FYI: As an experienced professional interpreter, I'd like to remind pedes that any simultaneous interpreting is going to omit at least 30% and possibly more content and meaning from the interaction.
When an interpreter does not have native-level fluency in the target language, also, a variety of nuances can be lost.
Listening to the interpreter ("interpreting" = audio or spoken translation, "translation" = translation of a text), it is clear that a number of nuances were omitted, and sometimes not well expressed in English.
E.g. At one point, the interpreter for Putin says "That's a subtle question". It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" that is, a question designed to trick, or maneuver, or manipulate the respondent.
Recommended: to really understand and grasp the content of Putin's replies, seek out a translation into English of a transcript of his answers.
When a transcript is created, all the words spoken are recorded and then a translator can spend much more time and effort refining the translation and conveying the nuances, subtle meanings, and exact expressions in the target language - in this case, English.
Simultaneous interpreting delivers only a very broad foundation for interaction and dialog, but necessarily omits a lot of the meaning.
Great. I'm not suggesting that the interpreting was flawed in any particular way. just that, as researchers and analyzers, we anons should be aware that off-the-cuff interpreting is limited. You should certainly be able to get the gist, even fairly well, but that there are going to be some things that don't get across first up.
haha. I know from experience, translating any document is never a simple thing. If you are a professional, its work. If you are not a professional, it can be arduous and painful.
I guess I'm hoping the Russian govt will want to do this, anyway.
But really thanks a whole bunch for touching base with your R. friend. That connection (friendship) has been helpful here at GAW on a number of occasions. (Blimey, that sounds very mercenary; I don't mean it like that. Just appreciating that its good to have some native Russian input on certain things.)
(I also wanted to simply clarify that I wasn't suggesting the interpreting was flawed, not so much because of your comment, but because I thought some readers might gain that impression from my words)
I would akin this to different translations of the Bible; so much can be lost/misconstrued through translation. Well said and think you for the insight fren
Translation and interpreting are almost arcane (esoteric) from the perspective of most people who are not intimately involved in the practice. Sometimes its like trying to explain a 3D object to someone who only exists in 2D.
So glad you could appreciate the point.
After only a few years of working in the translation industry, I came to realize that no translation can perfectly capture the full meaning of the original. It just doesn't happen.
In the case of the bible, this is why its so important to connect in heart with he Holy Spirit, so that our thought, understanding and sense of things can be raised above the merely literal level, and into a more transcendent realization.
It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" that is, a question designed to trick, or maneuver, or manipulate the respondent.
Yes, thats what Putin meant, but he is too smooth to say it as such, so its believable that he called it "subtle". Russian speaking Anons can tells us what Putin really said.
Also, I like listening to Putin speaking and reading translations because he has a unique speech voice. That itself makes it worth watching again, but then time is the issue.
hahahah. No, it's not that he is too smooth to say it as such. It's that the interpreter couldn't find a better word in the moment to express exactly what Putin said. Very likely that in Russian, he used a word that is quite nuanced, and one that may not have a related word in English that carries the exact same subtleties.
I fully expect that Putin would have used a 'smooth' way of expressing it. His attitude comes across quite well in the interview, I thought. But I'm saying, in native English, we would not have used the word "subtle" in that situation and context. It's a very archaic meaning of the word. However, it is a good example of how live interpreting is limited in what dimensions of meaning is conveyed.
Sometimes, in order to communicate the real subtleties (no pun intended), and interpreter will have to use a phrase, or a structure, that effectively communicates the sense in the target language, even though the original speaker might use one simple word in his own tongue.
That's just how it is. There is no real thing such as a one-to-one correspondence for 90% of the words between languages.
So it's important to recognize that Putin didn't call it "subtle". He used a Russian word, not an English one. The interpreter used "subtle". "Subtle" is English.
As for watching the interview, I enjoyed it very much, and watched the whole thing, which is pretty rare for me these days. You can pick up a lot from his expressions, manner of speaking, etc.
Also, note: it is possible that it was not a word, but a phrase, or expression. The interpreter grabbed 'subtle' from his lexicon but without being able to listen and understand Russian, we cannot know whether Putin used a single word, or the turn of phrase that the interpreter adopted.
What I do know is that the use of the English 'subtle' is unnatural, and I could sense the tell-tale signs that the interpreter was grasping for.
Note also: even a native Russian speaker may or may not be able to explain or clearly convey the nuances of what Putin said.
