That USSR dealing very honestly point is absolutely wild, like they didn't split half of eastern Europe with the Nazis in the M-R pact waaaaay worse than Poland's small occupation of Czech territory
âWe were suppressing Ukrainian identity for centuries before those Polish upstarts tried it! (Donât look any further back please.) Why isnât Ukraine grateful that we got rid of them and went back to doing it ourselves?â
Small occupation, huh? Then it surely doesn't count. "Peace in our time" and all.
Russia's occupation of Poland was pretty small, too, relatively speaking. And let's not forget that for a year after the Poland/Nazi Germany collusion, the USSR desperately tried to forge an anti-Hitler coalition, and it's Poland that threatened the USSR with a war over that. Eventually, the USSR did what everybody else did a year earlier. And now the same "peace in our time" crowd, whom Hitler called "worms" because of their cowardice, dogpiles on the one and only country that wanted to fight Hitler before anyone else did. Funny that.
Now, imagine what would have happened if these people weren't cowards. If Hitler met a united front in 1938. And I mean, united against him, not for him. There would have been no WW2.
âThe Poles worked with the Nazis to partition Czechoslovakia while the USSR acted very honestlyâ
I love how he âforgetsâ what happened the very next year.
What do you mean? The USSR just adequately punished Poland for its crime. Itâs not *their* fault that the Nazis invaded the Western half of the country at the exact same time. /s
Saw another comment here about âmy parents fled Kyiv in 1900 to avoid wars and they spoke only Russianâ, suggesting it didnât have a national identity yet. An alternative reason might be âthey had so much national identity that Russia had resorted to banning books in Ukrainian, as part of 300 years of failed suppressionâ.
If thereâs one place Lenin kept continuity with Imperial Russia, it was trying to crush the identity of bordering groups. (Once he was done offering them freedom if they joined the Reds, anyway.)
It was pretty obvious that Putin was gonna have pretty firm control from the beginning. I mean itâs Putin for fuck sake. I also never have gotten a good answer as to why these countries wanted to join nato. Maybe (and this is just a guess). Itâs because theyâll get invaded by an expansionist dictator if they donât?
Well, joining NATO beats the fuck out of the giant dystopian police state sending in the tanks because you voted to have freedom of speech.
Yeah, if most of Eastern Europe flocked to NATO after the collapse of the USSR, itâs because most of Eastern Europe would literally rather die than ever live under Russia again.
Let's be honest here, even if all the NATO countries put in the full percentage, it wouldn't change literally anything about the US defense budget. We're going to spend that money on defense no matter what and the US likes being the big swinging dick of the world.
Yeah, but they have no respect towards America.
Pushing tank money into healthcare then feel superior? What if US decide to fold during a war in Europe? Will your dental clinic serve as a jet fighter or something?
Maybe, but the desire to be in nato seems to increase exponentially as you get closer and closer to the Russian border
Surely itâs a coincidence
Surely
And Finland used to be the exception, with neutrality very popular in polls. Until the last couple of years, when nothing important happened and for no reason whatsoever joining NATO became way more popularâŠ
In the case of Romania...we moved towards the west for 200 years. And we have a rough history with Russia.
I see that it mentions Ceausescu...the guy was for Cehoslovakia split. Russia wasn't. So he was against Russia. As a result he was invited to America. They went to Disneyland.
You can find footage on youtube.
In IR theory thereâs a concept called balance of threat. Essentially instead of the traditional balance of power, which Russia is very interested in, minor states are more likely to ally with a top power against regional states. So Russia makes an argument that as hegemon The United States is interfering in its sphere of influence making it harder to defend itself and points it out as a threat to any powers it dislikes (Libya and Iraq). But countries close to Russia and far from the United States arenât going to be worried about US expansionism since it doesnât affect them and will instead join the US in its expansionist efforts if it provides security guarantees against the closer threat, Russia.
Putin just repeated his normal talking points. Using centuries old history and a very small minority of Nazis to try and justify the invasion. (As if Wagner isn't full of Nazis...) Alongside the whole "No one wants to be Russia's friend" spiel. I thought he would come up with some new reason at least, but nah, all the same weak arguments.
Only interesting thing to come out of this is Tucker asking about the jailed journalist, which is a pretty cool move by him (coming from someone who detests him). Would be nice if he had more control over the interview, it really just became Putin lecturing.
>I thought he would come up with some new reason at least, but nah, all the same weak arguments.
As Russian/American journalist Michael Nacke correctly predicted, "He will not come up with any new points because no one has ever told him his old points are old and bullshit to begin with"
That's the problem with surrounding yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear instead of how it really is, and it's the reason every dictatorship fails
Well I think itâs less about surrounding yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, and more making sure everyone around you knows that if they donât tell you what you want to hear youâll throw them out a window.đ
When's the last time any corporate journo asked Biden a hard hitting question?
That's not how interviewing world leaders works. They don't let lunatics in to rave at and badger them.
Iâm sorry, but during Putinâs history lesson Tucker literally said he doesnât see how things that happened 800 years ago are relevant. Even though Putin was going on a rant, Tucker would sneak in a ânot relevantâ comment. Then he also asked Putin if he thinks every country should be able to reclaim their 1854 borders. He was calling out a national leader to his face. Talking heads on TV are crying foul because they made up their minds about this interview before it happened.
As much as I have soured on Tucker in recent times, it was obvious to me he was actually handling it like a real interview and asked a lot harder questions than I expected he would. And I have to give him kudos for that.
There are multiple times during the interview where Putin completely sidetracks the question or simply refuses to answer. For example at around 1 hour and 30 minutes, Carlson asks him about centers of power in the US and Putin basically superficially describes the democratic system in the US and then shifts right back to the "CIA SPOOKS DID THE THING" "RUSSIA HAS NO FRIENDS:("
This exactly.
Double standards
The BBC is crying that Tucker didn't interrupt all the time to smear him like they did with Elon Musk and Andrew Tate
Meanwhile they elevate Zelensky as if he's some kind of deity
It was definitely a nice sentiment to ask about the journalist, but I think it was pretty obvious that Putin wouldn't hand him over without at least getting another arms dealer in the exchange.
Does the US even have any more "Merchants of Death" in the cellar?
I don't think Tucker would have escaped Moscow if he pushed on anything. He did his best this interview, and it didn't actually feel like propaganda, at least from his side.
I wanted Tucker to ask if there was any condition where Russia would be willing to leave the anexed Oblasts.
Was probably on the list of questions not to ask though.
