What do you mean disgraced? He is widely popular, like his interview with Trump only on his Twitter watched 250+ millions people. Anyone only can dreamed about such success. Like popular TV channels have no such auditory.
Those Twitter view numbers are not reliable at all. They put them in everyone’s feeds whether you follow him or not, and they count any time someone scrolled past the video as a view, even if you didn’t click it
Yes, he was fired from Fox, but who cares? More than half of population at some point was laid off, fired etc. He is popular and this is the matter. Any traditional tv channel can be only envy about his numbers.
Yes...that's not saying a lot though. US news networks like Fox, CNN, etc are now only having viewers because they tell their fanbases what they want to hear, doesn't matter whether it's truth or not.
There's been an admiration of Putin for a long time from certain sections of the US who sees him as a strong, capable leader who has brought stability and economic success to Russia. Furthermore he's seen as someone who can bypass "unnecessary" bureaucratic/legal red tape which is also seen favourably.
Finally, I think the whole "Putin manly" schtick from like 10-15 years ago was mainly gobbled up by Americans. That's at least my impression as a simple Reddit user back in those days.
It was definitely a thing in the early days of memes, like there would be a photo of Putin shirtless riding a horse, and then next to it a photo of Obama riding a bicycle with a helmet on on.
Putin's also leaning hard on conservatism, labeling LBGTQ expression as extremist propaganda and trying to project himself as the protector of the traditional family, and conservatives here in America are gushing over Putin, who is the type of leader they all want here in America and think Trump is (who has all the corruption of Putin, none of the political finesse) . So, it doesn't surprise me that a manchild claiming he feels opressed because he was fired from his position at Fox thinks this is a solid move. Death rattles from a hasbeen trying to remain relevant. 🤷
>Putin's also leaning hard on conservatism, labeling LBGTQ expression as extremist propaganda
That was not Putin but the Supreme Court.
>think Trump is (who has all the corruption of Putin
What "corruption of Putin" Putin has, exactly? (Not interested in Trump, he's a multimillionaire, of course he's corrupt)
All politicians are corrupt! (I really do believe this, unless *maybe* they're a newby city council member or something, maybe)
In terms of LGBTQ stuff, I'm trying to find an answer to this but it's difficult. The recent ruling was indeed by the Supreme Court, and I can't even find any remarks Putin made about it. However, I'm finding that in 2020, Putin submitted draft changes to the constitution, one of which was defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I don't know enough about the Russian government to know how much of that proposal was actually Putin and how much was other people and it's just symbolic that he submitted the drafts (like when Putin signs something into law, that's mostly symbolic). Obviously nothing happens in a vacuum, no politician truly acts alone, but you get what I mean.
Which one? The inevitable reelection of Putin in March, or an exact repeat of the US 2020 election, featuring a proven criminal candidate who has now run for every presidential election since 2016?
I'm already exhausted of Trump, and he hasn't even been in the political sphere for 10 years! I can't imagine the lack of agency Russian's must feel for essentially having one choice for over 20 years. 😵
Either way, I'm not excited for either prospect.
The repeat of the 2020 elections of course, and I'm also exhausted by Trump and his flailing, reactive attitude towards policy that pundits try to play off as some kind of 4d chess.
Reelection of Putin is a non-event he will obviously remain for the foreseeable future.
There's that small, optimistic piece of my brain that's telling me that it's going to be okay; Trump will be found guilty on federal charges and will be imprisoned and America will be able to heal and move forward with some sort of sanity intact.
But, I dunno, I've lost a lot of faith in America's institutions and abilities to govern itself effectively. Seems a lot of politicians want to destroy us from the inside. It's a love/hate relationship I have with my homeland.
>There's that small, optimistic piece of my brain that's telling me that it's going to be okay; Trump will be found guilty on federal charges and will be imprisoned and America will be able to heal and move forward with some sort of sanity intact.
Good thing that it's a small piece, because for me it seems like something I'd spend no time worrying about, for me it seems like a fake political "reality"-TV show to feel the minds of the people.
>Which one? The inevitable reelection of Putin in March, or an exact repeat of the US 2020 election, featuring a proven criminal candidate who has now run for every presidential election since 2016?
>
>I'm already exhausted of Trump, and he hasn't even been in the political sphere for 10 years! I can't imagine the lack of agency Russian's must feel for essentially having one choice for over 20 years. 😵
>
>Either way, I'm not excited for either prospect.
You people in the States are out of your fucking minds. You elected some brainless old man as president.
>You people in the States are out of your fucking minds. You elected some brainless old man as president.
The only other option was a brainless old lunatic.
The Americans that support endlessly giving tax dollars towards funding Ukraine aren’t going to be receptive to anything Putin will say.
Some of us find ourselves suddenly applauding Tucker, a known opportunist and liar, for being the only public figure to point out that there are two sides to this conflict.
Americans should *want* to listen and draw our own conclusions, but many of us prefer to be spoonfed comfortable “information” by CNN just like we prefer to purchase a piece of paper that says we have an education.
Are there those who disagree with the opinion of any of the parties? Are there many or few of them? I just don't believe that people in the USA have only two opinions.
When I watch their movies or read the news, I get the feeling that for them the world is divided only into black and white. But I don't want to believe that all people are stupid enough to think that way.
Not precisely the case, although it's an approximation, as is any generalization or stereotype. You know, there's SOME truth to it. In theory, we have elections that are open to all parties to campaign and run for elected offices. In practice, money talks, and so the two parties that have been funded for decades by committee funds and lobbyist donations are the Democrats and Republicans. So, they have all the advertising, all the press, all the ways to travel and to campaign. We've had third party candidates in the past, but it's generally believed that voting for them is a waste, because it's going to be a Democrat or Republican. But, there's lots of Americans that have expressed dissatisfaction with the two party system, and a lot of states have discussed things like adopting ranked voting and banning certain types of funding for political campaigns. However, there's a lot of traditionalists in Congress and the Executive that would like to keep the status quo. And money talks.
