names and somehow get rid of that legacy. I think there will be a similar situation with Putin. But to prosecute a person for something they did not do — that is wrong. A person must be held responsible only for what they personally do.
This does not contradict the principle of collective responsibility. It exists and comes into play simply by fact.
Besides, if you feel yourself to be part of a community, you naturally take on certain responsibilities. But that is a matter of conscience.
Therefore, I emphasize once again: guilt and punishment must only be for guilt. Guilt is purely individual. Therefore, children are not responsible for their fathers.
World War II Began Earlier If We Discard Eurocentrism Link to heading
A question from Kac Trump:
I once read an original thought by Boris Akunin, according to which the widely recognized start date of World War II — September 1, 1939 — is a manifestation of the West’s dominance in international historical scholarship. Akunin believes the war should properly be considered to have begun with Japan’s invasion of China in 1937. Supporting this thesis is the fact that the end of World War II is rightly marked not by Germany’s surrender but by Japan’s defeat. Of course, all these periodizations and starting points are conventional and matter mostly for historiography and methodology. But your opinion is interesting.
Well, I completely agree with you. Moreover, I think it’s not even about Western identity but about the Eurocentrism of our perception. Even today’s situation proves this.
You see, we really do perceive the world — at least, I can say this for myself and for the authors I read — in a Eurocentric way.
I can even provide strict scientific evidence. Tell me, please: at the end of the 1990s, at the beginning of the 2000s, before our very eyes — those who were politically and publicly active at the time — the deadliest war since World War II unfolded. This was the so-called Second Congo War, or the Great African War.
Again, I emphasize: this was in our living memory — 1998–2003 — a war that claimed 5.5 million lives, far more than today’s tragedy in Ukraine. That war involved nine countries and a huge number of armed groups.
5.5 million people died. Tell me, did we pay much attention to that war?
What can I say? This is a feature of Europe’s perception, without a doubt.
And there’s nothing to be done about it. It’s neither good nor bad — it just is.
So yes, I completely agree with you.
About the Stone That God Cannot Lift Link to heading
And the second question from Kantor:
About God’s inability to create a stone that He could not lift.
Well, during one of my answers — also related to religion — I mentioned this as one of dozens or even hundreds of tricky questions that schoolchildren and gymnasium students would ask their teachers during lessons on the Law of God.
Kantor further writes: “I would note that from a cosmological point of view, the question is not idle and not an attempt to undermine creationism, but a fundamental problem. Because if God, or something like it possessing will and power, exists, then the question of the immutability of the laws of nature automatically arises. That is, can a presumed super-intelligence break or change the laws it itself created? If yes, then what meaning do those laws have? If not, then what is the point of God?”
You know, I can tell you that this is precisely the reason why all logical proofs of the existence of God — including Kant’s, Kacz’s, and the so-called “sixth proof” — are vulnerable.
Because the very idea of creating a non-contradictory, rational, logic-based system while positing at its center the existence of a supernatural being not subject to the laws of nature is impossible.
This construction is inherently self-contradictory from the outset.
Not in the sense of Hegel’s theorem, according to which any sufficiently developed logical system is internally contradictory, but rather the contradiction is embedded at the very heart of the structure.
Therefore, I believe that trying to check the logic or harmony of faith is a completely futile endeavor.
About Elena Ivanovskaya Link to heading
Ptitsa Sinitsa:
The well-known literary critic Elena Ivanovskaya, who has been running something like “Mediafrenia” on Facebook for three years, is calling for peace at any cost and immediately expects miracles from Trump. She calls those who disagree with her “liberals sitting on European couches and calling for endless carnage.” How do you view such liberals, and isn’t it hypocritical, given that she herself relocated from Moscow to a couch in Almaty back in 2022, and writes from there?
Well, what can I say? I think that initially, I came across this author — so to speak — in the expanses of Facebook. I believe she belongs, somewhat paradoxically, to the “Trumpist” section.
Because it seems to me — I can’t say I’ve studied her work seriously — but judging by her views and so on, her support for Trump is not support for him as a politician or a man with certain values.
Rather, like many of us, she desperately wants peace.
She assumes that Trump is the only possible path to peace and sees no other options.