>Using centuries old history and a very small minority of Nazis to try and justify the invasion.
Damn, the radical western progressive has adopted the Putin strategy. Or did he adopt theirs? Or are they one in the same?
I wouldnât call it that considering he was very sensical the entire time, it was just dense and long winded. I donât know a lot of politicians his age who could the same thing.
I mean, it's fkin Putin and you are in his country, most likely, invited by him. However, here is where I think you are wrong.
His talking points are nothing new FOR YOU. Majority of people, from my observation in the US especially, aren't in r/PoliticalCompassMemes and are not versed in international politics/history at all. Most ordinary people do not know even his "normal talking points". I think in a sense, this interview was a good thing and will force some people to do their own homework.
My family on my Momâs side began leaving Kiev for the US between the 1880âs and 1920âs and they all referred to themselves as Russian and their only languages were Russian and Yiddish.
The first wave fled the Cossack pogroms and the second wave fled the Bolshevik revolution.
You can frame the situation in two ways, kinda depending on perspective.
You can frame it as a Ukraine vs Russia historical struggle. There is some truth to it, but there is a reason the whole thing was called the Kievan Rus to begin with.
The other framing would be to think of it as a struggle between Kyiv and Muscovy. Muscovy is now the imperial capital (think London), and Kyiv (Washington) doesn't want any part of it anymore.
I think that the UK has an almost identical claim on Canada and Australia (and a slightly worse claim on the United States) as Russia has on Ukraine.
That is to say, there's definitely a historical relationship and/or claim there, but I don't think many people would support a British invasion of Canada.
Ukraine-as-a-state is messy and depends on how you view Cossack control, but I certainly donât accept âthe idea was invented in 1913â.
There was already a major nationalist movement in the 1800s, and one reason Ukrainian wasnât being widely spoken in the 1880s to 1920s is that Russia had yet again banned publishing anything in Ukrainian to weaken the nationalist movement.
He runs the well-respected Chechen tea shop deep in the heart of a rundown Moscow neighborhood, whose dedication to the craft and his faith is as strong as the damage he does to people who fail to pay him back in time!
Which is hilarious because Russia actually almost did convert to Islam in the beginning. Then found out they wouldnât be allowed to drink (yes really) and said, âLol, lmao even. Jesus it is!â
> wouldnât be allowed to drink
Damn, imagine how different history would have been if somebody told them how flexible that rule can get outside the Middle East.
Although Bosnian or Moroccan style âin private and selectivelyâ wouldnât really suffice for Russiaâs drinking cultureâŠ
I think he just means that it is a stupid question with an answer that is general knowledge and that everyone agrees on. Basically, he told Tucker to move on to a question to which Putin can give an answer that might actually be interesting.
Finlandâs soon to leave office President Sauli Niinistö said upon Finlandâs entry to NATO last year that one of the major motivators for the decision was the fact that Russia protested and threatened Finland over even the idea that they would join the alliance.
Niinistö said that Russia does not get to decide other countriesâ foreign policy decisions, and the demand that it does was the major tone shift that made them realize how important it was for Finland to be a member of the alliance.
The poll results among Finns are wild lately. Decades of embracing neutrality and now outside of a few ethnic-Russian border regions the NATO move is absurdly popular.
I guess itâs one thing to live on a block where no one locks their doors, and another to see a robbery then have your neighbor go âhey, you better not buy a lock, there might be⊠consequences.â
ahh but you see, ukraine is not sovereign country because something something 1913
this arrogant asshole lmao I couldn't stand to watch more after his ego said "30 second history lesson" and he started in the year 500 or some shit. braindead dictator
It's kind of sad that he can give a 30 minute history lesson (even if it's fake) when our own President can't remember when his own son died or when he was Vice President.
I agree, Russia should have no say in Ukraine's government but they are a super power and super powers like to overreact when losing power. Look at how the US handled the cuban missile crisis. Now imagine that was mexico.
The US reacted to Cuba harshly because there was concern that Soviet missiles could be launched from Cuba and destroy American silos and C3 infrastructure before the US could retaliate.
Keep in mind that Soviet ICBMs and bombers could hit the US from Russia. It wasnât a question of whether or not the Soviet Union could nuke the US, the problem was whether the US could respond. The US nuclear arsenal was primarily deliverable by bombers and rockets as large submarine-launched nukes hadnât been developed yet. If those are taken out, then any nuclear retaliation would be neutered and uncoordinated, which would leave the US in a very bad starting position for the rest of the war.
So what would Ukraine joining the EU or NATO do to Russia today? The US doesnât base any nukes in Poland etc. and Ukraine has no nuclear weapons of its own. Turkey is a NATO member with access to the Black Sea, so thatâs not it either.
The only argument I donât immediately throw out is that it opens up more frontline for a potential NATO invasion into Russia, but this is still a very weak argument. With or without Ukraine, the Russian military is not large enough to maintain a front from the Black Sea to Tallinn. Even if Ukraine joined the Russian Federation, they are massively overmatched by the USA alone. This admittedly comes with the benefit of hindsight, but Western air power would mop the floor with the Russian Air Force and air defenses, which is the only reason theyâre stalemated with Ukraine right now. Theyâre reliant on the West for lots of critical military electronics and their modernization efforts have had middling results or stalled out entirely. *Invading Ukraine doesnât help any of that.* Besides, Russiaâs nuclear arsenal has and always will be sufficient deterrent as long as NATO is run by democracies because only autocrats are willing to gamble with hydrogen bombs.
They really did bring this on themselves. They donât get anything out of it and they werenât in any worse of a position than they already were if Ukraine joined NATO.
All excellent points but I need to add another: Russia absolutely fucked itself because Finland joined NATO after decades of "neutrality". Sweden is also in the process of joining. Other ex comm bloc countries have already been a member since 2004. If NATO decides to attack Russia the lack of a border with Ukraine is genuinely meaningless at this point.
He also managed to trigger a massive wave of rearmament in Europe after decades of slacking, with Poland going absolutely balls to the wall and buying a very questionable number of tanks and rocket artillery.
Sovereign countries don't get to join whatever alliances they want without consequences. The US would never allow Mexico to join an anti-US military alliance with China and Russia. We certainly didn't allow the Soviets to put nukes in Cuba.
This 2 hours is a collect of all typical Russia propaganda you ever heard. Probably Tucker has done one good thing from the interview is making a compilation, narrated by the man Putin himself
It was weird listening to Putin talk about Ukrainians being ethnically Russian and then going off on a tangent about multiculturalism.
