On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson | Cynthia Chung

[Scott]

No one should hold Tucker in high regard unless you do so for him being a satirist, who is very successful at duping his audience and grifting off of them.

Tucker himself does not deny his show is one of deceit and lies that no one should take seriously or believe.

Tucker himself, speaks in private about how he hates Trump with a passion and the things Trump stands for and does, but then knows to make money he needs to convince his audience of the opposite.

Tuckers disdain for his own audience's intelligence is undeniable in that he realizes he can go to court and say 'no one should believe me' and then immediately go out to the audience and spread the lies anyway KNOWING they will fall for it regardless.

And everyone should distrust Putin.

Succinct.

Agreed. The problem is that you don't have to be truthful to be succinct. QP made a lot of claims above, but he didn't back up any of them.

 

[Scott]

Did you watch the interview?

Tucker was a vehicle for an alternative view on geopolitics. He's an entertainer with a huge audience, but far from being a historian. If he did his homework, it would've been a much better interview.

The US is in big trouble, yet Putin didn't gloat, he merely asked for peace. There's good reason the world is looking to the east for solutions.

LMFAO.

LMFAO

LMFAO

"We want peace. We also want all of Ukraine or there will be no peace"

I've never heard Putin claim that he wants to absorb all of Ukraine into Russia. He -has- said that he wants Ukraine to be de nazified, and he said so in his interview with Tucker. Quoting him:
**
No, we haven't achieved our aims yet, because one of them is denazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements.
**

Source:
Vladimir Putin Interview with Tucker Carlson | American Rhetoric

 

[Scott]

Did you watch the entire interview?

I watched none of it. I refuse to listen to Putin's propaganda. I caught the segment where he derides Tuckems because he was rejected by the CIA.

It's hard to learn the truth on Putin if one refuses to listen to him. Now, if it were Trump, I'd be like you here, generally only listening to people talk -about- him rather than listening to Trump himself. But Trump, in my view, is a completely different type of person. I think John Oliver did a good skit on him back when he was poised to win Super Tuesday during the last U.S. party elections:

And yet, despite all of this, I can't help but think that if Trump were to be President again, he might work out a deal with Putin whereas I'm not sure if Biden ever will.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I know that Guno started a thread based on NPR article of Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin. It's here for those who'd like to see it:
Tucker Carlson, the fired Fox News star, makes bid for relevance with Putin interview | justplainpolitics.com

The title alone makes it clear that the author of the article doesn't exactly hold a high view of Tucker. I read the first dozen paragraphs of his article, and he does nothing to dissuade this impression. He also makes it clear in those initial paragraphs that he doesn't trust things Putin said in the interview as well. So if people would like to read an article from an author that dislikes and/or distrusts both Tucker and Putin, that's probably the article for you.

Cynthia Chung's article is much different. It's clear that she's not always a fan of Tucker's reasoning, but I think she also makes it clear that she thinks it's a good thing that Tucker decided to do the interview. And she praises Putin for refusing to simply give sound bite answers to questions which are quite complex. She also does a lot to further elaborate on the meaning of Putin's statements. Below is the first dozen paragraphs from Cynthia's article. Constructive comments are always welcome.

**
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson...

CYNTHIA CHUNG
FEB 10, 2024

Something somewhat historical happened just two days ago, though it is unclear how many Americans will understand its significance...

Tucker Carlson traveled to Moscow for a 2 hour, unedited, unfiltered, interview with President Putin.

This is already unprecedented.

It is unprecedented in that several million Americans will be actually listening to President Putin expressing his thoughts (not to mention several millions more of the western world).

Let us be honest with ourselves here, most Americans have not actually heard President Putin speak a full thought. Rather the internet is bombarded with diluted and villainized impressions - with no shortage of unflattering photos taken of him in mid-speech like this is to serve as some sort of replacement for actually listening to what he has to say.

The majority of Americans have a bit of a bad habit of desiring to make quick judgements and impressions of things without taking too much time to understand what it is they are looking at. The whole world looks at Americans this way, as a fast consumerist society that treats its politics not too differently from its fast food choices. If Americans do not like this characterization of themselves, then the best way to counteract this is to actually have the attention span to watch this interview and engage in a serious discussion about it. Since what President Putin thinks, whether Americans like it or not, clearly also affects the welfare of American lives at this point, let alone the economy of the United States.

