Trump silenced the Voice of America and declared war on the Houthis. The French are demanding that the U.S. return the Statue of Liberty. Trump promised to talk to Putin on Tuesday about the distribution of certain assets.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 17, and I am in Kyiv. It is now 07:42, and we continue our daily morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, and our souls.
Trump Undermines America’s Influence Link to heading
Well, let’s start with the source of the most important news, which is coming from the United States of America. That source is named Donald Trump. He continues to systematically dismantle the America that, after the First and Second World Wars, became the most influential and powerful country in the world. He is doing this consistently and methodically—both economically, through the tariff war he has launched against the entire world, which has already caused American companies cumulative losses exceeding $5 trillion, and by undermining what truly made the United States an influential country. The U.S. is not just powerful due to its armed forces or economy, but also because of its soft power.
On Friday, March 14, Donald Trump signed an executive order on reductions. The order, titled “Reducing the Federal Bureaucracy,” affected seven federal agencies, including the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which helps researchers around the world conduct political studies, and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which funds Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America. In addition to these, the cuts also impacted lesser-known media organizations and programs that combat poverty and homelessness, support museums, libraries, and archives—in other words, everything that Elon Musk dismisses as freeloaders and Trump labels as federal bureaucracy.
Voice of America has already suspended operations, with 1,300 employees receiving notices of administrative leave. This is the first time in 83 years that the legendary Voice of America has effectively fallen silent. Trump has managed to silence the Voice of America, something that neither the KGB, the Soviet Union, China, nor other enemies of freedom around the world had been able to do for 83 years. Naturally, in Russia, Putin, Solovyov, Skabeeva, and others are applauding Trump for this. They would say he has done a “great job”—or perhaps, in cruder terms, “a big one.” The consequences of this event, I believe, will be discussed for a long time.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has also received a notice of funding termination but has not yet officially announced a suspension of operations. Back in February, Musk had called for the shutdown of both Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, arguing that no one listens to them and that they are staffed by “crazy leftists.” The actual audience numbers, however, tell a different story. According to independent research, Voice of America has a weekly audience of 360 million people, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reaches 47 million weekly listeners. Whether this is a large or small number is up for debate, but audience size does not always equate to influence or value.
If we were to judge by viewership alone, then, as I’ve said many times before, YouTube’s most popular content would suggest that only children’s entertainment and satirical programs should exist. Porn sites, for example, have far more visitors than museums—does that mean we should shut down museums? Should academic centers be closed in favor of keeping only porn sites? Drugs have a greater demand than many less destructive things—does that make them more valuable? This is the logic Musk seems to be following, and it has prevailed.
Regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Czech government has stated that it wants to discuss its future within the European Union. Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský has said he will raise the issue of supporting Radio Free Europe at a meeting with his EU colleagues, which is scheduled to take place today. The organization’s headquarters is in Prague, so perhaps its prospects are not as dire as those of Voice of America.
These are issues I will continue to monitor closely because I consider them extremely important. For now, the United States, in its current form, is in an intermediate state. I have repeatedly said that there is a fierce struggle underway between a democratic country—which the U.S. still is—and a fascist leader who has taken control of it with the support of 77 million Americans. He was not sent from Mars; the American people made this choice themselves.
No Unified Position Ahead of the Trump-Putin Meeting Link to heading
Now, on to the main event, which is, of course, the war taking place in Ukraine. Once again, Trump has announced that he plans to speak with Putin on Tuesday—that is, tomorrow. I recall earlier discussions suggesting that this conversation was supposed to take place today, Monday, but apparently, Monday is a tough day, so Trump decided to push it to Tuesday.
What will they talk about? That is the crucial question. Trump has already stated that the conversation will concern territory and power plants. He further clarified: “We will talk about land, we will talk about power plants.” He referred to the discussion as the “distribution of certain assets.” What exactly this means, I do not want to speculate, but it seems to have no direct connection to the war itself.