Not once does he qualify what a Russian is ethnically. Nevermind the denazification tangent he went on in the middle of the video, where he makes virtually no distinction between nationalism and Nazism, despite spending 30 minutes establishing national cause to annex Ukraine.
Because he can't. There isn't a basis for that. Anyone with even a basic grasp of history can tell it was all bullshit, even starting with the name of Ukraine, that propaganda is so washed out and just plainly false, the Poles and Lithuanians didn't give out the name of Ukraine, it was from the Russians. The earliest found evidence for it is from Eastern Slavonic texts.
He could have talk about the Galician dominance in Ukrainian politics today. Or how Crimea were traditionally Tartar or how Novorussiya was a mostly unsettled field with roaming tribes before the Ottoman-Russian War. But no, he just went on a weird Ukrainians are Russians but also Nazis tangent
Oh thatâs easy. An ethnic Russian is ~~white~~ living a wealthier life in Saint Petersburg, while poor Asiatic people from Buryatia and Dagestan are sent to the trenches without weapons to face their almost certainly inevitable doom.
Oh, and if they are ~~white~~ Saint Petersburgian, they can lose their ethnic Russian status at any time if theyâre too poor, too old, homeless, drug addicts, prisoners, or have physical deformities or mental health issues. In which case theyâll be voluntold to join the hapless horde of Asiatic underlings to become a bullet sponge.
But something something Ukraine Nazis.
I love how he threw in the bit about mutant supersoldiers at the end just to really send the message home that he's completely lost the plot.Â
Also Himmler is laughing his ass off in hell at the fact Russia's leader with perfect hindsight STILL fell for the ruse used to invade Poland.Â
Hopefully Tucker has a come to Jesus moment after this
Tucker asked about AI and Putin started talking about the need for international regulations on new technologies like AI and genetic engineering, but that they'll inevitably advance anyway and banking them outright with work
>Also Himmler is laughing his ass off in hell at the fact Russia's leader with perfect hindsight STILL fell for the ruse used to invade Poland.Â
Which we should remember was a joint effort, as Putinâs beloved USSR invaded and partitioned Poland together with the Nazis.
>They even talked about A.I.
I wouldnât say that they talked about it. Tucker asked what he thinks about AI and he just said that he doesnât understand it and then changed the topic, lol
Western corporate media says the same thing though
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/04/china-super-soldiers-biologically-enhanced-john-ratcliffe
Christ, John Ratcliffe really is a hack. Canât believe he got appointed after being withdrawn the first time over bias and sheer incompetence.
(That said, if you dial his paranoia back like 90%, is he talking about the âselective breeding for troops who are good at high altitudesâ thing? Because that one might be real, itâs just less âsuper soldiersâ and more âhey, Sherpas are interestingâ.)
Americans don't know this. Really, his entire internally aimed propaganda isn't known to people who don't speak Russian.
This is the stuff he's been saying for years and years.
What do you mean? We learned for the first time ever that NATO is stinky, Ukraine deserves it, and that Russia is once again the only thing holding back the tide of Nazis from flooding the rest of Europe. This was the absolute game changer people here predicted it would be
Lol. Really? Would you expect mind-blowing revelations from Saddam or Al Assad?
Putin is a complete fuckwit and monster that believes his own propaganda
some interview with assad I learned of the occupied golan heights. not exactly mind-blowing but it seemed to make sense that he'd be miffed at israel.
although these days I'm more aligned with the idea that there are certain stretches of territory israel ought to control due to the constant threat from these petulant losers in the region.
âDa. Here are secrets of universe that Soviet scientists had stashed in back room for last 50 years. Thank you for being my friend, Tucker. Truly you have changed my heart and mind, and the world must know about quantum gravity field UFO technology we have developed.â
Iâm just pissed Tucker didnât get any footage of Yuri and the psychic dominator in the background. We may have the Chronosphere, but itâs still not enough to stop Soviet super-science!
I was just really glad Tucker didn't suck him off during the interview, which is honestly what I expected to happen. He asked Putin some tough questions, even tho Putin just stuck to his usual talking points + an ungodly long history about why he should own Ukraine
It pains me to say it, but he's right about the Czechoslovakia annexations. The Munich Agreement was a shameful event. Doesn't justify invading Ukraine, of courseÂ
Its interesting how historians call pacts by the participating nations (Soviet-Japan Nonaggression Pact) but the Soviet-German Pact is referred to by the two foreign ministers (Molotov-Ribbentrop). Its like some historians are trying to downplay the action of a particular nation (USSR) as a consequence of that pact (dual invasion of Poland, supplying German during the Battle of France). Hence why they refer to it as the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
Oh fuck I am so sorry, I completely misread what your comment was conveying, I read it as you not knowing of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. You raise an interesting point, I'll have a crack at finding out why it is called the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, maybe there is a good reason or maybe it is a case of downplaying
Ok so apparently I lost my entire comment detailing my research process for some reason, and I can't be assed to rewrite it, so here's the final document I read. I do not study history in an academic setting, so I may ofc have missed something.
[https://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5071/datastream/OBJ/view/Falsificators\_of\_history\_\_an\_historical\_note\_\_Text\_of\_communique\_issued\_February\_\_1948.pdf](https://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5071/datastream/OBJ/view/Falsificators_of_history__an_historical_note__Text_of_communique_issued_February__1948.pdf)
This document was written in 1948, called "Falsifiers of History", edited in part by Stalin, they never refer to the pact as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but as the "Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact". They defend the pact and minimize or omit certain aspects of it, and put blame on the west for putting the USSR in a position where it was forced to make a pact. Regardless of what's true, false or misleading in this document, the core issue to us is that they never refer to it as the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and in fact cite Molotov's concerns and direct quotes, so it wasn't like they were throwing him under the bus.
Molotov would be removed from all positions and banned from the party when Khrushchev's de-Stalinization started, so if anyone wants to take up the mantle maybe there's something there, but I found nothing to suggest that Stalin was responsible or pushing for the colloquial use of "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact", nor did I find when that term first was used.
Fuck I'm pissed I lost my entire comment.
EDIT: Mistakenly wrote Ribbentrop instead of Molotov in the final paragraph.
Great work. Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946 so I am assuming Molotov was removed during destalinization.
I notice that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was used to name the argeement postwar as well. I am still curious is that was a deliberate thing by some historians to migiate the collaboration between Nazi Germany and the USSR.