I would say its clear he was implying that Tucker's questions was smart, clever, but designed to get to a certain thing that he wanted Putin to answer or say. Aka he phrased his question in a certain way to achieve an end that may not necessarily have been the way that Putin himself sees the issue.
You can see that happen often in the interview, and its a natural aspect of interviewing. Tucker continually tried to create a context or way of looking at certain issues, and Putin fielded those question carefully, with strength and without stepping into frames that Tucker himself was offering.
I think they both did a pretty good job.
FWIW, I am a bit surprised that an interpreter who is not fluent in English was used. It is axiomatic that in translation and interpreting, listening and comprehending one's second language is far easier than expressing meaning in one's second language.
In the translation (text) industry, a native speaker of the target will always be used where possible.
I like how Putin stopped Tucker in his tracks at the very beginning and said "you studied history, right? May I provide a 1 minute history of Russia?" Tucker obliges. 15 minutes later, Putin is still talking history of Russia. Classic!
That history lesson was very consistent with the story a Ukrainian coworker told me back in 2020. He back then thought Putin was right about Crimea as that area was never Ukrainian to begin with and the majority of the population there is Russian.
This part was in his speech when the Ukraine SMO started, but did not reach much people in the west. With this interview - esp because Tucker put a editorial focus on it before the interview started, more people will be curious to listen.
I was so lost trying to keep up! I wrote lots of notes that I now need to go and research. Can we find honest reports though? The saying is “history is written by the victor” right? Where to begin researching for validity?
I had to stop listening as my wife got home. Putin is essentially making the assertion that many of the Ukrainians are ethnically Russians which I have heard before. Tucker is asking why did it take Putin 20+ years to act. Well, many of us already know about the bio labs in Ukraine and such. Timing is everything. This is a worldwide effort by Trump, Putin, and others; some 34 countries, memory serving.
Also seems to be making the case that some of the agency heads dictated negotiations and policy towards Russia, not Clinton/Bush, when it came to Russia joining NATO, working together along with Europe on a missile defense shield, etc.
But the beauty is that the buck stops at the President. No matter who was behind the real decisions, tough questions should be asked to Clinton and then the questions must be expanded to include the shadow figures who were controlling him.
But the beauty is that the buck stops at the President
Does it, or are you just saying it as it should be?
Just like how Pres. Trump ordered pulling out of Syria and was ignored, the problem clearly exists with unelected bureaucracy regardless of whether or not the President signs off on it.
My curiosity was peaked when they started talking about AI soldiers. Genetic modification and Elon’s chips. I’m still swirling about that part. Can’t wrap my head around it yet.
Putins explains that he didn’t fail to act, rather they were constantly making negations with the west and Ukraine for example in Istanbul and later the Minsk accords, but that they consistently didn’t honor the agreements. He says the west was “leading them by the nose”
He gets to the answer, but only at his own pace. Only after the early history finishes, he starts the contemporary history - the role of Bill Clinton, and bombing of Belgrade and everything else leading up to now.
Good luck with that. I introduced my wife to Q, and not I can't get her ass off X22 Report to hardly make super. Not sure which one is worse. But I will tell this, Q sure greezed the skids for gun sales:
Before:
Me: I need to buy another gun
Her: NO YOU DO NOT NEED ANOTHER GUN
Can you please post the link? During the interview, Tucker shows older photos of Putin and he looks very different in the face. Now, it was a long time ago (one photo was with the first Bush). But this is the first I’ve heard of the 2 Putins.
He called out Tucker for trying to join the CIA when the discussion about the CIA and Ukrainian coup came up. He said it was good that they didn’t accept him.
Tucker had zero reaction to Putin's statement. All the confirmation I need. We know all these fucks are in the CIA, or trained by them. See Anderson Cooper. Once you're in, you are in for LIFE. Try and get out and you'll find out how fast their heart attack gun works.
Pretty funny. Flexed on Tucker by showing off the Kremlin intelligence machine. Also insulted and complimented tucker by saying it's a good thing he didn't join 😂
It's the difference between high school and Olympian. High school athletes can outperform 99% of humans, and tucker can out charm and smart majority of people. But people like Trump are Olympian level negotiatiors and people handlers. We need Olympians not office, not casual athletes.
He definitely flexed by showing how our current "president" couldn't give 60 seconds of coherent hstiory lessons in the US
That being said, waste of time.
All that to say, "we were promised Ukraine, it's ours, and we need to liberate it if neonazis." Should have given the history on Nazis in Ukraine. Maybe I missed it but he seemed to only touch on the Nazis there, not explaining the history.
