What is the danger of using historical arguments in politics

Trump strengthens the ruble, prepares to recognize Crimea as Russian, and declares Biden’s pardons invalid. What is historical gratitude, and what is the danger of using historical arguments in current politics.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 18. It is 07:42 in Kyiv, and we continue our usual morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and our souls. Once again, we have a brief overview of events.

Trump Continues to Strengthen the Ruble Link to heading

First of all, Trump continues to strengthen the ruble. The official exchange rate has dropped below 85 ₽ per dollar. This is quite a significant event because, since the beginning of the year—since Trump took office—the ruble has already strengthened by 17%. It’s hard to say whom Trump is making great again, but we can all see what his life-giving influence is doing to the ruble.

The U.S. Considers Recognizing Crimea as Russian Link to heading

Another event, one might say sensational, though not yet fully confirmed. According to the website Semafor—and I’ll go into more detail about this source in a moment, as we don’t often reference it—there are reports that the United States is considering the possibility of recognizing Crimea as Russian as part of a deal being negotiated. Trump is reportedly weighing the option of officially recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. The publication cites multiple sources close to the discussions.

Now, a few words about this news site, as the credibility of the source is important. This is not some satirical outlet like Panorama or a Russian propaganda site. The publication was founded two years ago by former New York Times columnist Ben Smith and his namesake, Justin Smith, the former CEO of Bloomberg. They position the site as a new company aimed at rethinking high-quality global journalism. I looked at their editorial team, which mainly consists of former journalists from Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. So, in principle, this source appears somewhat credible.

If this is indeed being planned, it is a bombshell revelation. The key issue under discussion is whether, in the future, the U.S. might also reverse its position and recognize Crimea as Ukrainian again. That would be an extraordinary move. It’s clear that Ukraine will not accept such a deal, but the very fact that this discussion is taking place is striking.

Trump and Putin Hold Talks Today Link to heading

According to Trump, he and Putin plan to hold joint talks today. Judging by the timing, they will take place sometime in the afternoon, so there is no information available yet. By evening, we may already have some preliminary outcomes of these negotiations.

Ahead of the talks, the 47th President of the United States stated that the discussion would focus on territories and power plants. “We will be talking about land, we will be talking about power plants,” Trump said, adding that it would involve the redistribution of certain assets. What exactly these assets are remains unclear. If the discussion is about land and power plants, it seems Trump is somehow planning to divide Ukrainian territory—a rather peculiar endeavor. Most likely, the talks will concern the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently located in occupied territory.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also commented on the upcoming negotiations, hinting at their second phase. He stated that after the initial 30-day ceasefire, the goal of the next stage would be to find a way to end the war permanently while taking into account the interests of all parties involved. However, what exactly Russia’s interests are is already well known, just as Ukraine’s interests are clear. How these interests could possibly be reconciled is, in my view, completely incomprehensible. More importantly, why should Russia’s interests even be considered in another country’s affairs? This remains a baffling question.

According to the U.S., Only Ukraine Should Make Concessions Link to heading

Lately, I’ve found it quite interesting to follow the actions of White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt. During a press briefing, she stated that members of Trump’s team had discussed possible territorial concessions with Kyiv. In other words, it is implied that only Kyiv should make territorial concessions—a rather peculiar notion.

More broadly, the context leading up to this discussion is also telling. Notably, at the initiative of the Trump administration, the United States has withdrawn from the International Center for the Investigation of Crimes Against Ukraine. This is undoubtedly a significant move in Russia’s favor—one that Moscow is certainly applauding.

Trump Nullifies Biden’s Orders and Accuses Him of Incapacity Link to heading

Another development fitting into the broader pattern of the new U.S. administration’s actions is Trump’s announcement that pardons issued and signed by Biden are being declared invalid. From my perspective, this move is unprecedented—I can’t recall any instance in the history of the Soviet Union, Russia, or even globally where documents signed by a previous administration were simply nullified. The only comparable example might be when the Bolsheviks came to power and declared all obligations of the tsarist government invalid, arguing that it had been an illegitimate regime.

As far as I know, Trump does not view his return to power as the establishment of an entirely new form of government in the United States. So this decision is absolutely without precedent. Trump justifies it by claiming that “Sleepy Joe” Biden didn’t even know what he was signing and approved documents “on autopilot.” In reality, this is about a number of Trump’s political opponents whom Biden sought to shield from prosecution. Among them is retired General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with several other officials and leaders whom Trump has openly labeled enemies and vowed to go after.