And her main problem is that she calls people who — like me — see that Trump will not bring peace, those who oppose him, as people who want war.
That’s a logical error — it does not follow.
To use a perhaps crude analogy: if someone claims that the only cure for dandruff is a guillotine, and you object, they say you must love dandruff. You see? It’s a logical fallacy.
I do not consider Trump someone capable of bringing peace. I see his actual actions. I don’t believe he can achieve anything positive. I see that he is on Putin’s side, on the side of the aggressor.
Thus, labeling people like me as lovers of endless war is a mistake.
Elena Ivanovskaya represents a very peculiar kind of Trumpist — those who support Trump not because they share his views, but because they believe he is the only one who can bring peace.
About Aleksashenko and whether Russia is repeating fascist Germany Link to heading
Question from Igor.
On April 25 on Dozhd in the program “Not So” ALEKSASHENKO stated that Putin’s rise to power and that of his entourage is analogous to Hitler’s rise to power in 1933; unfair reparations were imposed on Germany, while Russia was denied assistance and pushed away, with aggressive NATO moving closer to its borders. After expressing this opinion, ALEKSASHENKO disconnected, and Fishman was unable to ask clarifying questions. Then my namesake asked me: How do you feel about ALEKSASHENKO’s position? And what type of expert is he — pro-government or opposition?
Well, first I will answer the last question regarding ALEKSASHENKO — he cannot be considered a pro-government expert for the simple reason that he did not support the occupation of Crimea from the very beginning. He was one of those who signed some appeal against it. In short, he actively opposed the occupation of Crimea. Moreover, moreover, Sergey Vladimirovich, just a second, I have… Moreover, Sergey Vladimirovich ALEKSASHENKO — well, I won’t even mention the title of “foreign agent,” as it by no means proves a person isn’t pro-government. We’ve seen this proved a hundred times. But ALEKSASHENKO participates in a considerable number of anti-Putin initiatives. That includes the Anti-War Committee, and so on. His anti-Putin stance is quite well known.
Now regarding the preamble. You see, dear namesake, I have repeatedly said that when you cite broadcasts to me, tying me to events of which I have no direct perception — that is, I haven’t seen this program on Dozhd — I can only say that I am now evaluating not ALEKSASHENKO but, as it were, not by taste but by thesis.
The approach you described seems incorrect to me because, yes, certainly, the similarities between the rise to power of Putin and Hitler can indeed be drawn. I agree that in both cases there was a sense of national humiliation. In Hitler’s case, it was the Weimar/Versailles syndrome; in Putin’s case, it was the phantom pains of the collapsed Soviet Union, along with some irritation and revulsion toward what the Yeltsin era represented — a full analogy to the Versailles and Weimar syndromes in Hitler’s case. I agree.
However, to conclude that — well, the phrase “aggressive NATO approaching the borders” — if this phrase was indeed said by ALEKSASHENKO, then I can only shrug, because there was no aggressive NATO moving toward Russia. It wasn’t NATO moving toward Russia; rather, countries that saw a threat in Russia simply sought NATO’s protection. Therefore, again, a person who speaks of aggressive NATO moving closer to Russia is someone who is indeed supporting Putin’s narrative. Whether ALEKSASHENKO is such a person, I don’t know. As they say, I prefer to strike exactly at the thesis, not the person.
About Identity and the UN Link to heading
The author of the question is a subscriber who calls themselves “Some Kind of Nonsense.” Well, a matter of taste. So, this subscriber asks the question:
You are confusing yourself and us with national identity. Nationality — writes the subscriber with such a callsign — is an English word, and it means citizenship. Many people try to cram ethnic affiliation into this word. Or, how is it in Russian? Well, let’s say ethnicity. The UN is an organization of nations, an organization of countries, not ethnicities. A Tajik from Germany is German, a Jew from Australia is Australian, and a Chukchi with a Ukrainian passport is Ukrainian. My question: do you agree? Have I convinced you?
and there are a lot of questions there.