It was frustrating that as soon as he started talking about neo Nazis, Tucker's first impulse was to interrupt, "But what can you do about it?". Like yeah, it's normal that there's a growing number or Nazis and it's just something we have to live with. He cut him off so many times, and who knows where it was going to lead. If there is no time limit, let him talk for hours until he doesn't have anything else to say. The goal was to learn more about him and his agenda, not to get his response to what CNN says about him. Tucker seems more like either a bone head or a controlled agent everyday.
This is what was discussed. TIMESTAMP HEADLINE
00:00:00
Introduction
00:02:00
Putin gives a history of Russia & Ukraine
00:25:04
NATO Expansion
00:30:40
NATO & Bill Clinton
00:41:10
Ukraine
00:48:30
What triggered this conflict?
01:02:37
A peaceful solution?
01:11:33
Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines?
01:24:13
Re-establishing communication with the US
01:36:33
How powerful is Zelensky?
01:48:36
Elon Musk & AI
01:51:07
Imprisoned American journalist Evan Gershkovich
Still ridiculous, essentially included protection through some of the strongest militaries and their allies for a simple ask: Don't join NATO and house them on their borders.
I still remember when that happened and it still makes me facepalm.
Maybe it's been discussed before, and I missed it, but I think the Great Awakening is a 2 parter. Perhaps Putin knows things and has the proof, but obviously must wait for a person to come to power who would actually be willing to listen, who could actually do something about it and make it all known.. like Trump.
First 24 minutes is history of Ukraine & Russia. But at 24 minutes he starts talking about the crux of the matter which is basically what this interview is about.
He starts explaining in clear terms how West was the one who pursued hostile policy towards Russia even as Russians were eager to become part of the western civilization.
This interview will be the basis for a lot of narrative changes in regards to West - specifically starting with Bill Clinton making it clear that Russia is not welcome to join NATO, and bombing of Belgrade to destabilize Balkans and everything beyond that.
The real effects of this narrative changes will still be a little far off - in time for Precipice no doubt.
We got roasted for suggesting (by a NY senator) that US troops should be sent to Ukraine. Putin said why? Why do we care about a nation 1000s of miles away. What is our interest? US has its own problems. Border, deficit etc. It would make no sense for you (us) to do that.
I’d like to think Putin wanted to but didn’t have time to address the Coach Red Pill saga. God Bless to all patriots for all land worldwide. #TeamPutin
Putin plays his cards very close to the vest, every statement is measured… calculated. Our politicians are absolute idiots in comparison. Someone lamented that AOC was too young to be president, God help us! Could you imagine president AOC dealing with Putin in any capacity, the laughter from the Kremlin could be heard in New York.
Well, I've watched an hour of it but I have to leave the rest for tomorrow.
Tucker seems a little adversarial in his attitude and not very well prepared. I know a lot more about this conflict than he seems to.
It's always very obvious when Tucker likes his interviewee and he's not yet sure about Putin. He has just asked Putin about the bombing of the gas lines to Germany and seems to think that Putin should know why the Germans don't come up with the truth about that. He doesn't seem to realize that knowing something and proving it are two different things.
On the whole I think Putin is doing well and hopefully Tucker will improve in the second half. Does Tucker understand Russian?? I don't see a translator there.
I thought Tucker was adversarial as well. By the end, he keeps badgering Putin to just call up Biden and ask him to put an end the war (like that would do anything), and then he tries to strong arm Putin into releasing a poor little espionage hostage. Makes me question his sincerity and agenda for doing this interview.
I skimmed through this. Did I miss all the parts about Ukraine being the west’s money laundering hub, child trafficking kingdom, bio weapons labs stronghold? Or is it a nothing burger?
I wish the interview would run longer but I can see how Putin didn't say very bad stuff maybe even for Tucker's sake. Love the history lesson, many people aren't aware of this. It also seems like he likes some Presidents but it's never about them because they all have puppet masters who make the ultimate decisions. Hopefully Pres Trump watches this interview and maybe take a minute of reflection as well.
Tucker had Putin reiterate at least half a dozen times that Ukraine and the West started the war, attacked first, violated agreements, threatened, imposed sanctions, sabotaged negotiations and then refused to negotiate before Russia attacked Ukraine. But Russia is actually doing very well. Q said that Putin is also controlled by the bloodline families. Are they all just playing roles in the take down of humanity?
