Why did Putin’s fixer Dmitriev come to the US? Where did the myth of the US being “robbed” come from? How to silence America without any jammers.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 4th, and it’s 7:41 AM in Kyiv. We continue our morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Kirill Dmitriev’s Visit to Washington Link to heading
Well, first of all, some details have emerged about the visit of Putin’s fixer Kirill Dmitriev to Washington, where he met with a number of representatives of the U.S. administration. Strictly speaking, the list of these representatives remains largely unknown. At least, the American side hasn’t disclosed anything. But according to unofficial sources, he met with Steve Witkoff and some other representatives of the United States government. Naturally, Dmitriev himself spoke about his visit in an upbeat tone, saying everything went great, that the Trump administration was very positively inclined toward resolving issues, that they were being respectful, understood Russia’s position, were finding compromises, and that the tone and spirit of the talks were constructive and positive.
Talks reportedly covered direct communication, resumption of dialogue on resource extraction, rare earth elements, development of Arctic riches, and so on. The fact that Trump—amid the trade war he had declared—paid attention, or at least his closest trusted advisers paid attention to this visit, emphasizes that this visit was indeed important to the Americans and was taken seriously. They even temporarily lifted sanctions on Dmitriev, who had been labeled an international criminal, in order to issue him a visa. In return, Putin granted Goldman Sachs International permission to sell its Russian subsidiary, which is also quite a significant gesture.
So naturally, the question arises—what is going on here? How does this all fit into the broader idea of ending the war? What comes first—a cooperation agreement, mutual restoration of beneficial ties between the U.S. and Russia, or a ceasefire? That’s a question we may get an answer to in the very near future.
It’s clear that Putin is stalling—delaying the negotiations, delaying not just the idea of a truce but even direct talks with Trump. Even the previously announced phone call, which was supposed to happen this week—well, today’s Friday, we’ll see if it happens—remains in question. There seem to be serious obstacles even to just picking up the phone and making the call. There is no preliminary agreement on what the call would be about. So clearly, the peace talks and truce preparation are being delayed so critically that this ceasefire may not happen at all.
Is it even possible to implement the agreements discussed with Dmitriev and Witkoff without peace? That’s one of the biggest questions. The fact that Trump is angry or frustrated doesn’t seem to be affecting the normal process. Once again, I want to emphasize: Moscow is not showing any signs of panic. The phone call between Trump and Putin hasn’t happened yet. So in some form, this communication between Dmitriev and Witkoff did occur. And by the way, I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the full list of negotiators who met with Dmitriev, because his visit lasted two days, and it’s unlikely he spent both days only talking to Witkoff. So it’s clear there were other negotiators involved.
It’s obvious that the American side is showing interest in this visit. And it’s more or less clear that this environment of money, deals, joint economic projects, investments, and so on, is very familiar territory for Trump and his advisers. This is a comfortable setting in which they feel confident.
Declarative Absence of Russia from the Tariff War List Link to heading
And one more detail. We’re now moving on to the main topic of our conversation today—namely, the global trade war that Trump declared yesterday. In this war, Russia is not participating. That is, Trump excluded Russia from this global trade or tariff war. To be fair, it should be said that Russia was excluded from this trade war declaratively. In other words, it was not included in the list of, if I’m not mistaken, 186 countries against which this war was declared. Still, of course, a 10% tariff on Russian goods is in place.
What’s more, the explanation for Russia’s absence from the list of countries targeted by Trump’s war? He explained it by saying that the trade turnover between Russia and the United States is extremely small. But that’s complete nonsense, because there are countries on that list whose trade volume with the United States is much smaller than Russia’s. Even countries like Kazakhstan, for example—America’s trade with Russia is much higher than with Kazakhstan. Yet in relation to Kazakhstan, the United States—Trump, to be precise—imposed very serious tariffs. So that argument doesn’t hold up.
The most important question, to which we will probably get an answer very soon, is this: a deadline has been set—not by Trump, but rather by the general sentiment of global public opinion—that by April 20th, there should be a ceasefire. We’ll see. There’s not much time left.