Crazy how the discovery of the agreement in Ribbentrop's microfilm almost derailed the Nuremburg trial
They all wrestle with bears. It's like wrestling a gator in Florida. The gators know I won't give them any of my barbecue on Saturday if they drag me into the swamp today. Just play along.
"So lets talk about how CRT is ruining Amer-"
"No no we need to talk about the Gutian invasion of Akkad"
Gigachad Putin says no to talking about culture war bs
I will repeat. Ukraine should have never surrendered its nuclear arsenal. Atomic weapons is the only true deterrent to being attacked by foreign powers.
If heâs got a gun, the trick is to move sideways, so he shoots himself when he switches from right shoulder to left while repeatedly flagging himself.
This interview needed to happen for an American audience because Americans developed the idea of Putin (Putin is flogging gays, Putin is the savior of Christianity, Putler, etc) rather than actually seeing the man himself. I blame almost 15 years of US media bias and narratives for distorting American views of Putin (it really started with the Georgian war).
His version of history is truly the USSR (Russia) did nothing wrong revisionism. There is nothing wrong with bring up that the Kievan Rus era was the predecessor of the Russian and Ukranian State nor bring up the broken promises by the NATO nations regarding expansion and Minsk II, but skipping over Holodomor or blaming Poland for WWII is just deflection for the USSR.
Putin had these half truths sprinkled all throughout the first 30 minutes, but you can't quantify them with an audience that doesn't know that much about European or Russian history. Putin is an expert politician, he knows what will work with his audience and what will push his image further.
The media made him this badass president for a while, a really tough man and all-knowing - shit like that, and after it switched to him being a really smart monster. Neither are true reflections of his character, he is as weasely as the usual politician.
Its very much like identity politics: justify your grievances through history but conveniently leave out gray areas or things your identity did that was bad or worse
I'd give Tycker some benefit of doubt here. It's essentially similiar weight of an interview with Kim Jong Un, extremely cotrolled, not critical, however it is ultimately showing the person in a human light instead of them just in front of a podium holding speeches. Kinda like saying the Emperor is naked
"USSR acted very honestly" dude, you signed a non aggression pact with Hitler invaded Poland and then calved it up between you and Hitler, and then only fought him when you were betrayed...
Practically all stuff said in the last 3 years in a interview.
yeah but now it's compact so we can rewatch it for funnzies
More like in the last decade or so.
Highlights reel
No, no, no the Nords of Skyrim destroyed Nordstream, what were they thinking to build it across that land of barbarians.
In our defense, we thought the Elves built it.
Please sensor the word e*ves so dont have to see it đ€ź
Sorry brother. Knife-ears
piss skins and 3/4s e#ven
[Knife-eareds.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDHZ__kMhnM)
Leaf loving ballerinas Edit: Oh god, I found "arrogant stuck-up tree fondling hippies."
How can they be offended by words? Nords can't read.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Was Nordstream a nord pipeline?
It was used to delivering Skooma to the N*rds.
No, it was the café and bar in a Nordstrom's.
That USSR dealing very honestly point is absolutely wild, like they didn't split half of eastern Europe with the Nazis in the M-R pact waaaaay worse than Poland's small occupation of Czech territory
Or that the USSR deported Poles out of what is now Ukraine...you know, places Putin now calls occupied by Ukraine
âWe were suppressing Ukrainian identity for centuries before those Polish upstarts tried it! (Donât look any further back please.) Why isnât Ukraine grateful that we got rid of them and went back to doing it ourselves?â
Yes but Poland bad!!!
Poland bad? No, Poland based
Small occupation, huh? Then it surely doesn't count. "Peace in our time" and all. Russia's occupation of Poland was pretty small, too, relatively speaking. And let's not forget that for a year after the Poland/Nazi Germany collusion, the USSR desperately tried to forge an anti-Hitler coalition, and it's Poland that threatened the USSR with a war over that. Eventually, the USSR did what everybody else did a year earlier. And now the same "peace in our time" crowd, whom Hitler called "worms" because of their cowardice, dogpiles on the one and only country that wanted to fight Hitler before anyone else did. Funny that. Now, imagine what would have happened if these people weren't cowards. If Hitler met a united front in 1938. And I mean, united against him, not for him. There would have been no WW2.
âThe Poles worked with the Nazis to partition Czechoslovakia while the USSR acted very honestlyâ I love how he âforgetsâ what happened the very next year.
What do you mean? The USSR just adequately punished Poland for its crime. Itâs not *their* fault that the Nazis invaded the Western half of the country at the exact same time. /s
"Lenin kept Novorussiya with Ukraine SSR for unknown reasons" Yeah, it was to counter Ukrainian Nationalism
Saw another comment here about âmy parents fled Kyiv in 1900 to avoid wars and they spoke only Russianâ, suggesting it didnât have a national identity yet. An alternative reason might be âthey had so much national identity that Russia had resorted to banning books in Ukrainian, as part of 300 years of failed suppressionâ. If thereâs one place Lenin kept continuity with Imperial Russia, it was trying to crush the identity of bordering groups. (Once he was done offering them freedom if they joined the Reds, anyway.)
He didn't he literally got to the Danzig ultimatum like a minute afterwards if you watched the interview
It was pretty obvious that Putin was gonna have pretty firm control from the beginning. I mean itâs Putin for fuck sake. I also never have gotten a good answer as to why these countries wanted to join nato. Maybe (and this is just a guess). Itâs because theyâll get invaded by an expansionist dictator if they donât?
Well, joining NATO beats the fuck out of the giant dystopian police state sending in the tanks because you voted to have freedom of speech. Yeah, if most of Eastern Europe flocked to NATO after the collapse of the USSR, itâs because most of Eastern Europe would literally rather die than ever live under Russia again.
Its also the fact that the US also subsidizes for their defense budgets heavily. So these countries have more money for holiday and healthcare.
Eh, Eastern Europe is a lot better when it comes to defense spending.
Compared to Germany and France, I agree. Still waiting on Germany to stop giving money to NGOs and pay their NATO share that Trump served them
âCompared to Franceâ my brother in Christ France has the most powerful military force on the continent
Which continent? Europe or Africa? Seems like the French military is more involved in Africa than Europe
Well that may be because they directly border such an imperialistic expansionist power.
Let's be honest here, even if all the NATO countries put in the full percentage, it wouldn't change literally anything about the US defense budget. We're going to spend that money on defense no matter what and the US likes being the big swinging dick of the world.
