Tucker + Putin Interview

[BashiChuni]

very interested to watch this. hopefully tucker will ask putin tough questions. standing by for the left and media meltdown

[BashiChuni]

https://tuckercarlson.com/the-vladimir-putin-interview/

[BashiChuni]

POWERFUL interview by tucker. fascinating insight into Putin...highly encourage everyone to watch it in its entirety and not just clips.

[uhhello]

12 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

POWERFUL interview by tucker. fascinating insight into Putin...highly encourage everyone to watch it in its entirety and not just clips.

I watched it in it's entirety.  Would love to hear what fascinating insight you gained.  

[BashiChuni]

I’ll chime in later IOT not derail the thread 

[gearhog]

I can't believe this interview is allowed on Western media outlets. Just a few quick thoughts.

1. Tucker was cringe. His trademark giggle seems fake and it was almost as if he was fawning over Putin. He just let Putin ramble for 15 minutes at a time.

2. Putin took the first 30 minutes to give a 1000 year dissertation in ancient Russian history. Tucker tried interject and get the interview back on track multiple times. No one wants to hear all that. We all want to hear the recent relevant highlights while Putin apparently thinks and talks in encyclopedias. It's called "History" because it's over.  It has nothing to do with the current situation.

3. Putin kept baselessly claiming NATO was expanding, that we provoked a coup in 2014, and the Donbass separatists were being bombed. And Neo-Nazis? Is he being serious? Sounded like a lunatic.

4. For being the head of the Russia state, every time he was asked about his assessment of the actions or rationale of the US, his answer would be something to the effect of "I don't know what the hell they're doing. It makes no sense." How can someone in his position be this perplexed by our strategies and methods?

5. Putin said he had neither the capability or intentions to invade Europe. Which is what anyone would say before they did just that.

6. He did mention that we should be more concerned by the massive invasion of our southern border and our unsustainable debt, which he might have a fair point.

7. He said he was willing to negotiate a settlement, but then said he refused to call Biden, contradicting himself.

8. Tucker tried to get him to release a US journalist and he refused, and claimed he was a spy.

Overall, it was thinly disguised Pro-Russian and Pro-Putin propaganda. Do not watch.

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

17 minutes ago, gearhog said:

I can't believe this interview is allowed on Western media outlets. Just a few quick thoughts.

1. Tucker was cringe. His trademark giggle seems fake and it was almost as if he was fawning over Putin. He just let Putin ramble for 15 minutes at a time.

2. Putin took the first 30 minutes to give a 1000 year dissertation in ancient Russian history. Tucker tried interject and get the interview back on track multiple times. No one wants to hear all that. We all want to hear the recent relevant highlights while Putin apparently thinks and talks in encyclopedias. It's called "History" because it's over.  It has nothing to do with the current situation.

3. Putin kept baselessly claiming NATO was expanding, that we provoked a coup in 2014, and the Donbass separatists were being bombed. And Neo-Nazis? Is he being serious? Sounded like a lunatic.

4. For being the head of the Russia state, every time he was asked about his assessment of the actions or rationale of the US, his answer would be something to the effect of "I don't know what the hell they're doing. It makes no sense." How can someone in his position be this perplexed by our strategies and methods?

5. Putin said he had neither the capability or intentions to invade Europe. Which is what anyone would say before they did just that.

6. He did mention that we should be more concerned by the massive invasion of our southern border and our unsustainable debt, which he might have a fair point.

7. He said he was willing to negotiate a settlement, but then said he refused to call Biden, contradicting himself.

8. Tucker tried to get him to release a US journalist and he refused, and claimed he was a spy.

Overall, it was thinly disguised Pro-Russian and Pro-Putin propaganda. Do not watch.

 

 

I have always thought that Tucker Carlson has an excellent record on domestic issues and a nearly perfect streak of getting international issues dead wrong.

[Smokin]

Given that Russia currently has a jailed WSJ reporter, I am floored that this interview happened.  First, he probably couldn't ask too tough of questions for fear of the interview ending with him in handcuffs and being tried as a spy.  Second, interviewing a man that effectively kidnapped a fellow journalist without the promise that Evan Gershkovich would be released should raise some moral concerns.

[BashiChuni]

You must have missed the 10 minutes Tucker asked for Putin to release him and defended said WSJ journalist. 

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, Smokin said:

Given that Russia currently has a jailed WSJ reporter, I am floored that this interview happened.  First, he probably couldn't ask too tough of questions for fear of the interview ending with him in handcuffs and being tried as a spy.  Second, interviewing a man that effectively kidnapped a fellow journalist without the promise that Evan Gershkovich would be released should raise some moral concerns.

