After Zelensky’s conciliatory letter to Trump, their conflict seems to be resolved. Now Trump has to engage with Putin, and Vance won’t be of any help here.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 5th. It is currently 07:41 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, the United States, and in our souls. Clearly, the main topic is Trump’s speech before the United States Congress, which has just recently concluded. His voice is still ringing in my ears, but we’ll get to that in just a couple of minutes.

Letter from Zelensky to Trump Link to heading

But first, let’s talk about what happened yesterday. Yesterday, Ukrainian President Zelensky wrote a conciliatory letter to Trump. The tone of the letter was carefully calibrated. It was not a letter of repentance, not a letter of submission, but rather an attempt at reconciliation. That is, Zelensky expressed regret over the scandal that took place in the Oval Office of the White House. He did not offer an apology but stated that he regretted the situation and that it was time to set things right. He wrote that the meeting had not gone as expected, but he remained open to negotiations to bring peace closer. No one wants peace more than the Ukrainians. He also stated that he was ready to work toward that goal.

It was a subtle yet clear gesture toward Trump, acknowledging his strong leadership in the pursuit of lasting peace. Additionally, Zelensky mentioned that he was prepared to sign an agreement with the United States on rare earth metals at any time and in any format.

In short, this was a very important and timely letter, as it arrived just in time for Trump’s speech before the United States Congress.

Trump’s Speech in Congress Link to heading

A few words about the speech itself. It has just concluded, so these are my immediate impressions. Of course, there will be time for deeper reflection, analysis, and interpretation later. But for now, just some fresh thoughts.

First, a bit of statistics, because that matters. I don’t know the exact numbers, but one thing is clear—a new record was set: Trump spoke for more than 100 minutes, over an hour and a half, which speaks to his good physical shape. But you know what statistic I felt was missing? I didn’t count how many times the audience stood up. Since the speech was just broadcast, I was more focused on listening than counting. At one point, I counted ten standing ovations before losing track. I think that’s a good sign—it shows that the members of Congress are in good physical shape. Maybe they don’t have enough time for the gym, but these partial squats with a chair are certainly beneficial, especially for older individuals, as they don’t risk knee injuries. So, well done—they stood up frequently and applauded enthusiastically, getting in some solid physical activity.

Another issue: I didn’t count how many times Trump mentioned Biden. He did mention him several times, and according to Trump, Biden is to blame for absolutely everything—even murder. He repeatedly brought up tragic cases of Americans being killed, each time blaming Biden. The perpetrators, it turned out, were always illegal immigrants. He also mentioned that a nature reserve was named after one of the murdered girls.

Speaking of theatrical moments, Trump brought several guests into the chamber—people he acknowledged and spoke to directly. For instance, there was a young boy who dreamed of serving in law enforcement but was prevented by a serious illness. Trump invited him and had the heads of security agencies present him with an official Secret Service badge. A very dramatic move. So, Trump as a miracle worker—that was a recurring theme.

He also called for the death penalty for those who kill police officers. Many aspects of his speech resonated with themes familiar to Russia. Pro-Putin viewers likely recognized quite a bit. For example, there was an awful story about a 13-year-old girl allegedly being forced to change her gender identity at school—a case that outraged Republicans. Trump stated that he had signed an executive order banning gender ideology doctrines and called for prohibiting gender transition surgeries. Interestingly, while Russia strongly condemns such things, as far as I know, there isn’t an outright ban yet—or maybe I’m mistaken. It’s worth checking. In some ways, the U.S. is now even moving ahead of Russia on this issue, albeit with some resistance.

On a more positive note, Trump introduced members of his team, including Vance and Rubio, who is responsible for various foreign policy initiatives. And when he introduced Musk, I was half-expecting another awkward moment—maybe even a Sieg Heil salute again. But no, he didn’t do it this time. So perhaps he’s finally realized that’s not a good look.