Global Trade War Link to heading
And now the main topic of today’s conversation is that very world war declared by Trump—so far, a trade one. It’s essentially a blitzkrieg, I would say: instead of tanks, there are tariffs. And here, of course, the main question is… well, actually, there are several key questions. One of them concerns this mysterious chart. By the way, I put this chart on the cover of our stream. It’s the one Trump used to justify that the U.S. has been robbed, humiliated, violated, mocked, and mistreated by the whole world for half a century.
The most important part is the left column. It lists countries, followed by a left-hand column of numbers, which supposedly show the tariffs imposed by various countries on American goods. And these allegedly insane tariffs imposed on U.S. goods are what Trump uses to justify imposing half that rate—50% of those tariffs—on foreign imports. For example, the chart claims the European Union imposes 39% tariffs on U.S. goods. In response, the U.S. would impose a 20% tariff on EU goods. Similar math applies to other countries: Vietnam is listed at 90%, Thailand at 72%, and so on.
In short, the whole world appears, according to Trump, to be a pack of predatory countries attacking the poor, offended, humiliated, and violated United States—looting and bullying it for 50 years, leaving it ruined and abused. Initially, when this chart appeared, people tried to understand what it really meant, because it’s obvious that no such actual tariffs exist anywhere. For example, I’m no professional economist, but all this data is publicly accessible now—it’s not secret. Take that insane 39% allegedly imposed by the EU—it’s utter nonsense. According to various sources, the real average tariff is closer to 3%. The World Bank says 5%. The EU itself says 1%. So the average is about 3%. Vietnam at 90%? That’s also complete nonsense. There’s nothing remotely close to that.
So what is this chart really about? It’s not about tariffs. These numbers reflect trade balance ratios. They represent the percentage by which U.S. exports to these countries are lower than imports from them—in other words, the trade deficit that irritates Trump so much. The problem is, this only counts goods: vegetables, fruits, clothing, cars, metals, etc. It does not include services. And in the services sector, the United States has a massive surplus. Take cinema—American films are purchased all over the world, while, say, Vietnamese or Thai cinema is hardly sold in the U.S. (India might be an exception here). But it’s clear that in cinema, IT, and digital services, the U.S. dominates the global market. This more than offsets the goods trade deficit. The same goes for education, finance—here, too, the U.S. holds a clear advantage.
Trump ignores this and gets upset, launching this trade war. Nothing like it has happened since the early 20th century, when a similar isolationist, protectionist policy led to a terrible depression and, to a large extent, triggered World War II. For the U.S., the result will clearly be massive price hikes, reduced consumption, falling investment, and decreased exports. Economists are already predicting this. Global markets have already reacted to Trump’s decision with a crash—the NASDAQ fell 6%, the Dow Jones lost 4%, and so on.
Now, despite the U.S. Economy Secretary’s call for all countries to “sit still and not respond,” on the grounds that retaliation might spark a world war—it’s a strange idea, really: Trump starts a global war, but everyone else is supposed to just take it—countries are naturally going to respond. No one wants to escalate, but many are hoping Trump will walk it all back. Still, the EU has already announced it will take retaliatory measures. Germany also supports such measures. The toughest response came from Emmanuel Macron, who yesterday called on all EU countries to suspend investment in the U.S. until America’s stance on the new tariffs is clarified.
So, essentially, there are two possibilities: either Trump (more likely, his advisers and diplomats) begins negotiating with each country, and this whole tariff blitzkrieg ends with Trump rolling back his “tank battalions,” or we witness a real closing off of America—“the closing of America,” as some bloggers are already joking.
We’ll see. In any case, the main issue of interest to us remains the establishment of peace in Ukraine. But with this open trade war Trump has declared against all of humanity, the chances of peace somewhat diminish—because in this situation, Trump simply won’t have the bandwidth for intense action on another front. That is, launching another serious war against Russia, separately, becomes less likely.
Disabling Radio Free Europe in Russia Link to heading
And one more topic I’d like to discuss with you is that yesterday, the U.S. Agency for Global Media shut down the broadcast of Radio Free Europe in Russia. That is, people in Russia who tune into Radio Free Europe now see a red screen with a message saying, “We regret to inform you that the U.S. Agency for Global Media has decided to cease broadcasting Current Time.”
