International Tucker Carlson in Russia to interview Vladimir Putin UPDATE - Also Dugin

[MeatheadMike]

So Putin confirms the reason for invading is because he feels that Russia has historic claims to parts of Ukraine.
Can we all now agree that NATO expansion and denazification narratives were bullshit from the Kremlin?

 

[chardog]

So Putin confirms the reason for invading is because he feels that Russia has historic claims to parts of Ukraine.
Can we all now agree that NATO expansion and denazification narratives were bullshit from the Kremlin?

nato expansion isnt bullshit, but the denazification is basically american talking points.

 

[Scheme]

So Putin confirms the reason for invading is because he feels that Russia has historic claims to parts of Ukraine.
Can we all now agree that NATO expansion and denazification narratives were bullshit from the Kremlin?

He also mentioned how Russia was previously attacked by Nazis via Ukraine during WW2 (70% of all Russian men born in 1923 were dead by the end of WW2 as a result), CIA backed coup in Maidan, NATO expansionism into Ukraine, Ukranian bombing of civilians in western Ukraine and and failure to uphold the Minsk agreements. Did you miss that part of the interview, or are you just saying that he thinks historical context is all that matters?

I don't understand how Americans on one hand think their government is too globally militaristic, invading other countries and overthrowing democracies but at the same time think those actions should have no consequences?

 

[Rational Poster]

He also mentioned how Russia was previously attacked by Nazis via Ukraine during WW2 (70% of all Russian men born in 1923 where dead by the end of WW2 as a result), CIA backed coup in Maidan, NATO expansionism into Ukraine and failure to uphold the Minsk agreements. Did you miss that part of the interview, or are you just saying that he thinks historical context is all that matters?

I don't understand how Americans on one hand think their government is too globally militaristic, invading other countries and overthrowing democracies but at the same time think those actions should have no consequences?

He also left out all the context like, Ukrainian "nazis" attacked them in WW2 because they were fed up with literally centuries of Russification attempts, literally trying to ethnically cleanse Ukrainian identify and culture for centuries up to and including Stalin's regime who deliberately starved millions of Ukrainians to death prior to WW2.

He also failed to mention the millions of Ukrainians Stalin left to die resisting the invasion in 1941.

 

[Scheme]

He also left out all the context like, Ukrainian "nazis" attacked them in WW2 because they were fed up with literally centuries of Russification attempts, literally trying to ethnically cleanse Ukrainian identify and culture for centuries up to and including Stalin's regime who deliberately starved millions of Ukrainians to death prior to WW2.

He also failed to mention the millions of Ukrainians Stalin left to die resisting the invasion in 1941.

No, Ukranian Nazis attacked during WW2 because Hitler attempted to invade the Soviet Union. Before that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were not hostile.

 

[Rational Poster]

No, Ukranian Nazis attacked during WW2 because Hitler attempted to invade the Soviet Union. Before that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were not hostile.

Yeah and they were willing to work with the invaders because the Russians had engaged in literally centuries of ethnic cleansing in the region prior to any hostilities.

Are you not aware of Stalin's Holodomor? That's not even getting into how the Tzars treated them for centuries prior.

 

[koquerelle]

Amazes me that people like you can walk around without a leash.

or a helmet

 

[Scheme]

Yeah and they were willing to work with the invaders because the Russians had engaged in literally centuries of ethnic cleansing in the region prior to any hostilities.

Are you not aware of Stalin's Holodomor? That's not even getting into how the Tzars treated them for centuries prior.

I agree that there is historical context that would support Ukrainian's independence as well. That doesn't change the fact that they've broken multiple peace agreements at the behest and support of America, were bombing civilians and like many other countries had the honour of having their government overthrown with the support of the CIA. I don't understand why people leave out this context when assessing Russia's position, especially when the Cold War almost escalated on America's side due to a similar situation (Russians moving weaponry into Cuba). If Russia established military bases in Mexico or Canada today, US would undoubtedly not stand for it either. So why is it so hard to see Russia's position in this matter as well?

The West's (mainly America's) open hostility and expansionist policies have played a huge role in where we are today. And it's not treacherous to say that. The real traitors are the people in our government who are going around the world overthrowing governments and pushing war at the expense of American (and other people's) lives, money and security. And most of the time people agree with that statement, but when it comes to Ukraine/Russia (and in some cases, Israel/Palestine), that logic is no longer valid.