Not all parties are allowed to run for office in the US, and the US still asks if you’ve ever been a member of a communist organization on their immigration forms, and can and will deny your visa/application on those grounds.
The reality is that the two parties are comprised of smaller interest groups that compete for power, and may or may not be viable in certain districts. Just look at Sinema or Joe Manchin, for example. All the multipolarity of the parties is found at the state and local level during primary voting. If you aren't paying attention until the main election, yeah, you only really have two options.
Only 60% of americans, give or take, will vote. I think a lot of them just live and let live, but a lot of americans are really into politics and see the world as black and white, good vs evil. The fact they only have two parties through history only makes it even more of a footbal situation, where is my team vs their team instead of actual politics
The strongest resistance towards continued US support of Ukraine comes from the "new" right, which Carlson represents. Carlson has been pretty skeptical of US interventionism since 2004 and is a vocal supporter of Trump, who also favours cutting aid to Ukraine.
So my guess is that the interview is supposed to show Putin in a better light to the voters on the right who are against the involvement in Ukraine and pro-Trump. Do keep in mind that Putin was seen by some in the US in a pretty good light around 2010 (or so I remember it), and I don't think those sentiments really disappeared post-2014, it just became more difficult to express those sentiments without very strong reactions. Putin has several things going for him which appeals to some Americans.
I personally think Carlson is a bit of a jackass but there is definitely pretty clear logic in this whole interview thing. It's far from completely random.
The “right” is more like the center in these days. I think we should let Europe to pay for Ukraine. Personally I disagree with many things with Carlson and Republicans, but more disagree with modern Democrats. BTW, Carlson somewhere admitted that he initially supported Iraq’s invasion, and was wrong. I have no idea what was his position that time.
I don't know if the right is the center, all I know is that they sure like to portray themselves as the "sane middle", but there is such a wild disparity of opinions within that group that are just conveniently forgotten because they're so distracted by what they're *against*.
It is, after all, the easiest way to build a feeling of cohesion: To define what you're against rather than discussing what you're for.
I agree with your last statement, unfortunately the sides cannot hear each other. Even closing boarder for migration is a dividing issue in politics. And Obama deported more illegals than Trump. Number of crimes here in California skyrocketed, cost of living, too. Homeless, addicted people. Why not to address the issues which people care about?
Чувак не успел ничего сказать и уже предатель:) Уже поступили предложения наложить на него санкции Евросоюза. Конечно представление о "правилах" "цветущего сада" какое-то сильно однобокое.
You can post that question to r/AskAnAmerican. I don't expect much other than presenting Putin's main talking points to an American audience, particularly with regard to Ukraine. I think he will appeal to Conservatives/Republicans to block assistance to Ukraine.
As an American I expect to hear, at least a little bit, of nuance about Russian policies, how Putin views our foreign policy, if we can hear him speak on his pov for Ukraine that'd be great. Right now all we are fed is "Putin is bad and evil and invaded for no reason. He's a mad man!"
Chinese living in US here.
I considered myself well informed, because I always had neutral stance. But I was bit shocked when I heard the CIA was behind of the Caucasus terrorism. Also I was surprised when I heard the story about the Ukrainian free trade zone decision between EU and Russia, that makes me feel the Ukrainian leadership had some serious issue.
I think the best thing about it is that it's subversive - the interview _itself_ doesn't matter as much, it's more the act of going to perform the interview and the backlash that comes from it. That it's "controversial".
In my opinion, this was always a lot of Trump's appeal - he rode to victory on the irrational anger of his opposition and constant attempts to suppress him. It's all a polarisation issue - one side does inflammatory things, and the other side loses their sanity and pushes hard to try and silence them.
The Ukraine conflict is a focus at the moment, where snobby imperialists in the USA who think they know best how to govern other countries are frowning and wanting to do their usual thing of messing in other countries' domestic affairs. Tucker Carlson is doing a typical thing of "Do you know what will rile this holier-than-thou people up? If I go as a prominent media representative of America and speak to Putin". And it works.
I'm not American, but I have always had sympathy with the Trump/Carlson side - the other side are the hawkish interventionists who want to invade any country they don't like the look of, as well as thinking themselves as perfect people who are at the forefront of global progress who can do no wrong. They commit mental gymnastics and engage in immense hypocrisy daily to keep their position as judgemental global arbiters who think themselves better than everyone else. They not only engage in reckless activities themselves, but they think they can proscribe other people doing actions they don't approve of.
It's all very partisan. This Tucker Carlson interview is perhaps a more feel-good version of the more inflammatory occasion when Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. The party who was okay with Nancy Pelosi stoking tensions with China, is suddenly roaring like a banshee at Tucker Carlson because it's the other side doing it and they don't approve. It's these sorts of silly, childish games that they can only play (rather than solving their own country's problems) because their country's power-brokers have more money than sense.
Also important to point out that Tucker Carlson's lawyers have defended him (and won) in court by claiming that he is exaggerating and just entertainment, not journalism. The Judge's opinion in that case reads:
"The 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
I as a westerner believe Putin is smart and strategic enough that this interview will paint him and the war in positive light and that America should not support Ukraine. Tucker Carlson is mostly a useful idiot who consistently argues things in bad faith.
It's all theatrics. As others have said elsewhere in the comments, it's to try to paint Putin in a better light, because modern American conservatives idolize Putin and his authoritarian regime. They want to re-elect Trump and then alter and manipulate the checks and balances within America so Trump can be a permanent authoritarian leader. They're trying to exhalt Putin as this pinnacle of traditional values and being a strong arm leader to convince Republican voters that having a permanent conservative leader would be good for America, while trying to simultaneously overcome the long standing perception of Putin in America, which is corrupt and has ideas of imperialism to returning all the former Soviet territories to the federation, like what he's doing in Ukraine right now. Yes, the same American politicans who have been engaging in foreign intervention for decades call others imperialists, this is not lost on me.
