Tucker Carlson Thread

No, nothing is "obvious" about this "interview" except that jews were not discussed. Not the jews of the Bolshevik Revolution, not the jews of international banking, not the jews of freemasonry the Talmud and the occult, and not the jews of the American "elite." The only answer to this glaring omission is that Putin is being "handled" by the JQ mafia.
No, what is "obvious" is that you are showing *PDS in a lot of your posts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Azov Battalion has/had less than a thousand members. Putin invaded Ukraine to deal with a thousand men? Or did he invade Ukraine to wreck Ukraine for his JQ masters so they could buy up the fertile land on the post-war-cheap and form a second israel (or something to that effect)?

Putin mentioned "nationalism" as a whole (in conjunction with nazism) that "the world always puts down" (paraphrasing). Putin's nazi thing makes no sense to normies because normies just retort, "Isn't Zelensky a jew? Why would a jew support nazis?" The only way the focus on nazism makes sense is that Putin is signaling to his JQ masters "Look, I'm being a good little goy, please let me keep my 5 super yachts in the Black Sea, Ibiza, and the Mediterranean." Putin's just a greedy, halfway intelligent JQ ring kisser who's been anesthesized for 20+ years by the trappings of luxury goods and services. He even kind of looks like a jew. Maybe his mother was jewish?
This post does not make any sense at all. Putin lives rent free in your head.
  • What is the history of Azov? When was Azov started?
  • Where was Azov situated in Ukraine?
  • (((Who))) funded Azov?
  • What countries, groups or alphabet agencies provided financial support, training support, weapons, etc. to the Azov groups?
  • What role did the U.S.-backed Azov played in during the Maidan Revolution of 2014? For example, the "snipers" who shot and killed the protesters...were the snipers from the Azov group who were posing as Ukrainian police officers as part of a coup?
  • How about the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)? Who is giving orders on persecuting Orthodox Christians and shutting down UOC across Ukraine? Zelensky is a puppet; he's taking orders from someone.
  • etc.
Start learning how to use your own critical thinking skills and do your own research. Otherwise, nobody is going to take your garbage post seriously.

*PDS = Putin Derangement Syndrome.
 


Full text
Vladimir Putin sheds light on Russia's complex relationship with the West following the collapse of the Soviet Union, detailing aspirations for collaboration with Presidents Clinton and Bush, concerns about NATO expansion, a CIA-backed coup in Ukraine, the Minsk Agreements, and the onset of the War in Ukraine in 2014.

Russia's Post-Soviet Optimism

Putin revisited the Soviet Union's dissolution, emphasizing Russia's initial hope for collaboration with the West. He highlighted Russia's voluntary acceptance of the Soviet Union's collapse, expecting the "civilized West" to view it as an invitation for cooperation. Putin recalled Russian President Boris Yeltsin's praised speech in front of the United States Congress, famously saying, "God Bless America," while expressing optimism for acceptance by the West.

Putin's Missile Shield Plan

In 2007, Putin proposed a joint U.S.-Russia-Europe missile defense system to President George W. Bush. While the U.S. claimed to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe to counter threats from Iran, Putin suggested a collaborative approach to avoid threatening Russia's security. Despite initial interest, Putin's proposal was rejected, leading to Russia's development of hypersonic missile systems.

"I suggested working together: Russia, the United States, and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, "Are you serious?" I said, "Absolutely". I said, "Just imagine if we could settle such a global strategic security challenge together. The world will change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones. But we could drastically change the situation in the world." He says "Yes, and asks, "Are you serious? I said, "Of course". "We need to think about it." I said, "Go ahead, please."

Putin describes how Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited him in Moscow in 2007 to decline his proposal. In response, Putin explained that Russia would be forced to take countermeasures.

"We are now ahead of everyone, the United States and the other countries in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems. And we are improving them every day. But it wasn't us. We proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back. Now, about NATO's expansion to the east. Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told. And then what? They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand. So, there were five waves of expansion. The Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on."