 

[Vergilius]

I agree that there is historical context that would support Ukrainian's independence as well. That doesn't change the fact that they've broken multiple peace agreements at the behest and support of America, were bombing civilians and like many other countries had the honour of having their government overthrown with the support of the CIA. I don't understand why people leave out this context when assessing Russia's position, especially when the Cold War almost escalated on America's side due to a similar situation (Russians moving weaponry into Cuba). If Russia established military bases in Mexico or Canada today, US would undoubtedly not stand for it either. So why is it so hard to see Russia's position in this matter as well?

The West's (mainly America's) open hostility and expansionist policies have played a huge role in where we are today. And it's not treacherous to say that. The real traitors are the people in our government who are going around the world overthrowing governments and pushing war at the expense of American (and other people's) lives, money and security. And most of the time people agree with that statement, but when it comes to Ukraine/Russia (and in some cases, Israel/Palestine), that logic is no longer valid.

It's not valid because the US is not trying to "expand" into the Ukraine while Russia clearly is and has been since 2014. Sovereign countries are allowed to join alliance systems and economic organizations in the modern world - this is not "expansionism" in the 19th century fashion that Putin is still practicing.

 

[Rational Poster]

I agree that there is historical context that would support Ukrainian's independence as well. That doesn't change the fact that they've broken multiple peace agreements at the behest and support of America, were bombing civilians and like many other countries had the honour of having their government overthrown with the support of the CIA. I don't understand why people leave out this context when assessing Russia's position, especially when the Cold War almost escalated on America's side due to a similar situation (Russians moving weaponry into Cuba). If Russia established military bases in Mexico or Canada today, US would undoubtedly not stand for it either. So why is it so hard to see Russia's position in this matter as well?

The West's (mainly America's) open hostility and expansionist policies have played a huge role in where we are today. And it's not treacherous to say that. The real traitors are the people in our government who are going around the world overthrowing governments and pushing war at the expense of American (and other people's) lives, money and security. And most of the time people agree with that statement, but when it comes to Ukraine/Russia (and in some cases, Israel/Palestine), that logic is no longer valid.

When Putin invaded in 2022, the number of casualties in Putin's failed separatist incursion was in the single digits for years.

Putin invaded because the separatists failed.

All of this is Russian propaganda for dumb asses.

 

[nixkid]

nato expansion isnt bullshit, but the denazification is basically american talking points.

So you're saying that when Putin got on TV to announce the "special military operation" and said they were denazifying Ukraine...he was just regurgitating American talking points. Interesting take.

"I have decided to conduct a special military operation," said Putin, seated at a desk in the Kremlin next to a battery of telephones, with the Russian flag behind him.
"Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide... for the last eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-authorises-military-operations-donbass-domestic-media-2022-02-24/

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It's not valid because the US is not trying to "expand" into the Ukraine while Russia clearly is and has been since 2014. Sovereign countries are allowed to join alliance systems and economic organizations in the modern world - this is not "expansionism" in the 19th century fashion that Putin is still practicing.

Some people, not all, accept Israeli expansionism though. And it's basically the same excuse. They attacked us back in 1948, they support terrorists etc.
The US, as a country, supports it.

 

[chardog]

So you're saying that when Putin got on TV to announce the "special military operation" and said they were denazifying Ukraine...he was just regurgitating American talking points. Interesting take.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-authorises-military-operations-donbass-domestic-media-2022-02-24/

he's throwing meat for Tucker's audience, and poisoning the soy for his opponents

 

[Scheme]

It's not valid because the US is not trying to "expand" into the Ukraine while Russia clearly is and has been since 2014. Sovereign countries are allowed to join alliance systems and economic organizations in the modern world - this is not "expansionism" in the 19th century fashion that Putin is still practicing.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

 

[Vergilius]

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

This might surprise you, but joining NATO does not turn a country into US territory. Nato expanding is not US "expansionism"; it is an organization that countries can voluntarily join, provided that the members states are willing to accept them at members. It does not compare to what Russia is doing in Ukraine at all.

 

[Rational Poster]

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

More dumbshit Russia propaganda for dummies like yourself to lap up and only makes sense if you deliberately ignore historical context.