Dear colleague with the mentioned callsign, I absolutely do not understand what the United Nations Organization has to do with it, which indeed is an alliance of states. And what does national identity have to do with it? The English word “nationality” means nationality. As for a Jew from Australia, of course, he remains a Jew. A Jew from America, from the United States of America, is a U.S. citizen. In that sense, he is an American, of course. But he still remains a Jew. And it is precisely because of this feeling of belonging to the Jewish people that many American Jews lobby for Israel’s interests. Many American Jews, feeling their belonging to the Jewish people, deeply care about and follow the news from Israel, try to help Israel, and lobby in the United States Congress for aid to Israel.
So again, you see, dear colleague, your notion of identity is a little one-dimensional. A person practically always has multiple identities. There is gender identity, civic identity, political identity, national identity — and you could name a dozen more. And it depends on the person which identity is primary. There are people for whom gender identity is primary. A person may first and foremost feel like a man or a woman. For example, for feminists, gender identity is primary. For the idiot who leads that obscurantist organization called “Male State” — the name escapes me right now (well, my memory is a bit elderly, so I am forgiven) — but there is this idiot leading an obscurantist, fascist organization called “Male State,” and for him, gender identity is also primary. He believes that having primary and secondary sexual characteristics is the most important thing.
There are people for whom national identity is primary. There are people for whom political identity is primary.
So, don’t oversimplify. For example, there are die-hard soccer fans for whom the most important thing is their relationship to their home club, you see?
Thus, the problem of identity is a separate topic. Your humble servant has studied this topic. I even wrote a book on it, conducted research on it — more than once.
So, dear “Some Kind of Nonsense,” I was not trying to confuse you. I was trying to explain, to answer the questions.
Is it necessary to destroy the old in order to build the new? Link to heading
Here’s a question from Makar:
My nephew is studying in the U.S. at the University of Florida, where almost all the students, being Americans, voted for Trump. Now he asks them: Aren’t you sorry you voted for him, seeing how he is now destroying everything that was built over decades, even centuries? They answered that he is doing the right thing because in order to build something new, you have to destroy the old. And the old, along with Biden, was disliked by everyone and had grown sickening. In short, they continue to believe in Trump. What do you think? Or maybe they are right that you need to destroy the old to build the new?
You know, these people have not lived through what we experienced — complete destruction down to the foundation.
And you know, there are two points here.
First, such an ultra-revolutionary approach — destroy everything to the ground and then build something new — is unproductive. It has never led to anything good in history.
Second, there is the question: what exactly is Trump building anew? And here the ideas of the so-called Dark Enlightenment, the ideas outlined, for instance, in “Plan 2025,” make a rather frightening impression.
Read, read Curtis Yarvin, read about the Dark Enlightenment, read all those techno-fascists.
And if you don’t feel scared, then perhaps you are of the same blood as they are. And if you do feel scared, maybe it will sober up those students as well.
So I think that within the very concept lies a very solid foundation.
About Stoicism Link to heading
It seems I am lucky with unusual pseudonyms lately. Here, the subscriber calls themselves “For the Homeland.” Well, fine.
How do you feel about living according to this philosophy as the basis of one’s main life concept? Do you think stoicism stands in opposition to Eastern spiritual practices, being a Western practice, or is this division negligible and not tied to any region? Do you consider yourself a stoic?
Let’s sort this out.
The word “stoic” actually implies two quite different concepts.
First, there is the everyday meaning, and second, the philosophical one.
In the everyday sense, stoicism means firmness and courage in the face of life’s trials. It’s just a kind of compliment — yes, a person behaves like a stoic, enduring the hardships that befall them.
In this sense, for example, Alexander Valeryevich Skobov is a stoic — a man who endures the trials that fell upon him with historical courage. That’s one aspect — the everyday definition.
The second definition is philosophical. It refers to the ancient philosophical school, very resilient, which arose in ancient Greece and gained tremendous popularity in Ancient Rome. These are authors like Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.
As for me, I am certainly not a stoic in either of these meanings. I cannot place myself alongside Skobov. I cannot honestly say that I am stoic even in the everyday sense.
And I am certainly not a stoic philosophically. Regarding the division between Western and Eastern views, first of all, stoicism is a historically transient phenomenon. It is very interesting as a philosophical school because the stoics were the first to grasp the essence of scientific methodology — not to take the obvious for the truth.