NATO Expansion Concerns

Putin describes Russia's grievances regarding NATO's eastward expansion, emphasizing the breach of promises made during earlier negotiations. He recounted the diplomatic efforts to dissuade NATO from encroaching on Russia's borders, illustrating a growing rift in relations, particularly in the aftermath of NATO bombing Yugoslavia in violation of the United Nations charter.

Putin recalled asking President Bill Clinton about Russia joining NATO. After initially expressing interest, Clinton said it would be impossible after he spoke to his advisors. Putin also mentioned the CIA's involvement in supporting opposition parties in Russia.

"The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward. But it happened five times. There were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that. We were trying to persuade them. We were saying, please don't... We are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate."

"In 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Germany, France, and other European countries seemed to be against it. But then, as I was told later, President Bush exerted pressure, and they had to agree. It's ridiculous. It's like kindergarten. What kind of people are these? We're ready to talk, but with whom? Where are the guarantees? None. So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine."

CIA's Role in Ukraine

Putin took a deep dive into the Ukrainian crisis, particularly the contentious events surrounding the Orange Revolution in 2004 and Viktor Yanukovych's removal from power during the Maidan Revolution in 2014. He asserts that the United States, with a particular focus on the CIA and State Department, played a significant role in the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, characterizing it as a coup orchestrated with American backing.

Putin explained that Germany, Poland, and France signed an agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition that would guarantee a peaceful resolution through an early election. Putin criticized the decision to resort to violence instead of allowing an early election, asserting that the CIA's actions were a political miscalculation.

"He had no chance of winning, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that. Then, why the coup? Why the victims? Why threaten Crimea? Why launch an operation in Donbas? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that they cost a large sum of money. Almost 5 billion. But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, and without the loss of Crimea. We would have never considered even lifting the finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan."

"The armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. With the back of the CIA, of course. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from a political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely, it was political leadership's miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into."

War in Donbas 2014

Putin discusses the events leading to the 2014 War in Ukraine, attributing it to NATO's open doors for Ukraine in 2008, the subsequent coup, and the persecution of those opposing it.

"In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup. They created the threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above."

"They launched a large-scale military operation. All this against the background of the military development of this territory and the opening of NATO's doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence."

"We addressed the leadership of the United States and European countries to stop these developments immediately and implement the Minsk agreements."

The Minsk Agreements

Putin explained that current tensions result from Ukraine's leadership's refusal to implement the 2014-signed Minsk agreements. He highlighted Ukraine's reluctance to adhere to the agreements, with leaders openly declaring their refusal. Putin also mentioned former German and French leaders admitting to signing the agreements without intending to implement them. Despite the complexity, Putin expressed readiness to implement the agreements, criticizing Ukraine for favoring a military solution and accusing them of starting the war in 2014.

"It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it."

Why did the United States and the West refuse to collaborate with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

What do you think about Putin's interpretation of events that led to the War in Ukraine?

Do you agree with Putin's assertion that NATO expansion and a CIA-backed coup in Ukraine led to the War in Ukraine?
 


Full text
On the Tucker interview with Putin.

I'm glad that we got to see this, because it revealed how out of touch Putin is. Tucker begins with a simple question of what the threat was on February 22. Putin's response spends *half an hour* on the entire history of Russia.

We're used to people in the Middle East talking like this. An obsession with deep history is the characteristic of cultures that fight wars that never end. No one wonder no one even in the Russian speaking part of Ukraine wants to be part of Russia. Modern people care about their own lives and freedom and want a vision of the future.

That's what Ukraine and the West offer. Not endless lectures from a grumpy uncle on how Vlad Vladimirovich sent love letters to Svetlana the Elegant in 1207 and why this proves that Russians and Ukrainians are one people.

When talking about geopolitics, the deeper someone goes in history, the more disconnected they are from modern reality, and the less likely they are to be a rational actor who can be negotiated with. Putin had arguments he could've started with about the US interfering in Russian affairs or whatever, but he's deranged enough to think that leading with a lecture on the history of the Slavic peoples is how you sell a war in the twenty first century.

Surely a case of free speech is the best disinfectant. I knew Putin talked a lot about history, I had no idea his brain had deteriorated to this point. Hopefully Russians can one day soon have a leader who cares about making their lives better, rather than fighting wars based on what he read in history books.