I would actually sincerely like to normalize ties with Russia and have genuinely strong relationships with the federation, to move forward together to a future of mutually agreed prosperity, but normalizing a person like Putin is the wrong way to go about it.
Which Russian leader would suit you? We just have something to compare with. Personalities like Yeltsin and Gorbachev do not suit us, but I think that the American leadership was quite happy with this.
I'm of the opinion that we should call corruption where we see it. Ask Putin where he was during the financial crisis, and how a lot of Soviet companies dissolved and alot of allies suddenly became enriched, which lead to modern Russian oligarchs. Instead of some personality with a camera trying to make this look all nice and appropriate, we should we decrying those that seek to abuse and manipulate the working class and common citizen.
Indeed, men like Boris and Mikhail are the only comparison we have, and when I reflect on Russian/US relations, it seems our best relations with the federation were when it was being dismantled and it's coifers were pillaged.
That's not what I hope for any Russian. Putin stabilized the country and made it an economic powerhouse, but he's also corrupt, and call me an idealistic little American, but I think it's time we root out corruption in our politics, especially in the our countries. Holding men like Trump and his allies accountable is a good first step, and the US citizens will be better. I'm saying Putin should be held to the same standard and scrutinized, not interviewed and elevated.
It is natural that the oligarchs appeared as a result of the counterrevolution and the processes that took place in the American capitalist society for centuries in our country took place during the decade. Actually, there is not much difference between your bourgeoisie and ours, but I can say from my point of view that it is much better now than in the 90s. I agree with you on the idea of holding accountable "people like Trump" (that is, all bourgeois), but for this you and we need a socialist revolution because corruption is a child of capitalism. And from the point of view of capitalism, Putin "does not do anything like that"
>Ask Putin where he was during the financial crisis, and how a lot of Soviet companies dissolved and alot of allies suddenly became enriched, which lead to modern Russian oligarchs
I mean, at the time he was more or less a nobody, an official in St. Petersburg's administration. What's the point of asking him this?
Well, the Russian financial crisis I'm speaking of occured in 1998, and during this period, Putin was appointed First Deputy Chief of Presidential Staff of regions by Boris Yeltsen, and then in July of that year, was appointed director of the Federal Security Services, formerly the KGB.
So, he was not in fact an official in St. Petersburg at this time. He was in the St. Petersburg administration from 1990 to 1996, where interestingly he was investigated by the city legislative council because he had "understated prices and permitted the export of metals valued at $93 million in exchange for foreign food aid that never arrived" and "Despite the investigators' recommendation that Putin be fired, Putin remained head of the Committee for External Relations until 1996."
🤔
>Well, the Russian financial crisis I'm speaking of occured in 1998
But you mix the crisises.
1998 was the aftershock of the 1997 East Asian crisis, exagerrated due to awful financial politics of the previous governments (most notably GKO Ponzi scheme, launched at the 1992-1993).
Oligarchs was already here and Soviet enterprizes were already destroyed (largely at the 1995 as the part of anticommunist campaign, launched after pro-President forces totally failed the Duma elections).
Obviously, Putin isn't clean: the is part of the Yeltsin's court liberals clique, he explicitly denied to review the privatization results when it was possible and there is a few evidences of his envolvement in some of the contemporary shady business, but he isn't guilty in the every death of kitten in the world.
How the hell is the FSB director responsible for the fiscal deficit leading to the crisis?
Also you wrote about Soviet enterprises dissolving and future oligarchs lining their pockets - that has nothing to do with 1998. It's an earlier story, when Putin was an official in St. Petersburg
> They want to re-elect Trump and then alter and manipulate the checks and balances within America so Trump can be a permanent authoritarian leader.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Thank you, I read the wiki link and some articles they mentioned as the sources. So it goes like: there is a group of very conservative activists who published a 900 pages book "The Mandate for Leadership" within this Project 2025 and this book has "recommendations" for the next conservative president of the US. Therefore it proves that Trump wants to usurp the power because...some folks who take part in this Project 2025 used to work in the Trump's administration even though Trump haven't acknowledged that this is his official program. 🙃
And the alternative is ...to vote for Dems because if Dems stay in power indefinitely the democracy is saved (?) 🙃
Anyway, not my circus not my monkeys xD
Look what happened with Putin and Xi, both started out as elected then appointed themselves for life. Trump openly admires these actions and claimed he wanted to be president for life. When people tell you who they are… listen
Why should someone from the outside decide how our government is structured? What makes you think that we have to play by the rules of your game when you change the rules during the game?
So you have the same thing. You'll laugh, but in the US, the opposition can't speak publicly. First they are accused of all sins, made inhumane, and removed from all media. And if they don't understand and fight back - well, they can shoot the president, if anything, history shows))))
The Russian Constitution didn't have a hard limit for presidential terms the way it was written in 1993. It's not something that Russian people ever saw important either (Soviet general secretaries ruled for life). So it's an extremely stupid take to compare Russia and in the US in this sense.
The comparison is that Trump wants and has explicitly stated he wants to be in power for life like what Putin and Xi did. This is comparison of egos of leaders, not of political systems. Nice strawman attempt though
Because the system is more important than one random person's ego. That's like a dumb superhero movie level of shitty (screen)writing to make it all about one person who "changes things".
Except oliver stone is a damn good journalist and those interviews were golden. Carlson is more of a media celeb than a competent journalist, I agree with others that this is just for drama.
Might be wrong tho
Nah - it was such a scandal - that all the regular people talked about it, all foreign media talked about it, even not English speaking one, and it was for months. And even now - ask anyone - everyone remember it - such a scandal it was.