He also mentioned that a lot of work was done over the weekend—most likely referring to Putin’s meeting with Steve Witkoff. However, what exactly this “big work” entailed remains unknown. You see, I have a habit: every night, as I prepare for the 7:40 program, I make sure to review the official Russian sources. Specifically, I checked Kremlin.ru, and here is what I found regarding Putin’s recent activities.
There is no information about his actions on Sunday. On Saturday, he had phone conversations with Alexander Lukashenko and Emomali Rahmon, as well as Ilham Aliyev. On Friday, he held a meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council and, earlier that same day, had talks with Nicolás Maduro. On Thursday, he spoke by phone with Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan and had a conversation with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Finally, he held negotiations and a press conference with Lukashenko.
Interestingly, there is no mention at all of any discussions about torture or of these supposed negotiations. Nothing about them appears on Kremlin.ru. As someone who closely follows official Kremlin statements, I find this important to note. Of course, there is a lot of deception there, but at the end of the day, it represents the Kremlin’s official position.
So, were these talks real or not? Most likely, they did take place. Witkoff is a serious figure, and he would not simply fabricate something like this. That said, there doesn’t seem to be any concrete outcome from these discussions.
A Joint Fake by Putin and Trump Link to heading
So, what do we have here? What’s the latest? Well, we have a joint fake story from Putin and Trump about 1,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers being surrounded. Putin claimed that “we have 1,000 fighters encircled, and we know they have committed numerous crimes.” Immediately, Trump followed up with a pitiful plea, suggesting that “somehow, they should be treated humanely.”
Putin, in response, went on a long-winded rant about these alleged crimes, emphasizing that they should be judged according to Russian law but that “we will discuss it.” So, apparently, this will be a topic during their negotiations—they will decide what to do with these 1,000 encircled Ukrainian troops.
The problem with this discussion is that they are going to be negotiating over something that does not exist. There are no 1,000 encircled Ukrainian soldiers. This can be easily verified—there are satellite images, and there is an abundance of information from various sources, not just Ukrainian official channels like the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine or the Office of the President, but also from independent bloggers.
I’ll share another one of my habits with you: last night, while preparing for this, I closely monitored Russian patriotic Telegram channels. There is nothing about this claim in those channels. Absolutely nothing. The only people talking about it are Putin and Trump. In other words, the joint production of fake news is now operating on a full-scale conveyor belt.
Putin’s Unattainable Conditions Link to heading
Now, let’s talk about the ceasefire. Trump’s initiative, which he persuaded Ukraine to support, was, in fact, the right move for Ukraine. By doing so, Ukraine managed to restore military aid, and deliveries of guided bombs have already begun. Whether they have reached the front lines yet is unclear. The role of these guided bombs and whether they can replace artillery is a question for military experts, and I definitely want to discuss this today with Serhiy Maratovych Hrabski, since I don’t claim to have expertise in this area.
As for the overall situation surrounding the ceasefire, there are four key players: Putin (representing Russia), Ukraine, the European Union, and Trump. Right now, it is abundantly clear that the claims—especially from Trump’s supporters—that Putin is afraid of Trump or that he is trying to avoid provoking him are simply untrue. There is no awe, no fear, and certainly no respect for Trump from Putin. Instead, what Putin is doing is dragging Trump into lengthy, convoluted, and murky negotiations that could stretch on for months.
Putin’s position is very straightforward: “A ceasefire? Stopping hostilities? No problem—let’s do it today! But first, let’s settle a few details.” These are precisely the “nuances” I examined in detail on Friday. Specifically, Putin demands the recognition of four Ukrainian regions that he has unilaterally included in the Russian Constitution. On top of that, there’s Crimea—the fifth region. He insists that Ukraine must recognize these territories as Russian within their administrative borders, meaning that Ukraine would have to withdraw voluntarily from parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia that it still controls.
What Putin failed to conquer militarily, he now demands as a gift—essentially, unconditional surrender.
The second major condition, apart from many others he has outlined, is the suspension of military aid to Ukraine during the ceasefire. This would be a non-negotiable condition for Putin.