I thought Tucker hammered the WSJ reporter issue pretty well and held Putin to an answer. After initial prevarications Putin essentially answered “we will release the dude eventually, but I am bingo good faith gestures to the west so we’re not doing it now.”  I don’t like that answer, but hearing it directly from Putin was illuminating for many reasons.  I also reject your unspecified moral concerns at engaging in dialogue with someone who has done something bad. Of course Putin portrays himself as the good guy and is evasive; knowing he’s bullshitting isn’t a reason not to listen.

 I’m surprised how many military officers are disgusted by Tucker‘s interview. I would gladly hear from adversaries no matter how much I despise them. I want to hear from North Korea, from Iran, the Houthi’s, would love to hear a podcast from al Shabab, AQ, etc. I watched the Vice documentary on ISIS with interest.  I would kill all of them with no hesitation, but talking is the way wars end and listening is potentially advantageous.

This is a recent development in our country and not a good one: we used to listen to everybody and journalists were applauded by interviewing adversaries. Now there is a large group of people who cover their ears and shout when introduced to a different opinion, claiming it is propaganda disinformation malinformation. Yes it is, so what?  
 

The enemy believes things we think are wrong, that is why they are the enemy. Answers can’t always be taken at face value, we’re engaged against them so their speech is a lot of subterfuge and attempted manipulation and they fight with words.  Listening to those things doesn’t infect me, it helps me understand how to resolve conflicts to my advantage.  Where might we agree? What are things they care about that we don’t where concessions might be made?  What are sensitive areas where we might ascertain vulnerabilities previously unseen? How can we exploit their words against them? Who are the charismatic, intelligent leaders who have a chance of defeating us that we should target and kill?  Who are the dumb ones we should prop up to weaken their organization?  There are also tactical advantages: UBL, ISIS & NVA were targeted successfully based on analysis of items in the background of videos they allowed reporters to take; fucking dummies.  I encourage that (Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake).  So let’s all be mature and realize there is goodness here if we are smart enough to filter appropriately.  And if hearing a different perspective challenges your own conclusions, that is healthy as well.

Edited February 9 by tac airlifter

[HerkPerfMan]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

So let’s all be mature and realize there is goodness here if we are smart enough to filter appropriately.  And if hearing a different perspective challenges your own conclusions, that is healthy as well.

The larger lesson here is worth reiterating:

Seeking information and listening to perspectives counter to your own experience are worthwhile and healthy no matter where you stand. And it helps sharpen your BS detector.

[disgruntledemployee]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Words...

  Listening to those things doesn’t infect me, it helps me understand how to resolve conflicts to my advantage.  Where might we agree? What are things they care about that we don’t where concessions might be made?  What are sensitive areas where we might ascertain vulnerabilities previously unseen? How can we exploit their words against them? Who are the charismatic, intelligent leaders who have a chance of defeating us that we should target and kill?  Who are the dumb ones we should prop up to weaken their organization?  There are also tactical advantages: UBL, ISIS & NVA were targeted successfully based on analysis of items in the background of videos they allowed reporters to take; fucking dummies.  I encourage that (Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake).  So let’s all be mature and realize there is goodness here if we are smart enough to filter appropriately.  And if hearing a different perspective challenges your own conclusions, that is healthy as well.

A big issue with that (underlined) is a large chunk of humans will see this, or have it shoved thru their Tiktok eyeballs, and adopt the forced opinion that the Ruskies are good.  The US has a sizeable group of the dumb ones.

Putin won the interview.

How about Tucker take the tape, hand it over to the IC, and tell em to have at it, especially since Tucker was denied getting the WSJ released.  Even better would have been if Tucker greeted him and gave him a Novichok handshake.

[Smokin]

I didn't miss the 10 minutes.  I missed the entire thing because I'm not going to support it by watching it.  Although I wouldn't say I'm missing it Bob.

I have no issues listening to Putin or any other potential/actual enemy to learn how they think and why they do what they do.  I have an issue with a journalist going into a country that holds journalists hostage for political gains and giving the leader of that country legitimacy by doing an interview like this.  I think it played far more into Putin's hands than Carlson's.  I also think Putin is too smart to give us anything that we could actually learn from.  Before his untimely (too late) death, I had no problem with people listening to Osama bin Laden.  I would have had an issue with a US reporter interviewing him.  Maybe I'm making an unnecessary distinction, but there is a difference between listening/learning and doing something to gives an enemy a platform that they will use to their advantage.

Along those lines, the follow on posts read FAR too much into my statement.  I have absolutely no problem listening to people on the other side of the political spectrum.  Many of the problems with our country is the lack of a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.  But there is a big difference between this and the Putin interview.