If the argument is that Biden’s use of an “autopilot” signing process invalidates his decisions, then by that logic, the signatures of nearly every recent U.S. president would also have to be annulled. After all, the sheer volume of documents requiring presidential approval means that official mechanisms are often used to facilitate the signing process. However, in this case, what stands out most is that Trump is retroactively attempting to declare a former president incapacitated—something no court, in my view, would ever agree to. Declaring someone legally incapable after the fact is highly questionable.

In terms of disregard for legal norms, I would argue that Trump is surpassing not only the Soviet government but even Putin’s administration.

Forcing History to Fit Contemporary Events Link to heading

Now, on to the topic mentioned in the headline—historical gratitude and the use of historical arguments. It seems to me that the U.S. administration is increasingly borrowing from Putin’s playbook, particularly when it comes to using history to justify current political actions. We all know how Putin operates—every speech of his, every public address, starts with the Pechenegs, the Polovtsians, the Khazars, and then seamlessly transitions to the present situation, offering a quick tour through several centuries. Apparently, he believes that adding historical context lends weight to his political arguments today.

This is why I mentioned earlier that I plan to keep an eye on the statements of the White House press secretary. I found her recent response particularly interesting. French MP Raphaël Glucksmann suggested that the Statue of Liberty should be returned to France, to which she responded in a manner reminiscent of Maria Zakharova or Margarita Simonyan. She said that the French would be speaking German if not for U.S. assistance. That was the essence of her rather colorful statement, where she emphasized that America had helped France fight off the Germans and that without U.S. support, the French would now be speaking German.

This is, of course, a debatable claim. There may be some truth to it, and France should undoubtedly be grateful to the Americans. However, to be fair, both the British and the Soviet Union also played crucial roles in defeating Nazi Germany, and the French themselves did not exactly stand idly by in the fight for their own liberation. That said, there’s little dispute that the U.S. played a significant role in freeing France from fascism.

But this is precisely why I believe historical arguments are a dangerous tool in modern politics. If we start dissecting who owes whom and who should be “paying the bill” for history, things quickly become tangled. For example, would the United States still be a British colony if not for the French? I would just like to remind everyone—though I understand the White House press secretary is not required to be a historian—perhaps she should at least be somewhat informed if she insists on using historical arguments. Otherwise, maybe it would be better to avoid them altogether.

For instance, France’s support for the American Revolution was crucial. King Louis XVI sent an expeditionary corps under Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau in 1780, which played a decisive role in securing independence for the 13 colonies. Even before that, in 1778, France had signed a treaty with the United States, formally declaring war on Britain in support of the American rebels. From that point on, France supplied the revolutionaries with large quantities of gunpowder, weapons, muskets, cannons, and significant financial aid. This support was a major pillar of the American fight for independence.

Moreover, the French expeditionary force was instrumental in the decisive Battle of Yorktown, which effectively marked the end of the American Revolutionary War. That’s why I included an image of Mount Rushmore, where the greatest American presidents, according to Americans themselves, are immortalized. The greatest of them all is, of course, George Washington, and his alliance with the French general Comte de Rochambeau was crucial in securing American independence.

So perhaps it’s best to be careful when using historical arguments. In the end, the whole question of historical gratitude—who should be thanking whom, who should bow down to whom, and how many times they should say ku—becomes quite complicated.

Ku - is a referrence to a movie Kin-Dza-Dza

Continuing the Fake Story About Surrounded Ukrainian Soldiers Link to heading

Another astonishing Trumpism has emerged—Trump claimed that the surrounded Ukrainian soldiers in the Kursk region are still alive “only because of me.” This is a continuation of the myth, or rather, the fake news that Putin has been spreading. According to this narrative, Putin supposedly doesn’t know what to do with several thousand Ukrainian troops allegedly encircled in the Kursk region. Trump claims he pleaded with Putin to spare them and then takes credit for the fact that they are still alive.

The truth, however, is that there are no thousands of encircled Ukrainian soldiers in the Kursk region. This brings us back to the broader issue of how the idea of historical gratitude is manufactured—and how dangerous it is to use such manipulative narratives and historical arguments in modern politics.

Q&A Link to heading

Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that we have two very interesting discussions scheduled for today. First, at 17:00, political analyst Abbas Gallyamov will be joining us. It’s always valuable to hear a perspective that differs significantly from that of the channel’s author. Then, at 20:00, we’ll have Mikhail Sheitelman. By that time, we should already have the preliminary outcomes of Trump and Putin’s phone negotiations, which makes these conversations especially important.