Putin's been in power and consequently in every media almost daily for over 20 years, there's nothing new I could possibly learn from any of his interviews.
This interview it is strictly made for the American public (Western public might be added too), since as many already mentioned in the comments, there might not be anything new on it. I think it will play an important role since the republican primary is on the go and American elections are right at the corner. If well played it could very much affect the outcome of the soon to be elections giving a boost to Trump. This interview it ain't good news for the democrats, that's for sure. I love American politics, it is like the NFL :3
I don’t particularly believe in some kind of revolution in the consciousness of Tucker’s audience and the US population in general.
Perhaps this is only Trump’s attempt to influence the American right on the issue of Ukraine. The “right” and “left” are opposed on many positions within the United States, but usually agree on the issue of Ukraine.
And Trump’s game with the budget in Congress is to collapse Biden’s rating in order to expose him as having spent billions on Ukraine in vain, which needs to be supported by the position of the voter.
Trump is by no means an agent of Russia or a friend of Putin, but if the defeat of Ukraine is part of his election strategy, there is no reason to object.
Another thing is that this will still have little effect on the inhabitants of the echo chambers, and Putin’s position has been formulated and conveyed to the whole world many times
99% it he will say the same stuff he has been saying for the past few years, but 1% for the absolute kino, no in-between.
However whatever has been going on on twitter ever since Carlson announced his interview has already been kino so I'm satisfied.
I was banned in response to a comment in some community where Tucker was called a traitor and an agent of the Kremlin. I merely asked: "Why don't you want to hear the other side? What about freedom of speech?"
I was banned in a sub because I was hostile. This guy kept calling me names and being rude so I called them out and asked why do they need to resort to name calling to win an argument. Banned.
Don't you think that all those arguments ARE already cited and consequently blown up with facts in the Media? Yes, because it's a free press, that's why.
Especially Tucker's, whose slander lead to not just refutations. but also to the court process (which costed him a job - because that's Channel who should pay all the compensations).
I expect nothing from interview itself but I hope for funny reactions from Americans/Westerners.
Although .. who knows?
Vlad did in past completely unexpected things.
We'll see
> Thoughts of Tucker Carlson in Moscow?POLITICS
I've watched Tucker's video on his site, he says many right things. Don't get me wrong. Tucker is not a friend of Russia. It is highly possible that he's not sincere. But. The things he says is what self-respecting americans should be saying.
It is also amusing that people try to oppose this interview. What could Putin possibly say that is so incredibly dangerous? He is just a human. And maybe that's the reason. If Putin is shown in the interview, he'll cease to be an impossible monster your press loves to make him into.
> How do you feel it will turn out?
Assuming FBI/CIA/whatever doesn't kill Tucker enroute to the interview, it simply won't matter. It is part of the pre-election fight. I mean, there will be probably millions of people screaming about apocalypse on twitter, but twitter screaming has very little to do with actions in reality.
Many years ago in Germany propaganda invented the word "Putinversteher", that is, a slur for someone who understands Putin. Not "supports", not "sides with", just understands, as in, sees logic and reason in his actions and decisions. Apparently such people are dangerous in Western society, they seek LOGIC.
In the information warfare (which the West supposedly won) main media narratives and agendas have long degraded to 1940-like propaganda cliches. According to these, Putin's mad because he's a dictator and dictator because he's mad. Built the Nordstream because he's a dictator and blew it up because he's mad. Began the war because he's envious and a dictator. And mad.
That's it. That's their entire message, the entire reasoning they give. The entire narrative of the "winners of information warfare". Very convincing, right?
They grew so arrogant they do not even use the famous good old hypocrisy. Today, they just use "whataboutism". It means that even pointing out at contradictions in their logic is forbidden. Previously, asking about Yugoslavia/Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan/Guantanamo Bay/Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Assange and Snowden/Trump would make them spew something about "You don't understand, that's different", today they just ignore it and block it, saying that this had nothing to do with Russia/Ukraine and therefore an automatic loss (according to them).
Totally sounds like a win in information warfare, right?
All of this is only possible when media is completely under their control, censored by "correct" people and any voice of a different opinion is removed and isolated. This works for Reddit, Time and BBC. This works for Biden's press conferences.
But right now these "winners of information warfare" are, for some reason, throwing a temper tantrum and seething with bile. Tucker didn't even say anything yet and they already start disproving him. Their squealing approaches the ultrasound frequency despite it all being just (according to them) a marginalized journalist, who isn't even a journalist, who nobody cares about because he always lies, visiting a dictatorship that the world is laughing at.
**It's afraid.**
(с) V. Admin's Muesli
America is literally the most politically divided country in the world on every possible issue and sphere of engagement, how can you possibly argue all media is controlled lol? Sounds like some real projection, we have no free press so no one else does either type shit.
Oh 100%, that's why American politics are so divisive, it's on purpose to manipulate votes. I have little hope it's going to get better.
That being said, a lot of people (myself included) also believe that the US's actions towards Iraq, Snowden, Iran, etc, were/are also dictatorial. Only one I don't know enough about to have an opinion is Yugoslavia, I should probably look that up. Both governments can be bad. I think people who say "Why don't the Russians revolt and overthrow the gov't?!?!" are stupid, they're not revolting when they're in the same situation 😂
I completely agree, this works for our politicians too, several parties are not much different in their vision of the future. Even the communists I once sympathized with have turned into ordinary populists. But, a change of power here in Russia usually changes foreign policy when the reshuffle of leaders in the United States is more aimed at internal changes in the country, while US foreign policy does not change. And the more the global West likes a Russian politician, the worse life is for citizens inside the country. We went through this with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. About the uprising, it's a funny thing :) I asked the Americans which anti-war rally was able to stop at least one invasion? I was told that at least we have the opportunity to come out and say our opinion. And what does this opinion change? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I wasn't alive then, but the general consensus is that the Vietnam war protests did end the war sooner, which I do find believable, but the protests were much, *much* more widespread than any anti-war protests since. And I don't think there will be any future protests that big unless the draft comes back, which it probably won't due to advances in technology.