This is why Trump is despised. He actually was voted in by the people and tried to run the country, not like Clinton and others who were puppets of the CIA. Get rid of the CIA, FBI, and clean up SS. Then start on Congress, IRS, FDA, CDC, DOE, NIH, DOS, etc. Make the majority elected and approved by Congress. Make it easier to get rid of bad actors in all areas. Make penalties for undermining Presidential powers harsh. Make the agencies smaller and make then account for every penny with receipts.
I was thinking that Jimmy Carter death notice might be sprung as distraction from this interview. I guess they are keeping him on ice for another occasion.
Are there any hot takes on anything of importance in this interview? Anything wildly unexpected?
Looking at the timestamps it appears to be mostly about the Ukraine war, a topic of virtually no concern to me. Not my circus, not my clowns and if Russia believes it has a claim to it I'm certain not willing to fight them over it. It is also apparent to me NATO countries negotiated with Russia in bad faith and never intended to honor their accord with Russian about expansion.
Tucker Carlson has already admitted on camera in the past that he was trying to get into the CIA. This isn't new and you could find this out on his wiki or just watching the old clip.
Table of Contents
FYI: As an experienced professional interpreter, I'd like to remind pedes that any simultaneous interpreting is going to omit at least 30% and possibly more content and meaning from the interaction.
When an interpreter does not have native-level fluency in the target language, also, a variety of nuances can be lost.
Listening to the interpreter ("interpreting" = audio or spoken translation, "translation" = translation of a text), it is clear that a number of nuances were omitted, and sometimes not well expressed in English.
E.g. At one point, the interpreter for Putin says "That's a subtle question". It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" that is, a question designed to trick, or maneuver, or manipulate the respondent.
Recommended: to really understand and grasp the content of Putin's replies, seek out a translation into English of a transcript of his answers.
When a transcript is created, all the words spoken are recorded and then a translator can spend much more time and effort refining the translation and conveying the nuances, subtle meanings, and exact expressions in the target language - in this case, English.
Simultaneous interpreting delivers only a very broad foundation for interaction and dialog, but necessarily omits a lot of the meaning.
The girl I work with is from Russia and so is herhusband. Her entire family is in Russia.
They both watch Tucker Carlson all the time.
I will ask her about the interpretation.
Great. I'm not suggesting that the interpreting was flawed in any particular way. just that, as researchers and analyzers, we anons should be aware that off-the-cuff interpreting is limited. You should certainly be able to get the gist, even fairly well, but that there are going to be some things that don't get across first up.
She said that they did a very good job of translating.
She didn't hear anything that wasn't pretty much translated.
Good to know. I wouldn't really expect anything different. That said, I'd still like to see a translation of a transcript!
I could ask her to do that but she would think I was nuts.
haha. I know from experience, translating any document is never a simple thing. If you are a professional, its work. If you are not a professional, it can be arduous and painful.
I guess I'm hoping the Russian govt will want to do this, anyway.
But really thanks a whole bunch for touching base with your R. friend. That connection (friendship) has been helpful here at GAW on a number of occasions. (Blimey, that sounds very mercenary; I don't mean it like that. Just appreciating that its good to have some native Russian input on certain things.)
I wad not implying that.
Just wanted to be able to give more in depth insight.
Yeah, which I think is a great idea!
(I also wanted to simply clarify that I wasn't suggesting the interpreting was flawed, not so much because of your comment, but because I thought some readers might gain that impression from my words)
Ni problem Fren.
I would akin this to different translations of the Bible; so much can be lost/misconstrued through translation. Well said and think you for the insight fren
Translation and interpreting are almost arcane (esoteric) from the perspective of most people who are not intimately involved in the practice. Sometimes its like trying to explain a 3D object to someone who only exists in 2D.
So glad you could appreciate the point.
After only a few years of working in the translation industry, I came to realize that no translation can perfectly capture the full meaning of the original. It just doesn't happen.
In the case of the bible, this is why its so important to connect in heart with he Holy Spirit, so that our thought, understanding and sense of things can be raised above the merely literal level, and into a more transcendent realization.
Yes, thats what Putin meant, but he is too smooth to say it as such, so its believable that he called it "subtle". Russian speaking Anons can tells us what Putin really said.
Also, I like listening to Putin speaking and reading translations because he has a unique speech voice. That itself makes it worth watching again, but then time is the issue.
hahahah. No, it's not that he is too smooth to say it as such. It's that the interpreter couldn't find a better word in the moment to express exactly what Putin said. Very likely that in Russian, he used a word that is quite nuanced, and one that may not have a related word in English that carries the exact same subtleties.