It is crystal clear that neither of these demands can be accepted. Recognizing the annexation and abandoning these territories—including places like Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, where real people live, leaving them at Putin’s mercy—is something no Ukrainian leadership would agree to. Furthermore, since none of these four regions are fully occupied, Putin’s demand would mean Ukraine withdrawing its forces unilaterally, which is highly unlikely—if not outright impossible—especially in major cities like Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
As for halting military aid to Ukraine during the ceasefire, this is also an impossible condition. Russian military factories will continue to operate, meaning that such a deal would only serve to weaken Ukraine. Why would Ukraine agree to that?
Both of these demands are completely unacceptable, making this entire negotiation process a dead end.
The European Coalition Link to heading
Now, regarding the second key player in this process—Europe. A coalition of willing participants is beginning to take shape, and Europe is actively consolidating its stance and presenting it to Trump. Emmanuel Macron has taken the lead in this effort, and others are now joining in.
There are several key directions in which Europe is moving. First, there is a program for rearming European nations. Second, there is an attempt to replace American military aid to Ukraine with European assistance in case U.S. support is reduced or cut off entirely. More broadly, Europe is responding to Trump’s clear threats to reshape the world order in a way that eliminates Europe as a political actor.
Trump has openly stated that Europe should no longer rely on U.S. protection. Given this, his challenge to Europe was bound to provoke a response. Europe is now rethinking its position and considering a new structure for the Western alliance—one that is no longer transatlantic in nature. If the West is no longer defined by an Euro-Atlantic identity, then the very purpose of NATO comes into question.
In essence, Europe is reflecting on this shift and on a new Western framework in which the alliance is primarily European, with additional participation from Canada, Japan, and Turkey. This represents a new West. How permanent this transformation will be remains uncertain, since Trump may come and go, but America remains. However, for now, this new West is taking shape, and Europe is actively working to define what it will look like.
The key question at this moment is how quickly and effectively this coalition of the willing can begin functioning.
Ukraine’s Negotiating Position Link to heading
The third participant—and perhaps the most important, if not the most crucial, in this process of either negotiations or a ceasefire—is, of course, Ukraine.
An article in The Independent states that Ukrainian authorities have defined their red lines for any potential ceasefire talks with Russia. These red lines include, first and foremost, the impossibility of fully ceding Zaporizhzhia and Kherson—this is absolutely out of the question. A retreat from the positions currently held by Ukrainian forces is not an option.
The second red line is the return of 1,000 Ukrainian children, along with all other illegally detained Ukrainian citizens. The third key demand is international security guarantees. The position that President Zelensky took to the White House—which sparked controversy in the Oval Office—remains unchanged.
Although Ukraine has, for now, formally removed certain demands from the negotiating table, it is obvious that once talks begin, the issue of international security guarantees will remain. Without such guarantees, what would be the point of a ceasefire, given that Russia would inevitably violate it? There need to be clear commitments on what actions will be taken, and by whom, if Russia continues its aggression.
Overall, there is little belief in Ukraine that Russia will genuinely uphold any agreement. Most understand that Russia will continue the war and will inevitably provoke further conflict.
Trump Prepares for Failure Link to heading
Now, when it comes to Trump—trying to figure out what’s going on in his head is always a risky endeavor. However, there are some indirect signs suggesting that he is, at least in part, preparing for failure. What he plans to do next—whether punishing Russia or Ukraine for their unwillingness to make peace—is another question entirely. But certain actions indicate that he is already looking for a win elsewhere.
For Trump, victory is essential—he needs a deal, a scalp to present as a success. It doesn’t matter whose or what kind—it just has to be something he can showcase. But so far, these successes have been nonexistent. Nothing in Greenland, where protests are already erupting. Nothing in Canada, where the country has enthusiastically responded to his trade war with a boycott of American goods. Canada is clearly not becoming the 51st U.S. state, just as Greenland is not going to be absorbed into U.S. territory.