Passive Outrage from the Democrats Link to heading

The Democrats tried to express their outrage—they wore signs on their chests with words like “lie,” “f***,” and so on. But this had no effect. The most unruly Democrat, an older congressman, was even escorted out on Michael Johnson’s orders. So in the end, everything went smoothly, everything was fine, and no one interfered with the Republicans as they stood up after practically every word Trump said. So overall, it was a great success.

God Saved Trump Link to heading

Regarding foreign policy actions, Trump announced that he would reclaim the Panama Canal and stated that he had reached out to the people of Greenland, offering them to join the United States and promising them a paradise on Earth. In fact, there was a lot of talk about paradise—according to him, America is now entering a golden age. He declared that God had saved him so that he could make America great again. From there, the speech essentially turned into a vision of heaven on Earth. He promised to plant the American flag on Mars—and presumably on other planets as well. In short, everything sounded absolutely grand.

Trump on Zelensky’s Letter Link to heading

Now, regarding Ukraine—the most important part. Naturally, Trump responded very positively. He acknowledged receiving an important letter from Zelensky, summarized its contents, and stated that Ukraine was ready to act under U.S. leadership. He also expressed gratitude for the letter, which is significant—it means he welcomed it. And that’s great.

He then claimed that Russia was ready for peace talks. Where he got this information is unknown, but he was confident about it.

After that, he continued his criticism of those who, according to him, are trying to prevent peace on Earth. He once again lied about the $350 billion, repeating the false claim that Ukraine had spent all of its $100 billion while the U.S. had supposedly spent $350 billion.

One particularly characteristic moment was his attack on those opposing his stance on peace. He asked, “Do you want this to continue for another five years?” and immediately pointed at someone, saying, “Oh, I see Pocahontas.” As I understand, Pocahontas is an Indigenous princess from a cartoon, and that’s how he insulted Democratic Party representative Elizabeth Warren. Of course, she’s not against peace itself—she simply opposes Trump’s calls to make peace on Putin’s terms. This was yet another of Trump’s characteristic racist remarks.

Overall, there’s a lot to be said about Trump’s speech. It was, without a doubt, a masterclass in populism—a demonstration of blatant lies and manipulation. But that’s not our focus right now. The most important takeaway for us is that Zelensky’s letter was sent at exactly the right moment and was received positively.

Will Russia Agree? Link to heading

At this point, it’s hard to say what else Trump could have done. So, we’ll see. The situation is shifting dramatically again, but as always with Trump, everything changes by the minute. Predicting anything is impossible, and making plans is futile. Right now, we’re entering a very interesting moment—the ball is in Russia’s court.

Ukraine, which genuinely wants peace—where, I believe, there isn’t a single person who doesn’t want peace—is doing its part. The idea that Zelensky doesn’t want peace is complete nonsense. It’s obvious that all Ukrainians want it.

Now, we’ll see what happens in negotiations. This is where things get really interesting. Trump now faces a serious conversation with Putin. And in this case, neither Vance nor sycophantic journalists nor anyone else will be of any help. I still firmly believe that Putin, in principle, isn’t opposed to negotiations, but he fully understands that the war cannot end on the terms he will demand.

What comes next is clear: Trump will have a meeting with Putin. This meeting will be radically different from what happened last Friday at the White House. There will be no scandal—just a pleasant conversation and mutual understanding between two people who completely get each other. No confrontations, no drama.

However, the real issue will soon arise. Trump will likely be open to accepting Putin’s proposal, but Putin won’t settle for a simple ceasefire along the current front lines. He will undoubtedly demand what is enshrined in Russia’s Constitution—Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, a reduction of the U.S. military presence, and so on. He will categorically reject any attempt to introduce foreign troops along the line of separation.

None of that will happen, which will likely lead to a breakdown in negotiations and a continuation of the war. But the crucial point is this: Trump will have no way to blame Ukraine for the failure of the talks. This means the situation is developing in probably the best way possible given the circumstances.

Let’s be clear: Trump is a reality we have to deal with—an unpleasant one, to put it mildly. Thanks to the Trump supporters for that. May they burn in hell—if such a place existed. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. But Trump is here, and given that reality, the way things are unfolding right now might be the best possible scenario.