And that’s it, really. No need for any jamming devices, no bans, no labeling as foreign agents or undesirable organizations. All it takes is to elect someone ideologically close to Putin—Donald Ivanovich Trump—as President of the United States. That’s all. No need for a Cold War, no need for any serious action. It turns out the solution, as always, is simple and right on the surface.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I’d like to mention that tonight we’ll have our now traditional Friday conversation with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky at 8:00 PM. Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. Now, let me get to your questions.
First of all, I want to say that there were a lot of comments about how yesterday I announced that it was March 3rd. Yes, that was quite funny. Many people enjoyed it and solemnly informed me that it was actually April 3rd yesterday. I’m very grateful to all of you for bringing me back—so to speak—from my time-travel adventure to the present. That’s wonderful. And to those who believed me and thought that yesterday was March 3rd, I apologize.
Is Netanyahu’s Visit to Hungary a Criminal and Mistaken Act? Link to heading
So, a question from Alex Anderson:
Don’t you think that Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary is a political, if not historical, mistake? Doesn’t it highlight a disregard for the International Criminal Court? Yes, the decision on Israel itself is criminal and mistaken. But what was this gesture all about?
Honestly, I don’t think this was some kind of criminal or mistaken decision. I believe Netanyahu is addressing his own domestic political issues. As you probably already know, I’m by no means a supporter of Mr. Netanyahu—he’s quite distant from me in terms of views. But I don’t see any horror in this. Yes, I consider the International Criminal Court’s decision regarding the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister to be mistaken—and probably criminal. I’m willing to agree with that interpretation. But I don’t think this act of demonstratively ignoring the decision is all that terrible. It’s not the first, and it won’t be the last. What can you do?
So, dear Alex, I don’t really assess it in such dramatic terms. He went—so what? I’m not particularly fond of this alliance, this gathering of two Trumpists—Netanyahu and Orbán. Yes, both are supporters of Donald Trump. And so what? I see it as a pretty mundane story. That’s how I view it. I don’t see anything nightmarish in it.
In the USSR We Lived Happily and Didn’t Feel Like We Were in Prison Link to heading
Alexander Gaev writes:
For me, the happiest time was in the USSR. Do you think the USSR was a prison—an imperial prison? Was Lenin happiness for the children who grew up in it?
Well, dear Alexander, I don’t see a contradiction here. Yes, one doesn’t exclude the other. Yes, of course, it was an imperial prison. Yes, it was a space of unfreedom. But within that space of unfreedom, we lived. We experienced… well, listen, first of all, those who now recall the USSR are recalling their youth. And naturally, youth is always about hormones, the joy of physical strength, certain pleasures, a sense of happiness, love, and other delights. So I don’t see a contradiction between that and the fact that it really was a totalitarian, unfree country—first and foremost.
And what you’re talking about as a happy time is also a matter of comparison. We had nothing to compare it to, you see? So to a certain extent, this environment of unfreedom—we simply didn’t know it was possible to live differently. We had nothing to compare it to. That Iron Curtain and the isolation we lived in didn’t allow us to compare, didn’t allow us to feel unhappy. So, in fact, I don’t see any contradiction between these two alternatives.
Viktor Suvorov’s Opinion on the Causes of World War II Link to heading
So, here are four questions—four whole questions from Vladimir Viktorovich. Let me answer each separately, as they’re all substantial.
First question: I always agree with you and deeply respect you. But there’s one issue I’ve long disagreed with internally, and I already asked about it a year ago. It concerns the reasons why Nazi Germany attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941. I feel that the version proposed by Viktor Suvorov is closer to the truth, especially considering the upcoming new wave around Budapest. Could you invite Viktor Suvorov—Rezun—to discuss this issue? Honestly, I dream of hearing a debate between you and him on this subject.
Dear Vladimir Viktorovich, first of all, let me highlight a few of my disagreements, as there are sometimes misconceptions on this topic. I’ve seen people try to criticize my position, and in doing so, attribute to me ideas I’ve never expressed or even thought. So let’s set the record straight.