So, Trump needs a victory. That’s why he has effectively declared war on the Houthis. On the night of March 16, airstrikes were launched against targets in Yemen. Trump has decided to “solve” the Houthi problem once and for all. The response was predictable—initial reports of casualties from Georgian authorities (presumably referring to the Georgian volunteer fighters in the region), followed by claims of an attack on American aircraft carriers. However, there is no confirmed data indicating that these attacks caused any damage. In all likelihood, all Houthi missiles and drones were intercepted.
Still, the Houthis are retaliating.
Now, let’s think through the consequences. Can Trump actually solve the Houthi problem with airstrikes alone? History suggests otherwise. Similar efforts to “eliminate” terrorist regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, or Gaza have never led to lasting success. And Yemen is an entirely different case altogether.
Victory over the Houthis is impossible without a ground operation. And a ground operation would mean a full-scale war—one the U.S. would enter with no guarantees of victory. Theoretically, the overwhelming military power of the United States could flatten all of Yemen, but even that is not a certainty. Yemen is the second-largest country in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia, and it has vast deserts and mountain ranges—perfect terrain for guerrilla warfare.
A ground war would mean a high number of American casualties. Fighting a force like the Houthis is a hopeless endeavor; they will die, but they will also kill U.S. soldiers.
Trump’s ignorance is particularly evident in conflicts like these—whether it’s Ukraine, where he fundamentally does not understand the country, or Gaza, where he absurdly suggests relocating 2 million Palestinians with no plan as to where. And now, he is making the same mistakes with the Houthis.
Yes, it is good that the Houthis are facing military resistance, but the key question is: What are the actual objectives, and what means are being used to achieve them?
What is Yemen, and who are the Houthis? Yemen is one of the poorest and most devastated countries in the world. Individual Houthis may feel personally content due to their constant use of narcotics, but as a nation, 75% of Yemen’s population relies on humanitarian aid. Yemen ranks first in the world in terms of state fragility—it is essentially a non-functioning country.
So, who is Trump actually planning to fight?
There is no real government in Yemen—no central authority to negotiate with or to decisively defeat. He would be waging war against people in sandals, carrying missiles under their arms. The U.S. tried similar interventions in Afghanistan, where it had to withdraw in humiliation, losing soldiers, weapons, and credibility. The same thing happened in Vietnam.
These wars are unwinnable unless the U.S. has a solid local ally fighting alongside them. In Korea, the U.S. at least had half of the country fighting on its side. But in Yemen, no one will be fighting for the U.S.—meaning this is a 100% guaranteed failure.
Yemen is home to the world’s most desperate and starving people. They have nothing to lose. And that means the U.S. is walking into yet another disaster.
Trump is about to take another hit—and this time, it’s going to be a big one.
Proposal to Return the Statue of Liberty Link to heading
And finally, I cannot fail to mention an initiative by a rather well-known Member of the European Parliament, Raphaël Glucksmann, who has demanded that the United States return the Statue of Liberty to France. As is well known, the Statue of Liberty was originally created in France under the direction of sculptor Auguste Bartholdi and was presented to the United States in honor of the 100th anniversary of the War of Independence, during which the French supported the Americans.
Now, MEP Glucksmann is demanding that the authorities return the Statue of Liberty, because, in his opinion—which, I must say, I generally agree with—the President of the United States is demonstrating that the values of freedom are foreign to him. So, well, just return her, bring the lady back home. She’s lost her way. The Statue of Liberty has no place in the United States, according to Glucksmann. And while I don’t particularly share most of Glucksmann’s views, on this issue, I support him.
I’m not sure Trump would agree to part with it, but he might be willing to sell. The question of how much Trump is willing to sell freedom for, in my view, remains open.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Dear friends, before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that today at 20:00, as always on Mondays, we will have Sergey Maratovich Hrabskiy. There are plenty of questions related to military expertise. I think we will ask him, among other things, about the replacement of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which happened just recently.
We’ll also discuss U.S. military aid—basically, you get the idea, right? And, of course, the consequences of the orderly withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces—there was no encirclement whatsoever—from the Kursk region. What does this mean? Was it the right decision? And so on.