Even in last Friday’s events at the White House, Zelensky didn’t act the way some advised him to. For example, Kokk recently wrote on Telegram that the only way to deal with Trump is to stand at attention and respond with “Yes, Mr. President” or “No, Mr. President.” That might work in the worldview of Latynina, Kokk, and Ksenia Sobchak, but a president of a country at war cannot behave like that. I believe Zelensky acted appropriately—he didn’t grovel, didn’t apologize (because he had nothing to apologize for), and later sent a conciliatory letter, not one of submission.

Ultimately, the timing of the letter was perfect—it forced Trump to accept it positively. And now, the ball is in Putin’s court. That’s the ideal outcome.

Do I believe Putin will agree to peace on terms even remotely acceptable to Ukraine? Of course not. Ukraine is prepared to make serious concessions for the sake of ending the war, likely agreeing to freeze the front line as it stands now. Demanding that Putin withdraw from any occupied territories is unrealistic—simply not feasible. So, the proposal will likely be to agree on the current lines. But will Putin accept that? I highly doubt it.

Would I like to see a ceasefire or even just a pause in the war along the current front line? Of course. Yes, it’s unpleasant and humiliating, but it’s still better than the daily loss of life. Do I believe this will happen? Not really. But this is one of those moments where I desperately hope to be wrong. So far, though, reality keeps proving otherwise—there are no miracles.

We’ll see what happens. Despite the continued shelling and the ongoing casualties, last night and yesterday evening brought, in my view, a positive development. From here on out, little depends on Ukraine—much more hinges on Trump’s talks with Putin. I don’t have much optimism about it, but I hope reality will prove me wrong. And maybe, even if only temporarily, peace will come to Ukrainian soil.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Before moving on to your questions, I want to announce two videos, two streams that we have scheduled for today. At 11:00, we will have Ukrainian Orientalist Serhiy Danilov—a very interesting and insightful expert. I hope we can discuss many important events and global processes with him. And at 20:00, we will have Vitaliy Portnikov—no need for introductions here, everything is clear. So stay with us, stay on our channel.

Now, I will move on to answering your questions.

Request to Comment on a Charlie Hebdo Cartoon About Zelensky Link to heading

Question from Mag:
Mr. Yakovenko, could you please comment on the cartoon of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky published in Charlie Hebdo? The scene depicts Zelensky sitting meekly on a chair while Trump urinates on his head. Personally, I found this joke to be extremely below the belt. It feels like the artist drew this on Trump’s orders, presenting wishful thinking as reality. At what point is this supposed to be funny?

Dear Mag,
You know, discussing cartoons is a bit like analyzing jokes—it’s a tricky business. Charlie Hebdo operates under the principle that nothing is off-limits for satire, caricature, or humor. They mock the Quran, Jesus Christ, the Holocaust—anything and everything. This is their philosophy, rooted in the traditions of French culture and literature, from François Rabelais onward. This stance has its place.

Is it funny to you? No. To me? Probably not either. The real question is: what exactly is being satirized here? Trump’s position or Zelensky’s? That needs to be examined. I haven’t seen the cartoon myself, but I don’t think it’s anything catastrophic. We can discuss Charlie Hebdo’s approach, of course, but right now, it doesn’t seem particularly relevant.

On the Right of a Pro-Ukrainian Russian to Criticize Zelensky Link to heading

Question from Ion:
Do you think a Russian who declares support for Ukraine has the moral right to criticize Zelensky? That’s my first question.

My immediate answer: I believe that any person, regardless of whose side they are on, has the right to criticize Zelensky—or anyone else on the planet, for that matter.

As for me personally, this is just my own position—I’m not imposing it on anyone, and I don’t claim it’s the only correct view. But I have made a personal choice: I do not criticize Zelensky, Poroshenko, or other Ukrainian politicians. In general, I try not to evaluate Ukraine’s internal politics at all—except in rare cases where a situation, stance, or decision becomes so significant that ignoring it would be like ignoring an elephant in the room.

