Trump-the-Empty-Bucket is saving Khamenei and Putin. Israel is unable to finish off Iran without U.S. support. The G7, without the U.S., failed to impose sanctions against Russia.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 18th. It’s 7:40 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in Ukraine, in the world, and in our souls.
A Joke Video About Skabeyeva Link to heading
Dreams come true. It’s very important to know exactly who to ask to make your dreams come true. Some pray to God, others busily order gifts from Father Frost under the Christmas tree. As for me, yesterday I turned to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, asking them to throw a party and strike Ostankino. Well, I envied how the Israeli Air Force struck Iranian television. And my request was heard. Live on air, a female news anchor was reading the news when suddenly the studio was noticeably shaken. Well, I think that’s very, very good news.
One of the Bloodiest Attacks on Ukrainian Cities Link to heading
And now the bad news. Unfortunately, it is much sadder and on a much larger scale. Russia carried out one of the bloodiest attacks on Ukraine, specifically on Kyiv. Last night, the Russians launched 472 drones and missiles of various types across Ukraine. Most were shot down by Ukrainian air defense forces, and a significant portion was neutralized by electronic jamming. However, this time many still got through, and the main strike hit Kyiv. As a result of this Russian attack, a kindergarten was damaged, along with a large number of residential buildings and apartments, leading to 16 confirmed deaths as of now. There are still bodies under the rubble, but the confirmed number so far is 16 dead and 139 injured. One of the bloodiest attacks by the occupiers on Kyiv since the start of the war. Today is a day of mourning in Kyiv. This morning, Odessa was also hit. Two people are known to have died, and 17 were injured.
Trump-the-Empty-Bucket Link to heading
But before moving on to analyzing what’s happening in this war between Russia and Ukraine, I want to shift focus to the New World. The indigenous peoples who inhabited the territory of the United States had a tradition of giving their chiefs nicknames like White Eagle, Hawk Eye, Jumping Badger. Off the top of my head, I remember names like Red Cloud and Crazy Horse. Well, following yesterday’s conversation with Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman, I came up with, what I think is, the perfect nickname for the chief of the United States — the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump-the-Empty-Bucket. I think this is the most fitting nickname for him because all the sounds he makes remind me of the echo of an empty bucket. In particular, let’s try to reproduce some of the sounds we’ve just heard. So, Donald Trump-the-Empty-Bucket announced: “We now have complete control of the skies over Iran.” Who exactly is included in the “we” from Trump’s perspective is unclear, because in the recording he made, Israel is not mentioned. So in this case, it’s not clear who “we” refers to. Especially considering that the United States had, for a long time, been urging Israel not to carry out this attack on Iran — and is now clearly distancing itself, stating that it had no involvement in the strike. So who is this “we”? Who’s controlling the skies over Iran — it’s unclear. In another recording, Trump said that the United States knows the exact location of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but that no strike on him will be carried out yet. So, does that mean Trump is involved after all? As for the Reuters report stating that Trump forbade Israel from killing Khamenei — although it was denied by Israeli officials — I’m increasingly inclined to believe it’s true. Otherwise, it’s strange. This tactic of decapitation and blinding of Iran, which Israel clearly undertook, is obviously incomplete without the elimination of Ali Khamenei. What’s the point of eliminating the operatives if the Supreme Leader, according to the Iranian Constitution, is the person who determines all domestic and foreign policy? What’s the point of “decapitation and blinding” without removing the one who truly governs Iran’s entire internal and external affairs? So, it seems that Trump is shielding both Putin and the second key dictator of our time — Ali Khamenei. We’ll talk more about how exactly he’s doing that. He’s doing it persistently and methodically. Trump is clearly a big friend of dictatorships.
Situation Room Instead of G7 Link to heading
Yesterday, in the White House Situation Room, Trump held a meeting with his closest circle and military leadership. No information has been released about the decisions made, but this apparently was the reason he left the G7 summit, at which Trump was practically absent. He arrived, had dinner, and left — and apparently, he left precisely to attend this meeting in the Situation Room. This is truly a remarkable thing. The leading countries of the world, allies, had gathered — an ideal forum to discuss what to do in the Middle East, what to do about the war in Ukraine. But instead of that, Trump left and met with his flunkies. This, in essence, is Trump in a nutshell. Why leave the G7 summit, turning it into a G6? With all due respect to the remaining European and Canadian leaders, it’s clear that without the United States, the summit is no longer a true Group of Seven. The only event Trump actually participated in was the G7 leaders’ dinner discussion — which, in Canada, ultimately led to nothing. Everyone tried to convince Trump to toughen sanctions against Russia, but Trump said the sanctions were costing the United States enormous amounts of money and therefore there would be no tightening.
Trump Disbanded the Interagency Group on Pressuring Russia to End the War in Ukraine Link to heading
In other recent news, Donald Trump has effectively disbanded the interagency task force that was created to develop a strategy for pressuring Russia to end the war in Ukraine. This special task force was formed in March–April 2025, and within just a month it had lost its authority. It became clear to everyone that Trump is not interested in any kind of pressure on Russia or Putin to end the war. The final blow to this working group came with Trump’s decision to reduce the staff of the National Security Council, including the dismissal of all advisors — the very team that was directly involved in the Russia–Ukraine war. Only one advisor, Whitkoff, was retained — who is in fact engaged in ongoing, completely pointless negotiations with Russian war criminals. So, in reality, Trump is dismantling all tools and institutions that were created and aimed at influencing Russia.
Reza Pahlavi’s Speech Link to heading
Now let’s shift once again to the Old World, to the Middle East. One of the latest reports concerns the possibility of regime change. The son of the Shah of Iran, who was overthrown in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution — Reza Pahlavi — made an address to the people of Iran in which he expressed hope for the imminent collapse of the Islamic Republic regime. He stated that the Islamic Republic has reached its end and is in a state of disintegration. Naturally, it was the usual, more or less expected rhetoric — though I’ll quote him instead of paraphrasing. Here’s what he said: “Khamenei, like a frightened rat, is hiding in a bunker, having lost control of the situation. What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright.” He then called on the people of the country to rise up and end the regime, expressing hope in his appeal to the nation that “soon we will be together.” Well, I have to say I’m not very familiar with who exactly the heir of the deposed Shah is, but it seems that his words and dreams are about as far from reality as the dreams of some Russian emigrants about a beautiful future Russia. So far, there have been no reports of large-scale unrest in Iran. Reza Pahlavi lives in the United States. He is the leader of the opposition National Council of Iran, which is banned in Iran. Regarding the level of support — and here I’ll interrupt myself — it’s long overdue to invite someone to our channel who understands the realities of Iran far better than I do. Someone who actually knows the situation. Nevertheless, based on what’s known, Reza Pahlavi’s popularity inside Iran is unlikely to be overwhelming. At the very least, there have been no reports suggesting that people are eagerly awaiting his return.
What Iran and Israel Can Do Link to heading
Now let’s get to the most important point: what exactly are the capabilities of the parties in this war? What can Iran do? What can Israel do? As for Iran — there’s been talk, excuse me, that Iran could potentially build around 10, or more precisely 9, nuclear bombs in a short time. And in principle, it has delivery systems. But this is extremely unlikely, precisely because, unlike Trump’s statement that “we control the skies over Iran,” the skies over Iran are fully controlled by Israel. So the maximum the Iranian regime could do, if it indeed created a nuclear bomb, would be to drop it on its own foot — because anything that tries to take off would be immediately shot down. So that’s the potential for a nuclear strike.