We’ll cover all of this today at 20:00 with Sergey Maratovich Hrabskiy. And now, I’ll move on to answering your questions. Sound good?
On Possible Scenarios for Political Emigration Link to heading
Question from Yevgeny Alexeyev:
I wanted to discuss on your channel the issue of political emigration, particularly those who believe that helping you is wrong. There are four possible scenarios: first, Ukraine wins; second, Russia wins; third, the war is frozen along the contact line; fourth, the war drags on for decades. Under which of these scenarios does political emigration have a chance to return home and participate in elections? It seems to me that only under the first scenario. In all other cases, the regime will persist, regardless of whether Putin dies or not, and political emigrants will never return home or take part in elections. This leads to the conclusion that emigration simply wants to secure a comfortable life in the West through Western grants and reports for those who believed in them. Maybe I’m wrong? Do you see it differently?
You know, dear Yevgeny Alexeyevich, I think they perceive everything happening in a completely different way. There’s something… well, I remember a movie based on a classic play where the protagonist—played by Vitsin—closes his eyes and starts imagining that he’s in some magnificent palace, that he’s married to a wealthy woman, and everything is wonderful.
And I think they live in exactly that kind of world, you see? In the world of Vitsin’s character. The name just slipped my mind, but it’s a wonderful film, very well made, and Vitsin gives an excellent performance. So, they exist in this kind of reality—eyes shut, turning their faces to the wall so the light doesn’t bother them—where they imagine some kind of electoral situation still exists for them, where they still have voters left in Russia.
They believe that somehow, as if by magic, everything will work itself out without any effort on their part, that the Putin regime will vanish like smoke—just like the poor room in Vitsin’s story—and that they will return to Russia, greeted by a jubilant crowd. That seems to be the mindset of the people you’re describing. They don’t analyze things systematically the way you just did.
The author is referring to the film “The Marriage of Balzaminov.”
On the Conflict Between Zelensky and Poroshenko Link to heading
Question from Ali Baba:
Do you think the escalating tensions between Ukraine’s fifth and sixth presidents are purely a matter of domestic politics, or do they have external drivers related to the geopolitical situation? And secondly, where is the best place to leave questions—here on YouTube or on Patreon?
Well, the second question is quite specific. I want to say that I’m not entirely sure what’s going on, but lately—perhaps it’s my fault—I haven’t been checking in daily on the people who, in fact, sustain this channel. Because Patreon is very important. I am endlessly grateful to every participant in the Patreon program, as they provide financial support and essentially allow me to continue working for you and running this channel.
However, there hasn’t been much activity there. At first, I created separate content for Patreon members, but then I noticed there weren’t many questions. So, for now, let’s do it this way: at the moment, it’s probably best to leave questions here on YouTube. As for Patreon members, I will think together with them about ways to engage them more and make their presence more visible, because I do need to express my gratitude somehow—perhaps by involving them more in discussions. But for now, questions are better left on YouTube.
Now, regarding the main question—the conflict between the fifth and sixth presidents, meaning Zelensky and Poroshenko. As I’ve said before, I don’t interfere in domestic politics, so I won’t go into the specifics of these contradictions. However, in general, domestic politics in Ukraine has not disappeared—it continues to manifest in various ways, including in the situations you are referring to.
That being said, I believe this is primarily an internal political issue in Ukraine, though it is certainly influenced by external factors. The attack on Zelensky—the episode in the Oval Office of the White House, which has been widely discussed, including on our channel—is undoubtedly a trigger for certain internal political developments. Clearly, for the Trump administration, Zelensky is not a desirable president of Ukraine, and this, of course, provokes certain domestic processes. Right?
On the Minsk Agreements and Analogies with a Possible Future Truce Link to heading
Question from Sveta:
I have a relative who served—he signed a contract in 2014, during the so-called Minsk Agreements, and he was there. The Russians were firing, while our forces had strict orders not to shoot back. And now, something similar is being prepared.
Well, 100%. We’ve already talked about the fact that for Putin, even if he agrees to a ceasefire, it will be a blessed time. I don’t remember the exact number, but I read somewhere—in some report—that there were around 40,000 provocations and 140,000 ceasefire violations during that period, before the full-scale war.