I fully expect that Putin would have used a 'smooth' way of expressing it. His attitude comes across quite well in the interview, I thought. But I'm saying, in native English, we would not have used the word "subtle" in that situation and context. It's a very archaic meaning of the word. However, it is a good example of how live interpreting is limited in what dimensions of meaning is conveyed.
Sometimes, in order to communicate the real subtleties (no pun intended), and interpreter will have to use a phrase, or a structure, that effectively communicates the sense in the target language, even though the original speaker might use one simple word in his own tongue.
That's just how it is. There is no real thing such as a one-to-one correspondence for 90% of the words between languages.
So it's important to recognize that Putin didn't call it "subtle". He used a Russian word, not an English one. The interpreter used "subtle". "Subtle" is English.
As for watching the interview, I enjoyed it very much, and watched the whole thing, which is pretty rare for me these days. You can pick up a lot from his expressions, manner of speaking, etc.
What was the Russian word that Putin used?
This, I do not know.
Also, note: it is possible that it was not a word, but a phrase, or expression. The interpreter grabbed 'subtle' from his lexicon but without being able to listen and understand Russian, we cannot know whether Putin used a single word, or the turn of phrase that the interpreter adopted.
What I do know is that the use of the English 'subtle' is unnatural, and I could sense the tell-tale signs that the interpreter was grasping for.
Note also: even a native Russian speaker may or may not be able to explain or clearly convey the nuances of what Putin said.
I would say its clear he was implying that Tucker's questions was smart, clever, but designed to get to a certain thing that he wanted Putin to answer or say. Aka he phrased his question in a certain way to achieve an end that may not necessarily have been the way that Putin himself sees the issue.
You can see that happen often in the interview, and its a natural aspect of interviewing. Tucker continually tried to create a context or way of looking at certain issues, and Putin fielded those question carefully, with strength and without stepping into frames that Tucker himself was offering.
I think they both did a pretty good job.
FWIW, I am a bit surprised that an interpreter who is not fluent in English was used. It is axiomatic that in translation and interpreting, listening and comprehending one's second language is far easier than expressing meaning in one's second language.
In the translation (text) industry, a native speaker of the target will always be used where possible.
I like how Putin stopped Tucker in his tracks at the very beginning and said "you studied history, right? May I provide a 1 minute history of Russia?" Tucker obliges. 15 minutes later, Putin is still talking history of Russia. Classic!
I welcomed the 15+ minutes of history. Everyone should. I didn't know much of what Putin shared of Russian/Ukrainian history. It's fascinating.
That history lesson was very consistent with the story a Ukrainian coworker told me back in 2020. He back then thought Putin was right about Crimea as that area was never Ukrainian to begin with and the majority of the population there is Russian.
The Maidan Coup is the inconvenient truth that Ukraine apologists and historical revisionists refuse to acknowledge.
I wish Putin had mentioned Victoria Nuland handing out cookies in Kiev.
She was handing out Democracy Biscuits!
This part was in his speech when the Ukraine SMO started, but did not reach much people in the west. With this interview - esp because Tucker put a editorial focus on it before the interview started, more people will be curious to listen.
I loved the history of Russia, too. Very interesting. Since I only got to take western civilization in college.
Can you imagine president "I see dead people" Biden giving a run down on American history.
You know the thing
I was so lost trying to keep up! I wrote lots of notes that I now need to go and research. Can we find honest reports though? The saying is “history is written by the victor” right? Where to begin researching for validity?
down load the whole thing from rumble. 😃
By..go. you know the thing lol. I wasn't created by no THaNG!
https://youtu.be/JIVJCDwZUkM?t=9
I had to stop listening as my wife got home. Putin is essentially making the assertion that many of the Ukrainians are ethnically Russians which I have heard before. Tucker is asking why did it take Putin 20+ years to act. Well, many of us already know about the bio labs in Ukraine and such. Timing is everything. This is a worldwide effort by Trump, Putin, and others; some 34 countries, memory serving.
Also seems to be making the case that some of the agency heads dictated negotiations and policy towards Russia, not Clinton/Bush, when it came to Russia joining NATO, working together along with Europe on a missile defense shield, etc.
He asserts that Clinton personally told him their bid to join NATO will be rejected.
Yes, after going and talking to his people. Which would definitely include a CIA director.