If the Tucker interview and the response to it from people like Richard Hanania show anything, it's that there's an enormous gulf in historical sense between the West and Russia. Tucker knew Putin would take the discussion further back than most in the West would expect it to go, he knew Putin would go back to 2014 and talk about Maidan and Yanukovych, but he had no idea Putin would talk about Yaroslavl the Wise or Rurik. Why should this be a surprise though?

The West is in the terrible mess it's in precisely because we have forgotten our roots, our ties to the earth and our illustrious ancestors. Virtually every country in Europe has a known history every bit as deep and as documented as that of Russia, if not more -- and even America does, because of the history of its founding stock -- and yet we act as if none of it matters now, as if it doesn't make us who we are and ultimately justify our being here now and in the future.
 
There's a lot of debate here about the use of the word Nazi.
When I hear the word, it means a 1930s German National Socialist (who are all dead now).

But that's not how the word is used today, ever. Outside of a history classroom, if you hear the word, it really means more like "person with irrational hatred towards others and often attacks the weak and disadvantaged." It has nothing to do with socialism or ethnicity.

Groups in the west organize "Nazi Go Home" protests against someone who criticizes, say, trannies or feminism (things, sure, a Nazi would not like, but even the far left would have rejected in 1930). If you recall a few years ago, in the aftermath of the Unite The Right event in Charlottesville, "Nazi" became the worst thing you could possibly be called. Now that may not quite be true today, largely because they overused the phrase against anyone the regime didn't like, but it still basically means an irrationally violent and hateful person who attacks the weak.

And that perfectly describes the actions of the new Ukraine regime, who have this irrational hatred of everything Russian and randomly and anonymously kill civilians in Russian areas just because (that's even more evil than the American wedding drone type stuff, which at least doesn't directly target weddings, but merely doesn't care about killing innocents, where the UkroNazis are intentionally trying to kill innocents).

In that respect, Nazi is precisely the correct English word to describe these people.

As for not naming the Jew, what would be the point of that? America is controlled and its democratically elected leaders are not running things. We are a literal puppet state. That is now publicly explained and the entire world gets it. It's not isolated to a certain regime, but is ingrained in our system. Does anyone really wonder who we are a puppet state of?

If Americans are too stupid to figure out that a cabinet that is 75% Jewish, a war criminal Israeli leader who comes to our congress and gets standing ovations from both parties, American leaders who say they will stand with Israel even after "DC is a smoldering ruin" and AIPAC controlling every single elected member in our legistlature, save Thomas Massey, means the people controlling us are Jews, then someone spelling it out for us isn't going to do any good because we are too childish a nation to do anything about it anyway (sorry but that kind of is the case).

And in 2024 you just can't throw around phrases like "jews bad" and be met with anything other than Wow Just Wowing, and anyway Jewish Homosexual Glenn Greenwald (our best English language journalist) does a good job in the clip above.
 


Full text



It's ironic that one reason the US is so gung-ho to consider Russia an enemy is that the US and England, France, Germany, and Austria before it have always viewed Russia with hostility for at least 400 years. It would have made more sense for the US to pursue peaceful relations with Russia in the post-Soviet era, but they just can't help themselves from wanting to undermine and weaken Russia, and score one-ups against them.

Everybody makes fun of Putin having a long historical perspective, but they can't see that the US is acting from long historical patterns as well.
 
Tucker: Do you see the supernatural at work? Do you see God at work? Do you think there are forces that are not human?

Putin: No, to be honest. I don't think so.
I agree. What we are seeing here is pure humanistic evil of man. The west rejected God, and it is no coincidence that we are seeing the evil of man replace God in all facets of life.