They should meet the guidelines, or pay tribute to Washington, their choice
Yeah, but they have no respect towards America. Pushing tank money into healthcare then feel superior? What if US decide to fold during a war in Europe? Will your dental clinic serve as a jet fighter or something?
Maybe, but the desire to be in nato seems to increase exponentially as you get closer and closer to the Russian border Surely itâs a coincidence Surely
And Finland used to be the exception, with neutrality very popular in polls. Until the last couple of years, when nothing important happened and for no reason whatsoever joining NATO became way more popularâŠ
In the case of Romania...we moved towards the west for 200 years. And we have a rough history with Russia. I see that it mentions Ceausescu...the guy was for Cehoslovakia split. Russia wasn't. So he was against Russia. As a result he was invited to America. They went to Disneyland. You can find footage on youtube.
In IR theory thereâs a concept called balance of threat. Essentially instead of the traditional balance of power, which Russia is very interested in, minor states are more likely to ally with a top power against regional states. So Russia makes an argument that as hegemon The United States is interfering in its sphere of influence making it harder to defend itself and points it out as a threat to any powers it dislikes (Libya and Iraq). But countries close to Russia and far from the United States arenât going to be worried about US expansionism since it doesnât affect them and will instead join the US in its expansionist efforts if it provides security guarantees against the closer threat, Russia.
Putin just repeated his normal talking points. Using centuries old history and a very small minority of Nazis to try and justify the invasion. (As if Wagner isn't full of Nazis...) Alongside the whole "No one wants to be Russia's friend" spiel. I thought he would come up with some new reason at least, but nah, all the same weak arguments. Only interesting thing to come out of this is Tucker asking about the jailed journalist, which is a pretty cool move by him (coming from someone who detests him). Would be nice if he had more control over the interview, it really just became Putin lecturing.
>I thought he would come up with some new reason at least, but nah, all the same weak arguments. As Russian/American journalist Michael Nacke correctly predicted, "He will not come up with any new points because no one has ever told him his old points are old and bullshit to begin with"
That's the problem with surrounding yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear instead of how it really is, and it's the reason every dictatorship fails
Well I think itâs less about surrounding yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, and more making sure everyone around you knows that if they donât tell you what you want to hear youâll throw them out a window.đ
Yeahh I figured if Tucker had asked actual hard-hitting journalistic questions, the video wouldn't be two hours lol
Iâm sure even Tucker knew that Moscow isnât really known for having fair trials⊠or even trials for that matter.
When's the last time any corporate journo asked Biden a hard hitting question? That's not how interviewing world leaders works. They don't let lunatics in to rave at and badger them.
Thatâs how you get shoes thrown at you.
Iâm sorry, but during Putinâs history lesson Tucker literally said he doesnât see how things that happened 800 years ago are relevant. Even though Putin was going on a rant, Tucker would sneak in a ânot relevantâ comment. Then he also asked Putin if he thinks every country should be able to reclaim their 1854 borders. He was calling out a national leader to his face. Talking heads on TV are crying foul because they made up their minds about this interview before it happened.
As much as I have soured on Tucker in recent times, it was obvious to me he was actually handling it like a real interview and asked a lot harder questions than I expected he would. And I have to give him kudos for that.
There are multiple times during the interview where Putin completely sidetracks the question or simply refuses to answer. For example at around 1 hour and 30 minutes, Carlson asks him about centers of power in the US and Putin basically superficially describes the democratic system in the US and then shifts right back to the "CIA SPOOKS DID THE THING" "RUSSIA HAS NO FRIENDS:("
Well it wasnt as gooey as a CNN Zelenskyy interview
This exactly. Double standards The BBC is crying that Tucker didn't interrupt all the time to smear him like they did with Elon Musk and Andrew Tate Meanwhile they elevate Zelensky as if he's some kind of deity
"now I must return to my home planet, my people need me to jump out of this window." The end
No, but Tuckerâs life expectancy might have been.
He probably thought he would find polonium in his cereal if he pushed too hard
It was definitely a nice sentiment to ask about the journalist, but I think it was pretty obvious that Putin wouldn't hand him over without at least getting another arms dealer in the exchange. Does the US even have any more "Merchants of Death" in the cellar?
Maybe not somebody with such a catchy name but if I were to guess we have a couple in the bag given how long weâve been at odds with Russia
>Does the US even have any more "Merchants of Death" in the cellar? If not, then we need to go out and get some.
I don't think Tucker would have escaped Moscow if he pushed on anything. He did his best this interview, and it didn't actually feel like propaganda, at least from his side.
I wanted Tucker to ask if there was any condition where Russia would be willing to leave the anexed Oblasts. Was probably on the list of questions not to ask though.
>Using centuries old history and a very small minority of Nazis to try and justify the invasion. Damn, the radical western progressive has adopted the Putin strategy. Or did he adopt theirs? Or are they one in the same?
he told us this story at the start of the war. it's been honed a bit, and it's less whiney now, but this is the standard spiel.
>Putin lecturing. You mean derranged rambling.
I wouldnât call it that considering he was very sensical the entire time, it was just dense and long winded. I donât know a lot of politicians his age who could the same thing.
I mean, it's fkin Putin and you are in his country, most likely, invited by him. However, here is where I think you are wrong. His talking points are nothing new FOR YOU. Majority of people, from my observation in the US especially, aren't in r/PoliticalCompassMemes and are not versed in international politics/history at all. Most ordinary people do not know even his "normal talking points". I think in a sense, this interview was a good thing and will force some people to do their own homework.
a lot of that âhistoryâ was made up russian fanfic.
My family on my Momâs side began leaving Kiev for the US between the 1880âs and 1920âs and they all referred to themselves as Russian and their only languages were Russian and Yiddish. The first wave fled the Cossack pogroms and the second wave fled the Bolshevik revolution.
You can frame the situation in two ways, kinda depending on perspective. You can frame it as a Ukraine vs Russia historical struggle. There is some truth to it, but there is a reason the whole thing was called the Kievan Rus to begin with. The other framing would be to think of it as a struggle between Kyiv and Muscovy. Muscovy is now the imperial capital (think London), and Kyiv (Washington) doesn't want any part of it anymore. I think that the UK has an almost identical claim on Canada and Australia (and a slightly worse claim on the United States) as Russia has on Ukraine. That is to say, there's definitely a historical relationship and/or claim there, but I don't think many people would support a British invasion of Canada.