But the beauty is that the buck stops at the President. No matter who was behind the real decisions, tough questions should be asked to Clinton and then the questions must be expanded to include the shadow figures who were controlling him.
Does it, or are you just saying it as it should be?
Just like how Pres. Trump ordered pulling out of Syria and was ignored, the problem clearly exists with unelected bureaucracy regardless of whether or not the President signs off on it.
My curiosity was peaked when they started talking about AI soldiers. Genetic modification and Elon’s chips. I’m still swirling about that part. Can’t wrap my head around it yet.
Normies _believe _ it stops there. So in this case, they will be forced to question why he would be controlled by other people.
Putins explains that he didn’t fail to act, rather they were constantly making negations with the west and Ukraine for example in Istanbul and later the Minsk accords, but that they consistently didn’t honor the agreements. He says the west was “leading them by the nose”
That is consistent with what I remember. Thanks!
He gets to the answer, but only at his own pace. Only after the early history finishes, he starts the contemporary history - the role of Bill Clinton, and bombing of Belgrade and everything else leading up to now.
You had to stop listening as your wife got home?
Is this something you need to talk about lol?
My wife is fully asleep.
It was time to see about making dinner.
Good luck with that. I introduced my wife to Q, and not I can't get her ass off X22 Report to hardly make super. Not sure which one is worse. But I will tell this, Q sure greezed the skids for gun sales:
Before:
Me: I need to buy another gun Her: NO YOU DO NOT NEED ANOTHER GUN
After:
Me: I need to buy another gun Her: OK
Maybe it took until now because of the '2 Putins' Era, where the 1st Putin was replaced with current (story posted here yesterday)...
Can you please post the link? During the interview, Tucker shows older photos of Putin and he looks very different in the face. Now, it was a long time ago (one photo was with the first Bush). But this is the first I’ve heard of the 2 Putins.
Yea, people do look different when they age.
I always wonder how a young guy with a narrow thin profile, can get round faced when older. Huh? Does a persons skull misform with age?
Me too. You can fake a look, but not that look of power.
It can, due to various stresses and further age related development, weight gain / loss of testosterone changing the fat distribution etc.
Even just getting wisdom teeth removed can present a more narrow face.
You probably found it already, but if not, here it is.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17sOnoWLSN/interesting-take-the-2-putins-/
Thanks!
Wasn't there rumors he had cancer? Chemo changes your face. Look at Toby Keith.
Search 'interesting take: 2 putins' it was posted yesterday
Brilliant historian, that Putin.
Classic Pooty! 😂
Sounds like Trump.
He called out Tucker for trying to join the CIA when the discussion about the CIA and Ukrainian coup came up. He said it was good that they didn’t accept him.
Big notable moment there. He knows.
Tucker had zero reaction to Putin's statement. All the confirmation I need. We know all these fucks are in the CIA, or trained by them. See Anderson Cooper. Once you're in, you are in for LIFE. Try and get out and you'll find out how fast their heart attack gun works.
And yet, the explicit statement was that he was never in.
Pretty funny. Flexed on Tucker by showing off the Kremlin intelligence machine. Also insulted and complimented tucker by saying it's a good thing he didn't join 😂
That part raised my brows too. I also thought Tucker was flexing some VP skills during the prisoner release part.
Yeah he tried but he's just not the guy.
It's the difference between high school and Olympian. High school athletes can outperform 99% of humans, and tucker can out charm and smart majority of people. But people like Trump are Olympian level negotiatiors and people handlers. We need Olympians not office, not casual athletes.
This!!!!!
turns out that StateOfTheNation.co 'breaking leaked transcript' was 100% fake
Look son. To the horizon. Do you see it?
What, dad? What am I looking for?
LARPers... LARPers as far as the eye can see. Please, I ask you, my son; please always keep your eyes on the prize, and trust your instincts.
Weird... 🙄
Nuke 'em whenever we see them.
You could say we will... burst their bubble :)
u/#petthepepe
You know its gonna be a good interview when Vladimir begins with a history lesson!
u/#wideputin
Haven't seen the wide putin GIF in a long while. Good time to break it out!
Wait until Trump has the luxury of doing the same!
He definitely flexed by showing how our current "president" couldn't give 60 seconds of coherent hstiory lessons in the US
That being said, waste of time.
All that to say, "we were promised Ukraine, it's ours, and we need to liberate it if neonazis." Should have given the history on Nazis in Ukraine. Maybe I missed it but he seemed to only touch on the Nazis there, not explaining the history.