That’s my choice. There are plenty of other people who handle this task without me. But overall, I don’t believe that a Russian citizen should have any restrictions on criticism. Citizenship, nationality, or gender should not impose limitations on expressing opinions about any particular figure. I personally feel uncomfortable doing it—others don’t. Let them go ahead!

About Illarionov Link to heading

Second question from Ion:
Could it be that he has simply changed his stance now to appeal to a Ukrainian audience? Since, as I understand, Trump isn’t very popular in Ukraine right now.

Well, once again, I don’t know and I’m not going to speculate on Andrei Illarionov’s motives. It’s true that he has radically changed his rhetoric. Some say it’s due to losing funding, others suggest different reasons. Personally, I think it’s good that he has started to assess Trump more objectively.

The real question, though, is: what about the past? What about those eight years when he was wholeheartedly pushing Trump’s propaganda, misleading people, and campaigning for him? Trump hasn’t changed—that’s the point. He remains exactly who he has always been. Illarionov spent eight years advocating for Trump, bashing the Democrats, and elevating Trump to a pedestal. And now, Trump is simply revealing himself—not from an unexpected angle, but from an entirely predictable one.

So that raises some questions. But ultimately, the fact that Illarionov has now taken the right position is something to be welcomed.

About the Russian Opposition Link to heading

Viktor Emil:
At the beginning of the war, you answered my question about the state of the Russian opposition and its potential to change the situation in Russia. Three years into the war, do you still have any hope for the Russian opposition, or does it no longer exist?

No, nothing has changed.

If we’re talking about the state of the opposition inside Russia, then in a totalitarian fascist country, opposition as an independent force simply does not and cannot exist.

If we’re talking about the Russian opposition in exile, then yes, there is the Free Russia Forum, which openly supports the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian volunteer units fighting alongside Ukrainian troops. Just yesterday, we had a guest on our channel—Caesar, the callsign of the deputy commander of the Freedom of Russia Legion. We’ve also hosted leaders from other Russian units fighting for Ukraine. This, you could say, is the real opposition.

As for the rest—those who gather, march, and issue statements—that’s not an opposition, that’s just political emigration with its own worldview. None of them, including those whose efforts I personally support—like the leaders of the Free Russia Forum—have any real chance of changing the situation in Russia.

The only meaningful role left is to help Ukraine. There are no other options.

How Can Trump Be Friends with Both Israel and Russia? Link to heading

Boris Ivanov:
I understand that it’s difficult to read someone else’s mind, but I’ll ask anyway—do you have any idea how Trump reconciles the cognitive dissonance of being friends with both Israel and Russia, given that Russia is an ally of Iran and its proxies, who are enemies of Israel?

Well, as I’ve said before, Trump is a classic representative of postmodern fascism—a political style where there is no strict adherence to a single ideological line. One day, he can support Israel, even Ukraine; the next, he can support Russia. This is the nature of fascism in the post-truth era—where positions shift instantly, and a person can say completely contradictory things at the same time.

So, for Trump, there is no cognitive dissonance. This isn’t a contradiction to be resolved—it’s the very foundation of how he operates. Lying, holding mutually exclusive positions, and constantly shifting stances are simply his way of existing. That’s why this isn’t a problem for him at all.

Proposal to Invite Vladislav Amosov Link to heading

Question from Ubludok Jones:
Tell me, please, do you have plans to invite the commander of the Siberian Battalion, Vladislav Amosov, to your broadcast? If so, when? He’s the most competent military figure I’ve seen since my company commander—no offense to Rex and Caesar.

I’ve already had representatives from the Siberian Battalion and Chechen resistance units on the channel. Now, several more such units have emerged. Amosov will definitely be on. Everyone who is fighting Putin’s fascism with weapons in hand will have a place on our broadcast.

How to Influence European Politicians Link to heading

Moscow Migrant:
A question about concrete actions for your subscribers. What specific steps can be taken to effectively influence European politicians and push them toward more active measures? Should we engage with existing organizations or NGOs involved in human rights or political activism? Are public petitions effective? Should we draft direct, well-supported appeals to institutions, and what kind of evidence should such letters contain? And does any of this actually work?