But what is truly significant is what Iran can realistically do. One of the main ongoing threats from Iran — and this isn’t new — is its ability to partially or fully block one of the world’s main maritime routes: the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a chokepoint in global oil transport. About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil volume passes through it. The strait is 40 kilometers wide at its narrowest point. Iran has always had, still has, and will continue to have the resources to block this strait. British intelligence and other analysts have said that the strait really could be blocked. For Iran, shutting the Strait of Hormuz is essentially a deterrent on par with a nuclear bomb — that’s obvious. But again, if that happens, I think U.S. intervention becomes highly likely. Incidentally, closing the Strait of Hormuz would hit China and a number of Arab and Asian countries much harder. So I can’t say how likely Iran is to act on this threat — but in the event of further escalation, it’s quite possible. At the very least, the raised fist from Iran is real.
Now as for Israel. Can Israel achieve its stated goals? Israel, of course, currently holds a major advantage — but the continuation of its military campaign heavily depends on support from the United States. Beyond the constant military aid it receives — in the billions of dollars — most of the munitions it drops from its aircraft are American-made. So when we talk about those so-called bunker-buster bombs Israel uses to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, they are all supplied by the United States.
Regarding the U.S. position — we already know that Trump is covering for Iran. First, he forbids Israel from striking Ali Khamenei and clearly is not inclined to provide Israel with the one weapon that can truly breach the defenses of the underground Fordow nuclear complex. That is, the nearly 14-ton bomb that can only be delivered by U.S. B-2 bombers. So Israel has no chance of finishing off Iran without help from the United States.
As for U.S. assistance — we all understand. This de facto World War III largely hinges on one single figure. This is what the role of the individual in history looks like. Americans elected the 47th president, nicknamed “Empty Bucket,” and now nearly all decisions come down to his person — to the fact that, for reasons rooted somewhere between his ears, he stubbornly supports Putin and just as stubbornly supports the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That is why, apparently, this war is dragging on.
World War Is Dragging On Link to heading
I honestly don’t understand those experts who unanimously claim that the war in Ukraine will end by late summer, in September. I don’t see it, I don’t understand it — but, as always, I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the miracle predicted by the experts happens and the war in Ukraine ends. But I have to say what I think, what I see. And I don’t currently see any trend in that direction.
As for the war between Israel and Iran — Israel against Iran, Iran against Israel — it also turns out that airstrikes can indeed create chaos and fear in Iran, but clearly they don’t lead to total victory. We can look at past actions against Libya, against Hezbollah, against Gaza — and we see that without a ground operation, well, we just have to acknowledge the reality: Israel’s population is just over 9 million, while the population of Tehran alone is 15 million. Iran’s total population is around 90 million. So there’s no chance of a ground operation — and without it, victory is impossible. Even though Israel truly does control the skies.
So this war, unfortunately, is clearly dragging on. This is what World War III looks like — and it all comes down to the gaping empty bucket that has appeared at the head of the most powerful and influential country in the world: the United States of America.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
I’m moving on to answering your questions.
On Inviting Valentyn Hladkykh Link to heading
I’ll start with questions from Lyudmyla Kovalenko’s chat. There is a very interesting expert in Ukraine, in my opinion, writes Lyudmyla — Valentyn Hladkykh from an analytical center. Is it possible to invite him to your channel?
You know, I’ve heard the name, but I know of him mainly as a political technologist. I haven’t seen him, haven’t read his texts or watched him. Well, we’ll look into it. If he really is as great as you say — of course. Thank you, as always, for the suggestion. It’s very helpful.
On the Split Personality of Officials Link to heading
Don Si Poncho. Officials often say one thing and do another. And this has been going on for decades. From a psychological perspective, could this be considered a split personality? At what point does the switch occur between the rules, where reality intersects with what’s said in front of the camera?
Dear colleague, I must say that in psychology — or more precisely, psychiatry — “split personality” is actually known as dissociative identity disorder. It is a diagnosis, a serious mental illness. The disorder is usually defined as multiple personality disorder. It can be caused by severe emotional trauma in early childhood — extreme physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, for example. It is an extreme form of dissociation, a psychological defense mechanism in which a person begins to perceive what’s happening to them as if it’s happening to someone else. In other words, it is a defense of the self. A serious mental disorder.
So when people say “split personality,” they are using an imprecise, colloquial term. What you described, dear colleague — about officials — belongs to an entirely different category. It has nothing to do with mental illness. There is no “split personality” here. These are officials who say one thing and do another — a completely separate matter. These are absolutely mentally normal people. What we’re talking about here is hypocrisy. Or, if you prefer another colloquial term — they lead a double life. And not only politicians lead double lives. Unfaithful spouses do too, as do many others — a long list of hypocrites. Not all of them are horrible, but many, many live this kind of double life. These are hypocrites and otherwise mentally sound people.
So this has nothing to do with split personality. An official who says one thing and does another is simply projecting an image for the public. When alone with their political or personal challenges, they act in a way that suits them. One thing for the public, another for themselves — classic hypocrisy. It has no connection to dissociative identity disorder.
On the Film by Mikhail Langender Link to heading
So. Dmytro: Not long ago, I watched a film made by my close friend Mikhail, also known as UN Bender from Vienna. It turns out you also took part in this film. It might be interesting to watch. Here’s the link. Mikhail is looking to get in touch with you. I think this project is very relevant today.
Dear Dmytro, thank you very much. Since you sent me your question yesterday, I had a chance to watch the film last night. Yes, I think I remember somehow participating in it — I have a few lines in there. The film is, in my opinion, well made. And you know, even though it’s a very old film — I believe it was shot back when I was still in Moscow, judging by the interior, in my rented apartment — it’s definitely from some time ago. But let’s do this: let’s post it on our Telegram channel. Maybe someone will find it interesting. Yes, it’s a well-made film, even if based on older material.
As for Mikhail wanting to meet with me — there’s a very simple way. He can either message me on Facebook — I still check it from time to time, even if rarely, and I do read messages if someone writes to me directly. Or he can write to me on Telegram. So, dear Dmytro, if you’re hearing this, please help Mikhail get in touch with me. It’s really easy.
On “Media-phrenia” and “Trumpo-phrenia.” Are Rudeness and Intelligence Compatible? Link to heading
A question from Eleonora: First of all, she asks not to rush with Media-phrenia and Trumpo-phrenia.
Well, I do understand that it’s bad form to start something and leave it hanging. So I’ll try to overcome some difficulties and still release both Trumpo-phrenia and Media-phrenia — and more. My head is full of ideas, as they say, and we will carry them out as best we can.
And now to Eleonora’s question: Over the course of your long career, you’ve interacted with, observed, and analyzed a huge number of people. Are rudeness and intelligence compatible? What ultimately becomes of such rude but intelligent, educated individuals?
Well, first of all — obviously, you already know this, dear Eleonora, and so do many others — there are countless examples where rudeness and intelligence coexist. Yes, they are compatible. Just like genius and villainy. These things are quite capable of coexisting. And in that sense, the poet’s take on Mozart was incorrect.
As for the trajectory — that’s a more interesting question. Are they compatible? Yes. But where does the long-term combination of rudeness and intelligence lead? I have a hypothesis — a very tentative one, based on observations of a rather limited number of people. The hypothesis is that if rudeness persists and deepens, it eventually leads to degradation — including intellectual degradation. But this is a highly speculative hypothesis and would certainly need to be tested. Again, as a sociologist, I’d say that not all speculative hypotheses are confirmed. So it needs experimental validation — meaning, we would need to observe a large number of such individuals over time to see what that kind of combination ultimately leads to.