The conversation in 1990 was in regards to NATO expansion in East Germany. The USSR and their satellites had not collapsed yet when the conversation took place..

And the US actually adhered to the agreement in that conversation. There are still no NATO bases in East Germany today.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

At the very least the interview should shine light on the fact that:

We've got transparency issues with our own Gov't, that we should not, as citizens of a Constitutional Republic.

Appreciate that Putin is not a complete idiot and as such the US needs more than a buffoon to deal with him.

There's likely more, but my attention span just hit full stop, carry on.

 

[Scheme]

When Putin invaded in 2022, the number of casualties in Putin's failed separatist incursion was in the single digits for years.

Putin invaded because the separatists failed.

All of this is Russian propaganda for dumb asses.

It's sad that you and other people who claim rationality simply revert into "bad guy is evil" and "good guys are heroes" lines of thinking and then claim other people are spreading propaganda. Instead of actually looking at historical context of both sides, you simply think that Putin is the most evil person in the world and if he just wasn't so evil the world would be perfect and great. It's just jingoistic jargon that I guess helps you moralize certain infractions by your own warmongering government(s) which you seemingly do not support in some cases but support in other cases? It's very confusing to someone with a principled stance on the matter as it's seemingly random which cases you support the American government warmongering efforts on and which cases you don't.

It's insane that you think you can condense decades and centuries of historical, geopolitical and social contexts into simply "Putin bad" and deride anyone for providing any additional context as simply "propagandized".

 

[Scheme]

More dumbshit Russia propaganda for dummies like yourself to lap up and only makes sense if you deliberately ignore historical context.

The conversation in 1990 was in regards to NATO expansion in East Germany. The USSR and their satellites had not collapsed yet when the conversation took place..

And the US actually adhered to the agreement in that conversation. There are still no NATO bases in East Germany today.

Funny, because the person who said it disagrees with you. Not only does he disagree with you he also says it provoked Russia:

Robert M. Gates Oral History | Miller Center

With three different positions in intelligence and national security during the George H.W. Bush presidency, Robert Gates offers unique perspectives on the Soviet Union’s demise, the Gulf War, removing Noriega from power in Panama, the impact of the Cold War’s end on Eastern Europe and Latin...

millercenter.org

Naftali

What do you think would have been the politics around the NATO expansion with a Bush administration?

Gates

That would have been a tough fight within the administration. I’m not sure where people would have come down, but I think that the Bush administration would have, at the end of the day, kept our focus on our priorities, which in my view are, if you don’t get it right with Russia and China, none of the rest matters. And at a time of a special humiliation and difficulty for Russia, pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward, when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen, at least in no time soon, I think probably has not only aggravated the relationship between the United States and Russia but made it much more difficult to do constructive business with them. I think between that and the bombing of Belgrade we have really antagonized the Russians in a major way and I think those are two things that the Bush administration would not have done, when all is said and done.

We would have tried to find, I think, some kind of bridge, or holding action that wouldn’t be satisfactory to the East Europeans, but it would have given them a little something, but not full membership in NATO. We’d probably have tried to build more on the liaison missions in NATO that became part of the restructuring of NATO in the summer of ’90.

Please stop calling people who are actually educated on this matter "propagandized", when the exact opposite is true.

 

[Rational Poster]

Funny, because the person who said it disagrees with you. Not only does he disagree with you he also says it provoked Russia:

Robert M. Gates Oral History | Miller Center

With three different positions in intelligence and national security during the George H.W. Bush presidency, Robert Gates offers unique perspectives on the Soviet Union’s demise, the Gulf War, removing Noriega from power in Panama, the impact of the Cold War’s end on Eastern Europe and Latin...

millercenter.org

Please stop calling people who are actually educated on this matter "propagandized", when the exact opposite is true.

That literally doesn't counter my statement. The USSR was still a thing when that conversation happened. They didn't have a crystal ball and didn't know at the time the whole thing was collapsing in on itself.

Gates might agree that the Bush Jr. antagonized Russia afterwards, but in the historical context of the conversation they could not make promises on events that did not yet occur. The conversation was about East Germany. NATO has adhered to that promises in that conversation even though they were never formally agreed to. There's still no NATO bases in East Germany.

Also, Gates wasn't the one who made the promises. Lmao

Wrong Bush. It was James Baker who served Bush Sr.

"Actually educated" lmao