It was frustrating that as soon as he started talking about neo Nazis, Tucker's first impulse was to interrupt, "But what can you do about it?". Like yeah, it's normal that there's a growing number or Nazis and it's just something we have to live with. He cut him off so many times, and who knows where it was going to lead. If there is no time limit, let him talk for hours until he doesn't have anything else to say. The goal was to learn more about him and his agenda, not to get his response to what CNN says about him. Tucker seems more like either a bone head or a controlled agent everyday.
This 👆🏻
BS history lesson. Not one mention of Corn Pop.
Putin said he’s not done in the Ukraine, he still has to de nazify them. Yellow and blue flag wavers are Nazi sympathizers. Check your profile libs!
This is what was discussed. TIMESTAMP HEADLINE 00:00:00 Introduction 00:02:00 Putin gives a history of Russia & Ukraine 00:25:04 NATO Expansion 00:30:40 NATO & Bill Clinton 00:41:10 Ukraine 00:48:30 What triggered this conflict? 01:02:37 A peaceful solution? 01:11:33 Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines? 01:24:13 Re-establishing communication with the US 01:36:33 How powerful is Zelensky? 01:48:36 Elon Musk & AI 01:51:07 Imprisoned American journalist Evan Gershkovich
Reformatted Timestamps
00:00:00 Introduction
00:02:00 Putin gives a history of Russia & Ukraine
00:25:04 NATO Expansion
00:30:40 NATO & Bill Clinton
00:41:10 Ukraine
00:48:30 What triggered this conflict?
01:02:37 A peaceful solution?
01:11:33 Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines?
01:24:13 Re-establishing communication with the US
01:36:33 How powerful is Zelensky?
01:48:36 Elon Musk & AI
01:51:07 Imprisoned American journalist Evan Gershkovich
Don’t forget he implicated Boris Johnson and the Biden admin in quashing a deal to end the Ukraine/Russia conflict 18 months ago!
I remember when this happened! Boris was meddling!
Still ridiculous, essentially included protection through some of the strongest militaries and their allies for a simple ask: Don't join NATO and house them on their borders.
I still remember when that happened and it still makes me facepalm.
“Where is Boris now”? Great question.
Thanks for this fren. I put a sticky link to this.
Nothing about Seth Rich
You are awesome u/YeshuaSupreme 👈🏻
Thank you!
Nazification and Neo Nazi Ukraine @54:00 💪 Putin dropping bombs here, exposing Ukraine’s corruption and self-destruction.
what an awful format. 😒
Why?
the way my timeline post came out, not the interview
gotcha...
if you want things to appear in a
vertical
list
like
this
hit the enter key twice after each break.
Nothing
Can
Stop
What
Is
Coming
Nothing is out of our reach
Edit: 2 spaces at end did not carriage return.
Edit 3: Here's me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee925OTFBCA&t=12s
I didn't know this, thanks fren!
Testing it now...
edit: it worked but make sure your next line already has a break. Appreciate the tip!
edit 2: looks like the distance between lines is slightly smaller but it still breaks
I guess because it was in a nice format when I copied it i find it annoying
it's ok Becky.... we still love ya.... just a little bit less, though! kek!!!
4 spaces after a line then press enter
gets this
no spaces after a line and then pressing enter gets this
Double enter is the easiest fix
I actually like that he gave the entire interview uncensored… let other journalists and news outlets break it down
I was hoping he would specifically mention the level four bioweapons labs and child trafficing.....
Maybe it's been discussed before, and I missed it, but I think the Great Awakening is a 2 parter. Perhaps Putin knows things and has the proof, but obviously must wait for a person to come to power who would actually be willing to listen, who could actually do something about it and make it all known.. like Trump.
First 24 minutes is history of Ukraine & Russia. But at 24 minutes he starts talking about the crux of the matter which is basically what this interview is about.
He starts explaining in clear terms how West was the one who pursued hostile policy towards Russia even as Russians were eager to become part of the western civilization.
This interview will be the basis for a lot of narrative changes in regards to West - specifically starting with Bill Clinton making it clear that Russia is not welcome to join NATO, and bombing of Belgrade to destabilize Balkans and everything beyond that.
The real effects of this narrative changes will still be a little far off - in time for Precipice no doubt.
@54:00 is heats up 🔥
We got roasted for suggesting (by a NY senator) that US troops should be sent to Ukraine. Putin said why? Why do we care about a nation 1000s of miles away. What is our interest? US has its own problems. Border, deficit etc. It would make no sense for you (us) to do that.