Suvorov’s main position regarding the start of World War II—outlined in Icebreaker and other books and articles—is that the primary cause was Stalin’s dictatorial policy, with the goal, according to Suvorov, of seizing Europe and exporting world revolution. I don’t deny that Stalin had such ambitions. Though it should be noted that the main disagreement between Stalin and Trotsky was that Trotsky focused entirely on exporting revolution, while Stalin, following Lenin, believed that socialism could triumph and develop in a single country.
Still, that doesn’t necessarily mean Stalin had concrete plans for conquest. Suvorov’s position must be considered in the context in which he worked and wrote. As we know, Suvorov was a defector—a Soviet intelligence officer who switched sides to the British—and began writing these books while living in England during the Cold War. In many ways, this was a counter-narrative to Soviet historiography, which painted the USSR as a great, innocent power attacked by aggressive Nazi Germany. That version, of course, is nonsense. The Soviet idea of “a war with little blood on foreign soil” is well known—so yes, the USSR was preparing for war, that’s fairly obvious.
But Suvorov goes further—his version essentially removes any blame from Germany. If you read his works carefully, Germany is hardly at fault at all—Hitler merely acted preemptively, fearing Stalin’s attack. From my perspective, this view, which conveniently absolves Germany, is also flawed. It’s a comforting narrative for Germans: Hitler wasn’t really to blame. I see that as a serious error in Suvorov’s account.
Moreover, like many amateur historians, Suvorov often stretches the facts, is inaccurate, and sometimes outright false. As for a debate with Suvorov, let me say this: I would only consider moderating such a discussion, not debating him directly. Why? Because Suvorov—like Mark Solonin and others—is a very thorough but non-professional historian. He’s written many books, sifted through tons of material, and even his critics acknowledge that he has shed new light on some aspects of WWII. That’s true. So it would be a mistake for me to engage in a debate with him—he simply knows the material far better than I do.
Now, about organizing such a debate on our channel. The challenge is: who could be a worthy opponent? I’m thinking about this as we speak. Many of Suvorov’s opponents are Western historians who don’t speak Russian. Others are Russian historians who still cling to the old Soviet narrative and blame only Germany. I wouldn’t want a debate between two flawed viewpoints—Suvorov vs. a Soviet-style historian. That would just play into Suvorov’s hands.
So the real question is: who among Russian historians could serve as a meaningful opponent? I don’t know at the moment. That requires research. And to be honest, while I agree that your argument is timely—yes, we’re close to a crucial moment—I’m not sure I can quickly find the right person. And it’s not even clear if Suvorov would agree to such a debate. We’ll see. It’s an interesting proposal.
Do the Dark Forces Understand What They’ve Done? Link to heading
So, the second question:
Do you think all these obscurantists who unleashed a full-scale bloodbath in the heart of Europe understand what they’ve done? Do they speak honestly in private—with family, in the sauna, at the kitchen table? What do these people even think about when they’re alone with themselves?
Well, this is something we’ve discussed more than once. I think most of these people are what you’d call individuals whose masks have fused with their faces. They’re people who’ve become very skilled at negotiating with their own conscience—if they even have one at all. Their conscience is elastic. So I believe they’re at peace with themselves. I don’t think they’re struggling with any inner conflict.
On the Term Technofascism Link to heading
Third question:
Garri Kimovich, writes Vladimir Viktorovich, recently introduced a new term—Technofascism. Do you agree with this definition, and how relevant is it?
Well, to be fair, this term wasn’t coined by Garri Kimovich, whom I deeply respect. The term appeared, I believe, back in 2011, in a book by the historian Janis Mimura. Her book was titled Planning the Past. And in that book, she introduced the term Technofascism. She describes it as authoritarianism run by technocrats—where technology becomes the driving force and everything in governance and society is technologized. It’s a kind of Matrix-like anti-utopia. So, Garri Kimovich isn’t the author of the term in this case.
I do agree with the concept; it resonates with me. Janis Mimura essentially foresaw the rise of technocratic figures like Elon Musk and others.
Is It Okay to Neuter a Cat? Link to heading
And the final question from Vladimir Viktorovich:
You often speak about our furry friends and treating them with dignity. Recently, I heard from a close acquaintance that she neutered her beloved pet cat, supposedly for his own good. I told her she should have asked the cat first if he agreed. Personally, I’m against such barbarism. I’d love to hear your opinion.