What seems true is not always true. One should never take things on faith. There should be constant searching for truth, and doubt in what appears obvious.
It should be noted that during the Roman Empire, stoic teachings were not a religion for the people, but rather a recommended worldview across the empire.
For example, Cicero was greatly influenced by it. Throughout history, Socrates was considered the chief hero and authority. His approach to life during his trial was considered exemplary — his refusal to flee, his calm courage in the face of death.
And so forth.
So, it’s a worthy teaching, but it has passed.
I cannot consider myself a Platonist or a follower of Pythagoras either.
Thus, historically, stoicism is an important philosophical teaching that laid one of the fundamental stones of modern civilization and modern philosophical worldviews.
In the everyday sense, calling someone a stoic is simply a compliment.
Could the U.S. lease the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant? Link to heading
Evgeny Dugin
The question is: why not consider the possibility of signing a lease agreement for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant between Ukraine and the U.S.? In business practice, there are leases of mines, wells, factories, shopping centers. Well, again, dear colleague, this is purely a Ukrainian matter.
So, dear Evgeny, I don’t know, you see — should I even be giving advice?
First and foremost, Ukraine must regain control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and then manage this property, which belongs to Ukraine.
It’s a simple matter.
After that, if a need arises and an offer is made — well, I am not particularly prepared right now to recommend anything to the Ukrainian government about how it should manage its property.
Talleyrand and Model Diplomats Link to heading
Ilya,
I’m interested in your opinion about the historical figure Charles Maurice de Talleyrand.
A bit much — usually just Talleyrand, as far as I know. Why use the full name? Well, fine.
Then Ilya asks:
Who, in your opinion, could be considered a model diplomat?
Quite the question.
Look, as for Talleyrand — he is a model of unscrupulousness and hypocrisy. He was undoubtedly a very talented person, that’s obvious.
But he was an ultra-realist by his views, someone who participated on the side of the revolution.
There are proven facts that he took bribes from France’s enemies — he was a bribe-taker. That’s documented.
There are also documented facts of betrayal — he switched camps, betraying as he did so.
When people attribute to him the phrase “I serve France, not its rulers,” forgive me, but he also betrayed France.
Thus, taking Talleyrand as a model — my attitude toward him is negative overall, let’s say, as a statesman.
Of course, he achieved much thanks to his skills, but overall, as a person, as a personality, he doesn’t inspire sympathy in me.
As for a model diplomat — well, I don’t know.
Look, Benjamin Franklin — an American politician and diplomat — and not just because his face looks at us from the most popular bill, at least in Russia — the $100 bill.
But because of his absolutely unique diplomatic successes, particularly his trip to France and what he achieved there. Even though there were objective conditions for it, still, I think that was a major achievement.
I realize I might face criticism for this, but I consider Henry Kissinger an outstanding diplomat.
Because — well, the signing of the peace agreement on Vietnam, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
I understand everything associated with Vietnam, and that many see it as a big minus for American policy.
Nonetheless, Kissinger’s diplomatic efforts here cannot be denied.
Perhaps even more importantly, the 1973 diplomatic success, when Kissinger’s negotiations and diplomatic skills turned hostile relations with China into an alliance.
That was the beginning of China’s shift toward the U.S.
It was Kissinger who secured the break between China and the Soviet Union, which eventually became one of the factors in weakening the USSR and its eventual collapse — not immediately, not quickly, but still.
Yes, Kissinger.
Perhaps Bismarck could be added here too, and maybe Disraeli as well.
But as for a model diplomat — I don’t know.
At least, I’ve named a few figures whose diplomatic work I am familiar with.
On Writing Proper Names with a Lowercase Letter Link to heading
Robert,
forgive me for such a trivial question, but I’m curious. I read that the National Commission of Ukraine on State Language Standards allowed the words Russia, Russian Federation, Moscow to be written with a lowercase letter, actually without any commissions at all. Proper names like Russia, Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev, and others have long been written with lowercase letters by many Ukrainian commentators. It seems to me to be complete infantilism and foolishness. What do you think?