Dear colleague,

It all depends on your personal situation and the resources available to you. If you have direct connections to Western politicians, engaging in discussions or making direct appeals to them is an option. If you are a citizen of a Western country—such as the United States, Germany, or France—you can reach out to your local representatives and try to influence them. If you have access to Western media outlets, publishing statements in support of Ukraine, backed by solid arguments, can also be impactful.

If none of these options are available to you, then the remaining ways to contribute include donations—to the Ukrainian Armed Forces or to units fighting against Putin’s fascism. There are many ways to help, and the “menu” of options is quite extensive.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to dedicate an entire program to this topic—one that outlines specific actions in detail. We could invite experts who know how to implement different measures and summarize the most effective approaches. I think such a discussion could be very useful.

About Pastukhov and Latynina. The Right of the Strong Link to heading

Igor Gladky:
Is empire the same as the right of the strong? This is a question for Pastukhov and Latynina.

Dear namesake,

The right of the strong is a component of empire, but not every instance of the right of the strong is necessarily imperialistic. In other words, every empire operates on the principle of might makes right, but not every use of power necessarily stems from an imperial mindset. It’s a case of part versus whole.

As for Pastukhov and Latynina, they shouldn’t be lumped together. Latynina isn’t just leaning toward an imperial worldview—she’s veering dangerously close to outright support for fascism. Pastukhov, on the other hand, doesn’t go nearly as far. For example, he is definitely not a Trumpist—that’s beyond question. He would never express admiration for Putin the way Latynina recently did.

Pastukhov is not a Trumpist. That distinction is important, and it’s why they shouldn’t be placed in the same category.

What Leads to the Rise of Fascism Today? Link to heading

Tanya Turchinsky:
What, in your opinion, leads to the rise of fascism in our time? In the past, there was a common theory that economic hardship brought Hitler to power in Germany. But as far as I can see, the U.S. economy was far from decline until Trump came along. So what made Americans vote for a fascist?

You know, I think there are several factors at play here. In fact, this might be worth covering in a dedicated video—similar to the one we did on media schizophrenia, which was a 23-minute film analyzing that phenomenon. I think we need something like that for Trumpism.

Trumpism, in part, is a reaction to the rise of progressive policies—many people felt a loss of traditional values. While you’re right that the overall U.S. economy wasn’t in decline, specific economic shifts—such as outsourcing production to other countries, particularly China and India—did cause real hardship. Many factories shut down, and it’s no coincidence that Trump’s strongest support comes from the so-called Rust Belt, where people suffered from these changes.

Let’s break down the key groups that form Trump’s base.

  1. Farmers. Globalization and free trade made American agricultural products less competitive. Produce from Mexico, for example, is cheaper due to lower labor costs. That’s why, in his speech to Congress, Trump made a point of declaring his love for farmers. He emphasized that tariffs on Mexican goods were necessary to protect them. Farmers aren’t the largest voting bloc, but they are well-organized and loyal.

  2. Factory workers. With manufacturing jobs moving overseas, industrial workers—particularly in places like Detroit—were left struggling. This entire Rust Belt region overwhelmingly supported Trump.

  3. People frustrated with political correctness. While Trump’s claims that children are being forced to change genders are outright lies, many Americans were irritated by progressive policies, minority protections, and what they saw as an overreach of political correctness. In this sense, American vatniks aren’t much different from their Russian counterparts.

  4. Racists, sexists, and anti-immigrant voters. Like in Russia, there is resentment toward immigrants, even though they often fill essential jobs. Trump exploited these sentiments by leaning into racism and xenophobia, making them a central part of his appeal.

Ultimately, this is a complex issue. Trumpism thrives on manipulating the fears of those who feel that globalization and the post-industrial economy have made their lives worse.