Vladimir Putin has been the president of Russia for 19+ years. (From December 31, 1999-May 7, 2000. From May 7, 2000- May 7, 2008. And from May 7, 2012 until the present.) FYI he was Prime Minister of Russia for four years from 2008-2012. Thus, it is a little ridiculous that most Americans in fact know very little about how President Putin actually thinks, and what his intentions are for Russia and her relationship to the rest of the world, when he in fact frequently goes out of his way to make his thoughts as clear as possible with numerous speeches, that are translated and transcribed into English, such as the yearly Valdai Conferences, where he is known to spend hours answering questions from the Russian public and even questions from abroad.

In fact, it was quite something to hear a leader of a country speak about his interactions with several Presidents of America, which had crossed over five U.S. Presidents (Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden) and covers a period of eight U.S. presidential terms. This should already give people in the room the feeling of being in the presence of someone who has a wealth of experience.

And it is no surprise that there is now a blitzkrieg of quickie news reports intended for those who have not yet watched this 2 hour discussion and in a swarm of panic are clearly meant as a desperate deterrence, warning Americans to “not even waste your time” on listening to the “barbarian” attempting to share his perspective with the “civilized” western world. “Nothing to see here folks, really!” Anything he says are just a bunch of lies…right?

The fact that President Putin started the interview asking Tucker “Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” was a clear setting of the tone so to speak. It was a clear intervention on the typical manner that American news reporting occurs, which are in 2-5 min sound bites. Part of the reason why this is counter-productive to real understanding is due to the simple fact that history cannot be explained in 2-5 min sound bites. Hundreds of books are written on these subjects but we can’t hear the president of Russia say a few paragraphs?

And the other reason why it is counter-productive is because it can be used to frequently change the subject which dissuades the audience from sitting and reflecting on a thought. In fact President Putin on several occasions, despite talking several minutes to answer a question, would often respond to Tucker, after his interruption with another question on a completely different subject, that he was not yet done answering the question.

This method of discussion is not President Putin being “tyrannical” or “not used to being questioned about his reasons for doing things,” it is in fact the manner in which a truly civilized person responsibly discusses subjects that will affect the lives of billions of people on this planet. Why would we think that such large questions deserve such small answers in the first place?
**

Full article:
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Cynthia Chung

I bet he won't be all coked up to the max like blonde girl was. How stupid does one have to be to be all coked up while interviewing Putin on national TV?

That was a disgrace.

 

[Scott]

I watched none of it. I refuse to listen to Putin's propaganda. I caught the segment where he derides Tuckems because he was rejected by the CIA.

Putin is committing the same genocide that Israel is. I don't want to hear him utter the word 'peace', as it's all bullshit.

The problem with the US is there are way too many people who are voluntarily stupid. Our core economy is based on war. Our leaders profit from genocide. Our nukes can't pay off the $35 trillion debt. We have been reduced to irrelevancy.

I don't know about people being "voluntarily stupid". I think it's more that people choose what information they take in. I think the problem lies in the fact that some people choose to take in information from sources with highly innacurate information. I also definitely don't believe that the U.S. has been reduced to irrelevancy, but I'm not sure if that's what you actually meant to say?

 

[QP!]

Tucker saying that Putin does not explain himself well is complete nonsense, and that Tucker clearly does not understand either Russia or China either is a big problem. No one should speak negatively about our leader who has done so much for us and that we all owe fealty to.

FYP.

 

[Matt Dillon]

You are posting an opinion of the author.

Bibi is doing exactly what Bush did in Iraq, albeit at a multiple of 10. He refuses to accept a Palestinian state when he's finished murdering women and children. Now he has millions corralled in the south of Gaza, and is demanding that they leave.

To where?

I don't condone what Hamas did. I don't condone Israel's annexation of the West Bank. This issue is too complex to simply point fingers at one side.

Hamas must go.

Bibi must go.