You know… let’s be clear. First of all, our relationships with animals, with pets, are not about ownership. It’s a relationship between companions. But it always depends on the circumstances we live in. In many cases, of course, the ideal is to avoid any form of violence against the animal. Ideally, we take their rights and freedom into account and don’t restrict them.
At the same time, living as companions under one roof sometimes requires certain compromises. There are cases where, for instance, if a cat constantly wants to go outside and faces danger out there—well, what can you do? These situations are highly conditional. If the circumstances allow for giving the animal freedom of movement and natural development, then yes, we should follow that path.
But sometimes the pet’s safety or the conditions of shared living demand limitations. It’s somewhat similar to raising children—yes, their rights must be respected, but sometimes, for their own good, you have to set boundaries. That’s just a brief response—because, of course, this is a vast and deep topic.
Suggestion to the Author to Bet on War Ending Link to heading
A question from Andreas Savva:
Betting companies are offering odds on a ceasefire in Ukraine this year—currently at 47%. Just two weeks ago, the odds were 70%. Would you consider betting against it? Have you ever thought of trying your hand at betting on political events?
Dear colleague! I’ve never been into such things. But even if it ever occurred to me to try betting like that, I certainly wouldn’t wager on matters of war and peace to make money. You see, I get that it’s all just a game—but still, profiting off war, off bloodshed… Just think about what that actually means. Let me explain my position, because I think it’s important.
Let’s say I place a bet, right? And of course I’d be betting that there won’t be peace—I’d be betting against peace. And then what? That would mean I’m materially invested in the continuation of war. I’d be making money off blood being spilled. That’s just unthinkable to me. I’d be aligning myself with the interests of war. That’s insane.
Are the Rumors About a Planned Relocation of Gaza Residents Just a Media Spin? Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who goes by the name “So He Drops Dead”:
I formulated this question before today’s stream. For those living outside Israel, this may be unknown. Let me inform you: Israeli media are discussing the relocation of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. Details are unclear, but supposedly the process is underway. It’s said to be voluntary, with the number of applicants growing like a snowball. People are signing documents saying they want this of their own free will and won’t make claims in the future. There’s also vague info on where they’re being relocated. Meanwhile, Israel has begun a practical occupation of the sector. It won’t pull out—at least that’s how it feels from here inside Israel. The question to you and the experts—David Krutikhin included: Is it true that the relocation process has already begun and can’t be stopped? The idea being pushed is that those who relocate will share positive feedback with others who are hesitant, and the process will quickly gain momentum. I want to know—are these just narrative plants through the media, or is this real? I’d like to hear your opinion and that of field experts. If it’s true, what are the prospects and forecasts?
You know, dear colleague, I don’t know anything about this. Let me put it this way—I can’t claim to read all of the Israeli press, especially since I don’t know Hebrew and can’t read in Hebrew. But I do read a lot of what comes out in Russian. And I’ve seen nothing on this. The biggest question is: I don’t know where they’re supposedly being relocated to. Sure, some people from Gaza might move into Israel—that’s known. And yes, some limited relocation cases are happening. But I haven’t heard or read anything anywhere about a large-scale, organized process.
Now, Elena Belan also asks: If the relocation from Gaza is only voluntary and comes with generous incentives, how else could it be resolved without violence? Elena Belan from Rostov.
Dear Elena, the main issue isn’t just whether it’s voluntary or comes with perks. The main issue is—where? That’s the key question: where exactly would they be relocated to? Aside from the fact that many don’t want to leave, and that this would have to go over the heads of Hamas—which, of course, doesn’t want this to happen, since the leadership profits enormously from the current situation—the fundamental problem remains: where do they go? Where exactly would people be resettled?
Could Tax Cuts for the Super-Rich Be the Motive Behind Introducing Trade Tariffs? Link to heading
So, Oleg Pavlenko—Oleg Pavlenko is a sponsor of our channel, for which we’re very grateful—asks the following question:
Could the real goal behind Trump’s introduction of trade tariffs be purely mercantile—to serve the interests of a group of ultra-wealthy individuals sponsoring his campaign? Tariffs raise the cost of all imports, meaning all U.S. citizens will effectively pay several hundred billion dollars more per year into the federal budget. That money could then be used to cut taxes on high incomes, in line with Trump’s campaign promises. So, in essence, the import tariffs act as a hidden tax on the poor, since the wealthy don’t buy cheap Chinese or Vietnamese goods. The money raised through these tariffs could then be used to ease the tax burden on the rich—pure Marx.