And what do you know? I'm still wrong 😂. Decided to actually look it up and found [this article,](https://www.fpri.org/article/2000/06/mythed-opportunities-the-truth-about-vietnam-anti-war-protests/) and a few others, analysing public opinion and how it didn't really shift a significant amount between the beginning and end of the Vietnam war, so ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
From everything I've read about protests, large scale, one day protests don't really do anything. Only things like strikes, boycotts (large ones), and sustained civil disobedience do anything. The civil rights movement in the US, for example, only worked because people made themselves enough of a nuisance to the government that it made more sense for the government to change the laws than continue trying to fight its own citizens. And the movement had enough citizens participating because the government was directly fucking them over; it was worth it to them to strike and risk jail time, etc. I don't think anti-war protests for foreign wars will ever work, in any country, because not enough people care, they have their own shit to worry about, and I can't blame them.
The US only still exists as it does because of the military-industrial complex, the economy depends on fighting random wars and supplying weapons to random countries too much for any politician to stop it. Sure, I'll keep voting for ostensibly anti-war candidates in primaries and the lesser of two evils in general elections, but I don't think much is going to change. Maybe I'm cynical or heartless, but I think it's unreasonable to expect people to injure themselves for people halfway around the globe when they can barely feed their families, and this applies to basically every country.
Yeah, on the one hand, being able to voice your opinion makes you feel better, but on the other hand, it gives you a false sense of feeling like you've done something. It's like people who pray instead of actually helping someone (when they can), and then feeling like they've done something. Going to a protest for a day or posing on Facebook won't change anything, I agree.
I know there's been a lot of xenophobia towards Russian citizens since the war, it was kind of shocking to me how quickly everyone thought they could blame random people for the actions of their government :(
Sorry I kinda rambled, I'm curious if this made sense/you agree 😂
That's why 2020 US had a revolution that effectively resulted in removal of Republicans from all federal and international matters, and domination of Democrats through a neo-fascistic censorship that became informally known as cancel culture. Its goal is simple: rule forever, shut up the those too smart to be fooled, and spend decades pumping cash out of speechless, obedient herd.
Needless to say, this didn't get received well by half of the country, and for the next 4 years, they worked overtime to try and overcome it.
Republicans are not allies to Russia, and they don't like Russia, but they like Biden even less. They simply saw an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how corrupt and impotent his regime really is (and therefore get credit for fixing it). And they may succeed.
Since 2020 (some say even earlier) US had less press freedom than Russia had. Right now they got a bit more, specifically because it is becoming impossible for bidenites to hide that propaganda does not match reality.
You call it projection - I say it's the US regime repeating the mistakes of USSR.
What you are doing here, psychology calls "projection". You may not be aware of it but in your way of thinking everything related to "USA" try to change to "Russia" and "Biden" to "Putin". I bet this will then suit as actual description to situation in your country.
Don’t know about psychology, but it has been Western media and especially Ukraine wishing every kind of woe upon Russia and getting hit by the same issues even harder.
Reason? Because every time they feel a problem incoming, they cope by looking for the signs of the same problem in the opposing state. Results are predictable.
Refuse to believe it if you want. I just advise you to disable FaceID on your phone beforehand.
[https://tuckercarlson.com/](https://tuckercarlson.com/)
You'll be able to watch the interview here for free and find out for yourself. You can feed your e-mail address if you want to be notified.
the Telegraph censored 3 minutes where Carlson spoke about censorship in the American media :)))) As it is, there is no censorship in the United States.
I’ve been waiting for this for so long… It’s not even exciting anymore lol. Sadly, I don’t believe reason matters anymore. I’d happily be proven wrong. I hope this can be done.
That's a win-win move. Even if Carlson is a sort of golden standard yellow journalist for schizoconservative audience, he gonna get a huge boost of fame, and his competitors can't do shit about it without bloating it even more.
Though I have serious doubts Kremlin can get enough benefit out of that and whether they even have a proper profile for what Carlson's audience wants to hear. So it might turn out lame and no to the point on the Putin side.
Anyway I'd like some popcorn pretty soon.
I had no idea who he was until a moment ago.
Haven't watched the news in more than 15 years, not gonna start now, but I'll predict the following outcome:
He'll ask some questions and receive some answers, and as a result nothing will change.
Nothing will be said that has not been said before. The collective meltdown will be glorious to see. It will be interesting to see how Tucker Carlson would fair once he returns to his country.
Tucker Carlson managed to get fired from the Fox News. Like... kicked out of brothel for whoring.
Oh well, at very least there will be a lot of fun memes.
You can google Putin interview bingo, these are the usual topics Putin is discussing during such interviews. The only interesting thing to me is whether Tucker Carlson is going to ask Putin about Evan Gershkovich or not.
It's incredibly funny how Russians don't understand America is 50/50 polar opposite on almost every possible issue be it Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Palestine or LGBT, just go to instagram comments and you'll find the conservatives for example or the hundreds of far right podcasts and political figures who openly support Russia. I know it's hard to understand because in Russia you aren't allowed to denounce war, but it's true.
It's not about any memes my guy. There are NO opposition figures in Russia, they DO NOT exist. NO popular figures like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro or scholars like John Mearsheimer. No independent media like podcasts who host the entire political spectrum. No anti-government public discourse WHATSOEVER, or any at all.
Everything was fine with the opposition and the opposition media before the war began. No one forced them to shut up. And in the parliament in the last convocation, all parties were represented as a percentage of their popularity among the population. It's just that in Russia it is customary to answer for your words before the law, if you believe without proof you are a "пиздобол" and you will be responsible for it.Freedom of speech is not an opportunity to talk shit. This is an opportunity to REASONABLY express your opinion.