Israel is committing genocide. There's really no way to dismiss that at this point.

The shame is that the hostages are all dead, and both sides play games with their memories. There is no way that Hamas was prepared to care for the elderly and very young that they kidnapped. Too much time has passed.

Definitely all the hostages are dead by now, and if not, they probably don't want to live at this point.

 

[Althea]

Definitely all the hostages are dead by now, and if not, they probably don't want to live at this point.

The ones that Bibi didn't kill were already dead. Hamas was not equipped to care for the people they kidnapped. It was horrendous.

 

[goat]

I don't know about people being "voluntarily stupid". I think it's more that people choose what information they take in. I think the problem lies in the fact that some people choose to take in information from sources with highly innacurate information. I also definitely don't believe that the U.S. has been reduced to irrelevancy, but I'm not sure if that's what you actually meant to say?

The US will never pay down our debt. We are an empire in decline. Nukes keep us relevant, but Putin laughed it off and put us in check with hypersonic missiles. The world is no longer afraid of WW3, yet we refuse to accept that simple fact. The US will come to a stop if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. The world is moving forward without us. I think it's a shame.

 

[Scott]

I certainly don't always agree with Tucker Carlson or the people he's interviewed. I'm certainly no fan of Donald Trump, for instance. That being said, I strongly suspect that it took courage to go to Moscow and conduct his interview with Putin. I imagine he knew or at least suspected that there would be many who would deride him for it. I believe that Cynthia Chung wrote a very good article explaining how much information Putin imparted in his responses to Tucker's questions. Did you read her article?

Do you have any evidence that Tucker has tried to deceive people in his show?

I have vaguely heard this type of thing before, but I've never seen anyone who believes this actually present any evidence for their assertion.

Are you suggesting he said "no one should believe me" in court?

Why? On the whole, I've found him to be much more honest than many American politicians. As a matter of fact, I have yet to find evidence that he's tried to deceive anyone. Now, I can certainly agree that a lack of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of its lack, but when compared to someone like Trump, someone who even many of his supporters seem to acknowledge lies on a regular basis, I much prefer listening to Putin. Truth be told, around the only times I liked listening to Trump was on comedy shows where pretty much anything he said was immediately followed by some joke about it.

Still, I have seen evidence that despite his bragadaccio, he was a lot less of a war hawk in comparison to Biden and/or those who direct Biden. He also wasn't spending billions on 2 foreign wars.

I am not going to educate you on Tucker you will need to use google for that.

I have asked you to provide evidence for various things you have claimed to be true. If you're not interested in providing this evidence, it suggests that you don't really care if you appear credible.

It would take [Tucker] zero bravery to interview Putin in Russia

What draws you to that conclusion?

That is what Tucker markets to the Magat derps he hates in the same way Trump does.

Making vague unsubstantiated assertions doesn't help move a discussion forward and only adds to evidence that you don't care if you appear to be uncredible.

And yet Tucker, when sued went to court and argued no one was stupid enough to take his show or him seriously or that what they were saying was fact or truth. They called it satire.

Yet another unsubstantaited claim. You may be fine making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims, but it does nothing for your credibility.

 

[Scott]

Let's get real, shall we?

Putin's KGB training was to exploit useful idiots in other countries. He's done this with any and every US interviewer, because NONE of those interviews tells anything surprising. What, he's going say, "well, ya got me!" and confess to all the murders, unjust jailings and imperialistic BS under his quasi authoritarian rule? No. Never has, never will.

Here's a question for you- did you actually see Tucker's interview with Putin? It's easy to make up all sorts of claims, what I'd like to know is what knowledge you actually have of the interview. If you -have- actually seen the interview, my next question would be if you'd read at least the first dozen paragraphs from Cynthia Chung's article, which I quoted in the opening post of this thread.

 

[Scott]

Putin was the decider not Tucker.

