Tucker in Moscow to Interview Putin

KG1 said:

Zelensky says that he will welcome Trump to come to Ukraine and attempt to end the war, but he has deep concerns that Trump's plan will end up in Ukraine giving up major concessions to Putin. According to him that is deeply troubling.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-zelenskyy-ukraine-russia-1.7090119

"Donald Trump, I invite you to Ukraine, to Kyiv. If you can stop the war during 24 hours, I think it will be enough to come," Zelenskyy said.

The Ukrainian leader also shared his concern about the U.S. taking unilateral action that failed to consider Ukraine's perspective, noting the dearth of details around Trump's "peace plan."

Zelenskyy described the former president's rhetoric as "very dangerous" and appeared apprehensive that Trump's idea of a negotiated solution might involve Ukraine making major concessions to Russia.

Click to expand...

The reality is that Russia is a large country and Ukraine is a backwater. There is no outcome in which Russia does not take most or all of what it wants.

Ark said:

The reality is that Russia is a large country and Ukraine is a backwater. There is no outcome in which Russia does not take most or all of what it wants.

Click to expand...

That's why I said previously will Trump be able get Putin to settle for anything less than his vision of getting back what was historically Russian territory. This was Putin's main goal for starting the war. He will not be persuaded to abandon that goal easily if at all.

KG1 said:

That's why I said previously will Trump be able get Putin to settle for anything less than his vision of getting back what was historically Russian territory. This was Putin's main goal for starting the war. He will not be persuaded to abandon that goal easily if at all.

Click to expand...

His goal is to keep Sevestapol complete with land bridge and not have a hostile NATO country right on the border packed to the gills with American missiles. How much muddy Ukrainian farmland he gets isn't all that relevant.

Destro said:

Ironic that we begged Ukraine to give up their big stick, only to welch when things got hot.

If we want to be cowards on new stuff, fine, I would rather be coward than a liar.

Click to expand...

Your honor is admirable and it's respected.

Much has changed in the last three decades:

A generation of leaders that served in the Armed Forces vs a generation of leaders that are radical progressives who have learned how big government can manipulate big business.

The elites of the West have driven guilt and shame into education creating multiple generations that don't value Western Culture, English speaking culture and American culture and what it has done for prosperity worldwide the last three, four, five centuries.

Europe stopped acting like a continent and tried to act like a nation.

European politicians opted for politically correct energy policies thus putting them over the barrel for Russian energy. If NATO truly were an alliance, they should have been buying oil from North America and not the Russians or Venezuelans.

NATO became less of an alliance and more reliance.

American Administrations allowed the American tax payer to foot the bill at a rate of two or three to one when it came to the NATO Defense budget.

We've played world police for the last 75 years. Generally speaking, the first 50 years worked in our favor. The last 25 have not.

It's time to focus on America.

Just watched the interview, and have to say a lot of it wasn't new for me, however what made this significant was that it was Tucker doing the interview. It's significant because 1) more people will see this than if it was a no-name reporter or a dry C-Spanesque political discussion, and 2) because of the response that Tucker is receiving for this interview.

I think it's absolutely telling and also BS that Western leaders are calling Tucker a traitor and suggesting he be banned and/or imprisoned for what was probably not that significant of an interview itself and was one of the more harsher interviews Putin has had recently. I find it funny that the people who are undermining their own county's values and populations through the influx of foreigners and clamping down on freedoms calling someone who I believe wanted to shed light on a difficult situation to maybe bring a peaceful end a traitor.

This conflict has always been grey. It resembles a civil war more than a spontaneous invasion. I would rather see an end to this conflict as no one is winning except the ones making money off of it. I've seen so much propaganda from officials saying this about national security, the same officials who do nothing for our border and actively impede any progress to secure it. I do not believe we are devoted to peace. I believe we are devoted to crushing anyone not with us and making money off of it. Empires have acted this way for millennia and America is no different, and in some cases can be justified, though let's not pretend they are waging these wars for our (The People's) benefit. If anything, they are slowly adjusting their sights on us.

ZurokSlayer7X9 said:

Just watched the interview, and have to say a lot of it wasn't new for me, however what made this significant was that it was Tucker doing the interview. It's significant because 1) more people will see this than if it was a no-name reporter or a dry C-Spanesque political discussion, and 2) because of the response that Tucker is receiving for this interview.

I think it's absolutely telling and also BS that Western leaders are calling Tucker a traitor and suggesting he be banned and/or imprisoned for what was probably not that significant of an interview itself and was one of the more harsher interviews Putin has had recently. I find it funny that the people who are undermining their own county's values and populations through the influx of foreigners and clamping down on freedoms calling someone who I believe wanted to shed light on a difficult situation to maybe bring a peaceful end a traitor.