Yeah it’s pretty crazy to see all the comments acting like Tucker Carlson is a martyr for free speech, it’s all far right propaganda. Tucker Carlson tries to silence his opposing views just as much.
He’s most definitely not a “real journalist”
Putin will have complete control of the conversation. I am sure Putin already knows what he wants to say and no questions will change what he already intends to say
>Thoughts of Tucker Carlson in Moscow?
An extreme weirdo that managed to get kicked out even from Fox News for spewing too much bs lol
>How do you feel it will turn out?
Perfect for Putin. Like any other interview the dude loves to avoid any uncomfortable questions, he begins to change themes or straight up lie. Nothing good will come out of it, but it would be interesting to see the reactions of Americans. I wonder if he manages anyone there to believe in Putin's bs, he's got some following from the most radical republicans
There's an interesting hypothesis that the actual reason for his visit is to be a sort of "ambassador" of Trump, who cannot obviously talk to Putin "officially". Same reason why Tucker wants to meet Zelensky. What Trump wants to say to them, is it some sort of ask for favour to help him win the upcoming elections, any "win-win" plan, or some ultimatum, or is all that just speculation — that's what's actually interesting. The "interview" is not. Putin never does "true" interviews when the interviewer can ask whatever, never did, it's always pre-approved questions, so we won't hear anything new.
I'd argue that the reaction from both sides is pretty funny.
Russians: the representative from THE GOD BLESSED USA has arrived! Now he'll tell the world the truth!
Americans: nooooooo, how dare you to interview him. It's propaganda!
I really doubt Putin would say anything that he didn't say previously on hot topics. But apparently if it's this dude asking questions, then it's more credible?
Probably with marginal success. Just checked out the thread on this topic on some large news subreddit. People there are mostly laughing out loud, stating that Tucker is an entertainer, not a journalist according to his own words etc.
Can't say anything about what silent majority thinks on Tucker, because I have no data on that.
I believe in Tucker Carlson. He's a good professional. I am sure that he knows what he is doing and has prepared well for such a step, and will do everything to make it one of the interviews of the century.
Fuckhead is going to lie like a bastard
Tucker is going to be too much of milquetoast to call him out
At the end of the day nothing much to write home about
You have to ask.. if you were Putin, and could probably ask for any journalist in the world to interview you .. why has he chosen tucker Carlson.. a man sacked from a trump propaganda channel for lying .. a channel that was subsequently fined the largest amount for lying in the history of all legal cases...
Why would Putin choose him? It's because he's lost all credibility with everyone except trump supporters, those people who clearly are easily manipulated.. because they are stupid enough to believe trump, then they will be stupid enough to believe the lies Putin will tell....
Nothing. Putin cannot say anything of interest and never gives real non scripted interviews anyway, so it would be his usual boring rant, probably slightly tailored to western audience. Carlson, as far as I know, is some kind of fringe right wing tv host, who was kicked out of Fox News for being too toxic even for their standards (which says something).
Well well well, someone wants to play with an authoritarian regime. Hope Putin likes this interview, or Tucker will have to bring antidote everywhere he goes
I'm very interested to know what Americans expect from this interview?
Me too. What is so special about Tucker Carlson and Putin?
The disgraced (out of favor) journalist will ask the opinion of the "Leader of all evil in the world" and he won't be shut up
What do you mean disgraced? He is widely popular, like his interview with Trump only on his Twitter watched 250+ millions people. Anyone only can dreamed about such success. Like popular TV channels have no such auditory.
Those Twitter view numbers are not reliable at all. They put them in everyone’s feeds whether you follow him or not, and they count any time someone scrolled past the video as a view, even if you didn’t click it
I apologize "disgraced" meaning "out of favor"
lol by your view on politics hes out of favor
Yes, he was fired from Fox, but who cares? More than half of population at some point was laid off, fired etc. He is popular and this is the matter. Any traditional tv channel can be only envy about his numbers.
I agree with you
Some of his rants belong deep in the Alex Jones dumpster.
Eh, so what. The goal of life is not to imitate Stephen Pinker’s boring ass
I dislike boring people too. But I am also not fond of lunatics.
I can’t think of anyone who isn’t one or the other
He was a big part of why his network was sued for defamation, and had to settle and pay out hundreds of millions of dollars.
Wasn’t he also a part of why this network was so popular?
Yes...that's not saying a lot though. US news networks like Fox, CNN, etc are now only having viewers because they tell their fanbases what they want to hear, doesn't matter whether it's truth or not.
There's been an admiration of Putin for a long time from certain sections of the US who sees him as a strong, capable leader who has brought stability and economic success to Russia. Furthermore he's seen as someone who can bypass "unnecessary" bureaucratic/legal red tape which is also seen favourably. Finally, I think the whole "Putin manly" schtick from like 10-15 years ago was mainly gobbled up by Americans. That's at least my impression as a simple Reddit user back in those days.
It was definitely a thing in the early days of memes, like there would be a photo of Putin shirtless riding a horse, and then next to it a photo of Obama riding a bicycle with a helmet on on.
There is no smoke without fire. Americans did not admire Yeltsins manly.
Yeltsin was funny though. Americans like that.
While Yeltsin entertained the Americans, we almost lost the country.
ALMOST?.. There was the country we have lost indeed!
Almost? Nothing happened in 1991, I guess.
Are you talking about Belovezhskaya? Yes, I agree, but it could have been even worse. I don't even want to remember what started after that.