About the YouTube Chat Link to heading
A question from Crying Sky: What exactly is so wrong with the YouTube chat? People greet each other, interact, joke. I constantly see the chat — people are mostly polite and don’t use foul language. Yes, there are trolls and bots, they’re annoying, but overall it’s a normal, free chat. What exactly is the purpose of chat moderation? Quickly banning trolls and bots — sure. But what else is there to decide? In my opinion, people should be allowed to interact freely. Especially since you don’t take questions from the chat anyway. So a bit of light flooding doesn’t interfere with the stream at all.
Dear colleague, the thing is — we’ve literally just implemented a decision on this. There is now a moderator, and starting today, as far as I know, they’re already working. But this is all being done on a volunteer basis. So it may not happen for every stream, but nonetheless, these are very delicate and balanced individuals. And I’m absolutely sure there won’t be any kind of inquisition — just the removal of trolls and aggressive foul-mouthed jerks who sometimes slip through and poison the atmosphere. You see, they ruin that light, even ironic interaction you mentioned — which is very much welcomed — but it gets destroyed when, in the middle of normal human communication, some nasty person shows up and starts making a mess. So I believe this is very important, necessary, and good. And since there are people willing to moderate, I’m deeply grateful to them.
Can a Normal Person Understand Hegel or Kierkegaard? Link to heading
Here’s a question from Chekist’s Friend: Igor Aleksandrovich, is it even possible for a normal person to understand Hegel or Heidegger, for example?
Dear colleague, you know — is it possible for a “normal” person, as you say, to understand a text on string theory, or an article from a modern mathematics journal? The thing is, philosophy is a separate field of human knowledge — a distinct science. And like every science, it develops its own terminology and conceptual apparatus. So yes, to understand it, one needs to study, to dive in.
Does one remain “normal” after that? I think so — just like a person remains normal after studying modern mathematics or quantum physics or anything else of that kind. So I believe a normal person can understand anything — but it takes effort. This is not easy reading. But just as you need to exert effort to unearth a diamond, so too must you work to understand what great thinkers have written. It’s not light reading — that’s true.
Is Trump Insane? Link to heading
Andrey Andreevich: I live in Britain, writes Andrey Andreevich. Tell me — if Ukraine and Israel are hanging in the balance, is Trump insane? Doesn’t he understand that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons? They’ll use them — a nuclear war will begin. Is Trump just a completely dumb pervert when it comes to Ukraine too? Doesn’t he understand that a nation of 40 million in the center of Europe could be wiped out? If Trump doesn’t understand all this, then that’s serious psychiatry — he needs treatment. And Ukraine and Europe should have long been pursuing their own policies, and Ukraine should have nuclear weapons. What do you think — would Putin react if Ukraine had nuclear weapons?
First, regarding Trump. As I already said — and as Mikhail Pavlovich pointed out quite precisely in our conversation yesterday — Trump truly doesn’t understand much. I’ve been saying this all along: Trump is simply not fit for the role of president. He really is empty. He’s truly an empty bucket. He reacts exactly like an empty bucket — he short-circuits and that’s it. He truly understands nothing. I don’t think it’s psychiatry — it’s just this banal, deep internal emptiness. Psychiatry won’t help here.
Should We Try to Persuade Kind People Who Support Putin? Link to heading
A question from George: Is there any point in trying to convince those kind-hearted people — the ones who help kittens cross the road and save hungry grandmothers from dying — but at the same time claim that Ukraine must be taken over because it’s full of Nazis, Banderites, and the drug addict Zelensky? Even if you succeed in convincing one of them — what does that really accomplish?
Dear George, I’d like to offer two thoughts in response to your comment and question. First — people do change. You know, I think if you apply some personal reflection, some biographical reflection, try to recall what your own views were, say, ten or twenty years ago — and I don’t know who you are or how old you are — but if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll see that views do change, including under the influence of new information. Of course, we’ve all met people who claim that since the moment they emerged from their mother’s womb, they were already shouting “Glory to Ukraine,” “Freedom to the peoples,” “Death to tyrants,” and so on. I’ve met people like that — and they’re absolutely impossible to persuade of anything.
But in general, people do change. Some have recovered from fascism, some from nationalism, some from communism or leftist ideologies. Some retain those views — that also happens — but still, people often change, especially when exposed to new information. I don’t know how many people have changed under the influence of the information I produce. Maybe none. I’m not claiming that I can part the clouds with my hands or turn water into wine. I can’t do that. I don’t walk on water, and I don’t swallow swords. I’m not a miracle worker. But maybe, just maybe, someone has slightly shifted their perspective? It’s possible.
Moreover, I don’t aim to convince anyone individually. What I do is create an informational product for an undefined audience. Whoever wants to — listens. Whoever wants to — hears. Some don’t agree. I see people who, even after I respond to them directly, continue arguing the next day, not hearing any of the arguments I made. That happens. But some do hear — you see? That’s how this work goes. This is what informational work looks like.
So I’ll emphasize my main point again: people do change — including under the influence of new information. Possibly even under the influence of the information I produce. Some may change — their views, I mean.
On the Constitutions of Warring Countries Link to heading
From Bashkirova: Excuse me, but what is stated in the Constitutions of Ukraine or other warring countries, including Azerbaijan, regarding the destruction of the bodies of fallen soldiers — both their own and enemy combatants? How is the absence of remains explained to the families for burial? Are they compensated for moral damages? Or is all of this simply implied under the word “patriotism”? Isn’t it time to revise the Constitution to include such protections for the rights of fallen soldiers’ families? And heads of state who violate these points — should they not be referred to as decomposed cow dung patties in the name of that notorious “amendment” that tramples justice?
Well, I’m not sure that the Constitution of these countries needs to explicitly include the term “decomposed cow dung patty.” As for the actual issue you raise — I’m not well-versed in the specifics. Let’s discuss it — clearly, you know something I don’t. The topic you bring up is understandable in general. But how widespread is the practice of destroying the bodies of fallen soldiers, and how does it affect compensation? We need to understand how serious and large-scale a problem this really is. Specifically, as you mentioned, in the case of Ukraine or Azerbaijan — I simply don’t know how pressing or prevalent this issue is, or whether it truly warrants separate discussion, let alone inclusion in the Constitution.
Question on the Dismemberment of Iran and Territorial Integrity Link to heading
Karine Grigoryan poses a very interesting question about the dismemberment of Iran: Why do the peoples of Iran have the right to self-determination? What happened to the universally beloved concept of territorial integrity? Why do Azerbaijanis in Iran have the right to self-determination, but Armenians in Azerbaijan do not? Why do Kurds in Iran have this right, but Kurds in Turkey do not? What’s the connection between regime change and the breakup of a country? Why does this selective distribution of rights apply to some countries and not others?
Dear colleague, you’re really arguing not with me, but with the author of the original question — so let’s clarify. I’ve always said, and I repeat, that this is an internal matter for the Iranian people, or the peoples who inhabit the state and country called Iran.