I'm not sure what you mean by "decider", but I think we can agree that Tucker wouldn't have been able to do the interview at all without Putin's permission and he made it clear to Tucker that he would take as long as he desired to answer Tucker's questions. This clearly frustrated Tucker, but I think he had the intelligence to realize that Putin was unlikely to change his stance on this. I'm also glad that Putin did this- as Cynthia Chung said in her article that I quote in the opening post, "This method of discussion is not President Putin being “tyrannical” or “not used to being questioned about his reasons for doing things,” it is in fact the manner in which a truly civilized person responsibly discusses subjects that will affect the lives of billions of people on this planet. Why would we think that such large questions deserve such small answers in the first place?".

 

[Scott]

Tucker saying that Putin does not explain himself well is complete nonsense, and that Tucker clearly does not understand either Russia or China either is a big problem.

I agree on the first point- Tucker didn't have the patience for many of Putin's long answers and seems to have assumed that this meant that Putin wasn't explaining himself well. He was explaining himself just fine, the problem is that Tucker couldn't grasp that many of his questions required answers far longer than he was capable of immediately absorbing. As to your second point, I agree that Tucker's knowledge of Russia and China is somewhat lacking, but I don't think it's as big a problem as you seem to think. First of all, though Tucker is certainly a fairly well known journalist, in this case, the main source of information is clearly Putin, not Tucker. Tucker may well have been quite brave to go to Moscow and conduct this interview, but the golden nugget here is Putin's answers to Tucker's questions. It is my genuine hope that Americans and anyone else listening to Putin's responses will learn at least a little more of Russia's reasons for entering the Ukraine conflict militarily and that this may perhaps help form the basis for an end to this war.

 

[Scott]

I bet he won't be all coked up to the max like blonde girl was. How stupid does one have to be to be all coked up while interviewing Putin on national TV?

That was a disgrace.

Would you mind telling me what reporter you are referring to?

 

[Scott]

The US will never pay down our debt.

Perhaps, but that's not the end of things. At some point, I can easily imagine that the U.S. might actually default on at least some of it. The important thing is that Americans are able to have sufficient resources to live a fairly good life. We may be able to agree that this is also in jeopardy, and we can certainly agree that this is pretty important.

We are an empire in decline.

Agreed on American Empire.

Nukes keep us relevant, but Putin laughed it off and put us in check with hypersonic missiles.

I actually believe that Putin takes U.S. nukes very seriously and it's precisely -because- of how seriously he takes it that he funded the development of Russia's hypersonic missiles. I also think it's a good thing that he took the time to see Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to love the bomb, with Oliver Stone a few years ago. I believe that he is quite aware of how dangerous it is to have a truly hot war with the U.S. I think that JFK was equally aware of the danger back during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's my hope that this rift in Ukraine will eventually be resolved without the use of any nukes.

The world is no longer afraid of WW3, yet we refuse to accept that simple fact.

Again, I think you're mistaken here, at least to some extent. I found it hopeful that even Biden has expressed some fear of this potentiality. I also think that it's because of these fears that the U.S. has not taken a more direct role in Ukraine, which I also think is a good thing.

The US will come to a stop if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz.

I don't think it will come to a stop, but certainly a slowdown.

The world is moving forward without us. I think it's a shame.

I partially agree with this, but only partially. I think it's more that the U.S. is refusing to accept that the world has changed more than it would like. Now, it can continue to try to ignore these changes, but the more it does so, the more it will hurt its own interests.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Nordberg]

We know what Tucekr is.

 

[goat]

Perhaps, but that's not the end of things. At some point, I can easily imagine that the U.S. might actually default on at least some of it. The important thing is that Americans are able to have sufficient resources to live a fairly good life. We may be able to agree that this is also in jeopardy, and we can certainly agree tha this is pretty important.



Agreed on American Empire.



I actually believe that Putin takes U.S. nukes very seriously and it's precisely -because- of how seriously he takes it that he funded the development of Russia's hypersonic missiles. I also think it's a good thing that he took the time to see Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to love the bomb, with Oliver Stone a few years ago. I believe that he is quite aware of how dangerous it is to have a truly hot war with the U.S. I think that JFK was equally aware of the danger back during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's my hope that this rift in Ukraine will eventually be resolved without the use of any nukes.



Again, I think you're mistaken here, at least to some extent. I found it hopeful that even Biden has expressed some fear of this potentiality. I also think that it's because of these fears that the U.S. has not taken a more direct role in Ukraine, which I also think is a good thing.