So don’t miss them! I believe the initial reaction to this truly significant event—the first phone call between Trump and Putin—will be key. At that point, we’ll already know how Putin has responded to the proposed ceasefire, especially after his refusal. I expect a fascinating discussion with distinctly different viewpoints on these issues.

Does Brainwashing Justify Criminals? Link to heading

A question from Yulia:
“I watched your last interview with Alyona Kurbanova, where you discussed the so-called crimes in the Kursk region. You mentioned that the population was brainwashed by these reports about the alleged rape of a 73-year-old grandmother by Polish mercenaries. My question is—can an entire population really be brainwashed? The Germans who lived near concentration camps, sipping their beer, were they brainwashed? The Russians who knew about the annexation of Crimea in 2014—were they brainwashed? No, the aggressor is responsible, Yulia argues. This isn’t about brainwashing. By using that term, we are being dishonest and making excuses. A person, at the very least, should not tolerate injustice when the weak are being hurt—that is the only truth. Everything else is deceit. Isn’t that so?”

Of course, Yulia. I am not trying to, as some might say, make excuses for anyone, be dishonest, or remove responsibility from people. A grown adult—unless they are a child or someone legally incapable—bears responsibility for the state of their own mind and for their actions. I am talking about the causes behind this phenomenon.

Yes, we can simply focus on the fact that people are guilty for what they say, do, or believe. That’s true. But saying someone is brainwashed does not mean they are innocent. It’s like alcohol—being drunk does not absolve a person of responsibility. In fact, in some cases, intoxication can even be considered an aggravating factor.

But my task is not just to exclaim, “How much longer?!” while pointing fingers and declaring how bad they are. My goal is to try to explain how this process works. Propaganda and fake news—like the story of the 73-year-old grandmother raped by 70 Polish mercenaries, or the infamous “crucified boy in his underwear”—take hold because people have first been conditioned to accept information without critical thinking. The key is to break down their ability to think critically.

How does this happen? Through widespread public messaging, such as the sermons I’ve analyzed in Mediafrenia, like those of Father Tkachyov, who calls for rejecting science and rational thought—insisting that people should just believe. It happens through the constant presence of mystics, psychics, and charlatans on television. This is all part of a systematic effort to destroy rational perception. The goal is to make people believe in nonsense. The more often figures like Prokhanov and various frauds and fortune-tellers appear in the media, the more people’s logical thinking is eroded.

And once their consciousness has been reduced to a passive, mush-like state—incapable of critical perception—that’s when the fakes are introduced: the “crucified boy,” the “raped grandmother,” and so on.

So no, I am not trying to justify anyone. Absolutely not. People themselves are complicit in what is happening to them. The absence of rational thinking in adults is not just a historical circumstance; it is also a matter of their personal responsibility and choice. Many find it more comfortable to exist in such a state. It’s no different from alcoholism or drug addiction—both of which turn a person into an easily controlled being. But just as with substance abuse, people bear responsibility for surrendering to this self-destructive weakness.

I am simply explaining how this mechanism works.

Russia Is Replacing the Population of Donbas, Making Its Return to Ukraine Impossible Link to heading

Alexander, a valued supporter of our channel (for which we thank him), asks:
“Why are you so sure that Donbas will eventually return to Ukraine? The comparison with East Germany doesn’t work—the population of East Germany wasn’t altered. But in Donbas, Russia is implementing a well-tested Soviet practice of population replacement. The locals will either be quietly eliminated or deported to Russia, while people from the Russian heartland will be brought in to rebuild Donbas. This already happened in Crimea, and even in Donbas after the Holodomor. Even if Russia collapses, something like a ‘Donetsk Republic’ will likely emerge there. So the only way to reclaim it is by military force, whenever the opportunity arises.”

Dear Alexander,

First of all, you are correct that the population of East Germany was not replaced. However, over the decades that it existed as a Soviet puppet state, with the USSR controlling all aspects of life, East Germans’ consciousness was significantly reshaped. The people remained the same, but generations grew up under Soviet propaganda, Soviet political structures (which were effectively an occupation administration), and the Soviet way of life. This left a lasting impact. Even today, decades after German reunification, we can still see differences between eastern and western Germans. That’s no coincidence.

So the argument that Donbas has undergone population replacement, while in East Germany, only people’s minds were altered is still relevant—it actually ties into the previous question about brainwashing. I don’t dispute that reintegration will be extremely difficult, but I do believe it is possible.

That said, I don’t think it makes sense right now to focus on exactly how Donbas will return to Ukraine. What’s important is that this remains the goal. Accepting territorial grabs—like the Trump administration’s suggestion to legally recognize Crimea as Russian—is absolutely unacceptable. Russia does not have the right to decide the fate of Crimea, just as it has no right to determine the future of Donbas.