As for Azerbaijanis in Iran, once again, this is something best discussed with a specialist — but from what I know, a significant number of Iran’s military and political elite are ethnically Azerbaijani. For example, Ali Khamenei himself is Azerbaijani. So I’m not convinced there is any serious ethnic persecution of Azerbaijanis in Iran. Many IRGC leaders are Azerbaijani, and Azerbaijanis make up more than a third of Iran’s population. Persecuting such a large portion of the population raises big questions. So I don’t believe there’s an issue there — at least, I’m not aware of one.
As for the Kurds — they are the largest stateless, divided ethnic group in the world. The Kurdish issue exists not only in Iran but in Turkey as well, as you rightly point out. I’ve personally encountered Kurds here in Russia, working with them on publishing matters, and I can say they are indeed a people facing very serious challenges. So yes, the Kurdish issue exists — and it remains unresolved. Kurds live divided across Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey — they are truly a split nation across four states.
Now, regarding forced dismemberment — you’re responding to some of the talk around forcibly breaking up Iran. I think such a scenario is only possible in one case: as a result of a major war with ground operations, similar to what happened with the Third Reich. As of today, that’s not a foreseeable prospect at all. So I think your strong objections to the dismemberment of Iran are a fight against windmills. No one — apart from a few of our more imaginative subscribers — is seriously calling for that today.
On the Deportations from the Baltic States and Moldova Link to heading
So, a question from Ion — that’s the name the subscriber uses: When you mention the deportations from the Baltic countries, like those on June 12–13, please also remember Moldova. We also had our first deportations during these same days. We were also occupied during World War II, and we too experienced a Holodomor after the war. Agreed. And the question: in Chișinău in 1989, on August 27, there was a large national gathering of several hundred thousand people. They say there were delegations from the Baltic states, Georgia, and Ukraine. How did the government in Moscow and ordinary people view this?
You know, what you’re referring to — that large gathering — was the Great National Assembly, which indeed took place on August 27, 1989. It made crucial decisions, including declaring the Moldovan language the official state language of the Moldavian SSR (it was still part of the USSR at that time), and also transitioning to the Latin script. It was similar to what we saw in other republics — like Rukh in Ukraine, Sąjūdis in Lithuania, and so on. This was part of the broader national liberation movement that existed in Moldova — or more precisely, in the Moldavian SSR of that era. It was the same as in the overwhelming majority of Soviet republics. Truly, it was a great national liberation movement that emerged in nearly every republic of the Soviet Union.
On Koch Link to heading
And another question: If I’m not mistaken, you believe that Koch is on Ukraine’s side? If I understand correctly, he often engages in unconstructive criticism of Ukraine and its government. So what exactly does it mean that he’s “on Ukraine’s side,” if he does the same kind of thing Russian propagandists do?
Well, look — I’m the last person who could or should play the role of Alfred Koch’s defender, because I have a generally negative attitude toward him, both personally and politically. But still — I don’t think you can deny that Koch is on Ukraine’s side. Practically every one of his posts ends with the words “Glory to Ukraine!” He’s a member of the governing body of the Free Russia Forum, which is entirely on Ukraine’s side.
That said, I’ve stated — publicly and to Koch’s face — that I believe it’s impossible to be in the same trench with him, even if formally we are on the same side. Because practically every one of his texts includes attacks on Ukraine and its leadership. According to Koch, Ukraine’s leadership has done nothing but make stupid decisions throughout the entire war. And yet — somehow — they’re still holding out. How? That remains a mystery in his framework.
This constant contrast he draws — between the heroic Ukrainian army, which shields Europe with its own body, and the supposedly inept military and political leadership of Ukraine, which does nothing but blunder — well, that doesn’t add up. I’m not against criticizing Ukraine’s leadership — I don’t do it myself, but I can’t forbid others from doing so. Still, Koch’s rhetoric often surpasses even some of the harshest attacks in its bitterness. It’s all mistakes, all failures — every action they take is wrong. If they’re born on Monday, they’re wrong. If they strike the Kursk region — also wrong. Koch warned not to do it, but they did it anyway — why? Everything they do, in his eyes, goes awry.
Meanwhile, Trump is a genius, Germany does everything right, and Ukraine — Ukraine is always doing it wrong. It’s a strange stance. Not unique to Koch, but he’s the clearest example of it. And yet — yes, he is factually on Ukraine’s side. He supports Ukraine, always ends with “Glory to Ukraine!” — but at the same time, he’s constantly berating it. That’s Ukraine’s tragic fate — even Koch scolds her.
On Leonid Mlechin Link to heading
A question from Igor: What do you think of history enthusiast Leonid Mlechin after the invasion of Ukraine began? I haven’t heard a single word of condemnation of the war from him. I haven’t googled it and can’t know for sure, but I haven’t seen any clear or strong position from him. He always seemed like a smart, objective, and passionate person. But now he’s just disappeared. Neither here nor there. If that’s the case, it’s disappointing — he was an authority for many.
You know, I haven’t been following Mlechin closely lately, but overall, he’s always struck me as someone “loyal,” with democratic and liberal views. But the fact remains: after 2014 — after Crimea — he continued to work within the state propaganda system, albeit in a lighter version. That was on Public Television of Russia, a kind of pet project handed to Medvedev. Still, that’s government propaganda.
And the fact that he was awarded a State Prize by the Russian government at the end of 2014 is also telling. Like you, I haven’t heard anything from him recently. But from the beginning, it was clear that he was the kind of person — yes, with democratic, probably liberal beliefs — who still tried to stay within the bounds of official, state-sanctioned discourse.
Since around 2015, I’m not even sure where he is or what he’s doing. I haven’t heard any strong anti-Putin statements from him lately. Maybe there were some — I don’t know, and I can’t say for certain.
On Mitvol, Shokhin, and Savostyanov Link to heading
Sokol Kukushkin: Still about Mitvol and Shokhin. I asked about Mitvol because he’s serving time for large-scale embezzlement and admitted guilt — yes, he really stole a billion and confessed. And about Shokhin — because in one interview, Mr. Savostyanov, a cousin of Andrey Borisovich Zubov and former head of the KGB Directorate for Moscow and the region, called him “Sashka.” In my view, that’s like calling Putin “Vovka.” From that, I concluded that Shokhin is like family to him. Do you have any thoughts on this? I understand you may not have seen the interview, but please take my word for it — it’s publicly available and easy to find.
Dear Sokol Kukushkin, I still don’t quite understand what exactly your question is about. As for I. Mitvol — I gave my opinion on him yesterday. You didn’t refute or add anything to it — and for me, that case is clear.
As for Shokhin — again, the situation is clear to me: an absolute war criminal, and that’s that. If I understand you correctly, your question is actually about Savostyanov. And I’ve already mentioned that I simply don’t have enough time at the moment to dig into Mr. Savostyanov’s positions in depth. I did once invite him to join a broadcast, but then had some doubts — though nothing concrete.
Why did Savostyanov call Shokhin “Sashka”? I have no idea. He did — fine. I don’t know what to make of that. I’m not ready to comment. As for Shokhin — I have no questions. 100% war criminal. And the same goes for Mitvol. As for Savostyanov — if I find the time, I’ll take a closer look at his views, and if it turns out to be of interest, I’ll share what I find.
On the Relationship Between Ukrainians and Israelis Toward Each Other Link to heading
And Irina Ivanova. Igor Alexandrovich, why is it that between these two peoples who find themselves in similar situations—Ukrainians and Israelis—there is often an outbreak of hatred toward each other? In the comments, I wish victory to both Ukraine and Israel, and I often get replies from either Ukrainians or Israelis expressing aggression toward each other. I can understand aggression directed at me. I am a citizen of the aggressor country. But the negativity between these two peoples, who I feel should be united by a common tragedy, is something I don’t understand.