This is quite similar to how Hitler came to power. After World War I, Germany felt humiliated and defeated, and that collective sense of resentment fueled Hitler’s rise. In the U.S., a similar feeling—whether from economic struggles, cultural shifts, or a perceived loss of national status—paved the way for Trump.

Does Trump Have Electoral Prospects? Link to heading

Evgeny Genis
Trump is the first U.S. president who has placed himself outside the electoral cycle. He clearly does not intend to participate in elections for a second term. If he gets a third term, it will not be through elections. Moreover, unlike other second-term presidents, who had no personal electoral prospects but were concerned about their party’s future, Trump clearly does not care what happens to the Republican Party after him. The conclusion is that Trump no longer has voters—he is not dependent on their opinion or public opinion in general. In this sense, his hands are completely untied. He will act without regard for ratings and other democratic gimmicks.

Well, you know, Evgeny, I would completely agree with you if it weren’t for two things. First, the midterm elections are ahead. And if Trump really wants to have his hands completely untied and, in particular, congressional support for all four years, then he certainly cannot afford to be indifferent to the Republican Party. He must ensure that the “banquet” continues, meaning Congress continues to support him. And for that, he certainly needs to think about the Republican Party’s success. That’s the first thing.

Second, public opinion still matters a lot in the United States, so it would be incorrect to say that he doesn’t care about it. That’s precisely why today’s speech before Congress was the pinnacle of populism—it was aimed directly at public opinion. So, let’s put it this way: I understand some of your arguments, but overall, I disagree with your position. He does care. Right now, he is fighting to ensure that the Republican Party continues to hold a majority in Congress.

Why Did Americans Choose Trump? Link to heading

Nail Vakhitov
Why did Americans choose Trump after all? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and finally, Reagan. By the way, Trump was elected a second time. I understand that he is unlikely to change the Constitution, but he can still harm the free world in 3.5 years. The question is: are U.S. citizens gradually degrading?

You know, I wouldn’t make such sweeping judgments. To say that all U.S. citizens are degrading, or even the majority of them, is simply a reaction that many people have to two things. First, who is really degrading? The Democratic Party—and, by the way, the Republican Party as well. The decline of both parties is obvious.

Think about it: can the Democratic Party even put forward a strong candidate right now? Name one. Biden? Unlikely. Kamala Harris? Also unlikely. Who else? Sanders? You see, the degradation of the Democratic Party is actually one of the reasons for Trump’s victory. I don’t think Trump would have won if the Democrats had a truly strong candidate. For many, the choice wasn’t about supporting Trump but about rejecting the Democratic Party.

So, in part, I already answered the question of why Trump was elected. But it’s also important to note that this was a choice between two options—the lesser of two evils. And for many, the greater evil was the Democratic Party.

Is Hitler’s Fascism Left-Wing? Link to heading

Andrey,
What do you think about the claim that ultraright parties and ideologies are actually left-wing? For example, some argue that Hitler’s fascist party was leftist because the Reich heavily intervened in the economy. Or they label Alternative for Germany as left-wing because its leader is a lesbian and advocates for social policies. Typically, such claims come from people who themselves hold far-right views but don’t want to be associated with the negative reputation of the Nazis. In the case of Alternative for Germany, they simply dislike the party for being a puppet of Putin. How do you personally determine which ideologies and parties are left-wing or right-wing?

As for the myth that Hitler’s Nazis were left-wing, I’m very familiar with that lie. It’s based on the fact that the word “socialist” appears in their name—National Socialists. Well, you know, people write all sorts of things on fences too. So, the issue is quite simple.

People who hold right-wing views—even those I’d call right-wing liberals, without any nationalist or Nazi leanings at all—just decent, respectable right-wing liberals (and there are plenty of them)—find it very unpleasant that Nazis are considered right-wing. So, they try to shift the blame by dumping these extremists onto the left. Instead of cleaning up their own backyard, they throw their trash into their neighbor’s yard. Not a very honorable thing to do, but it’s understandable.