Yes, the mindset of the people in those regions will have to be taken into account. That is true. But under international law, Donbas is undeniably Ukrainian territory. Full stop.

As for those who do not wish to live in Ukraine, they have the right to decide where they want to live. That’s all there is to it. This must remain Ukrainian land. After that, if the people living there wish to push for political changes, there are democratic processes—participation in politics, legal reforms, constitutional amendments, and so on. That is a matter of Ukraine’s internal politics.

But rewarding an aggressor by legitimizing land grabs is absolutely the wrong approach.

The Russian Regime Is Being Built for Decades Link to heading

A question from Gloomy Donkey:
“Do you think the unofficial abortion bans, propaganda, and incentives to have more children mean the regime is planning to stay in power for at least another 20 years? As I see it, the goal of this policy is simply ‘more cannon fodder.’”

Yes, that’s absolutely correct. This policy serves multiple purposes at once. On one hand, it is about generating more meat for future wars. On the other hand, it aligns with the imperialist ambition of expansion—not just territorial expansion but demographic expansion as well. “There must be more of us.” This is an imperial mindset: We must be larger. We must have more land. We must have more people.

And, of course, this has a direct military dimension. At the same time, there’s another layer to it—the promotion of traditional values. Women are expected to give birth; men are expected to fight. That, in essence, is the core of the so-called traditional values that Putin’s Russia is pushing.

Why Does Propaganda Claim That Mercenaries, Not Ukrainians, Are Fighting? Link to heading

A second question from the same author:
“I keep seeing propaganda videos from residents of occupied Ukrainian territories—men from so-called ’liberated’ areas—where almost all of them talk about Polish, French, American, and Georgian fighters, claiming that it’s not Ukrainians fighting and committing atrocities, but mercenaries from other countries. What’s the goal of presenting information this way?”

Dear colleague, I think the reasoning here is quite obvious. This is the same logic behind the propaganda claim that Russia isn’t fighting Ukraine—it’s fighting NATO.

Because if Russia were to acknowledge the reality—that for the past three years (now entering the fourth), it has been unable to defeat Ukraine—it would raise uncomfortable questions. What’s wrong with Russia? What happened to the “second strongest army in the world”? And what about all the claims that Ukraine was a weak, failing state?

The truth—that Ukraine is fighting for its independence, which is why it has been able to resist so successfully—is a deeply unpleasant one for the Russian regime. It also shatters the myth of Russia as a great victorious power.

To justify the ongoing war, they needed a narrative that made defeat or prolonged struggle more palatable. Thus, the myth that Russia is fighting NATO was created. And from there, it logically follows that Ukraine’s army isn’t even Ukrainian—instead, it’s supposedly made up of Polish, German, French, and American mercenaries.

This is a simple substitution of reality, designed to construct a more comfortable worldview for those who consume propaganda. Right?

Trump Is Not Alone—He Was Elected, Which Means Something Is Wrong with the U.S. Link to heading

A question from Nail Vakhitov:
“One man alone cannot change a country like the U.S. But for some reason, we don’t see any bright political figures. If Americans allowed Trump to return for a second time, then something is wrong. Where exactly is the problem? Have Americans convinced themselves of their own invulnerability? Or is this guy, in his old age, trying to provoke the nation into action—like a period of stagnation that needs shaking up? But I don’t believe in his intelligence. What do you think—will Americans really allow him to do everything he is trying to so far?”

First, let’s start with the fact that Trump’s slogan was “Make America Great Again”, not “Let’s Dismantle Democracy and Promote American Fascism.” Trump is, without a doubt, a fascist, but he is also a highly skilled populist. He made big promises about what he would do once in power, and he delivered them in a compelling, emotional, and theatrical way—dancing, joking, and putting on a show. And that worked. Americans love a good show, and not just Americans.

A crucial factor here is that a significant portion of Trump’s voters didn’t support him so much as they opposed the Democrats. It was a protest vote. Many people weren’t voting for Trump—they were voting against what they saw as leftist overreach, indecisiveness, and weakness from the previous administration.

Trump also skillfully played on deep-seated grievances within American society. He tapped into the economic struggles caused by globalization, the frustration of those who lost jobs, and the resentment toward illegal immigration. He weaponized these issues effectively, and that’s how we got to where we are now.

So, no—Americans didn’t vote for the authoritarian methods that Trump is now implementing.