Now, I believe there would be even more, because the line of contact is enormous—over 2,000 kilometers. Different figures are mentioned, but it’s a massive front, something unprecedented. And there are huge numbers of troops on both sides. Clearly, violations of any ceasefire agreement would be widespread—completely uncontrollable.
Moreover, most of these violations would undoubtedly come from Russia. Russia is interested in continuing the war. A temporary pause? Maybe. But, as I’ve said before, I don’t think there will be a truce at all. And if there is, then violations will be on a massive scale.
On Jeffrey Sachs’ Speech in the European Parliament Link to heading
Question from Znamya Pobedy:
Jeffrey Sachs spoke in the European Parliament, justifying Russia’s policies. Pro-Putin supporters are thrilled. I think this could influence others as well. Do you know this person and who he works for? He says Europe should not arm itself but should cooperate with Russia. Personally, I don’t know him, though I know he worked in Russia—he was one of the key advisors and mentors of Gaidar’s team. He also worked in Poland, and his shock therapy approach is well known. Do you know who he works for?
I don’t know. Again, the hypothesis that he is some kind of recruited agent—I don’t support that idea, for reasons I’ve explained many times before. Simply put, I just don’t have any evidence.
But in general, his views on shock therapy—the belief that the invisible hand of the market will sort everything out—are a classic example of neoliberalism, which, in reality, has nothing to do with actual liberalism. This approach was very appealing to certain reformers in Russia who were completely devoid of empathy. The idea of breaking everything over one’s knee, enforcing shock therapy, and trusting that the market will balance itself—these were views that, at one point, were also quite close to Putin’s. That’s the ideology he started with.
So, I think Sachs’ position is based on this background. It is, without a doubt, deeply flawed, because even the ideas he once championed were ultimately invalidated—there was never any liberal democracy or free market economy in Russia. All of that was erased. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Sachs remained comfortable with his earnings.
So, I believe this is some sort of ideological delusion, stemming from his immersion in Russia. He advised, he observed, he studied Russia—and, in the process, he caught something. In my view, he became infected with the virus of imperial thinking. That’s what I think.
On the Territories Putin Included in the Constitution Link to heading
Question from Ivan Vasilyevich:
Russia has occupied several Ukrainian regions and incorporated them into its Constitution. What is their future? At this point, the chances of reclaiming them militarily are nearly zero. Diplomatically, it’s also unrealistic. In the Russian Criminal Code, there are penalties for challenging territorial integrity. Is there any viable solution to this issue, or will it just be postponed indefinitely?
The solution is well known—just look at the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany was once destroyed, divided into two parts—one occupied by the Soviet Union, the other by Western countries. It remained in that state for several decades before eventually reuniting. I believe Ukraine will go through a similar process.
The Baltic states were occupied for a long time before regaining their independence. The key point here is clear: Ukraine understands what needs to be done. It must refuse to recognize the occupation and ensure that Western countries do not recognize it either. That’s all.
Ultimately, the Putin regime is not eternal, and neither is the Russian Empire. So, I believe the resolution will follow this path. Yes, at the moment, liberating these territories by military means is difficult—possible, but it would require a completely different stance from the West, which is unlikely.
Therefore, I think this issue will be resolved when the situation in Russia changes—when Russia ceases to be an empire. And that can only happen through the same process that all empires have undergone: collapse. There is no other way. When that happens, the occupied territories will return to Ukraine.
Should Ministers Have Relevant Education? Link to heading
Question from Ubludok Jones:
Do you believe that in a democratic state, there should be a legal requirement for ministers or other officials to have relevant education and a certain level of experience? For example, should it be prohibited for a furniture salesman or a pharmacy chain director to become Minister of Agriculture?
You know, I don’t think so. Right now, I can’t immediately come up with a successful minister who lacked relevant education off the top of my head, but I do know what’s happening in Russia, and frankly, it’s hard to name any successful ministers there at all. In Russia, a huge number of ministers have no relevant education—starting with the Minister of Health and so on.