Solid point.
This had to be said.
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
LOL!
that was a good part, he makes the democrats look like idiots
I’d like to think Putin wanted to but didn’t have time to address the Coach Red Pill saga. God Bless to all patriots for all land worldwide. #TeamPutin
Putin plays his cards very close to the vest, every statement is measured… calculated. Our politicians are absolute idiots in comparison. Someone lamented that AOC was too young to be president, God help us! Could you imagine president AOC dealing with Putin in any capacity, the laughter from the Kremlin could be heard in New York.
Got to say. Putin is impressive.
I thought so, too. Relaxed, personable, and tough.
Well, I've watched an hour of it but I have to leave the rest for tomorrow. Tucker seems a little adversarial in his attitude and not very well prepared. I know a lot more about this conflict than he seems to.
It's always very obvious when Tucker likes his interviewee and he's not yet sure about Putin. He has just asked Putin about the bombing of the gas lines to Germany and seems to think that Putin should know why the Germans don't come up with the truth about that. He doesn't seem to realize that knowing something and proving it are two different things.
On the whole I think Putin is doing well and hopefully Tucker will improve in the second half. Does Tucker understand Russian?? I don't see a translator there.
I thought Tucker was adversarial as well. By the end, he keeps badgering Putin to just call up Biden and ask him to put an end the war (like that would do anything), and then he tries to strong arm Putin into releasing a poor little espionage hostage. Makes me question his sincerity and agenda for doing this interview.
Link?
https://tuckercarlson.com/the-vladimir-putin-interview/
Oh, never mind, got it.
Excellent!
Here we go!!1!
I don't know, but this is what I found about "red strings"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_string_(Kabbalah)
Putin is of course wearing g a purple tie (Freemason).
Everything you want in a leader. Putin 2.0 Did you notice every photo shown was the real Putin. Look nothing like 2.0
So now, what is Byrne going to try and claim he knew and was asked to break?
I skimmed through this. Did I miss all the parts about Ukraine being the west’s money laundering hub, child trafficking kingdom, bio weapons labs stronghold? Or is it a nothing burger?
We're talking normie world here, fren. Putin is a president, and the interview needs to reach the wider audience.
Step by step.
"and now i will give dates, so there is no longer confusion.. ... and then in 1654.. even a bit earlier."
I love your comments, frens. I came here to see what you guys thought.
I wish the interview would run longer but I can see how Putin didn't say very bad stuff maybe even for Tucker's sake. Love the history lesson, many people aren't aware of this. It also seems like he likes some Presidents but it's never about them because they all have puppet masters who make the ultimate decisions. Hopefully Pres Trump watches this interview and maybe take a minute of reflection as well.
Tucker had Putin reiterate at least half a dozen times that Ukraine and the West started the war, attacked first, violated agreements, threatened, imposed sanctions, sabotaged negotiations and then refused to negotiate before Russia attacked Ukraine. But Russia is actually doing very well. Q said that Putin is also controlled by the bloodline families. Are they all just playing roles in the take down of humanity?
This is why Trump is despised. He actually was voted in by the people and tried to run the country, not like Clinton and others who were puppets of the CIA. Get rid of the CIA, FBI, and clean up SS. Then start on Congress, IRS, FDA, CDC, DOE, NIH, DOS, etc. Make the majority elected and approved by Congress. Make it easier to get rid of bad actors in all areas. Make penalties for undermining Presidential powers harsh. Make the agencies smaller and make then account for every penny with receipts.
I was thinking that Jimmy Carter death notice might be sprung as distraction from this interview. I guess they are keeping him on ice for another occasion.
Not for normies.
Nobody can say Tucker edited the interview for easy consumption.
Ha. Up for 4 hours already, and only 42 million views.
I told you this was a nothing burger....
/sarc
Give us a TL;DW
Are there any hot takes on anything of importance in this interview? Anything wildly unexpected?
Looking at the timestamps it appears to be mostly about the Ukraine war, a topic of virtually no concern to me. Not my circus, not my clowns and if Russia believes it has a claim to it I'm certain not willing to fight them over it. It is also apparent to me NATO countries negotiated with Russia in bad faith and never intended to honor their accord with Russian about expansion.
Tucker Carlson has already admitted on camera in the past that he was trying to get into the CIA. This isn't new and you could find this out on his wiki or just watching the old clip.