As for whether Americans will allow him to do everything he is trying so far—that remains to be seen. The biggest stronghold of democracy in the U.S. isn’t necessarily the Democratic Party—it’s the states themselves.

Trump may be able to override the Democratic Party; after all, they currently lack a strong leader capable of spearheading the fight against Trumpism. He might even partially overcome resistance from the judicial system. But what he cannot do is completely override the power of individual states.

The United States is, in essence, a de facto confederation. Its structure prevents a president from unilaterally imposing their will across all states. Yes, in Republican-led states, Trump will have an easier time pushing his agenda. But in Democratic-led states, the system itself will resist him.

So, I don’t think Trump will be able to break through at the state level. And as for the broader struggle between a democratic nation and a leader with authoritarian ambitions—we will be watching closely.

So Is It a War or a “Special Military Operation”? Link to heading

A question from Mars:
“Russia is fighting. Martial law has been imposed in Ukraine. Peacekeeping forces are not deployed as long as there is war. But—what war? This creates cognitive dissonance.”

Well, this is quite simple. The reality is that there is a war. How each side chooses to label it is a different matter. Putin calls it a special military operation, while Ukraine—and the rest of the world—calls it what it is: a war.

So there is no real cognitive dissonance here. There is the objective fact of war, and then there is the wording used to describe it, which is a matter of political convenience.

As for why peacekeepers are not being deployed—it’s precisely because this is a real war. Peacekeeping forces would simply be killed. And I doubt that any European electorate would be willing to accept the sight of their own soldiers returning home in body bags from the Ukrainian front. That’s all there is to it. As long as this remains someone else’s war, peacekeepers won’t be sent in.

Why Do Yunus and Askerov Have Such a Love for Azerbaijan’s Authoritarian Government? Link to heading

A question from Dmitry Kalugin:
“On Monday, during the Q&A, you said that you try to be objective but don’t hide your sympathies for Ukraine in this war. I’ve noticed that Ramiz Yunus and Rovshan Askerov openly express their admiration for Big Brother Aliyev and Azerbaijan’s policies. Why such love for authoritarianism and a strong hand? At the same time, they talk about how brainwashed and ignorant Russians are. So—who are the judges?”

Well, I’m more familiar with Yunus, while I hardly know Askerov at all. Honestly, despite his interview getting a lot of views, I don’t really see him as a political analyst—he’s primarily a sports commentator, which is not my area of interest at all.

As for Rovshan Askerov, as far as I understand, he lives in Azerbaijan. And since Azerbaijan is an authoritarian state, it’s obvious that openly criticizing Aliyev is simply not an option for him. That’s just the reality of the regime there.

Regarding Mr. Yunus—yes, he has been and remains a participant in our discussions, despite the fact that we have very serious disagreements in political views and values. However, I find him interesting, and I know many of you do as well. He is a seasoned international affairs expert, deeply integrated into American politics, and possesses a vast amount of specific knowledge—which makes his perspective valuable.

As for his political views, I have repeatedly made it clear that I disagree with him. Yes, he is an Azerbaijani patriot, he was part of Azerbaijan’s government, and he supports Aliyev’s policies. I, on the other hand, consider Aliyev’s rule to be dictatorial and do not share Yunus’s stance.

However, if our discussions were solely about Azerbaijani politics, then yes, our disagreements would likely prevent us from having constructive conversations. But on broader international issues, I find his insights worthwhile.

I also know that many of you prefer hearing from people with opposing views. If we only invited guests who shared our perspectives, we’d just be talking to ourselves. And that is not what I aim to do.

About Nadezhda Kevorkova Link to heading

David. David Bakuradze
Shedding light on a phenomenon like Nadezhda Kevorkova—too much. Well, you know, yes, there’s a lot of variety here.

You know, I don’t really understand what kind of light I’m supposed to shed. Everything is well known. She is indeed a journalist who published the Bulletin of Christian Democracy. Up to a certain point, she was an Orthodox Christian, as far as I understand. Then she converted to Islam and began writing about the rights of Muslims in the North Caucasus and Palestine. She sympathized with the Taliban. As far as I understand, her views align—well, judging by what I’ve read and heard about her, they align with those of her former husband, Maxim Shevchenko.

But the most important thing, I assume, is that you’re referring to this court case. My opinion of her as a journalist or as a person with certain views, which differ greatly from mine, has no relevance when evaluating the criminal case. The case is completely fabricated, like all political cases currently being conducted in Russia. This is an absolutely bogus criminal case that should not exist.