This conflict has always been grey. It resembles a civil war more than a spontaneous invasion. I would rather see an end to this conflict as no one is winning except the ones making money off of it. I've seen so much propaganda from officials saying this about national security, the same officials who do nothing for our border and actively impede any progress to secure it. I do not believe we are devoted to peace. I believe we are devoted to crushing anyone not with us and making money off of it. Empires have acted this way for millennia and America is no different, and in some cases can be justified, though let's not pretend they are waging these wars for our (The People's) benefit. If anything, they are slowly adjusting their sights on us.

Click to expand...

The simple response to this is, they don’t want outsiders countering their propaganda machine…

136 million views in less than 24 hours on Twitter

This one got me. That’s pretty good.

Destro said:

Anything less than 2022 borders is surrender.
Anything less than 2014 borders is a truce.

Surrender would just be another instance of the USA not keeping its word.

Click to expand...

This does not make any sense. For beginners, merely assisting Ukraine is not keeping our word, so I think you can quite easily rule that out from mattering.

Second, is there physical evidence to prove Russia has ambitions that include moving beyond Ukraine? If not, why does Ukraine matter to us, unless there's a bunch of dirty laundry we're worried about getting exposed?
Third, are American lives really worth some clay in eastern europe? Because that's what it's going to take if you want even 2022 borders.

If you're not willing to send your kids to war for Ukraine, you might as well support surrender at this point.

IMO, sending aid is even unethical at this point, as it's furthering a conflict that has no chance of producing a positive result, except for a lot more dead Ukrainians.

INPatriot said:

Your honor is admirable and it's respected.

Much has changed in the last three decades:

A generation of leaders that served in the Armed Forces vs a generation of leaders that are radical progressives who have learned how big government can manipulate big business.

The elites of the West have driven guilt and shame into education creating multiple generations that don't value Western Culture, English speaking culture and American culture and what it has done for prosperity worldwide the last three, four, five centuries.

Europe stopped acting like a continent and tried to act like a nation.

European politicians opted for politically correct energy policies thus putting them over the barrel for Russian energy. If NATO truly were an alliance, they should have been buying oil from North America and not the Russians or Venezuelans.

NATO became less of an alliance and more reliance.

American Administrations allowed the American tax payer to foot the bill at a rate of two or three to one when it came to the NATO Defense budget.

We've played world police for the last 75 years. Generally speaking, the first 50 years worked in our favor. The last 25 have not.

It's time to focus on America.

Click to expand...

No reason we can't do all that now.

Can we all just be honest about the elephant in the room here?

On the right, people don't like Zelenskyy because they think he is pals with Biden et.al., and dislike for Zelenskyy is just vis-à-vis support for Trump.

If Putin had invaded Hungry, Brazil, or any other country with leadership Trump was friendly with, we wouldn't be here. If Jair Bolsonaro had been attacked, I'm sure there would be calls to deploy the 82nd Airborne. There would also probably be equal opposition from Democrats from the US supporting someone like Bolsonaro.

The annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion were wrong, full stop. Everyone knows its wrong but instead of saying its wrong and thus giving implicit support to Zelenskyy, there is just some weird exercise in discussing the Russian Empire and other mind numbing nonsense.

Zelenskyy can be an opportunist grifter and Putin can be a tyrant. Two things can be true at the same time.

Imagine if the rest of the world looked the other way on 9/11 because they didn't like George W. Bush?

People talk about domestic media propaganda, what do you think this was? Putin had his hand so far up Tucker you could tell the time on his watch. (I don't blame Tucker, playing hard ball is an easy way to end up in prison, I am sure Tucker was a model citizen this trip)

I'd like to see a better accounting of the money to Ukraine. I'd like to know we are actively funding end goals. We can ask more of our allies. We can impose harsher sanctions. Support for Ukraine can look many ways.

But don't have to accept a tyrant to oppose Biden.

Tombs said:

This does not make any sense. For beginners, merely assisting Ukraine is not keeping our word, so I think you can quite easily rule that out from mattering.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this? I don't understand.

How is assisting Ukraine not keeping our word? To whom?

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview. 6 min 44 sec

Destro said:

Can you explain this? I don't understand.

How is assisting Ukraine not keeping our word? To whom?

Click to expand...

You know that lovely mention of a promise to Russia that NATO would not expand to their borders?

All the anti-Russia crowd loves to make mention that it wasn't written down so it's okay to lie about.