Well, dear Robert, first of all, I don’t know anything about this. That’s point one, so, of course, I trust you, but still, if I were to say anything on this topic, I would prefer to check it first — let’s put it that way, suppose so. That is, I trust you. Let’s agree on that. However, I still want to emphasize that I personally know nothing about it. It’s only from your words.
The second question really is trivial. Here, I completely agree with you, you’re right.
Third, this is absolutely Ukraine’s business, absolutely Ukraine’s business. How to write, what to write, how to speak, what to say — that’s Ukraine’s business. And this is precisely the case where I can say with 100% certainty that, as a citizen of an aggressor country, it is completely inappropriate for me to try to correct anything in Ukrainian spelling.
Well, if we imagine that I were offered to do so, I would, of course, react negatively.
You see, personally, I am not sympathetic to attempts to use grammar to express political feelings. Those who do it — if it makes you feel better, if it somehow relieves you to write Putin’s surname with a lowercase letter, or call him Putler, or call him Khuilo, or something like that — if it helps you, then God bless, if that’s how you solve some of your problems. That’s great.
But as for me, I don’t like attempts to use grammar for political expressions.
So, what — shall we start writing Hitler with a lowercase letter too?
For example, I personally really dislike Trump. Shall we write his name with a lowercase letter?
You know what? Since we’re talking about spelling, I have a control question: tell me, please, does it bring victory any closer?
And Irina Ivanova?
No, again, if it makes it easier for you — fine. Well, great, please.
But if you ask me about my attitude to such things, it is skeptical.
I personally do not accept this, and I don’t like distorting surnames — even the surnames of Hitler, Putin, Trump, even Chikatilo.
They are proper names, and one’s attitude toward them can be expressed in completely different ways.
Does the Church Speak Out Against the Authorities Link to heading
Irina Ivanova
As an atheist, don’t you think that religion poses a threat to political power? Could it be that churches will once again be closed, as they were under the Bolsheviks? After all, many priests are already speaking out against the authorities.
Dear Irina, I do not see that happening. I don’t see priests speaking out against the authorities more often than, say, teachers, lawyers, or journalists. That is not the case. On the contrary, the Russian Orthodox Church is a totalitarian sect that serves the authorities. This has been the case since the time of Peter I. The Russian Orthodox Church has always and entirely served the authorities. It has lost any function of spiritual autonomy and has turned into an office that services the authorities. I do not see anything like what you are describing. So it is important to understand exactly what you mean.
Signs of People Who Are Against the Regime but Still Live in Russia Link to heading
Olga Alexeeva.
How should people who are against the regime differ? Can you imagine yourself in such conditions, assuming nothing threatened you and you had not left?
You know, I think this is an internally contradictory question. If nothing had threatened me, I would not have left. What does that mean? It means that I would have stopped writing the texts I wrote. I would have stopped saying what I said. It would mean that I would have ceased publicly expressing my opinion about what was happening. Well, then something would definitely have threatened me. It is precisely because I spoke, wrote, and spoke out that I was threatened. Therefore, if someone who is against the regime remains silent, it means either they agree with what is happening — that is, they are not really against it — or they have gone into internal emigration. And that means there are no distinguishing features that would allow them to be identified as opponents of what is happening. As soon as such a distinguishing feature appears, the person immediately comes out of internal emigration into some form of protest, and life becomes difficult for them. So, in the current situation, there are no safe forms of protest in Russia. That’s all.
On “Victory Mania” Link to heading
Stanislav Fesenko
Thank you for the kind words, Stanislav, directed at me.
But I am from the heart of Donbas, the city of Kramatorsk. I have a question for you. How can you explain the phenomenon that in the Russian Federation, every year they pompously celebrate May 9th? They call it Victory Day over the German fascist invaders. The fact that Germany was Nazi and not fascist — well, that’s too complicated for them. But the key word is ‘invaders’. How can people celebrate Victory Day over invaders while supporting their state that invades another country every day? How does this even work?