At some point, during an interview I gave to a certain channel, I mentioned that I do not share the enthusiasm over the fact that instead of the six years requested by the prosecution—if I’m not mistaken—she was sentenced to a fine of 600,000. I don’t think that’s something to celebrate. Of course, it’s good that an innocent person—because she truly is completely innocent—remains free. Kevorkova is absolutely innocent. She should be free. And it’s good that she is.

But I’m not inclined to celebrate the fact that a person was sentenced to a 600,000 fine for a non-existent crime. That’s not a reason for joy. And giving the regime a “plus” for this, as if this is some kind of thaw—I completely disagree with that.

Why such a lenient sentence? Well, some associate it with the fact that people like Prokhanov, Shevchenko, and various officials—the servants of Putin’s regime—spoke in her defense. Yes, that may have played a role, or maybe something else did. But in general, once again, I strongly distinguish my attitude toward her political views. I do not find them appealing.

However, there was no reason to put this person on trial. The fact that she remains free is good. But giving the regime credit for sentencing someone to a 600,000 fine for a crime that never happened—I think that’s wrong.

So, in short, I don’t know if I shed light on the matter or just confused you further. But I’ve expressed my opinion.

What is the difference between Yavlinsky’s peace proposals and the 30-day ceasefire proposal? Link to heading

User’s question:
In your films, you have repeatedly criticized Grigory Yavlinsky for his calls to immediately stop military actions and then negotiate. I can’t quite grasp the difference between Yavlinsky’s position and the current 30-day ceasefire proposal, which you support. Please help me understand. And another question—could you, for example, discuss the Dozhd TV channel within the framework of the Not-So-Holy Opposition program?

Regarding the second question, I can say that analyzing Dozhd is a separate task. Yes, it’s interesting—definitely interesting. But you see, analyzing a specific journalist or politician is one thing, that’s a manageable task. Analyzing Dozhd as a media entity, as a phenomenon, is another matter. It’s an interesting task, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to do it this week. After all, we must be objective. If we take on an entity as large as a major media outlet—Dozhd is a relatively large media outlet—then it requires time and serious effort. I’m not sure I’ll be able to tackle it in the immediate future.

Now, regarding your main question—what is the difference between Yavlinsky and Trump? You know, I don’t really agree with your assessment that I support the idea of a 30-day ceasefire. I’m very skeptical about it. And in principle, when it comes to the authors of this idea—Trump, Yavlinsky—I am extremely critical of both, as you’ve probably noticed.

So there is no contradiction here. The difference is this: Yavlinsky, who is proposing such a ceasefire, has absolutely no capabilities or real resources to even create the illusion of a chance for this plan’s implementation. Trump, on the other hand, has completely different possibilities. When he proposes this, he is essentially suggesting applying pressure on Putin to make him agree. When Yavlinsky proposes it, it looks completely meaningless—just pointless, you see?

To properly assess any proposal, you have to consider not only its nature but also who is making it. When Yavlinsky suggests this, it’s just an absurd story. When Trump suggests it, well, there is at least some chance of it being realized. However, despite that, I believe the chances of this idea being implemented are very slim—practically nonexistent. And I think that, in the process of implementation, yes, of course, every day without mass shelling and killings is a good thing. But ultimately, it could lead to an even worse situation.

That’s why I am against both Yavlinsky’s and Trump’s proposals—among other reasons, because I see both as unfeasible. Does that make sense?

Trumpism is More Dangerous Than Putinism Link to heading

Question from Simon Ryabov:
I have lived in America for 30 years. Massachusetts. Massachusetts. I have never seen such disgrace as now. I am very ashamed of my country. For 25 years, as an American citizen, I believe that Trumpism is a greater evil than Putinism because America was a democracy, while Russia never was. What do you think?

I agree with everything you’ve written, and the fact that you live in the United States gives even more weight to your words. Trumpism is undoubtedly a greater evil than Putinism—it is, so to speak, a larger-scale evil. However, Putinism is a more concentrated evil because it is already leading to killings and the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russian citizens.

So, in a sense, Putinism is a “smaller” evil because Russia is significantly weaker than the U.S. in terms of power, economy, and population. But at the same time, it is a more condensed and direct form of evil. So whether one is “bigger” or “smaller” depends on how you look at it. But overall, I completely agree with you.

About Raphaël Glucksmann Link to heading

Mask dollar.
Can you tell me what you disagree with Raphaël Glucksmann on? I’m planning to vote for him in 2027.

Dear colleague, I have only a superficial understanding of French politics, so first of all, I don’t know what your options are or who else will be on the ballot. If—whether by misfortune, miracle, or blessing—I had the chance to vote in the European Parliament elections or for French politicians in general, I would probably vote for Raphaël Glucksmann.