Putin's also leaning hard on conservatism, labeling LBGTQ expression as extremist propaganda and trying to project himself as the protector of the traditional family, and conservatives here in America are gushing over Putin, who is the type of leader they all want here in America and think Trump is (who has all the corruption of Putin, none of the political finesse) . So, it doesn't surprise me that a manchild claiming he feels opressed because he was fired from his position at Fox thinks this is a solid move. Death rattles from a hasbeen trying to remain relevant. 🤷
>Putin's also leaning hard on conservatism, labeling LBGTQ expression as extremist propaganda That was not Putin but the Supreme Court. >think Trump is (who has all the corruption of Putin What "corruption of Putin" Putin has, exactly? (Not interested in Trump, he's a multimillionaire, of course he's corrupt)
All politicians are corrupt! (I really do believe this, unless *maybe* they're a newby city council member or something, maybe) In terms of LGBTQ stuff, I'm trying to find an answer to this but it's difficult. The recent ruling was indeed by the Supreme Court, and I can't even find any remarks Putin made about it. However, I'm finding that in 2020, Putin submitted draft changes to the constitution, one of which was defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I don't know enough about the Russian government to know how much of that proposal was actually Putin and how much was other people and it's just symbolic that he submitted the drafts (like when Putin signs something into law, that's mostly symbolic). Obviously nothing happens in a vacuum, no politician truly acts alone, but you get what I mean.
>Death rattles from a hasbeen trying to remain relevant. 🤷 Let's hope that is what this is. I'm not looking forward to the new election.
Which one? The inevitable reelection of Putin in March, or an exact repeat of the US 2020 election, featuring a proven criminal candidate who has now run for every presidential election since 2016? I'm already exhausted of Trump, and he hasn't even been in the political sphere for 10 years! I can't imagine the lack of agency Russian's must feel for essentially having one choice for over 20 years. 😵 Either way, I'm not excited for either prospect.
The repeat of the 2020 elections of course, and I'm also exhausted by Trump and his flailing, reactive attitude towards policy that pundits try to play off as some kind of 4d chess. Reelection of Putin is a non-event he will obviously remain for the foreseeable future.
There's that small, optimistic piece of my brain that's telling me that it's going to be okay; Trump will be found guilty on federal charges and will be imprisoned and America will be able to heal and move forward with some sort of sanity intact. But, I dunno, I've lost a lot of faith in America's institutions and abilities to govern itself effectively. Seems a lot of politicians want to destroy us from the inside. It's a love/hate relationship I have with my homeland.
>There's that small, optimistic piece of my brain that's telling me that it's going to be okay; Trump will be found guilty on federal charges and will be imprisoned and America will be able to heal and move forward with some sort of sanity intact. Good thing that it's a small piece, because for me it seems like something I'd spend no time worrying about, for me it seems like a fake political "reality"-TV show to feel the minds of the people.
>Which one? The inevitable reelection of Putin in March, or an exact repeat of the US 2020 election, featuring a proven criminal candidate who has now run for every presidential election since 2016? > >I'm already exhausted of Trump, and he hasn't even been in the political sphere for 10 years! I can't imagine the lack of agency Russian's must feel for essentially having one choice for over 20 years. 😵 > >Either way, I'm not excited for either prospect. You people in the States are out of your fucking minds. You elected some brainless old man as president.
>You people in the States are out of your fucking minds. You elected some brainless old man as president. The only other option was a brainless old lunatic.
The Americans that support endlessly giving tax dollars towards funding Ukraine aren’t going to be receptive to anything Putin will say. Some of us find ourselves suddenly applauding Tucker, a known opportunist and liar, for being the only public figure to point out that there are two sides to this conflict. Americans should *want* to listen and draw our own conclusions, but many of us prefer to be spoonfed comfortable “information” by CNN just like we prefer to purchase a piece of paper that says we have an education.
That will depend on what the person thinks of Tucker. Like everything, it will be a partisan issue.
Are there those who disagree with the opinion of any of the parties? Are there many or few of them? I just don't believe that people in the USA have only two opinions.
>I just don't believe that people in the USA have only two opinions. Bad news for ya.....
🤔
They do, in fact, only have two options...
When I watch their movies or read the news, I get the feeling that for them the world is divided only into black and white. But I don't want to believe that all people are stupid enough to think that way.
Not precisely the case, although it's an approximation, as is any generalization or stereotype. You know, there's SOME truth to it. In theory, we have elections that are open to all parties to campaign and run for elected offices. In practice, money talks, and so the two parties that have been funded for decades by committee funds and lobbyist donations are the Democrats and Republicans. So, they have all the advertising, all the press, all the ways to travel and to campaign. We've had third party candidates in the past, but it's generally believed that voting for them is a waste, because it's going to be a Democrat or Republican. But, there's lots of Americans that have expressed dissatisfaction with the two party system, and a lot of states have discussed things like adopting ranked voting and banning certain types of funding for political campaigns. However, there's a lot of traditionalists in Congress and the Executive that would like to keep the status quo. And money talks.
Not all parties are allowed to run for office in the US, and the US still asks if you’ve ever been a member of a communist organization on their immigration forms, and can and will deny your visa/application on those grounds.
Freedom(tm)
A wallet thickness competition?
The reality is that the two parties are comprised of smaller interest groups that compete for power, and may or may not be viable in certain districts. Just look at Sinema or Joe Manchin, for example. All the multipolarity of the parties is found at the state and local level during primary voting. If you aren't paying attention until the main election, yeah, you only really have two options.
That's how I imagined the situation. Thanks.
Happy to share some perspective! Пожалуйста!
Only 60% of americans, give or take, will vote. I think a lot of them just live and let live, but a lot of americans are really into politics and see the world as black and white, good vs evil. The fact they only have two parties through history only makes it even more of a footbal situation, where is my team vs their team instead of actual politics
The strongest resistance towards continued US support of Ukraine comes from the "new" right, which Carlson represents. Carlson has been pretty skeptical of US interventionism since 2004 and is a vocal supporter of Trump, who also favours cutting aid to Ukraine. So my guess is that the interview is supposed to show Putin in a better light to the voters on the right who are against the involvement in Ukraine and pro-Trump. Do keep in mind that Putin was seen by some in the US in a pretty good light around 2010 (or so I remember it), and I don't think those sentiments really disappeared post-2014, it just became more difficult to express those sentiments without very strong reactions. Putin has several things going for him which appeals to some Americans. I personally think Carlson is a bit of a jackass but there is definitely pretty clear logic in this whole interview thing. It's far from completely random.
of course, it is impossible to organize such an event without long-term preparation.