One has to look very hard to find God at work in these events.
And let's be honest. To the degree the GAE is suffering some defeats finally, it is not due to some miraculous event, but the hard grunt work the Russian fighters are doing, day after day.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
 
It's ironic that one reason the US is so gung-ho to consider Russia an enemy is that the US and England, France, Germany, and Austria before it have always viewed Russia with hostility for at least 400 years.
It's even more ironic and ridiculous when one considers that the base of western belief at this point is that one *cannot* make outward judgments on people because of who they are, and they take this to bizarre lengths, including of course all the "man is really a woman with the wrong soul inside" garbage, but also pretending that "Chinaman who live in Beijing is complete opposite of Chinaman who live in Taipei" causing them to "ally" with Taiwanese, who are of course loyal to their own people, not this bizarre western ideology.

And then they throw all that logic out the window when it comes to Russia. "No a Russian is bad everywhere and always because of Who They Are." To paraphrase Lady GaGa can I help it if I'm born this way? :sneaky:
 
This is somewhat a broad generalization after getting up to date on this thread.

Those coming out strongest in here against Putin and his point of view in the interview appear somewhat ignorant to Putin and his point of view. Give a strong impression this is the first time they've heard him speak at length.

Much of what he said and the historical context of Russia v Ukraine v NATO/EU v USA he has spoken about in depth previously. That obviously has been ignored by western MSM.

As for the interview at large, Putin is the most calculated world leader out there. He could have slammed western culture, gay agenda, pedos, what's going on in schools, etc, as he has in Russian media. He did not. It appeared to be an intentionally calm and collected general explanation of Russia's history and perspective which bellies the western MSM propaganda of him being an angry, evil lunatic who wants to colonize the Euro continent for no good reason.

Also beneficial to remember, good vs bad is for kindergarten. In the real world it is perspectives, motivations, intentions, compromises and benefits.
 
Questionable quotes;

And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exist in other countries as well. Yes, there are seedlings, but we uproot them, and other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case.

Tucker Carlson: Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres. One with cheap energy, the other without it. And I want to ask you that, if we are now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocs of alliances? Who is in each side, do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres: one is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than meant for the ”golden billion“.

But then, when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things: firstly, it is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists, because they are aggressive and very active, you can expect anything from them, and secondly, the US-led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia – it is beneficial and safe.

Tucker Carlson: So do you see the supernatural at work? As you look out across what’s happening in the world now, do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself: these are forces that are not human?

Vladimir Putin: No, to be honest, I don't think so.

Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: ”God bless America“. Everything he said were signals — let us in.

Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.

That last one is hard to catch, but he's either outright lying or praising a man who almost got the Communist party voted back in. That congress address is a memory of shame for most Russians. This is significant because what he's saying is about as unpopular opinion as he can have, with his own voting base. Bootlickers of the west, who unimaously oppose Putin, are the only ones who like Yeltsin.

source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73411
 
This is somewhat a broad generalization after getting up to date on this thread.

Those coming out strongest in here against Putin and his point of view in the interview appear somewhat ignorant to Putin and his point of view. Give a strong impression this is the first time they've heard him speak at length.

Much of what he said and the historical context of Russia v Ukraine v NATO/EU v USA he has spoken about in depth previously. That obviously has been ignored by western MSM.

As for the interview at large, Putin is the most calculated world leader out there. He could have slammed western culture, gay agenda, pedos, what's going on in schools, etc, as he has in Russian media. He did not. It appeared to be an intentionally calm and collected general explanation of Russia's history and perspective which bellies the western MSM propaganda of him being an angry, evil lunatic who wants to colonize the Euro continent for no good reason.

Also beneficial to remember, good vs bad is for kindergarten. In the real world it is perspectives, motivations, intentions, compromises and benefits.
I thought the same thing when I saw some of the guys here slamming Putin for not pulling the curtain wide open on everything. No doubt his goal was to make his case in a calm and collected way, which he certainly did. If he started shooting from the hip and saying that Jews control the western world etc. he’d only be smeared relentlessly as a unhinged whack job. As it stands the best his adversaries can do now is say “ oh my god, who cares about your history, live in the now”.
Tucker tried to bait him when he said something along the lines of “are you saying that the president/government doesn’t control America?”. Putin chose to leave it at that but I’m sure both those men know the score. Neither will come out and say it for the same reasons.