Well, maybe—it’s possible. But there’s another side to this. Look at how much Tesla’s sales have dropped recently. That’s a concrete example. The logic you suggest might well be at play—I don’t know, maybe it is—but look at Elon Musk, who’s one of the central figures in this whole scheme. Tesla’s sales have plummeted. So maybe he benefits in one area, but he’s seriously losing out in another. I don’t know, I’m not so sure.
I think Trump is quite sincere in stating his goals. In his mind, it’s all a zero-sum game. He genuinely believes that if the United States imports more cars than it exports—say, to Europe—then America is being taken advantage of.
But look at other areas—cinema, education, finance, computers, IT, social media. Where’s the imbalance there? Name a single European social network that operates in the U.S. and makes money from ads. Just one. It’s a basic point. Now name one European film studio dominating the U.S. market. And so on.
It’s all pretty clear. These are massive sectors generating far more revenue than trade in goods. Financial services, information technology—these vastly outweigh physical goods in economic impact. So I think the issue is simply that Trump doesn’t see—or doesn’t understand—the real balance.
Time to Say It’s Not Just Trump, But the U.S., Since He’s Being Supported Link to heading
So, Andrey Marchuk writes:
As I see it, it’s time to say that this is U.S. policy, not just Trump’s policy. Just like the war isn’t Putin’s war, but Russia’s—because the population stays silent in both countries.
You know, I don’t quite agree with that. I still believe the population of the United States is a political subject—unlike the population of Russia. There are protests happening in all 50 states. And in Congress too—just recently, there was a 20–25-hour speech by a Democratic congressman. So, yes, there is resistance. It’s not as strong as one might hope, but it’s there. Unlike in Russia. So I wouldn’t go so far as to say this is the position of the U.S. as a whole—it’s still Trump’s position, not America’s.
Rumors of a Ukrainian Offensive Link to heading
Margarita asks:
There are persistent rumors about a decisive Ukrainian offensive in May. Is this realistic?
Dear Margarita, once again, these rumors seem to pass me by—I haven’t heard anything about it. Moreover, I don’t believe there will be any decisive Ukrainian offensive in May. Here, it would probably be more appropriate to refer to military experts I follow. Not a single military analyst I know of is forecasting a Ukrainian offensive in May.
As for Ukraine’s military and political leadership, I believe they are obligated to remain silent on such matters. Because even if such an offensive were being planned—which I seriously doubt—it would be madness to speak about it publicly. So overall, I think it’s quite unlikely.
Does the Author Have an Idea for Solving the Gaza Problem? Link to heading
Viktor asks in the evening:
The idea of relocating Gaza residents is a bad one. Do you have your own solution to this problem?
Dear Viktor, no, I don’t. You see, this reminds me of a well-known Soviet slogan from my past: “If you criticize—propose an alternative.” Yes, it’s a good slogan, and it resonates with my youth. But let’s be honest—that’s not always how it works. If I don’t know a good solution, that doesn’t mean I have to support a stupid one.
And the proposal to relocate the residents of Gaza is a stupid idea. It’s utopian, it’s foolish, and it only creates more problems instead of solving any. If someone suggests using a guillotine to treat a headache, and I don’t have any painkillers on hand—my lack of a solution doesn’t justify going along with the guillotine.
So yes, I really don’t know—I think this is a complex problem that, unfortunately, will remain unsolved for a long time. But just because I don’t see a solution doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It’s entirely possible that someone else does—and maybe someone will even implement it.
Final Word Link to heading
That’s all. I’m wrapping up today’s conversation. Once again, a reminder that tonight at 7:00 PM we’ll have a discussion with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. We’re concluding our talk. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Alexander Skobov and all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian captives. All the best to you. See you at 8:00 PM. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/TVjiLaReBT0