Well, dear Stanislav, it works through zombification. It works through constant 24/7 propaganda that reaches people even if they don’t watch TV. Propaganda is such a thing; it works on the principle of reaching you everywhere. Even if a person doesn’t turn on the TV or listen to the radio, they are still in the zone of this radiation because it affects the people around them. So it still achieves its goal. That’s why the belief that Ukraine is full of Nazis who seized power and pose a threat — this perception of the current war as a continuation of World War II, where Zelensky plays the role of Hitler and Ukraine the role of the Third Reich — is hammered into people’s heads. That’s it. “We can repeat it” means that today, the continuation of World War II is underway. Just as the Red Army once reached and took Berlin, now they believe they must reach and take Kyiv. That’s it. This is hammered into people’s heads from morning till night on all Russian channels. And that’s how it works — and it works successfully. Yesterday, not by chance, I created “Mediafrenia” as a layered cake consisting, on one side, of TV presenters and, on the other, of people from the streets. And they coincide because the thoughts in the heads of people on the streets are the waste products of the TV inhabitants.
Lenin’s Role in the Creation of Ukraine Link to heading
Alina,
I found myself in the following situation, which led to this question. I met a man, and we went on a romantic trip to Kazan. There I discovered that he was a patriot to the core, watched federal channels, and fully embraced and promoted that ideology. I was internally horrified but decided not to engage in discussion because it would be pointless. Nevertheless, one argument arose about the claim that four regions of Ukraine used to belong to “us,” that Lenin unlawfully separated Ukraine, and that Khrushchev “gave” them Crimea. Thanks to you, I know that the documents regarding the transfer of Crimea were signed by Malenkov, the decision was made by the Presidium of the RSFSR, and the decree was signed by Voroshilov, which I told him. He indignantly replied that I didn’t know history, but regarding Lenin and his role in Ukraine, I didn’t know what to say. Could you please shed some light on this? After the trip, the man and I never saw each other again.
Well, as I understand it, your personal relationship is not something I should comment on. It seems quite clear to me that such theatrical displays of worldview — especially when expressed actively — make communication impossible, even if there is some chemistry in other areas. As for the main question, regarding Lenin’s role in Ukraine — in reality, Lenin had more to do with the creation of the Russian state than with Ukraine. Ukraine existed before Lenin, continues to exist after Lenin, and will continue to exist in the future. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic did not arise because Lenin wanted it, but rather despite his wishes. Lenin realized that to conquer Ukrainian territory, he would have to recognize the independence of the Ukrainian state and make concessions by supporting the Ukrainian language and culture; otherwise, the Bolsheviks would not have been able to maintain control over Ukraine.
The fact is, Lenin, as head of the Soviet government in Soviet Russia, waged war against Ukraine. The Bolsheviks fought against the Ukrainian People’s Republic, which was established in 1918. And, as you understand, Lenin had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. I won’t recount the whole history here, because it is complex — Ukraine immediately became the target of attacks by the Bolsheviks, the Poles, the White Army, and others. But the Ukrainian People’s Republic, created in 1918, certainly did not arise thanks to Lenin. Later, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was established and became one of the founding members of the USSR as an independent state.
If we talk about the modern geographic contours of Ukraine — including Crimea, Donbas, and the western regions — it is true that this Ukraine took shape within the framework of the Soviet Union. That is certainly true. But what does Lenin have to do with it? Especially considering that the current borders of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were finalized many years after Lenin’s death. In short, Lenin had no role in creating Ukraine. This is a lie — the usual Putin-era lie.
Could the U.S. Become an Ally of Russia in the War Against Ukraine Link to heading
Alpha Alpha,
Don’t you get the feeling that Trump has long been hinting — ever since the Oval Office scandal — at something he still refuses to say outright? When he talks about Ukraine lacking maps or about Putin “conceding” by not claiming all of Ukraine, it feels like Trump is leaving the most important part unsaid. And the main point is that all the cards are actually in Trump’s hands, and the ace up his sleeve is direct military aid to the aggressor. It’s clear he can’t say it openly yet, thus sustaining false hopes among some people. But illusions are costly. Or is such a coming out only a matter of time?
You know, dear colleague, I don’t think that direct military assistance to Putin’s Russia from Trump is possible. I am simply convinced that Trump represents a unique phenomenon: a fascist-type leader heading a democratic state. And the idea that he could overcome the obvious resistance of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people to provide aid to an aggressor — that seems like science fiction to me. I am convinced that this will not happen. Despite my strong antipathy toward Trump, I think that maybe, deep down, he would like to do so. But you know, I — and certainly not I — cannot dig into people’s thoughts, and in terms of real actions, there definitely won’t be any.