Dear Irina! Well, you see, there are dark pages in the history of these two peoples. Well-known ones. I won’t list them all now—it would look like incitement. But still. We know the history well, we know about the Cossack uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—this was from 1648 to 1654—which was accompanied by the mass killing of Jews. You can’t just cut that out of the story. So. And today? Bohdan Khmelnytsky is considered a killer. A killer of Jews. Not on the same scale as Hitler, but still, it was a movement in the same direction. Specifically along ethnic lines. And today in Ukraine, there’s a state award—the Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. He is also depicted on the five-hryvnia banknote. There’s a monument to him in the center of Kyiv. So, in fact, yes—there are problems with shared history, right? They exist. It’s unprocessed, it’s unresolved, it hasn’t been discussed. Between Germans and Jews, that terrible black page of the last century has been turned. Because the Germans, over the course of eight decades, have apologized for the Holocaust—well, probably enough. They apologized with money, they knelt, they did everything. In the case of Ukraine, regarding the black pages of Jewish history, there has been no such turning of the page. So that past still exists. And it stands between these two peoples. That’s the first reason. And the second reason is another one. Israel and Ukraine are competing for the attention and assistance of the United States and Europe. That’s obvious. Look at recent events—just recently, Trump redirected the weapons that were meant for Ukraine to the Middle East. Hence the discontented remark from Ukrainian President Zelensky. These are also objective circumstances.
Why Do Many People View Sex as Something Animalistic? Link to heading
One more thing. So, Robert suddenly about sex. Why do moralists call it something animalistic, base, and purely physical? After all, sex is a distinctly human phenomenon. Sexual desire is filtered through the complex psyche of a person, unlike mere intercourse. In the animal kingdom, only humans have erotic fantasies, beauty standards, and aesthetic experiences. So, in many ways, sex is a spiritual phenomenon. Is that so? Sorry for the slightly silly question, but I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I’d love to hear your opinion.
Well, dear Robert, I wouldn’t call myself a renowned sexologist, but I will say a few obvious things. First of all—this is about morality and hypocrisy. They are antonyms, opposites. So, when you say that moralists consider sex to be something animalistic, that’s actually incorrect, because it’s not the moralists—it’s the hypocrites. Morality and hypocrisy are completely different things. Now, secondly—about animals. I think you’re mistaken. The sexual sphere is quite complex, at least among higher animals, including those who live with us—cats, dogs, and other higher vertebrates. They also have erotic fantasies. Anyone who owns a cat or dog knows this well. They have erotic fantasies and so on. Animals masturbate—meaning they imagine a sexual object. They have imagination. The phase of representing a sexual object is clearly present. And so, I think this strict dividing line between animals and humans in this sphere is hard to draw. There are, of course, differences—but not the ones you described. Animals also have the triad: desire, arousal, orgasm—just like humans.
Now, regarding what you call moralists: the suppression of sex from the public sphere is a hallmark of dictatorship. On the other extreme, there is the reduction of the rich emotional sphere to mere lust. These are two extremes—Scylla and Charybdis. Hypocrisy and lust are two extremes, and in between them lies, I would say, the vast world of love. In my deep conviction, love is the most important thing in a person’s life. And the sexual sphere is undoubtedly the foundation of love. Even if a person doesn’t live a sexual life, love is still central. It is what motivates creativity, one way or another. And, fundamentally, it’s what gives life meaning. So yes, this is a vast and luminous realm—if we don’t taint it, exclude it, reduce it to mere lust, or pollute it with hypocrisy.
The Problem of Left-Liberals, the Shift to the Far Left, and the Rise of the Ultra-Right Link to heading
Is that so? A question from Olga Alexandrovich: How can it be explained that the left-liberal movement, despite its good intentions to support and protect the weak and needy, often ends up making mistakes and, paradoxically, contributes to strengthening the forces of evil? The European and American intelligentsia failed to grasp the essence of the October Revolution in Russia and didn’t recognize Stalin. As the saying goes, they didn’t notice the elephant in the room. The soft-hearted leftism of Ms. Merkel led to the migration crisis in Europe and the rise of right-wing alternatives. The left in America, with its intense focus on transgenders, bathrooms, and Palestinian rights, and its indifference to real problems caused by open borders, with its tolerant stance on the homeless, their feces, and syringe use on the streets of American cities—ultimately led to Trump’s victory. I feel like many of history’s darkest chapters were provoked by the blind kindness of left-liberals. How can this paradox be explained? Or is it an inevitable flaw? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And what is the solution to this paradox? Replacing fish with a fishing rod seems like such an obvious solution. And yet, for some reason, it doesn’t work.
Dear Olga! You know, I think the key question here—or rather, the key word that explains this degradation, this very transformation of the left into the far-left—I see in what’s called alienation. How does alienation work? It’s the result of institutionalization. When there’s a problem—say, the homeless, or Palestinians, or, broadly speaking, people who are suffering—those with leftist views, heightened empathy, and compassion create institutions. You can’t just go and personally help every homeless person or the hungry in Africa or the suffering residents of Gaza. Institutions are created, including state and intergovernmental ones—large, serious institutions, refugee rights bureaus, various structures. Institutions arise under the UN, and alienation occurs. What is alienation? It’s when an institution begins to develop its own interests. A bureaucratic structure with its own interests is formed, and these interests start to directly contradict the interests of the people the institution was created to help. For example, a refugee rights bureau or a human rights organization for Palestinians becomes interested in having more refugees. They become interested in the Palestinians’ situation worsening—because that justifies the institution’s existence. That’s how it works. That’s exactly how it works—and how this alienation emerges, how the left becomes the far-left. This is one of the mechanisms by which the leftist movement, driven initially by empathy and compassion, turns into a far-left movement aimed at increasing suffering—because that sustains the institutions. That’s how it works. At the very least, this is one of the mechanisms that can explain the transformation of the left into the far-left.
On the Mirror Response Link to heading
Viktor Katz Mr. Yakovenko, what about not responding in kind? I would really like to hear your answer. My words are confirmed—an American freak, a global catastrophe, a copy of a plush thief and killer.
Mr. Viktor Katz, could you perhaps write out your question or objection a bit more clearly? I didn’t understand anything. I’m willing not to respond in kind. I’d also like to give you an answer, but I don’t understand a single word of what you wrote—even though you’re not using any special terminology. Which of your words are being confirmed? I still don’t get it.