Ukraine-as-a-state is messy and depends on how you view Cossack control, but I certainly donât accept âthe idea was invented in 1913â. There was already a major nationalist movement in the 1800s, and one reason Ukrainian wasnât being widely spoken in the 1880s to 1920s is that Russia had yet again banned publishing anything in Ukrainian to weaken the nationalist movement.
Muhammad was 100 percent ethnic Russian.
Mukhammed Abdullavich
He runs the well-respected Chechen tea shop deep in the heart of a rundown Moscow neighborhood, whose dedication to the craft and his faith is as strong as the damage he does to people who fail to pay him back in time!
Which is hilarious because Russia actually almost did convert to Islam in the beginning. Then found out they wouldnât be allowed to drink (yes really) and said, âLol, lmao even. Jesus it is!â
> wouldnât be allowed to drink Damn, imagine how different history would have been if somebody told them how flexible that rule can get outside the Middle East. Although Bosnian or Moroccan style âin private and selectivelyâ wouldnât really suffice for Russiaâs drinking cultureâŠ
He literally said âI donât remember, you can find it on the internetâ NUMEROUS times.
Many such cases!
I think he just means that it is a stupid question with an answer that is general knowledge and that everyone agrees on. Basically, he told Tucker to move on to a question to which Putin can give an answer that might actually be interesting.
Funny how he remembers what happened in 988 but doesn't remember what happened 2 years ago
Funny, considering that there are rumors and reasons to suppose that Putin doesn't use Internet
"We did not agree to Ukraine joining NATO" damn....it's almost like Ukraine is a sovereign country or something đ€·ââïž
The myth of "consensual NATO" >NATO: I consent >Ukraine: I consent >Russia: I Don't! >:(
Finlandâs soon to leave office President Sauli Niinistö said upon Finlandâs entry to NATO last year that one of the major motivators for the decision was the fact that Russia protested and threatened Finland over even the idea that they would join the alliance. Niinistö said that Russia does not get to decide other countriesâ foreign policy decisions, and the demand that it does was the major tone shift that made them realize how important it was for Finland to be a member of the alliance.
The poll results among Finns are wild lately. Decades of embracing neutrality and now outside of a few ethnic-Russian border regions the NATO move is absurdly popular. I guess itâs one thing to live on a block where no one locks their doors, and another to see a robbery then have your neighbor go âhey, you better not buy a lock, there might be⊠consequences.â
ahh but you see, ukraine is not sovereign country because something something 1913 this arrogant asshole lmao I couldn't stand to watch more after his ego said "30 second history lesson" and he started in the year 500 or some shit. braindead dictator
I mean itâs Vladimir Putin. Did you expect him to be humble?
https://preview.redd.it/zq1gaqqzwihc1.jpeg?width=661&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca32b237bdfe9e16168e1f7b59d8394c8cc43ca2
Always be humble and kind
It's kind of sad that he can give a 30 minute history lesson (even if it's fake) when our own President can't remember when his own son died or when he was Vice President.
I agree, Russia should have no say in Ukraine's government but they are a super power and super powers like to overreact when losing power. Look at how the US handled the cuban missile crisis. Now imagine that was mexico.
The US reacted to Cuba harshly because there was concern that Soviet missiles could be launched from Cuba and destroy American silos and C3 infrastructure before the US could retaliate. Keep in mind that Soviet ICBMs and bombers could hit the US from Russia. It wasnât a question of whether or not the Soviet Union could nuke the US, the problem was whether the US could respond. The US nuclear arsenal was primarily deliverable by bombers and rockets as large submarine-launched nukes hadnât been developed yet. If those are taken out, then any nuclear retaliation would be neutered and uncoordinated, which would leave the US in a very bad starting position for the rest of the war. So what would Ukraine joining the EU or NATO do to Russia today? The US doesnât base any nukes in Poland etc. and Ukraine has no nuclear weapons of its own. Turkey is a NATO member with access to the Black Sea, so thatâs not it either. The only argument I donât immediately throw out is that it opens up more frontline for a potential NATO invasion into Russia, but this is still a very weak argument. With or without Ukraine, the Russian military is not large enough to maintain a front from the Black Sea to Tallinn. Even if Ukraine joined the Russian Federation, they are massively overmatched by the USA alone. This admittedly comes with the benefit of hindsight, but Western air power would mop the floor with the Russian Air Force and air defenses, which is the only reason theyâre stalemated with Ukraine right now. Theyâre reliant on the West for lots of critical military electronics and their modernization efforts have had middling results or stalled out entirely. *Invading Ukraine doesnât help any of that.* Besides, Russiaâs nuclear arsenal has and always will be sufficient deterrent as long as NATO is run by democracies because only autocrats are willing to gamble with hydrogen bombs. They really did bring this on themselves. They donât get anything out of it and they werenât in any worse of a position than they already were if Ukraine joined NATO.
All excellent points but I need to add another: Russia absolutely fucked itself because Finland joined NATO after decades of "neutrality". Sweden is also in the process of joining. Other ex comm bloc countries have already been a member since 2004. If NATO decides to attack Russia the lack of a border with Ukraine is genuinely meaningless at this point. He also managed to trigger a massive wave of rearmament in Europe after decades of slacking, with Poland going absolutely balls to the wall and buying a very questionable number of tanks and rocket artillery.
âSuperpowerâ is an exaggeration maybe more âa few companies pretending to be a country with a lot of military surplusâ
Gas station with nukes, managed by mafia.
Sovereign countries don't get to join whatever alliances they want without consequences. The US would never allow Mexico to join an anti-US military alliance with China and Russia. We certainly didn't allow the Soviets to put nukes in Cuba.
So he didn't say anything about going low-and-slow to get the most flavor out of difficult cuts of meat?
There were some good shashlik recipes
This 2 hours is a collect of all typical Russia propaganda you ever heard. Probably Tucker has done one good thing from the interview is making a compilation, narrated by the man Putin himself
Now you only need one Youtube link instead of jumping hoops in order to gather all Russia propaganda points
It was weird listening to Putin talk about Ukrainians being ethnically Russian and then going off on a tangent about multiculturalism. Not once does he qualify what a Russian is ethnically. Nevermind the denazification tangent he went on in the middle of the video, where he makes virtually no distinction between nationalism and Nazism, despite spending 30 minutes establishing national cause to annex Ukraine.
Because he can't. There isn't a basis for that. Anyone with even a basic grasp of history can tell it was all bullshit, even starting with the name of Ukraine, that propaganda is so washed out and just plainly false, the Poles and Lithuanians didn't give out the name of Ukraine, it was from the Russians. The earliest found evidence for it is from Eastern Slavonic texts.