What I do know about him specifically is that he is also a filmmaker, and his documentaries—such as those on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the genocide in Rwanda—demonstrate that he is a significant figure in French and European politics. I also know that he founded an organization (I don’t recall its name) that enables young people from the North Caucasus, particularly Chechen youth, to receive education at European universities. So, he is a major political figure with a strong humanist outlook. In this sense, he continues the legacy of his great father, André Glucksmann, who was truly an influential thinker.

As for where my views diverge from his, I feel that he is a bit too left-leaning. He is not a socialist, of course, but his alliance with the socialists makes me somewhat uneasy. However, I want to emphasize that his leftism stems from his humanism.

All in all, I would vote for him. But I’d also want to see the full list of candidates before making a final judgment. Again, I don’t claim to be an expert on French politics, so I’m very cautious in my assessments. That said, I find him very appealing as a politician and a thinker. His proposal to bring the Statue of Liberty back to France also seems like a very fitting symbolic gesture.

Should We Focus Only on Trump’s Foreign Policy and Believe His Words? Link to heading

Lev Winston:
If you’re going to discuss Trump every day, don’t you think it’s important to analyze his policies as a whole rather than just in the context of war? In my opinion, Trump’s priority is domestic policy and reshaping America. His entire foreign policy is merely an echo of that effort. Secondly, you always say that a politician’s words matter and that it’s important to listen to what Trump says. Don’t you think Trump has long since broken that principle? What’s the point of listening to a politician who lies in 72% of his speeches? Or should we just say, “He said something, but I don’t believe he actually said it”?

First of all, I try to stay within my area of expertise as much as possible. U.S. domestic policy is outside my competence, except in cases where something seems absolutely obvious to me. For example, Trump’s trade war significantly made nearly all Americans poorer—that’s just a historical fact. We can see how American stock prices dropped and how prices for various goods in the U.S. rose. These are verifiable facts.

However, analyzing Trump’s actions in areas of U.S. policy that I don’t understand would be incorrect. That’s why I’m very cautious here. In general, this requires experts who can help us understand the situation.

Now, regarding the common claim that there’s no point in listening to Trump because he constantly lies—actually, tracking his lies is an essential part of a critical approach. If we completely ignore Trump’s words, we deprive ourselves of a crucial tool for analysis.

Yes, Trump lies all the time. But nevertheless, his lies are often followed by actions. He doesn’t tell the truth, yet he acts in accordance with what he says. That’s the key point.

For example, when he invents nonsense like Ukrainian prisoners being in the Kursk region and claiming they’re only alive thanks to him—this needs to be recorded and analyzed. Why? Because it shows that he participates in spreading Putin’s lies and acts in alignment with them.

Or when he says that Ukraine is to blame for provoking a stronger opponent—that’s important. It reflects his worldview, his values, and his ideology. He believes in the “law of the strong.”

That’s why I think his words matter. The words of a U.S. president have enormous consequences. In fact, his words alone have already influenced markets—just look at how the Russian ruble strengthened. When Trump speaks positively about Russia, it changes perceptions of Russia from an international pariah to something more acceptable. And as a result, the ruble appreciated by 17 percentage points.

That’s the power of words—without any concrete actions behind them. The words of a U.S. president lead to massive market shifts and significant changes in people’s lives.

So ignoring what Trump says would be a mistake.

Are Only Russians War Criminals, and Not Ukrainians? Link to heading

Question from Ivan Vasilyevich:
Many people, including you, say that Putin is a war criminal and will be tried. How is he different from U.S. presidents, who have repeatedly conducted military operations in the name of national security and have also committed war crimes? Meanwhile, they have ignored all accusations. An arrest warrant was issued for Netanyahu, yet everyone remains silent about it. I don’t know who is “silently ignoring” this—people are shouting about it on every corner. And what about the Ukrainian Armed Forces (VSU)? In the Kursk region, they have already committed crimes by invading the territory of another state without legal grounds. According to the Ukrainian Constitution, this requires a parliamentary decision. In Russia, such a decision was made in 2022. At this point, dozens of crimes involving violence and the killing of Russian civilians have already been recorded, not counting the yet-to-be-liberated territories. Do you think Zelensky deserves punishment for these crimes?

Regarding your last point—are you referring to the case of the 73-year-old woman who managed to fight off her attackers? Were they supposed to be Poles, or maybe Americans? She defended herself and thus avoided death. Is that what you mean? Or some other fabricated stories?