Interestingly, I’ve heard something similar from leftists, though not as often. Some leftists claim that Stalin wasn’t actually left-wing but right-wing. This argument is usually based on the idea that political classification depends on two main criteria. First, there’s the distinction between conservatives and reformers. Since Stalin, towards the end of his rule, aimed to preserve the Soviet system, he was labeled a conservative—hence, right-wing. But that’s complete nonsense. Stalinism was unquestionably leftist because Marxism itself is clearly a left-wing ideology.

More broadly, these attempts to shift blame are quite common. As for defining left and right, I’ve given my take on this many times, and I don’t want to repeat a full lecture. But if we simplify it, the division comes down to two key criteria. First, left-wingers are reformers, while right-wingers are conservatives. Second, left-wingers believe that the weak should also have rights, while right-wingers advocate for the rights of the strong. That’s it, in a nutshell. Of course, if you get into specifics—abortion, environmentalism, and so on—things get more nuanced, but fundamentally, these two axes define the spectrum.

About Biden Link to heading

Elvira, Igor,
If I recall correctly, you also fiercely criticized Biden for his precise aid. Don’t you want to repent now?

Good Lord, have you all been bitten by Kadyrov or something? Repent again? For what? Of course not. I still believe that Biden’s position was largely mistaken. He was deeply afraid that Putin had a nuclear bomb and would definitely use it if Ukraine received Tomahawks, fighter jets, and so on. I think that was a mistake.

I always made it clear that I understand the U.S. president’s concern about not dragging America into World War III. I get that. But that doesn’t change my opinion that Biden’s approach was flawed. Why exactly should I repent just because Trump has come to power and is even worse? Yes, he’s worse—so what? Does that mean we should now turn Biden into an angel? Of course not.

One thing is for sure—I have absolutely no regrets about criticizing Biden. It was an entirely fair and objective analysis. And the fact that Trump, who is much worse, has now taken over? Well, that happens. But just because something is the lesser evil doesn’t mean it ceases to be evil.

Can Ukraine Sue the U.S. and Russia in an International Court? Link to heading

Igor P.,
Don’t you think it’s time for Ukraine to take the U.S. and Russia to the International Court over its disarmament and the violation of the Budapest Memorandum?

I don’t think this case has much legal prospect. Sure, in theory, Ukraine could do it. But in the current situation, can you imagine what would happen if Ukraine sued the United States in an international court? Just think—what do you think Trump’s reaction would be?

I believe he would seize the opportunity to create yet another scandal and say, “Look, if Ukraine is suing us, where’s their gratitude?” He could even use it as an excuse to cut off military aid altogether. That’s the only real outcome I can see from such a move. So, in practical terms, I think the consequences would be the exact opposite of what Ukraine might hope for.

Will Trump Serve Out His Term? Link to heading

Vesyoly Dachnik,
Do you agree with me that Trump won’t serve out his full term? Judging by how he governs, he won’t even last a month.

Well, I’ll answer right away—of course, anything is possible, but for now, I don’t see it happening. I repeat: at this moment, there is resistance to what Trump is doing—yes, over a hundred lawsuits have been filed, and yes, there will likely be attempts to impeach him. But given the current situation, his removal seems unlikely, at least for now.

Sure, the 25% tariffs he’s imposing on various goods will lead to higher prices and inflation. It’s clear that, over time, this will have consequences. Right now, eggs have already disappeared from grocery stores in the U.S., and soon there will be significant price hikes on tariffed goods. All of this will become obvious. But will it actually lead to an early end to his presidency? I highly doubt it.

Nuclear weapons in Ukraine Link to heading

If Ukraine, through its president, announces the creation of nuclear weapons to defend its sovereignty, will this positively affect U.S. aid and support?

Well, looking at the current situation, if Ukraine were to make such a declaration right now, the U.S.—or rather, Trump—would take it as the perfect excuse to not just suspend aid but to cut it off entirely. That would be the real, tangible outcome. If Ukraine were going to take that route, it should have done so much earlier.