On the Term “People of Iran” and “Peoples of Iran” Link to heading
Bey! Igor Ivanovich, your reply to my question was rather dismissive. That’s not in your usual style as a philosopher and deep analyst. First, your use of the term “people of Iran” echoes the infamous phrase “the people of Russia.” But there are peoples of Iran and peoples of Russia. These peoples are oppressed by the colonizers of the largest nation—in these countries, that means the great nations, Persians and Russians. Second, you said that nearly the entire top of Iran’s theocracy consists of Azerbaijanis. I know very well what kind of Azerbaijanis those are. You must be aware that in multi-ethnic countries, members of smaller ethnic groups often rise to the top—but their own ethnic group suffers the most from them. Remember the history of the USSR and Russia. Who ruled the country? Stalin with Beria, in the name of the greatness of the Russian people. A nightmare for everyone. Lenin—the most rabid Great Russian chauvinist—was one of these non-Russians. This happened in the USSR, the Russian Federation, Iran, and China. So Stalin, Khomeini, and others are above all unprincipled careerist ‘mankurts.’ They have no national affiliation. They are just careerists—without honor, conscience, or empathy. By the way, religious factors have often been the cause of wars in history. I’m an agnostic, even an atheist, but I hold the view that if we can’t do without God, then every ethnicity should…
And here follows a very curious reflection. Every ethnicity should return to its native gods: Europeans to theirs—Zeus, Jupiter; for Bulgaria, Perun. Perun. Persians to their own Avestan gods. Turks to theirs. Hungarians and AI and so on. And the God of Abraham—Yahweh, aka Allah—should be worshipped only by Abraham’s descendants: Jews, Arabs, and various related sects. But what happened is that many non-Semitic peoples—fools, really—adopted a religion completely alien to them and began worshipping a foreign God. I mean that non-Semitic peoples should not worship Yahweh or Allah, but should return to their own gods, civilizations, and traditions. Any objections?
Well, let’s put it this way. First of all, you’re quite boldly dictating to entire peoples what they should believe and how they should live. Why stop halfway? Why only return to Jupiter? Why only to Perun? Why—well, I assume you’d say Germans need to return to the Germanic gods, Scandinavians to Odin. And so on and so on. Why stop halfway? Let’s go all the way back—to the roots. To magic. To sacrifices, including human ones. No reason to stop halfway. Deeper. Farther. That’s quite amusing. Honestly, I’m struggling to imagine what exactly is going on in your head, dear colleague. This all came out of nowhere. Did you even ask the people of these countries and nations whether they want to return to animism, magic, and maybe, well, Perun? On what grounds are you dictating what people should believe in? That’s kind of strange.
Now, as for the first part: instead of analyzing the situation in Iran, you somehow bring in the ethnic history of the Soviet Union. And by the way, I don’t know where you got the idea that China is ruled by a minority. Is there some information that Xi Jinping is a Muslim? What? Where did you hear that he belongs to an oppressed minority? I have no such information.
Now to the main point—you’re once again replacing an analysis of Iran with Soviet history. The ethnic situation in today’s Iran is completely different. Azerbaijanis make up more than a third of the population. It’s hard to even call them a minority. Do you know of any cases where Persians terrorize Azerbaijanis in Iran? Do you? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t. But you provide no facts. You just substitute one thesis for another. You talk about the USSR instead of Iran. But those are different countries. Just look at the map—they are different countries.
I know nothing about Persians oppressing Azerbaijanis in Iran. Nothing. If you do—present the facts. Better yet, let’s wait for an expert on Iran.
But once again, the future of Iran should be decided by the people who live there. Forcibly demanding that they return, change religions, and start believing in whatever you personally prefer—that’s a very strange worldview. But hey, we’re all different. We all have our quirks. We’ve now met the quirks of one of our subscribers. Nice to meet you.
On Street-Talks Link to heading
So, Anastasia, ask them to film the street-talks horizontally as well.
Well, it probably means horizontally, not vertically. We’re just getting started with the street-talks. Let’s begin, let’s try to gain some experience. And if it takes off and there are requests, we’ll work on it.
Now, Sara The subtitles in the street-talk are way too small. Something needs to be done about that.
Yes, I agree. I saw it myself and realized it either needs voice-over or larger text. First attempt.
Larisa Smirnova The subtitles, unfortunately, are completely unreadable. Way too small.
Thank you. Yes, I agree.
On the Vagueness of Answers to Questions Link to heading
Alex. Igor Yakovenko plays with the concept of responsibility, which makes his answers even more vague than before. Responsibility is not about the degree of guilt or the severity of punishment. Responsibility is a set of rights and freedoms, the abuse of which can lead to guilt and the application of punishment. Collective responsibility is everything that Russians and the Russian state, as their legal representative, can do in case of abusing this responsibility—as we are witnessing. There must be collective guilt and collective punishment. That’s where the term can already be applied. YAKOVENKO: Passive collective punishment is sanctions, internal repressions, and bombs falling from the sky. Active collective punishment is reparations to the injured party. But everything is muddled, because in fact, it’s not about punishment—it’s about responsibility. And by the way, active collective punishment—as in the case of guilt—should be considered a consequence of responsibility. So then, you’re saying reparations are passive—but reparations aren’t imposed voluntarily.
You see, active responsibility is people acknowledging guilt—actually feeling what they have done. Active responsibility is precisely what happened with the Germans, who recognized their guilt, started apologizing, and voluntarily took on responsibility. That’s active responsibility. And reparations are passive responsibility. So actually, you’ve mixed everything up—guilt with responsibility, active with passive. You’ve tangled things so thoroughly that it’s impossible to move forward from here.
Sheitelman Link to heading
So. Tamara Fetisova Sheitelman very wittily calls the Russian Federation “the federation after the ambassador.” According to him, this shows a high level of engagement with the audience, doesn’t it? It’s not that I particularly like either the first or the second, but still, I’d expect something more respectable from a speaker recommended by you, dear Alexandrovich. And yes—he doesn’t know how to insult properly, it’s too childish. Or rather, it comes off as not childish at all. Let him listen to Nevzorov—maybe he’ll learn something. And by the way, collective guilt can be legal—conscious guilt is when Russians acknowledge their fault. But in reality, we’re talking about responsibility.
Acknowledging responsibility—that is indeed conscious, and I agree with you on that. But as for Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman—well, he doesn’t need to learn from Nevzorov. You see, just in our most recent joint stream, I said: Mikhail Pavlovich—I’ve never heard him resort to name-calling and the like. He truly is witty, he’s light-hearted. But he absolutely should not try to learn from Nevzorov. Categorically not. And he won’t.
And the difference between him and Nevzorov is that Sheitelman is wise. You see, he’s wise. His wisdom manifests in his naivety. I said this yesterday and I’ll say it again: naivety is not always—but sometimes—it’s a sign of wisdom. I’ve never read anything more naive than Kant’s writings. The categorical imperative. I can easily imagine how professional skeptics and cynics like Nevzorov giggled while reading Kant—when he wrote about the categorical imperative, about the moral law within us. Some kind of imperative. And when they read his work on eternal peace, they must have laughed endlessly. “Professor, you’ve come up with something absurd—they’ll mock you for it.” And these worldly-wise cynics and skeptics like Nevzorov—they laughed at Kant, saying, “Eternal peace? People have fought, are fighting, and will continue to fight.”
And then suddenly—it happened. The European Union happened. A united Europe, where people haven’t fought for 70 years now. They agreed—and they don’t fight. So Kant turned out to be right. Because he was a sage—a naive sage. That’s the difference. And so all those know-it-alls, all those who “get it”—Nevzorov is not someone Sheitelman needs to learn from. That’s my rhetoric—my little ode to naivety.
About General Lebed Link to heading
So, about General Lebed. Tatiana—Tatiana is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are very grateful. Did you know that General Lebed was planning to build an airport for direct flights from Krasnoyarsk through Alaska to the States? And after that, he was gone?
No, I didn’t know that. No, but let’s just say—the reason for Lebed’s murder is fairly obvious. Lebed was too large a figure to be tolerated.