 

[ClearedHot]

[uhhello]

22 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

When I was watching it, that was the first thought during the putin dissertation.  They are going to meme the fuck out of his expressions.  

[Pooter]

@Smokin

I'm curious how you can make these value judgements without having seen it.

I'm also curious how giving Putin an interview is "platforming" him in any appreciable way when he's already the leader of the 3rd most powerful country on earth. 

[Pooter]

FWIW the interview was weak shit. Exactly the kind of thing Russian state media would sign on to. 95% of it was Putin giving his version of approximately the last 1,000 years of human history interspersed with tucker's strange faces and poor attempts at indoor voice volume control. 
 

4% was talking about the jailed reporter, which essentially boiled down to: Putin "well we think he was a spy, so we'll let the appropriate agencies handle it"

and 1% was the only actual good question of the night from Tucker: "how do you plan to "de-nazify" a country if you can't even take it over?"

credit where credit is due for a decent burn on that one. 
 

My biggest takeaway from the interview was that Putin tells an extremely dishonest yet convincing version of history that I'm not surprised most Russian buy into. He's an extremely shrewd politician who only divulges exactly what he intends to and talked circles around tucker all night. He's a bad actor.. but not a madman, and I sure wish we had someone as competent as him working for our side.

 

[Boomer6]

6 hours ago, Smokin said:

I didn't miss the 10 minutes.  I missed the entire thing because I'm not going to support it by watching it.  Although I wouldn't say I'm missing it Bob.

I have no issues listening to Putin or any other potential/actual enemy to learn how they think and why they do what they do.  I have an issue with a journalist going into a country that holds journalists hostage for political gains and giving the leader of that country legitimacy by doing an interview like this.  I think it played far more into Putin's hands than Carlson's.  I also think Putin is too smart to give us anything that we could actually learn from.  Before his untimely (too late) death, I had no problem with people listening to Osama bin Laden.  I would have had an issue with a US reporter interviewing him.  Maybe I'm making an unnecessary distinction, but there is a difference between listening/learning and doing something to gives an enemy a platform that they will use to their advantage.

Along those lines, the follow on posts read FAR too much into my statement.  I have absolutely no problem listening to people on the other side of the political spectrum.  Many of the problems with our country is the lack of a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.  But there is a big difference between this and the Putin interview.

 

I’ve never understood the argument about giving a country legitimacy by conducting an interview, or how providing a “platform” provides them a better opportunity to…what…convince Americans they’re good?

If Oprah interviews a murderer/rapist etc. are large percentages of her viewers like, “damn if Oprah interviewed him he must be a great guy and also innocent”? Was the FBI on alert when Barbara Walters interviewed someone in prison in case people from the local town showed up with pitch forks and demanded that individual be set free?

Is the whole of Russia now going to respond with “AHH MOTHERLAND!!!” and join the red army because some reporter from America interviewed their president?

Not chucking spears. I just have truly never known any ppl that think like the examples above, and I’ve lived in a lot of places with large populations of idiots.

[ViperMan]

7 hours ago, Smokin said:

I also think Putin is too smart to give us anything that we could actually learn from.

Good thing you outsmarted him by not watching it then.

7 hours ago, Smokin said:

I would have had an issue with a US reporter interviewing him.  Maybe I'm making an unnecessary distinction, but there is a difference between listening/learning and doing something to gives an enemy a platform that they will use to their advantage.

So no one from "our side" should ever go figure out what the other side wants? By talking to them? By hearing what they have to say?

Like, seriously Clark?

[disgruntledemployee]

Fine, Putin is the best dude ever, such a big caring heart.  He's Mr Wonderful and would give anyone the shirt off his back.  All hail Perfect Putin, a true angel.  He should get the Nobel Peace award. 

🤑

[VigilanteNav]

I'll admit that at first news of this interview my initial inclination was to be disgusted with Tuck.  However, I know think it was at least useful to the US and Western world's intelligence agencies to gain just a bit more clarity on Putin's intentions going forward.  Additionally, now the US knows with a bit more clarity what it will take to get the journalist and Whelan freed (nothing short of turning over a few ne'er do wells we have jailed to which I say let them have them as we've certainly turned over many of these types before). And honestly, if Tuck had secured the release of the journalist, I would have celebrated that!   

As for Putin's intent going foward, this snippet from ISW's summary of the interview is instructive. 

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev noted that Putin told the Western world in the most thorough and detailed way why Ukraine did not exist, does not exist, and will not exist.[6] Medvedev’s description of Putin’s interview further demonstrates that Russia has not abandoned its maximalist goals of eradicating Ukrainian statehood and that Putin does not intend to negotiate with Ukraine on any terms short of these goals.