Tombs said:

You know that lovely mention of a promise to Russia that NATO would not expand to their borders?

All the anti-Russia crowd loves to make mention that it wasn't written down so it's okay to lie about.

Click to expand...

I’m not a huge fan of Russia and think they are mostly bad guys, but they have a point about NATO expansion. Given their history of being invaded about 30 bazillion times, they are sensitive to it. Imagine the Warsaw pact still existed and Canada joined, followed by soviet troops on our northern border. I doubt we would be chill about it. We almost went to war over nukes in Cuba.

Kdf101 said:

I’m not a huge fan of Russia and think they are mostly bad guys, but they have a point about NATO expansion. Given their history of being invaded about 30 bazillion times, they are sensitive to it. Imagine the Warsaw pact still existed and Canada joined, followed by soviet troops on our northern border. I doubt we would be chill about it. We almost went to war over nukes in Cuba.

Click to expand...

It's just responses to disjointed and incoherent foreign policy on the US's part.

One day we're wanting to be friends, the next we're propping up factions to destabilize their government, then we pretend we're being friendly again.

And we expect them to not be paranoid of us? The entire cold war was a comedy of errors all around, like when we thought the mig-25 was a new hyper maneuverability fighter that would decimate all of our aircraft, so we invested in one of the most expensive and dominate aircraft designs ever, the F15. Then one day we finally get our hands on a mig-25 and discover, while fast, it is about as maneuverable as a school bus and posed no threat to anything we had.

This is a process that continually repeats its self, it's almost as predictable as people who's lives have been ruined by democrats, voting for democrats again.

Watched all of it last night. Saw and heard nothing new. We have been poking the bear for decades, until our CIA went in and made Ukraine the 51st state. We didn’t want Russia in Cuba why would Russia want us in Ukraine? There’s no good guys here. It’s Vietnam, stay the he** out of Vietnam. And get rid of the CIA, they are running too much of the show.

Destro said:

No reason we can't do all that now.

Can we all just be honest about the elephant in the room here?

On the right, people don't like Zelenskyy because they think he is pals with Biden et.al., and dislike for Zelenskyy is just vis-à-vis support for Trump.

If Putin had invaded Hungry, Brazil, or any other country with leadership Trump was friendly with, we wouldn't be here. If Jair Bolsonaro had been attacked, I'm sure there would be calls to deploy the 82nd Airborne. There would also probably be equal opposition from Democrats from the US supporting someone like Bolsonaro.

The annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion were wrong, full stop. Everyone knows its wrong but instead of saying its wrong and thus giving implicit support to Zelenskyy, there is just some weird exercise in discussing the Russian Empire and other mind numbing nonsense.

Zelenskyy can be an opportunist grifter and Putin can be a tyrant. Two things can be true at the same time.

Imagine if the rest of the world looked the other way on 9/11 because they didn't like George W. Bush?

People talk about domestic media propaganda, what do you think this was? Putin had his hand so far up Tucker you could tell the time on his watch. (I don't blame Tucker, playing hard ball is an easy way to end up in prison, I am sure Tucker was a model citizen this trip)

I'd like to see a better accounting of the money to Ukraine. I'd like to know we are actively funding end goals. We can ask more of our allies. We can impose harsher sanctions. Support for Ukraine can look many ways.

But don't have to accept a tyrant to oppose Biden.

Click to expand...

Z is a grifter. Putin is a tyrant.

This had nothing to do with Z up until he became the Boner of the Month for Western Elites. I would have the same point of view no matter the shakedown artist playing the role of Ukranian President. This was all convoluted from before the start because the Ukrainians were paying the Bidens for influence. Whatever Ukranian was sitting in the big boy seat was going to have that leverage over Joe Biden.

As far as the hypotheticals of other countries...I don't deal in hypotheticals because if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Hungary is a NATO nation. Ukraine is not a NATO nation. No matter how archaic I believe NATO to be each of those are facts.

I have no lust for Russia, but I'm not willing to go to nuclear war over Crimea. Crimea is Russia's warm water naval port, people in Crimea consider themselves Russian. This is where trying to draw boundaries and true ethnic/national tribalism collide. Being in the New World, that's not something with which we deal. We have tribalism no doubt, but ideological tribalism, a place where many Americans excel, and ethnic/national tribalism are two completely different beasts. One causes people to yell, the other causes world wars.

$165B, $185B, whatever the number is, seems pretty supportive. The Marshall Plan was allotted something like $13B over four years and we ended up spending $17B ($120B in today's money). So apples to apples, we spent a third less with the Marshall Plan rebuilding an entire continent in four years while in Ukraine we've spent a third more to fund a war that cannot be won, cover lavish expenses and purchase homes for the connected and lost track of money all in just two years.