About Pastukhov Link to heading
So, Almaza Sadykova For once, I got curious—why did Pastukhov decide to wake up Herzen? And then this. And here’s a quote. I take it it’s from Pastukhov: “In a certain sense, the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure reminds me of Ukraine’s attack on Nord Stream.” Hold on—what did it remind him of? Whose attack, on what? That inflated, bought-and-paid-for newspaper nonsense, the silly, completely unproven version about Ukrainian divers on a yacht—Pastukhov has no doubt about it and uses it as the basis for his deep insights. Couldn’t imagine a better guru for the Russian opposition. A reincarnation of Sathya Sai Baba, no less.
Well, I don’t see any need to comment here. I agree with everything that’s been said.
Two Remarks on Zionism Fits and Iran Link to heading
So, two remarks from Nail Nelson. Igor Sanych, there isn’t a single document in Iran that talks about destroying Israel. Don’t spread fake news. Seems like you’re having a Zionism episode.
Dear Nail! For you, “Zionism” is an insult. But for me—well, not quite a compliment, but something close to it. You see, Zionism is the theory and practice of Israel regaining its historical homeland. Period. It’s the aspiration of Jews to live in Israel. And I’m not Jewish, but I support that. So I can say 100%—I publicly declare to you, dear Nail: I am a Zionist. Again, slowly: I am a Zionist. So for me, that’s not an insult—it’s a mark of normalcy. I believe that Jews have the right to live in Israel. Unlike the leaders of Iran. I believe Jews have the right to live in Israel. Period. So, you and I clearly diverge on this point.
Now, about what you said. According to Iran’s constitution, the Supreme Leader determines the country’s general policy and controls all branches of power. So Iran follows what the Supreme Leader says—currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Let’s look at what he says. I remember this well—when I was thinking about what Iran really is. In 2014, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote: “From this barbaric, wolf-like murderous regime of Israel—no crime is beneath them. There is no salvation except in its destruction.” Period. This is a call for Israel’s destruction, coming from Iran’s Supreme Leader—whose word is law, who commands the army, the IRGC, and all of Iran’s state structures. The very next day, Khamenei published “Nine Key Questions About the Elimination of Israel.” Later, he stated, “God willing, in 25 years there will be no Zionist regime.” The Zionist regime is Israel. Then, in Tehran’s Palestine Square, a countdown clock was installed—to the destruction of Israel. These clocks later appeared elsewhere.
I can list many more of Khamenei’s statements calling for Israel’s destruction. Again, Iran has a personalist regime, and the Supreme Leader’s will is law. So even though Iran’s constitution doesn’t mention destroying Israel as an official goal, the Supreme Leader—per the constitution—defines state policy. And he has publicly, repeatedly, and with specific timeframes, called for Israel’s elimination.
Another remark from Nail Nelson: With all due respect, but it’s Satan—I take it you mean Netanyahu—who’s leading twice as many wars as you. An enemy, a fascist. If the UN treats the leaders of two regimes very differently, I think that’s the height of hypocrisy.
You know, Nail, I’ll start with the second point. I am absolutely convinced that equating Putin—who’s waging an imperialist war to destroy Ukraine—with Netanyahu, despite all my criticism of him, is absurd. Calling him Satan—you’re effectively seeing the world through the eyes of Ayatollah Khomeini. Because that’s exactly what he called Israel: the “little Satan.” So based on your rhetoric, it really seems like you view the world as Iran’s leaders do—even in tone.
Putting Putin and Netanyahu on the same level is a strange thing to do. That’s why in one case the court is right, in another—it’s not. That happens. Sometimes I agree with one statement from the same person and disagree with another. That’s not hypocrisy—it’s nuance.
Now, to the main point. From the very first moment of its existence, Israel was attacked. As soon as Israel’s existence was declared, the Arab League launched a war to destroy it. For over 70 years, Israel has been defending itself—it has never attacked another country to destroy or seize its territory, even though it had the military capacity to do so. That was never its goal. It has always been attacked.
And the war Israel is fighting now is a response to attacks carried out by Iran’s proxy forces—particularly the October 7 attack, which was carried out by Hamas and essentially orchestrated by Iran. So for anyone who sees the situation clearly, it’s pretty obvious.
But you, Nail Nelson, are seeing things through Ayatollah Khamenei’s eyes. Change your lens, and a lot will become clear.
About Khamenei and Putin Link to heading
Question from Igor regarding the elimination of Khamenei I disagree with you. You compare him to Putin. Would the war end without Putin? There is no ideological support from society or the authorities there. Israel is acting rationally. If you remove morality from the equation, by eliminating IRGC military personnel and nuclear scientists, it shows the reality — what the ayatollahs’ regime has led Iran to. And if Khomeini is eliminated, the first to rejoice will be the opposition, but their numbers won’t grow. Secondly, the fervent Islamists will become even more radical. Third, the believers — the majority will lean toward radicalism, and in a month Iranians will realize that the ayatollahs are clowns, but in the event of the ayatollah’s death, they will become martyrs. In short, Israel’s current actions are very rational. They need to be careful not to accidentally end up at a bar.
Well, dear Igor, I disagree with you. I still believe that the tactic of blinding and beheading is incomplete without eliminating the head, you understand? Because everyone else is just an executor of the will, you understand? And the source of the will is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That’s all. And, so to speak, all the further reasoning is based on some kind of belief. Based on what? Really?
On Iran’s Hatred of Israel Link to heading
Two comments from Max. One: I have more down-to-earth explanations for the Iranian leaders’ hatred of Israel. A revolution has a beginning, but no end. These guys came to power in the late 1970s, right after the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The war in Lebanon was ahead — 1982. It would be a sin not to exploit anti-Israeli sentiment. I need an enemy. I chose you. Now my best friend is HAMAS. A mentally ill person can’t change phobias like gloves. Declared himself a vice-king. All the speculation on the Palestinian issue is for internal consumption. Claims to leadership in the Islamic world are for external purposes. Turkey is unhinged for the same reason. By the way, Israel is the only modern democratic state in the Middle East and could infect neighboring countries with dangerous ideas, which is a threat to the regime, and so on. Iran and so on. Ideology is important, but it’s a wrapper for simpler, pragmatic reasons, in my opinion. And secondly, I don’t agree that the planet can have either Israeli citizens or Khamenei. If that were the case, then Israel would be striking directly at Khamenei. Who cares what Trump thinks about it. He didn’t do it. I don’t believe that evil is personified. Khamenei — the evil is concentrated in the IRGC. Right now Khamenei is a cruel but understandable and fairly rational enemy. He does not act impulsively. His removal creates uncertainty. And who will take Khamenei’s place — that’s the question. If it’s his son, which is likely, that would strengthen the IRGC. His elimination will not lead to regime change, but rather to consolidation, to strengthening. Better a helpless Khomeini in a bunker against the backdrop of burning oil depots than a sacred martyr. Better the gradual weakening of Iran than actions with unpredictable consequences.
Well, you know, there are some things I can immediately disagree with. Dear Max, first of all, this idea that evil is concentrated in the IRGC. In fact, the history of the issue is such that the current supreme leader seriously changed the situation. It was precisely Khamenei who, after becoming the head of the IRGC, essentially created the IRGC as it exists today. He basically turned the IRGC from a kind of volunteer association of regime supporters into a powerful state institution — a state within a state with a giant budget. So actually, Khamenei is not just the head of the IRGC — he is its creator in its current form. And therefore, when you say the evil is concentrated in the IRGC, well, that means it is concentrated in Khamenei. The others are simply executors of his will.