More assessment here: 

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, February 9, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

If you agree with Putin's assessment that  the unbroken tradition of Russian statehood dating back to the 9th Century with the modern "invention" of Ukraine - a country he insists was "created" as late as the 20th Century.  Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin's 'nonsense' history (bbc.com)

is perfectly acceptable rationale for Russia to invade Ukraine and effectively install its own preferred government in place of the current one which is overwhelmingly supported by its people, then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

[disgruntledemployee]

Well then, when are the English coming back to reclaim your country? Or the Natives?  Any Incas still around? Ooooh, crocodiles, since they came from dinosaurs.

[gearhog]

On 2/8/2024 at 9:20 PM, Lord Ratner said:

I have always thought that Tucker Carlson has an excellent record on domestic issues and a nearly perfect streak of getting international issues dead wrong.

Agreed. When Putin was recalling names, dates, and details of complex international relationships over hundreds of years, Tucker was bewildered. Putin was likely fabricating most of it, and Tucker wasn't equipped to challenge him.

22 hours ago, Smokin said:

I have no issues listening to Putin or any other potential/actual enemy to learn how they think and why they do what they do.  I have an issue with a journalist going into a country that holds journalists hostage for political gains and giving the leader of that country legitimacy by doing an interview like this.  I think it played far more into Putin's hands than Carlson's.  I also think Putin is too smart to give us anything that we could actually learn from.  Before his untimely (too late) death, I had no problem with people listening to Osama bin Laden.  I would have had an issue with a US reporter interviewing him.  Maybe I'm making an unnecessary distinction, but there is a difference between listening/learning and doing something to gives an enemy a platform that they will use to their advantage.

Along those lines, the follow on posts read FAR too much into my statement.  I have absolutely no problem listening to people on the other side of the political spectrum.  Many of the problems with our country is the lack of a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.  But there is a big difference between this and the Putin interview.

 

This is the right answer. Putin is playing 4-D chess and Tucker is playing checkers. The US likely has the greatest intelligence service that has ever existed. Enormous amounts of resources have been required to gather and assess the capabilities and intent of Russia. Bottom line: they're evil. The average American doesn't have access to that type of information to make that assessment, so why should we be exposed to propaganda that we aren't equipped to challenge? Trust the science, as they say.

CNN reporter Peter Arnett once interviewed Osama Bin Laden, and look what happened. CBS's Dan Rather interviewed Saddaam Hussein and look what happened. ABC's Charlie Rose and NBC's Megyn Kelly earlier interviewed Putin and look where we are. When all of these interviews were aired on US primetime mainstream media outlets, tens of millions of people watched. This interview is now almost 200 Million Views. Why haven't we learned allowing reporters to interview our enemies only leads to further conflict? As you said, it only gives them legitimacy. Saddaam and Putin attained their leadership status through sham democratic elections. Acknowledging them as leaders grants legitimacy not only to them, but the corrupt systems that put them in power.

11 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Fine, Putin is the best dude ever, such a big caring heart.  He's Mr Wonderful and would give anyone the shirt off his back.  All hail Perfect Putin, a true angel.  He should get the Nobel Peace award. 

🤑

Ridiculous, isn't it? I can't believe the number of people I'm seeing who are now saying this.

 

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, VigilanteNav said:

I'll admit that at first news of this interview my initial inclination was to be disgusted with Tuck.  However, I know think it was at least useful to the US and Western world's intelligence agencies to gain just a bit more clarity on Putin's intentions going forward.  Additionally, now the US knows with a bit more clarity what it will take to get the journalist and Whelan freed (nothing short of turning over a few ne'er do wells we have jailed to which I say let them have them as we've certainly turned over many of these types before). And honestly, if Tuck had secured the release of the journalist, I would have celebrated that!  

Why would Putin release a journalist with no strings attached when you see what he was able to get Biden to do in order to release a female basketball player who was in jail for bringing in some basic drugs?  If anyone honestly thinks Biden is better at negotiating than Trump then I really want to meet and talk…and perhaps try to negotiate with them myself.  

Edited February 10 by HeloDude

[brabus]

20 hours ago, gearhog said:

so why should we be exposed to propaganda that we aren't equipped to challenge?

The American population is inundated with propaganda on a daily basis - that’s what 95% of MSM and social media produces. So we should shut down the MSM and SM companies since the average American is incapable of sifting through all that bullshit? A nanny state with absolute control of information release to the public (other than classified obviously) is egregiously against every fiber of this country, and I cannot believe someone on here is advocating for that.