How Would the Author Act as President of Ukraine? Link to heading

Vesyoly Dachnik,
And finally, a personal question—how would you act if you were the president of Ukraine in the current situation? Or, to phrase it more carefully, considering your stance of not interfering in Ukraine’s politics, let me reframe it as a thought experiment: You are the president of a country called Alpha, which has been attacked by a much stronger nation, and the events in Alpha unfold similarly to those in present-day Ukraine. What would you do? How would you act?

You know, dear Vesyoly Dachnik, I think I’ll refrain from answering this question. Sure, it’s possible to accept the thought experiment and try to analyze how one might act in such a situation. But here’s the thing—no matter how I answer, it will inevitably turn into criticism of the current president.

And I have no desire to engage in that. Of course, there are reasons to criticize Zelensky—no doubt about that. But there are plenty of other people who are quite skilled at doing so. I, on the other hand, would feel uncomfortable doing it. That’s all.

Could Trump Be Assassinated? Link to heading

Aleksei Alekseevich,
Do you think Trump should now be more afraid—specifically, of a bullet from the American military-industrial complex?

I don’t think so. Of course, he has many enemies, and yes, it’s possible that someone—perhaps a migrant or someone else—might want to settle scores with him. Any U.S. president has reason to be wary of assassination; American presidents have been killed more than once in history.

That said, I’ll be honest with you—I don’t want that to happen. Despite my dislike and even disgust for Trump, I do not want his presidency to end that way. Absolutely not. I sincerely hope it doesn’t happen.

About Alexander Sotnik Link to heading

Flik,
Exactly right. Thank you, dear colleague. He’s writing from Ukraine—thank you for the support. What do you think of journalist Alexander Sotnik? So, regarding this—Sotnik has released an inside scoop on Trump, claiming to have undeniable proof that he was recruited by the KGB back in the 1970s. Sotnik is offering this information to all media figures and political organizations completely free of charge, urging them to spread it as widely as possible. According to him, this is an “information bomb” that could trigger impeachment proceedings against Trump, potentially leading to his execution in the electric chair. Have you heard anything about this? What’s your opinion on it?

I haven’t heard anything about it, and honestly, I’m not sure if I even want to look into it. Here’s the thing—Alexander Sotnik started out as a fairly decent journalist, doing street interviews. I worked with him at one point, and he was quite good at what he did. He’s a creative person, a solid DJ, and has a good sense of presentation. He was effective on camera, had a decent team, and as long as he stuck to interviews and street polls, everything was fine.

But once he started voicing his own opinions, things took a terrible turn. He is deeply incompetent in many areas. And you know, there’s really no way around it—he’s just not very smart. Worse yet, he’s extremely bitter and full of resentment. He calls everyone a KGB agent and spreads all kinds of nasty claims about people—completely baseless ones. This isn’t criticism; it’s just pure slander.

So, given Sotnik’s reputation, I have little interest in this so-called revelation about Trump. Even if, as you say, it’s a “bombshell,” I’m almost certain it’s nonsense—a complete fake. The source is simply too unreliable. It’s like seeing a report from Panorama News—you just don’t take it seriously. If I see something from Solovyov, Kabaeva, or Veller, I don’t cite it, because it’s guaranteed to be misinformation. And the same goes for Sotnik.

Closing Words Link to heading

So, dear friends, we are wrapping up our conversation for today. Let me remind you that at 11:00, we have Ukrainian Orientalist Danilov joining us—it’s bound to be an interesting discussion, as always. And at 20:00, Ukrainian journalist Portnikov will be with us. I think we’ll also go over the latest developments from last night, which, for the United States, were yesterday evening. That should be fascinating as well.

Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, for Russian political prisoners, as well as for American and Ukrainian captives.

One more thing—I wanted to mention that, unfortunately, I likely won’t be able to answer all the questions from last Saturday’s stream. I really tried—honestly, I did my best to tackle that mountain of over 2,000 comments. But I’m afraid it would take far too much time. So, if you have specific questions, please submit them for today’s stream. Deal?

Thank you, good luck, and see you soon—first at 11:00, then at 20:00.

Source: https://youtu.be/eNn-EW15x8g