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?
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.