Is Trump Waiting for Biden’s Aid to End Before Starting Negotiations with Russia Link to heading
Oleg Litvin
Igor, what do you think — is Trump stalling for time until the ammunition provided by Biden runs out, and only then plans to start negotiations from a position of strength? Is that the case?
Dear Oleg, I had already started to mentally construct an answer when I suddenly saw a response from Andrey, directly under your question, that fully matches my own view. Andrey writes: “Trump could stop the supply of weapons right now. Nothing is stopping him.” There’s your answer. You see, he doesn’t need to wait for anything. He has the ability to stop Biden’s aid immediately. Cancel Biden’s emergency assistance. He has no problems doing that. So, there’s no need to wait for anything.
On the Suppression of Allied Aid in the Victory Over Nazi Germany Link to heading
A question from Vera. Vera asks:
In Soviet schools, they used to downplay Lend-Lease, speaking only about the opening of the second front in 1943.
Well, there was a second front — if you mean Italy, then yes, before 1943. But the Normandy operation was in 1944.
And they emphasized the “hypocrisy” of the Allies. Now, Russia lies about its sole victory in the Great Patriotic War. Do you think there is currently something like Lend-Lease for Ukraine, combining aid from Europe and the U.S.? As we know, this aid was critically important for the USSR, and after the end of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR bargained not to pay the full debt. The debts from Lend-Lease were fully repaid only in 2006. Ukraine also participated in repaying this debt. It’s unclear how the war would have ended without Lend-Lease.
I completely agree with you. Yes, of course, the aid was enormous. And regarding the second front, you know, dear Vera, this mythologizing of World War II all fits into one term: “victory mania” — the attribution to the Soviet Union of the sole role in defeating fascism. What can I say? First of all, Lend-Lease provided enormous, decisive assistance. Secondly, the Allies — meaning the Americans and the British — started fighting two years earlier than the Soviet Union joined the war against Hitler. That is, the British were already fighting him while the Soviet Union was dividing Poland with Hitler. And the Americans began fighting Hitler’s ally, Japan, much earlier than the Soviet Union did. So the participation of Americans and Britons in World War II against the Nazi Reich and its allies began significantly earlier.
So, what second front? Yes, material aid through Lend-Lease was given to the Soviet Union, but real military assistance — well, yes, in 1943 with the operation in Italy. But the main blow against the Nazi Reich was delivered in 1944. Still, the Allies had been participating in the war well before that. Therefore, the mystification of World War II by Soviet — and later by Putinist — historiography is a separate topic altogether.
About Dressing Newborns in Military Clothing at the Maternity Hospital Link to heading
Oleg,
In a Kemerovo maternity hospital, newborns are dressed at discharge in army caps and tent cloaks. Is this just stupidity and ugliness, or is it a reminder to mothers that the child belongs to the state, and that it is their duty to raise and feed the child until 18, and then return it intact to its owner? In other words, to fulfill the role of collective farm livestock. Is it really that simple and cynical?
Dear Oleg, you know, I think that, of course, on one hand, it is stupidity and ugliness, but on the other hand, it’s also true. These women working in the maternity hospital understand patriotism this way; they are trying to please the authorities, trying to draw attention to themselves, to signal that they are “loyal,” hoping, perhaps, for funding or some other benefit. In short, it’s the usual mixture — on one hand, servility, and on the other hand, as you rightly said, stupidity and ugliness. So, yes, everything you described is present here.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So, dear friends, we are wrapping up here. Today’s stream turned out to be quite long. Well, there were many questions. My job is to answer them. Let me remind you that today there should be a very interesting conversation with Sergey Ivanovich Grabskiy. I will try to ask him questions regarding Zaluzhny’s report. I think it will be a very meaningful discussion. I recommend not to miss it. Glory to Ukraine! Take care of yourselves! Freedom for Alexander Skobov! Darya Kozyreva! Freedom for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 18:00.
Source: https://youtu.be/hZdUFo5Y9p8