As for the West, I think having relevant education may be useful, but overall, I believe that a minister is, first and foremost, someone with the right political vision and a strong sense of state governance. As for technical expertise, that’s what advisors and experts are for.
Of course, it would be odd if a minister had absolutely no understanding of the field they oversee. But a clear counterexample to your argument is that, in most democratic countries with well-functioning military leadership, defense ministers are usually civilians—people without military education. This is one example that contradicts the idea that specialized education should be mandatory. So, no, I don’t agree with that position. I don’t think it’s necessary.
On Andrey Korchagin. Proposal to Make Him a Character in Trumpophrenia Link to heading
Denis Petrovsky:
Could you also comment on Andrey Korchagin’s Trumpophrenia as one of the most fervent Trumpists? Not long ago, he was engaging in discussions with many Trumpists, but now he’s even accused Tabak of being too soft and unable to properly defend Trump, while he’s practically labeled Illarionov and Pinkus as traitors.
Yes, unfortunately, yesterday I had to skip—not even cancel, but simply not schedule—the next episode of Trumpophrenia. That was just due to being overloaded with other matters.
But in general, we’re preparing a program called Mediaophrenia, and Korchagin—along with others—will definitely be featured.
Where Are All Those People from Manezhnaya Square? Link to heading
Pavel:
Where are all those people now? From Manezhnaya Square?
You know, as a sociologist, I would be absolutely fascinated—burning with curiosity, so to speak—at the idea of conducting a large-scale study to determine where all these people are now. The hundreds of thousands who stood on Manezhnaya Square, demanding the repeal of Article 6. That would be incredibly valuable research, but unfortunately, it’s impossible—or at the very least, extremely difficult and costly.
However, what can be done is to trace the trajectories of the deputies from the Interregional Deputies’ Group. Their paths are particularly interesting, and there are reasons to believe that they could serve as a kind of reference group—a litmus test of sorts. Many of them have completely shifted their positions over time.
As for those who stood in the square—some have passed away, some are now in exile, others have changed their views, and some have simply retreated into private life, into what could be called an “internal emigration.” Their fates have varied. I can’t give exact percentages—it’s all just hypotheses for now, and they would need to be substantiated.
But researching the life trajectories of the members of the Interregional Deputies’ Group? Now that would be a worthwhile and feasible study.
On the Insufficiency of Western Aid Link to heading
Question from a user calling themselves “Let Him Die.” I think I have an idea who this wish is directed at. Here’s what the author writes:
We constantly talk about expecting Western countries to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to advance toward the liberation of its territories. But another question arises—why isn’t Ukraine receiving at least enough weapons to achieve parity on the front line, to prevent the invader’s creeping advance? After all, that would require significantly fewer resources than liberating all of Ukraine. But even this level of aid isn’t being provided. The West is allowing Putin to continue his advance. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this and, of course, the opinions of relevant experts among your guests.
You know, the answer to this question seems obvious to me: the West is not a monolith. And today, we are precisely discussing this issue. The real question is—who isn’t providing enough weapons?
Europe, unfortunately, is willing to supply weapons not for the purpose of defeating Putin—because that’s not even a goal Europe has set—but to prevent Putin from advancing. And yes, Europe is indeed focused on that. However, the real refusal of aid and outright sabotage of assistance to Ukraine didn’t come from Europe but from the United States.
We all remember the six-month-long blockade of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, personally orchestrated by Donald Trump. Yes, now that aid has been fully restored, but if you’re deprived of food for six months, it’s not something you can easily compensate for later.
So, this is not about the West as a whole—it’s about the United States. The reasons are well known: Trump’s personal stance, the attitude of his team, and their belief that Ukraine shouldn’t be supported at all. This has been stated openly by Trump, by JD Vence, by Elon Musk, and others.
So, in reality, this isn’t the collective stance of the West—it’s the position of the United States.