9/11 was and will continue to be the watershed moment of the 21st Century. Comparing a border war between a Thug that said he will press the nuclear trigger if pushed far enough and a Wannabe Thug that has no problem threatening Americans if we don't pay up is not viable to a worldwide criminal organization planning multiple homicidal operations on multiple continents from multiple continents.

I don't want Russia to be expansionist. I am not sure they can be expansionist. The semi-autonomy of Russian Republics, the ethnic groups, the religions, the powder keg of the North Caucasus, transitioning loyalties and alliances, there is much to juggle.

There is no longer a need to print and borrow money to continue sending to Ukraine. The Russians have Crimea, the Russians intend to keep Crimea and the Donbass Region. None of it is worth war, nuclear weapons or more American lives and treasure.

We will just have to disagree on its importance and that's okay.

INPatriot said:

I'm 56 minutes in so far. Putin's 30 second or one minute, his words not mine, explanation of Russian history took 25 minutes.

In 1,200 years of history, there have been alot of tribalism, alliances, tugs between Krakow and Moscow, moving borders, formal recognition, informal recognition, shifting loyalties, promises, broken promises, treaties and agreements.

That's alot for us to unpack when we have our own issues that need addressed. He believes Ukraine is a fabricated nation with no national identity that exists outside of the history of Russia.

He's obviously scorned about Russia not being taken seriously after the fall of the Soviet Union.

He's bitter about the expansion of NATO. He didn't necessarily say this, but reading between the lines, he feels that NATO is a client state of the US and he wants a client state in Ukraine.

The US-Russia-Europe missile defense system against Iran sounded iffy. I don't recall the Russians ever trying to keep the Iranians at arms length. It seems they've always embraced them strictly because they been our adversary - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

When he starts to bloviate and go on and on, he believes he is speaking truths. When he says he doesn't want to waste time explaining something I smell bull crap.

Whether one thinks Tucker is being soft or not, it's easy to see this is the hardest Putin has ever been pressed. He purses his lips. His collar seems to get a little tighter, face a little redder. He does a good job staying back in his chair but the irritation is visible.

Click to expand...

I think Putin’s position about borders is a bit like the left’s obsession with native Americans. Ain’t theirs now. Borders are what they are now. It doesn’t excuse him for invading Ukraine, a sovereign nation. If he wants to change it now, because borders were more to his liking in the 17th century, that’s an act of aggression.

Also, I think Carlson did a fair job of pushing back on that point.

Destro said:

No reason we can't do all that now.

Can we all just be honest about the elephant in the room here?

On the right, people don't like Zelenskyy because they think he is pals with Biden et.al., and dislike for Zelenskyy is just vis-à-vis support for Trump.

If Putin had invaded Hungry, Brazil, or any other country with leadership Trump was friendly with, we wouldn't be here. If Jair Bolsonaro had been attacked, I'm sure there would be calls to deploy the 82nd Airborne. There would also probably be equal opposition from Democrats from the US supporting someone like Bolsonaro.

The annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion were wrong, full stop. Everyone knows its wrong but instead of saying its wrong and thus giving implicit support to Zelenskyy, there is just some weird exercise in discussing the Russian Empire and other mind numbing nonsense.

Zelenskyy can be an opportunist grifter and Putin can be a tyrant. Two things can be true at the same time.

Imagine if the rest of the world looked the other way on 9/11 because they didn't like George W. Bush?

People talk about domestic media propaganda, what do you think this was? Putin had his hand so far up Tucker you could tell the time on his watch. (I don't blame Tucker, playing hard ball is an easy way to end up in prison, I am sure Tucker was a model citizen this trip)

I'd like to see a better accounting of the money to Ukraine. I'd like to know we are actively funding end goals. We can ask more of our allies. We can impose harsher sanctions. Support for Ukraine can look many ways.

But don't have to accept a tyrant to oppose Biden.

Click to expand...

This makes me strongly suspect you don’t understand the America-first point of view. There are no good guys in that fight. We need to stop sending money to Ukraine. We’ve spent enough already. Ain’t got a ***damn thing to do with the other stuff you mentioned.

jamil said:

This makes me strongly suspect you don’t understand the America-first point of view. There are no good guys in that fight. We need to stop sending money to Ukraine. We’ve spent enough already. Ain’t got a ***damn thing to do with the other stuff you mentioned.

Click to expand...

People just cannot get out of their old mindsets. Probably some kind of normalcy bias, I just don’t know which type.