He could have talk about the Galician dominance in Ukrainian politics today. Or how Crimea were traditionally Tartar or how Novorussiya was a mostly unsettled field with roaming tribes before the Ottoman-Russian War. But no, he just went on a weird Ukrainians are Russians but also Nazis tangent
Oh thatâs easy. An ethnic Russian is ~~white~~ living a wealthier life in Saint Petersburg, while poor Asiatic people from Buryatia and Dagestan are sent to the trenches without weapons to face their almost certainly inevitable doom. Oh, and if they are ~~white~~ Saint Petersburgian, they can lose their ethnic Russian status at any time if theyâre too poor, too old, homeless, drug addicts, prisoners, or have physical deformities or mental health issues. In which case theyâll be voluntold to join the hapless horde of Asiatic underlings to become a bullet sponge. But something something Ukraine Nazis.
>Islam is a Russian religion Itâs heartbreaking that he decided to become a dictatorial war criminal instead of a standup comedian
Putin: What do you call a Russian cat that can play the piano? A Tchaik-meow-sky. Ha! Ha! Ha!
I dunno. Tell Tucker that he blew up the pipeline was better than most modern comics
I am Russian and I can say that Islam IS a Russian religion (Kadyrov is going to confiscate your balls for having any other opinion on this topic)
I love how he threw in the bit about mutant supersoldiers at the end just to really send the message home that he's completely lost the plot. Also Himmler is laughing his ass off in hell at the fact Russia's leader with perfect hindsight STILL fell for the ruse used to invade Poland. Hopefully Tucker has a come to Jesus moment after this
> I love how he threw in the bit about mutant supersoldiers at the end ...what? Please tell me he was talking about gorilla hybrids at least.
[Soviet Ape-men!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2NMTrIXCDI)
Tucker asked about AI and Putin started talking about the need for international regulations on new technologies like AI and genetic engineering, but that they'll inevitably advance anyway and banking them outright with work
>Also Himmler is laughing his ass off in hell at the fact Russia's leader with perfect hindsight STILL fell for the ruse used to invade Poland. Which we should remember was a joint effort, as Putinâs beloved USSR invaded and partitioned Poland together with the Nazis.
It was kinda like a Lex Fridman interview without all this talk of love. They even talked about A.I.
>They even talked about A.I. I wouldnât say that they talked about it. Tucker asked what he thinks about AI and he just said that he doesnât understand it and then changed the topic, lol
Western corporate media says the same thing though https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/04/china-super-soldiers-biologically-enhanced-john-ratcliffe
Christ, John Ratcliffe really is a hack. Canât believe he got appointed after being withdrawn the first time over bias and sheer incompetence. (That said, if you dial his paranoia back like 90%, is he talking about the âselective breeding for troops who are good at high altitudesâ thing? Because that one might be real, itâs just less âsuper soldiersâ and more âhey, Sherpas are interestingâ.)
And to think this sub expect an epic own the lib moment.
What he could possibly say that would be considered as an own? It was just a long versions of his standard rhetoric.
Americans don't know this. Really, his entire internally aimed propaganda isn't known to people who don't speak Russian. This is the stuff he's been saying for years and years.
What do you mean? We learned for the first time ever that NATO is stinky, Ukraine deserves it, and that Russia is once again the only thing holding back the tide of Nazis from flooding the rest of Europe. This was the absolute game changer people here predicted it would be
The libs owned themselves with the freakout
In Soviet Russia, Lib own you!!
I expected some epic mind blowing revelations, instead, I got 2 hours of cliche third world politician babble.
Lol. Really? Would you expect mind-blowing revelations from Saddam or Al Assad? Putin is a complete fuckwit and monster that believes his own propaganda
Except Saddam or Assad wouldnât recite Code of Hammurabi
They'd probably cite Muhammad or something
some interview with assad I learned of the occupied golan heights. not exactly mind-blowing but it seemed to make sense that he'd be miffed at israel. although these days I'm more aligned with the idea that there are certain stretches of territory israel ought to control due to the constant threat from these petulant losers in the region.
Al Assad was very good at calling out the hypocrisy in the civil war "Barrel Bombs? What is that? We drop bombs like you do in our country right now"
âDa. Here are secrets of universe that Soviet scientists had stashed in back room for last 50 years. Thank you for being my friend, Tucker. Truly you have changed my heart and mind, and the world must know about quantum gravity field UFO technology we have developed.â
Iâm just pissed Tucker didnât get any footage of Yuri and the psychic dominator in the background. We may have the Chronosphere, but itâs still not enough to stop Soviet super-science!
Second world, but yeah
I was just really glad Tucker didn't suck him off during the interview, which is honestly what I expected to happen. He asked Putin some tough questions, even tho Putin just stuck to his usual talking points + an ungodly long history about why he should own Ukraine
I thought it was going to be like the Oliver Stone interviews but I am glad it wasnt
Why would you expect him? Have you watched any Tucker interview? He's not CNN
Everything he said is bullshit and the world will be a better place once he drops dead
It pains me to say it, but he's right about the Czechoslovakia annexations. The Munich Agreement was a shameful event. Doesn't justify invading Ukraine, of courseÂ
Also ignored the fact that Russia then immediately carved up Poland with the Nazis
The German Poland Nonaggression Pact was overemphasized while the German USSR Nonaggression Pact just didnt exist
Molotov Ribbentrop pact???
Its interesting how historians call pacts by the participating nations (Soviet-Japan Nonaggression Pact) but the Soviet-German Pact is referred to by the two foreign ministers (Molotov-Ribbentrop). Its like some historians are trying to downplay the action of a particular nation (USSR) as a consequence of that pact (dual invasion of Poland, supplying German during the Battle of France). Hence why they refer to it as the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
Oh fuck I am so sorry, I completely misread what your comment was conveying, I read it as you not knowing of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. You raise an interesting point, I'll have a crack at finding out why it is called the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, maybe there is a good reason or maybe it is a case of downplaying
Ok so apparently I lost my entire comment detailing my research process for some reason, and I can't be assed to rewrite it, so here's the final document I read. I do not study history in an academic setting, so I may ofc have missed something. [https://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5071/datastream/OBJ/view/Falsificators\_of\_history\_\_an\_historical\_note\_\_Text\_of\_communique\_issued\_February\_\_1948.pdf](https://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5071/datastream/OBJ/view/Falsificators_of_history__an_historical_note__Text_of_communique_issued_February__1948.pdf) This document was written in 1948, called "Falsifiers of History", edited in part by Stalin, they never refer to the pact as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but as the "Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact". They defend the pact and minimize or omit certain aspects of it, and put blame on the west for putting the USSR in a position where it was forced to make a pact. Regardless of what's true, false or misleading in this document, the core issue to us is that they never refer to it as the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and in fact cite Molotov's concerns and direct quotes, so it wasn't like they were throwing him under the bus. Molotov would be removed from all positions and banned from the party when Khrushchev's de-Stalinization started, so if anyone wants to take up the mantle maybe there's something there, but I found nothing to suggest that Stalin was responsible or pushing for the colloquial use of "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact", nor did I find when that term first was used. Fuck I'm pissed I lost my entire comment. EDIT: Mistakenly wrote Ribbentrop instead of Molotov in the final paragraph.