Why Does the Author Announce Kyiv Time and Say “Slava Ukraini”? Link to heading
The author of the question identifies themselves simply as K—a single letter—and their question is more of a criticism:
If you’re not in Kyiv, why do you announce Kyiv time? Don’t you think that’s excessive, just like using slogans such as “Slava Ukraini! Heroyam slava!” Both of these things are leading somewhere, making your stance biased by default. This is no longer journalism. I used to watch you for a long time, but over time, certain details started to sound off-putting. Eventually, I stopped watching. Some time ago, you became too politically engaged and one-sided, so responding to me is pointless and useless.
Well, addressing someone who says it’s pointless and useless to watch me does seem a bit, well, pointless and useless. If you don’t like it—don’t watch. If it bothers you—don’t listen. It’s that simple.
As for the criticism itself: first, I live in Vilnius, and Kyiv time happens to be the same as Vilnius time. It’s also the same as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem time, among others. But beyond that, I think it’s entirely appropriate, given that the central event of our time is what’s happening in Ukraine—and I openly support Ukraine. I don’t hide that.
Yes, I do end my broadcasts with Slava Ukraini! That’s a fact. The challenge, in wartime, is how to balance objective analysis with not concealing one’s political sympathies. I try to do both. Whether I succeed is for you to judge. You think I don’t? Others might disagree.
In times of war, I don’t think it’s right to mask one’s political stance. Pretending to be “above the fray”—I’m not sure that’s the right approach. Have I turned into a propagandist? I don’t think so. I believe I’ve remained a journalist.
What Response Can the Author Give to Veller? Link to heading
Leonid Korovin asks:
And still, what substantive response can you give to Veller? Silence leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions.
Dear Leonid, my answer to you will have two parts. First, let me pose a counter-question:
Leonid, do you go out every morning, find young girls between the ages of 5 and 15, then dismember them in your bathtub and drink their blood? Just answer. But don’t dodge the question—just explain why. Are you hungry? Do you enjoy it? Are you holding a grudge? Just answer.
Oh, I see you’re silent. And that silence leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions.
See, Leonid, this is a thought experiment. Imagine being bombarded with this kind of question for years, from multiple sources, all asking the same thing. How would you respond? Would you address each and every accusation?
I’ve already answered similar attacks multiple times. What Veller is saying now is just a carbon copy of accusations that have been made before. Vladimir Solovyov—yes, that Solovyov—made the same claims about me, twice, in 40-minute segments on federal television. Why? Because I consistently criticize him and his panelists.
I responded to Solovyov twice. Those responses are on our channel—one is titled “Answers”, the other “Reply from the Cesspit.” (The logic being, if you stare into a cesspit long enough, the cesspit starts staring back at you.)
Then there was Lurie, a professional slanderer who once served time for defamation—he jumped in with the same claims. Then came Konstantin Berezin, who calls himself a “people’s journalist”—I was asked about him, I explained my stance, and he immediately repeated the exact same accusations against me.
Now, it’s Veller. Next time, someone else I’ve criticized will repeat the same nonsense: that I’ve stolen everything, built castles, and am a terrible person. Should I respond to each one? If I spend all my time refuting these accusations, it turns into a cycle where people start thinking, “Well, he keeps defending himself—maybe there’s something to it?” Like the old saying: The spoons were found, but the bad taste remains.
So no, I’m not going to waste time answering Veller. Instead, I’ll keep producing Mediaophrenia, I’ll keep making Trumpophrenia, and I’ll keep exposing these people—factually, with citations, proving that they are scoundrels and liars.
And they’ll keep making things up about me. And then Leonid Korovin will demand that I respond to each one.
No, Leonid. You won’t get that from me.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning discussion. A reminder that at 20:00, we’ll have Sergey Maratovich Hrabskiy, with plenty of important questions for him. I hope you’ll find the answers engaging and insightful.
So, I’ll see you at 20:00. Slava Ukraini!
Take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Ukrainian political prisoners, Ukrainian POWs, and Russian political prisoners!
See you at 20:00!
Source: https://youtu.be/fFsuK6Ha4Cg