I also don’t like how Tucker called Putin “wounded” in his follow up. It’s emasculating and not accurate. What I heard Putin say was “we acknowledged that our communist expansionist ways were misguided and we changed them, while also making a concrete effort to mend relations with the west and be brought into the fold of prosperity. We were rebuffed so we had no choice but to overcome the wests military capabilities, grow our economy and forge our own international financial systems and then we took the west head on in war.”
That doesn’t sound wounded to me.
 
This is going to be a deeply unpopular post here, but I have to speak my mind, so if you don't want to be angry, I would recommend skipping my post.

You have been warned.

What an absolute disaster of an interview for both Putin and Tucker.

What’s your impression of Putin from western media sources? Likely, he’s a cold, calculating psychopath who only cares about his own power and wealth. How did Putin come across in the interview? As a cold, calculating psychopath who only cares about himself. You must understand that women, especially young women, hold the balance of power in the west, and if there is every going to be a change in perspective on this war, it's going to run through young women. Guess what young women hate? They hate short, cold, mean, old, autists who spend 30 minutes droning on and on about history. No young woman in the world will watch this interview and if they do, they will immediately hate Putin.

Tucker also gave Putin multiple opportunities to try and connect with the dissident right in the west and failed miserably. When asked about Christianity, he started talking about the multi-cult and Islam. When he was asked about whether God is guiding his war, he said no, it’s pragmatic. Ok, so he’s an opportunist who leverages Orthodox for its political and social advantage.

Putin also came across as mean and vindictive and tried to belittle Tucker even though, clearly, Tucker is the one of the few Western journalists who is sympathetic to Russia. What’s the point of flexing his power against Tucker in Russia? Putin has all of the power, so why push it? Putin is a KGB bully that enjoys making other people feel small, which fits perfectly within the western narrative.

Tucker put his career, his safety, and his family’s safety on the line to extend an olive branch to Putin, and Putin spit in his face. Great. Expect the deep state to dust off some old statue that finds Tucker violated some 1930 law and spend the next 9 months trying to send him to jail, like they did with Roger Stone and Peter Navarro. All the while the meat grinder will continue in Ukraine unopposed.
 
This is going to be a deeply unpopular post here, but I have to speak my mind, so if you don't want to be angry, I would recommend skipping my post.

You have been warned.

What an absolute disaster of an interview for both Putin and Tucker.

What’s your impression of Putin from western media sources? Likely, he’s a cold, calculating psychopath who only cares about his own power and wealth. How did Putin come across in the interview? As a cold, calculating psychopath who only cares about himself. You must understand that women, especially young women, hold the balance of power in the west, and if there is every going to be a change in perspective on this war, it's going to run through young women. Guess what young women hate? They hate short, cold, mean, old, autists who spend 30 minutes droning on and on about history. No young woman in the world will watch this interview and if they do, they will immediately hate Putin.

Tucker also gave Putin multiple opportunities to try and connect with the dissident right in the west and failed miserably. When asked about Christianity, he started talking about the multi-cult and Islam. When he was asked about whether God is guiding his war, he said no, it’s pragmatic. Ok, so he’s an opportunist who leverages Orthodox for its political and social advantage.

Putin also came across as mean and vindictive and tried to belittle Tucker even though, clearly, Tucker is the one of the few Western journalists who is sympathetic to Russia. What’s the point of flexing his power against Tucker in Russia? Putin has all of the power, so why push it? Putin is a KGB bully that enjoys making other people feel small, which fits perfectly within the western narrative.

Tucker put his career, his safety, and his family’s safety on the line to extend an olive branch to Putin, and Putin spit in his face. Great. Expect the deep state to dust off some old statue that finds Tucker violated some 1930 law and spend the next 9 months trying to send him to jail, like they did with Roger Stone and Peter Navarro. All the while the meat grinder will continue in Ukraine unopposed.
Cold and calculating is exactly what a national leader needs to be.
Putin has taken his country from abject poverty and suffering in the ‘90s to the point where he’s able to challenge the strongest military and economic coalitions the world has likely ever seen and you think he should be pandering to women who’s biggest accomplishment is filing a grievance with HR when their feeling are hurt?
 
Back
Top