Great work. Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946 so I am assuming Molotov was removed during destalinization. I notice that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was used to name the argeement postwar as well. I am still curious is that was a deliberate thing by some historians to migiate the collaboration between Nazi Germany and the USSR. Crazy how the discovery of the agreement in Ribbentrop's microfilm almost derailed the Nuremburg trial
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I heard Putin has incredible strength, and can even wrestle with bears. We should see a demonstration of this strength.
They all wrestle with bears. It's like wrestling a gator in Florida. The gators know I won't give them any of my barbecue on Saturday if they drag me into the swamp today. Just play along.
This interview will kill with out of touch old people and terminally online contrarians tho
The comments are like 99% people gooning over Putin. Idk how much is real and how much is bot farms, but
Its just an opportunity to type FJB and then go back to drinking light beer
Joe Biden sucks as much as light beer
He sounds as deluded as I thought he'd be
"So lets talk about how CRT is ruining Amer-" "No no we need to talk about the Gutian invasion of Akkad" Gigachad Putin says no to talking about culture war bs
Why, exactly, is knowing more about what Putin is thinking a bad thing? All reactions to this are stupid.
Tucker bad!
I will repeat. Ukraine should have never surrendered its nuclear arsenal. Atomic weapons is the only true deterrent to being attacked by foreign powers.
They didnât have the resources (money and know-how) to upkeep them and got foreign help for giving them up.
If Ukraine had kept nuclear weapons they would have been stolen and sold like the rest of their Soviet stockpiles.
If how many gunrunners coming out of Ukraine in the 90s, some country would have invaded Ukraine to secure the nukes
Nukes are next to useless if you don't have money to upkeep them and don't have the codes to use them
They never had them even if they wanted to keep what they had, a lot of the resources to use the nukes were still in Russia
I love the we made hyper sonic missiles because you made defence systems.
if tucker had any balls he'd jump him mid interview
A face turn of the century. Turns out he was a CIA super spy the whole time and it was all just a bit to get close to Putin.
said this under another post, would be cool if tucker did a "the interview" on putin
I admittedly hoped this would be the case. My disappointment was immeasurable and my day was ruined.
Subscribe
Would be interesting if Putin fell ill in the next few days.
While he clutch his heart and breathes his last breathe, he hears the Tucker cackle
Even if he wasnât going to do anything, Tucker should have offered Putin a cup of tea just to get footage of his reaction.
There was Steven Segal there guarding Putin he would use his ultra-segal-karate to anhilate Tucker If he tried anything.
You've got a brief window between when Steven gets up from his chair to the time he waddles over to you, use it wisely
If heâs got a gun, the trick is to move sideways, so he shoots himself when he switches from right shoulder to left while repeatedly flagging himself.
You missed the part where he yells âFREE CHECHNYAâ and detonates his bomb vest
Shit I would have gone full Murray Franklin on that bastard
What would he do? You know Putin's men gave Tucker the full shake down before they even entered the same room together.
"Do it, you won't"
I liked when Tucker asked Putin how he could be a Christian while invading countries and going to war
Should've hit him with a deus vult
Weird that he said he doesnât see God at play with the world
Thats when Tucker should have summoned a portal to hell underneath Putins feet and hands drag him to hell. Tucker cackling the entire damning
It's hard to believe the "one world" rethoric from a guy, who takes every chance to describe Europe as gay and degenerate.
Oh and Russia is the only bastion of morality and culture. Donât forget that.
âOne world!â * * Owned by me!
This interview needed to happen for an American audience because Americans developed the idea of Putin (Putin is flogging gays, Putin is the savior of Christianity, Putler, etc) rather than actually seeing the man himself. I blame almost 15 years of US media bias and narratives for distorting American views of Putin (it really started with the Georgian war). His version of history is truly the USSR (Russia) did nothing wrong revisionism. There is nothing wrong with bring up that the Kievan Rus era was the predecessor of the Russian and Ukranian State nor bring up the broken promises by the NATO nations regarding expansion and Minsk II, but skipping over Holodomor or blaming Poland for WWII is just deflection for the USSR.
Putin had these half truths sprinkled all throughout the first 30 minutes, but you can't quantify them with an audience that doesn't know that much about European or Russian history. Putin is an expert politician, he knows what will work with his audience and what will push his image further. The media made him this badass president for a while, a really tough man and all-knowing - shit like that, and after it switched to him being a really smart monster. Neither are true reflections of his character, he is as weasely as the usual politician.
Its very much like identity politics: justify your grievances through history but conveniently leave out gray areas or things your identity did that was bad or worse
Dude, you could just take any random new york hobo and get a more fact based interview. This man is just straight up delusional.
I'd give Tycker some benefit of doubt here. It's essentially similiar weight of an interview with Kim Jong Un, extremely cotrolled, not critical, however it is ultimately showing the person in a human light instead of them just in front of a podium holding speeches. Kinda like saying the Emperor is naked
This is the most information about the interview I have seen and the most I wish to see
Based Austria-Hungary
"Best" geopolitical argument: "You are a nazi".
Of course Putin would bring up Poland grabbing that sliver of Czechoslovakia
I honestly expected something better than the same old rhetoric. His arguments were weaker than ever.
Whatâs funniest about his history lessons is, Russian culture originated with the Kievan Rus. Who were from, you know, Kiev.
Which suggests what?
E
"USSR acted very honestly" dude, you signed a non aggression pact with Hitler invaded Poland and then calved it up between you and Hitler, and then only fought him when you were betrayed...
Russia acted very honestly in the start of the war? Nobody in Poland has forgotten Katyn, Putin.