As for the idea that Khamenei should not be eliminated because the consequences would be worse — well, that’s roughly the same as, you know, dear Max, when some of our liberals say, “Don’t touch Putin, because what comes after might be worse.” Well, excuse me, that’s a very shaky hypothesis. I believe that right now the tactic of beheading and blinding is incomplete without eliminating Khamenei. And what comes next? Again, better the current evil than some unclear chaos that might follow. I believe eliminating the main current source of evil is a rational step.
It’s not that Israel doesn’t do it — it’s primarily because Trump is hanging over Israel. So to say that Israel is acting rationally — no, it’s acting this way because Trump forbids it. And crossing Trump would be more trouble than it’s worth. That’s how I see the situation.
Comment from Alexander Link to heading
Alexander is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are very grateful. Thank you for the reply — I didn’t quote you exactly. Without timestamps it’s hard to find the right spot. Well, actually, there were timestamps. But I got the meaning across — my jaw definitely dropped in surprise. But given that our views on Bibi align, then I didn’t quite understand the jaw-dropping part. A small comment. A question for today’s stream: to understand whether the elimination of Khomeini would lead to regime change, I recommend an interview with the former head of the Iran division of Israeli military intelligence on Po News.ru. Now the question — is it fair to compare Trump to the Odessa street racer? That guy had two words: “won’t tolerate” — and he ruined everything. Trump only has one: “deal.”
Well, you see, you wrote everything yourself. Dear Alexander, thank you for the comment.
Without Putin — No Trump? Link to heading
Simon Ryaboy I was wrong about Putin’s election — that’s for sure. I wasn’t interested in Russia from 1995 to 2014, until the war started. I was born in Chelyabinsk, lived there until I was 35, was in Afghanistan not by choice. I fought the Soviet regime however I could, for which I was repeatedly beaten — even physically. I talk to ordinary people here in America and see their attitude toward Putin. Piontkovsky follows what’s happening in America, but I’m not sure he talks to workers, police officers, and so on. I talk to them, which is why I say — if there were no Putin, there would be no Trump as president. Is that right?
Well, dear colleague, you know, the reference to you talking to workers and police officers, and therefore concluding that if there were no Putin, there would be no Trump — well, I don’t even know what to say here. Are you saying the workers and police officers told you they’re in favor? You know, I still trust serious analysts and public opinion polls, which firmly show that voting in the United States happens exclusively based on domestic issues. The main motivation is domestic problems. And, so to speak, the existence of Putin for the overwhelming majority of Americans is something from the realm of optional opinions, background knowledge, and so on. So Putin’s influence on the U.S. presidential election is minimal. So let’s not promote this cult of Putin — that Trump was elected because of Putin. It just doesn’t hold up. There’s no causal link to be found here.
On Russia’s Participation in the G-8 Link to heading
Dr. Efrem, When in 2014 the country’s membership in the G-8 was suspended, the Prime Minister of Canada was Stephen Harper from the ruling Conservative Party. Trudeau’s Liberal Party won the general elections in 2015. In November, he himself became Prime Minister. In early 2017, Russia rejected G-8 membership. Initially, this was announced by Peskov.
Here, dear colleague, you’ve somewhat shifted the emphasis in favor of Russia, because the story actually unfolded like this. I remember it well, because there were indeed some key moments starting in January 2014, when Russia had not yet committed its major crimes. There was no occupation of Crimea, no war in Donbas. In January 2014, Russia took over the presidency of the G8, and in June 2014 a G8 leaders summit was planned in Sochi. Preparations were underway. I remember the hype around it — Russia, at the head of the planet, was going to host the G8 summit.
But in March, in response to the annexation of Crimea, the G8 countries — or rather, the seven countries of the G8 — announced the suspension of their work in the G8 format and their transition to the G7 format without Russia. So, on June 4, 2014, the G7 summit opened in Brussels. Russia was not there. Period.
And so, when Russia later said it withdrew from the G8 — well, you know, that’s sour grapes. What Peskov said in 2017 is sour grapes. Russia was kicked out of the G8 with a boot. The others just gathered without Russia. And that happened in 2014. And when in 2017 Russia said, “We didn’t want to be there anyway” — that’s just sour grapes.
On Shtok’s Play and Eve Link to heading
Elena Kaplan I deeply apologize, but in the play, only the Creation of the World is shown — that Eve was not the Lord’s first experiment. The first was called Lilith and turned out to be a failure. The woman was dismissed, and for the second attempt they decided not to take risks. And so Eve was taken from Adam’s rib.
Really? Well, all right, yes. But again — that’s the play. So, what of it?
On Cosmic Intelligence Link to heading
Two questions from Yulia. Have you noticed that lately people have stopped asking questions about universal cosmic intelligence? And if they do, they apologize — like to Kadyrov. If out of 20 questions, one is in that vein, what’s wrong with that? It’s a kind of general education for us. The most important thing is not to impose anything on anyone. But in a 1-to-20 ratio, such questions should be present. I’m not that interested in Volkov or VENEDIKTOV either, but we should know about them.
Dear Yulia, I’m just saying that — you see, there’s a certain logic to how topics develop or spin off, you understand? And I absolutely don’t want to turn our channel into a channel about cosmic intelligence. I just don’t want that. There are channels that deal with that — they exist. You see, sometimes I have to stop the discussion, because first of all, we get relentless repetition. You say two plus two is four, and someone says no, two plus two is five. You say again it’s four, and they go, no — two plus two is five.
I rely not only on common sense, but also on experience — the experience of the excellent “Daily Journal” that I had the honor of working with. And there, by the iron will of Alexander Ryklin, Alexander Golts, and Olga Peshkova, there was a strict principle: the iron rule of argument. You write something, someone objects, and you have the right to respond — once. That’s it. If I’m not mistaken, the whole discussion follows the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model — but if there’s no synthesis, then sorry, it turns into an endless argument. That’s it. So that’s how it is.
On Sarcasm and Irony Link to heading
Another question from Olga — or rather, from Yulia, sorry — more of a suggestion than a question. It’s about the reaction to the parade in America. Our program is serious and political, so we can’t have laughter off-camera. But what if, during irony, sarcasm, or humor, a little bubble appeared in the top right corner saying in big letters, “He’s joking,” just so no one mistakes you for a Putinist?
Well, listen, I’ve already been labeled so many things. Apparently, I’m on the payroll of the head of the Ukrainian president’s office, Yermak. The main thing is that he knows about it, you see? Because he hasn’t been paying. And I’m supposedly also on the CIA payroll — and the KGB’s. I don’t even know whose payroll I’m not on. So, if they label me a Putinist — well, what can you do?
As for the bubble — here’s the thing. I’m not a performer in the comedy genre. So when I joke, it’s spontaneous. I don’t have a written script where I go, “Now I’m going to make a joke.” It just happens on the fly. And how, exactly, am I supposed to create that bubble? I’m not technically skilled in that area.
So yes, the idea — and honestly, I’m not really enthusiastic about it. It immediately makes everything heavy-handed. I don’t know what to do, but I think if people don’t have a sense of humor, then at the very least they should have the sense to realize that they don’t have a sense of humor — and that this might need to be explained to them.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this brings our conversation today to an end. It seems I’ve done everything I could. I believe I’ve answered all the questions and read all the comments. Thank you for that.
Dear friends, we’re wrapping up now. I don’t know if I’ll have the energy — I have quite a few appearances today, so if I have the strength, there will be Mediafrenia, and if not — then tomorrow.
Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian captives!
See you soon! All the best!
Source: https://youtu.be/KuICuaEbSKc