I don't think it will come to a stop, but certainly a slowdown.



I partially agree with this, but only partially. I think it's more that the U.S. is refusing to accept that the world has changed more than it would like. Now, it can continue to try to ignore these changes, but the more it does so, the more it will hurt its own interests.

Putin used the words CIA and neocons several times. He also used the words hypersonic missiles and nuclear war at least once. Reading between the lines, Putin did not use the word dementia when asked several times if he had talked to Biden. I'm going to have to watch it again to be sure I correctly understand Putin's message to the world.

Putin made it clear that he and Xi are in control of their country whereas Biden is not in control of the US. Most, if not all communications are between the Russian SVR and the CIA. Meaning US intelligence makes foreign policy and answers to no one. The CIA decides where and when we go to war. The US has no diplomacy, it's all threats of force.

Putin knows it was the CIA that blew up the Nord Stream. There's no reason for him to talk with Biden. US elections and US provoked wars are for the sole purpose of making money. Go to any city in the US and you'll see cause and effect. We the people are complicit. It's not Putin's job to fix it. The world is moving away from the US as fast as they can. We are irrelevant.

 

[Nordberg]

Putin has the same motivation that Trump does. https://fortune.com/2022/03/26/elon...the-world-putin-significantly-richer-than-me/ We are led by money-grabbing narcissists who only think of themselves and money. They never have enough money.

 

[Scott]

Putin used the words CIA and neocons several times. He also used the words hypersonic missiles and nuclear war at least once. Reading between the lines, Putin did not use the word dementia when asked several times if he had talked to Biden. I'm going to have to watch it again to be sure I correctly understand Putin's message to the world.

Putin made it clear that he and Xi are in control of their country whereas Biden is not in control of the US. Most, if not all communications are between the Russian SVR and the CIA. Meaning US intelligence makes foreign policy and answers to no one. The CIA decides where and when we go to war.

I don't know about the CIA deciding where and when the U.S. goes to war, but I definitely believe that Biden is not exactly a "hands on" President, especially at this point.

The US has no diplomacy, it's all threats of force.

I wouldn't go -that- far, but I think we can agree that their diplomacy is spotty at best and heavily reliant on their threats or actual use of force. The problem with that strategy is the old adage- "Live by the sword, die by the sword". From what I've been reading, the rank and file are beginning to realize that their current strategies aren't in the United States' interests and they'd best try to start working out diplomatic solutions themselves. If I can find the article that gets into this, I'll post it.

Putin knows it was the CIA that blew up the Nord Stream.

I don't believe he ever said that, but I do remember him saying something like the CIA had no alibi for what they were doing at the time the Nord Stream blew up. I personally think that well known American journalist Seymour Hersh's work detailing the evidence that it was the CIA was very compelling and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin was in fact relying at least in part on his reporting to inform his own views on the subject.

There's no reason for him to talk with Biden.

I completely agree with you there. I think the last things Putin wants is to try to make his way through a dialogue with Biden. Even his own staff is cutting him off at this point:

Joe Biden’s rambling speech cut off by White House staff | msn.com

US elections and US provoked wars are for the sole purpose of making money.

I don't see how U.S. elections could be seen as done for the purpose of making money, but I certainly agree with you when it comes to wars.

Go to any city in the US and you'll see cause and effect.

Not sure what you are referring to here, but I think we can agree that U.S. tax dollars would be much better spent trying to fix American problems rather than spending billions on foreign wars.

We the people are complicit.

Complicit in what?

It's not Putin's job to fix it.

If you mean it's not Putin's job to fix American problems, would completely agree.

The world is moving away from the US as fast as they can.

Clearly not everyone, but certainly many of the BRICS nations, and I think we can agree that it's largely due to the U.S.' own policies. Putin said as much and I agree with him.

We are irrelevant.

I haven't heard anyone say that. But there's a big difference between being relevant and being helpful. For a long time, the U.S. has -not- been helpful in resolving certain conflicts in the world. Far from it, they've been actively making the problems in them worse. Ukraine and Palestine come to mind.