So I watched the Tucker Putin interview and these are my thought, what's yours?
I was sort of disappointed that there was no new information, pretty much everything discussed we already knew about (at least here on this board). But I don't really have a perspective on this in terms of normie people. They have been bombarded with propaganda from US and NATO since day 1.
I almost think he should have split the interview into 2 pieces; Putin went off on a tangent right away with a history lesson of Russia and Ukraine which came off as pretty boring, and I think a lot of newcomers would have lost interest right then and there. Most of it I already knew, and what I didn't already know was certainly interesting, but I think most people would have lost interest pretty quickly.
I was disappointed that they did not even touch on US bio-labs and human trafficking. But I guess I can understand why. They did touch on Nordstream, and who did it, but overall I think the interview was pretty tame. Anything that could be even remotely construed as controversial I think came from Tucker, like "Do you think Zelensky is even allowed to try and negotiate?"
One thing that seemed clear was that US leaders are "not in control". They did touch on possible negotiations between Russia and the US that seemed possible, but then unelected bureaucrats from US agencies put the brakes on that. That was certainly interesting. But other than that, all pretty tame. What do you think?
Here are my thoughts:
I did not think it was boring at all. It required patience, and patience is no longer accounted a virtue in modern society. Putin very masterfully and eloquently painted a Big Picture into which our modern times fit as an organic outcome of history. I have made long and involved presentations, and for Putin to do this seemingly off the cuff, without the crutches of visual aids, is a feat I respect. The talent of the simultaneous interpreter was also outstanding. So, from the standpoint of production values, I haven't seen its like.
In this view, his exposition was targeted toward the thoughtful person who truly was curious about the origins of the conflict. Foundational propaganda in the technical sense: getting out the word on fundamental issues.
From this Big Picture, it becomes more evident and persuasive that the "war" started in 2014, not 2022.
And it becomes clearer that the Russian concern was not primarily about borders and territory, but only insofar as it pertained to the protection of fellow Russians, in person, faith, culture, and livelihood.
Contrary to popular misrepresentation, the withdrawal of forces from Kiev was not the ballyhooed Russian "failure," but a tremendous gesture of goodwill and trust---undone by U.S. & NATO perfidy.
As I was absorbing all this, I became annoyed at Carlson's obtuse unwillingness to understand Putin's point about how to proceed. He kept on asking Putin whether he (Putin) could or would approach the Biden administration for a negotiation to end the conflict. Putin would have been well within his rights to reply, "Mr. Carlson, have you even been listening? We have repeatedly negotiated---only to have such negotiations repudiated TIME AFTER TIME. The U.S. wanted this war, so we obliged them. If and when they want it no longer, they can say so. We do not waste time in repeating futility."
Putin's reference to the economic and technical linkage between Russia and Ukraine could have been elaborated. In my own field, I mourn the destruction of the Antonov company (world's largest cargo aircraft) and the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau (space launchers), first rate worldwide.
One might think from Carlson's reaction that Putin's discussion of deNazification was too brief, but that is a reflection of the moral tolerance and equivocation that has corrupted the West . To Putin---and I say this to his great credit---there was not even a question to consider. "What nation can be allowed to propagate Nazism?" It was like preparing for an argument over exterminating typhoid. What argument? What discussion?
I enjoyed listening to Putin. He was firm on his feet, capable of putting everything into perspective, and appealing to moral truths.
All the points you mentioned: Big updoot!
Concerning Tucker, I think we need to take into account:
I would add: It took him 20 years to finally come to the conclusion, something was rotten in the system. Despite him flirting with libertariansim and Ron Paul.
Oh, I have no basic complaint with Tucker per se. I was just annoyed that he couldn't grasp the political reality of "negotiations," under the history that Putin was at pains to detail and highlight (i.e., that they have been tried, tried again, and failed through bad faith, mendacity, and malice). I am rather thinking that Putin is positioning this interview as an opening round in the American public consciousness.
Agree!
I need to watch the whole thing, but I very much connected with Putin. It appears we’re both very intuitive deep thinkers. It is very hard to explain to people like Tucker who just want to get to the point. Alas, it is the journey to the point that matters most. (wow, I think I just expressed something profound) My wife is more like Tucker. She has razor fast reasoning for surface level thought; WAY faster than me. By the time I can formulate it in my brain, it is already coming out of her mouth. I often say “I think it and you say it.” My strength is the ability to see and understand things that she simply ignores. This is also my burden, but for her “ignorance is bliss”.
So much of my thought process, and I believe Putin’s, is VERY abstract. We’re taking in tons of different data points; so much so that we barely understand what we believe to be the best course of action.
Leaders must make hard decisions based upon incomplete information. People like Putin and me think very deeply, but we struggle to express our thoughts to others. It comes across as more of a GUT feeling than anything.
I think Putin’s stroll trough history was Putin’s attempt to better solidify his own thoughts as much as it was to try to explain to others his decisions.
Russians are deep and comprehensive thinkers. Ever read Dostoyevsky? Or Solzhenitsyn?
Excellent summation/insights. Hurrah and salute.
I would also add:
Putin's inclusion of his little "Hungarian story" was masterful, in that it again underlined that there are many cultures/peoples living in Russia, the borders have changed many times over the many years, etc. And also that Putin is a human (he was "on a road trip") and is open to ideas, compromises, etc. I was really smiling at the inclusion of that story. Very clever.
Putin did not talk about the biolabs, which I found very surprising, but it underscored in a way that he doesn't need the biolabs to justify what he did, and he doesn't need to bring up a topic that might cause people to say he was a conspiracy nut (like me).
Personally I felt he went waaaaay too easy on the State Department ghouls that are committing all of these terrorist acts in Eastern Europe. But again, doing so side-stepped any criticism that he was conspiracy mongering, etc.
The "When the USSR collapsed I thought we were going to be friends. Clinton said we could join NATO. But then the CIA said no." story was a big piping hot cup of WAKE UP, for America. Loved it.
All in all, I hope anyone looking to match wits with Putin watches that interview before doing so.
Agreed. I surmise he is holding the biolabs information close to the vest for later exploitation. They have already revealed a lot, since the very beginning, resulting in Victoria Nuland going from "it's all a conspiracy story" to under-oath testimony before Congress in one week's time.
The biolabs are crimes against humanity, not just war crimes. The U.S. is culpable and guilty of violating a treaty it signed.
Russia has aired the biolabs information before, most notably at the UN.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biological-weapon-claim-us-un-ukraine-bio-labs-explainer
But since the UN is a dog-and-pony show (or maybe more accurately a "donkey show") for the USA, that (so far) went nowhere. At least it seems that way to me.
So I think Putin shrewdly decided to not raise it in the interview, because the audience (American "viewers") was different than the UN venue, etc.
"Horses for courses". As long as we're talking about ponies and donkeys.