You know, Ivan Vasilyevich, at first, I was about to respond to you directly, but then I looked around and saw that others had already answered you—particularly a user named I Gangster, who said the following. Let me quote two responses, and I’ll leave it at that.

Yang replies: Don’t engage in manipulation, Gangster. Stop twisting black into white. America has never occupied another country. Even when it toppled certain dictatorships, it immediately left those nations to govern themselves with elected leadership. Trying to occupy a democratic country where power has not been usurped is a completely different action. How can you fail to understand such basic things?

Toto Satoshi replies: Ivan Vasilyevich, the Ukrainian Armed Forces entered the Kursk region during a war initiated by Russia. Once again: the Russian Federation launched an unprovoked aggression, started a war, and invaded a neighboring country. All of Ukraine’s actions are part of its struggle against the aggressor, and in such a struggle, any response is justified. By the way, why didn’t you mention the crimes of the USSR when it invaded Nazi Germany?

Arguments like this can continue endlessly, but I think the situation is obvious. From your point of view, I suppose we should have also put General de Gaulle, General Eisenhower, and Churchill on trial for organizing the invasion of the Third Reich. Would you have stopped at the Reich’s borders, declaring, “That’s it—stop, no further”? That would be absurd.

To be honest, Ivan Vasilyevich, I have the distinct feeling that you already know this is absurd. Otherwise, responding seriously to your message would feel like a lack of respect for you as an intelligent person. I think you know very well that what you wrote is complete nonsense.

Does Trump Realize He Is Dividing the U.S.? Link to heading

Question from Hassun:
I was recently listening to a Russian-speaking American blogger. He’s originally from Donbas, served in the U.S. Army, and was tearing into Trump and Krylov, calling Trump an “orange idiot” at best. He talked about the sentiments among his former fellow servicemen. To summarize, this ginger fool is destroying what America has spent decades building. If this continues, I’ll grab my AR-15, and if necessary, I’ll take down MAGA supporters. If necessary, I’ll take down cops. I swore an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. My former comrades share this feeling. So my question is: Does Trump understand the level of division brewing in the U.S.? Does he even realize that his actions are provoking this split? And does Trump understand how much Putin will be cheering if something like a civil war erupts in the U.S.?

As I see it, the answer is no—I don’t think he understands. He is, after all, surrounded by his devoted supporters. He exists in a kind of admiration bubble, constantly bathed in praise and adulation. And like any figure of a nationalist-authoritarian persuasion, he tends to misjudge the real situation while basking in this aura of worship.

It’s the same way many dictators were shocked to discover that their people actually didn’t love them. This kind of revelation has played out in history before—in the final moments of Gaddafi’s life, in the last minutes of Ceaușescu’s rule.

That’s why I believe Trump is oblivious to the reality you describe.

Earlier, there was a discussion about whether listening to Trump makes sense if he always lies. Well, he doesn’t just lie to us or to Americans—he lies to himself. And if there’s anyone he deceives more than anyone else, it’s himself.

Strikes on the Houthis Are a Warning to Iran Link to heading

So I want to ask:
Some observers believe that U.S. strikes on the Houthis serve as a warning to Iran. What do you think?

I think Trump himself has said exactly that—that it’s a warning to Iran. So it’s not just “some observers” making this claim; Trump openly states it himself. And this is one of the things Trump actually does understand quite well.

When I talk about his ignorance, I don’t mean he’s ignorant about everything. Trump fully grasps that the main source of instability in the Middle East is Iran—that’s obvious. That’s why he is explicitly warning Iran, not just hinting at it. He’s making it clear that if the Houthis escalate their actions, Iran will be held accountable. And in this regard, he is absolutely right.

I believe he is mistaken in the methods he’s using to deal with the Houthis. But the fundamental goal of trying to eliminate or at least neutralize this source of conflict in the Middle East is entirely correct. I just don’t fully understand why the focus is on the Houthis themselves.

If the real effort were directed at Iran—rather than just targeting the Houthis—then the problem would be solved at its root. The Houthis are merely a consequence. If the situation in Iran were to change, the Houthis would lose their supply of weapons and funding, and the issue would resolve itself.

So while I question the approach, Trump is absolutely right about the warning to Iran.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

Alright, dear friends, it looks like we’re wrapping up our morning stream for today. I want to remind you once again that at 18:00, we’ll have Abbas Gallyamov, and at 20:00, there will be another very interesting conversation with Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman.

With that, I bid you farewell. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives.

All the best to you.

Source: https://youtu.be/Cq9ooA0kIqA