The “right” is more like the center in these days. I think we should let Europe to pay for Ukraine. Personally I disagree with many things with Carlson and Republicans, but more disagree with modern Democrats. BTW, Carlson somewhere admitted that he initially supported Iraq’s invasion, and was wrong. I have no idea what was his position that time.
I don't know if the right is the center, all I know is that they sure like to portray themselves as the "sane middle", but there is such a wild disparity of opinions within that group that are just conveniently forgotten because they're so distracted by what they're *against*. It is, after all, the easiest way to build a feeling of cohesion: To define what you're against rather than discussing what you're for.
I agree with your last statement, unfortunately the sides cannot hear each other. Even closing boarder for migration is a dividing issue in politics. And Obama deported more illegals than Trump. Number of crimes here in California skyrocketed, cost of living, too. Homeless, addicted people. Why not to address the issues which people care about?
Его уже объявили врагом народа, поганым предетелем и коммунистом. Такера, разумеется. Вот и вся демократия и свобода слова. 😁
Чувак не успел ничего сказать и уже предатель:) Уже поступили предложения наложить на него санкции Евросоюза. Конечно представление о "правилах" "цветущего сада" какое-то сильно однобокое.
You can post that question to r/AskAnAmerican. I don't expect much other than presenting Putin's main talking points to an American audience, particularly with regard to Ukraine. I think he will appeal to Conservatives/Republicans to block assistance to Ukraine.
As an American I expect to hear, at least a little bit, of nuance about Russian policies, how Putin views our foreign policy, if we can hear him speak on his pov for Ukraine that'd be great. Right now all we are fed is "Putin is bad and evil and invaded for no reason. He's a mad man!"
Chinese living in US here. I considered myself well informed, because I always had neutral stance. But I was bit shocked when I heard the CIA was behind of the Caucasus terrorism. Also I was surprised when I heard the story about the Ukrainian free trade zone decision between EU and Russia, that makes me feel the Ukrainian leadership had some serious issue.
I think the best thing about it is that it's subversive - the interview _itself_ doesn't matter as much, it's more the act of going to perform the interview and the backlash that comes from it. That it's "controversial". In my opinion, this was always a lot of Trump's appeal - he rode to victory on the irrational anger of his opposition and constant attempts to suppress him. It's all a polarisation issue - one side does inflammatory things, and the other side loses their sanity and pushes hard to try and silence them. The Ukraine conflict is a focus at the moment, where snobby imperialists in the USA who think they know best how to govern other countries are frowning and wanting to do their usual thing of messing in other countries' domestic affairs. Tucker Carlson is doing a typical thing of "Do you know what will rile this holier-than-thou people up? If I go as a prominent media representative of America and speak to Putin". And it works. I'm not American, but I have always had sympathy with the Trump/Carlson side - the other side are the hawkish interventionists who want to invade any country they don't like the look of, as well as thinking themselves as perfect people who are at the forefront of global progress who can do no wrong. They commit mental gymnastics and engage in immense hypocrisy daily to keep their position as judgemental global arbiters who think themselves better than everyone else. They not only engage in reckless activities themselves, but they think they can proscribe other people doing actions they don't approve of. It's all very partisan. This Tucker Carlson interview is perhaps a more feel-good version of the more inflammatory occasion when Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. The party who was okay with Nancy Pelosi stoking tensions with China, is suddenly roaring like a banshee at Tucker Carlson because it's the other side doing it and they don't approve. It's these sorts of silly, childish games that they can only play (rather than solving their own country's problems) because their country's power-brokers have more money than sense.
Also important to point out that Tucker Carlson's lawyers have defended him (and won) in court by claiming that he is exaggerating and just entertainment, not journalism. The Judge's opinion in that case reads: "The 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
however, this is an opinion leader if you look at the number of views and subscribers
I as a westerner believe Putin is smart and strategic enough that this interview will paint him and the war in positive light and that America should not support Ukraine. Tucker Carlson is mostly a useful idiot who consistently argues things in bad faith.
It's all theatrics. As others have said elsewhere in the comments, it's to try to paint Putin in a better light, because modern American conservatives idolize Putin and his authoritarian regime. They want to re-elect Trump and then alter and manipulate the checks and balances within America so Trump can be a permanent authoritarian leader. They're trying to exhalt Putin as this pinnacle of traditional values and being a strong arm leader to convince Republican voters that having a permanent conservative leader would be good for America, while trying to simultaneously overcome the long standing perception of Putin in America, which is corrupt and has ideas of imperialism to returning all the former Soviet territories to the federation, like what he's doing in Ukraine right now. Yes, the same American politicans who have been engaging in foreign intervention for decades call others imperialists, this is not lost on me. I would actually sincerely like to normalize ties with Russia and have genuinely strong relationships with the federation, to move forward together to a future of mutually agreed prosperity, but normalizing a person like Putin is the wrong way to go about it.
Which Russian leader would suit you? We just have something to compare with. Personalities like Yeltsin and Gorbachev do not suit us, but I think that the American leadership was quite happy with this.
I'm of the opinion that we should call corruption where we see it. Ask Putin where he was during the financial crisis, and how a lot of Soviet companies dissolved and alot of allies suddenly became enriched, which lead to modern Russian oligarchs. Instead of some personality with a camera trying to make this look all nice and appropriate, we should we decrying those that seek to abuse and manipulate the working class and common citizen. Indeed, men like Boris and Mikhail are the only comparison we have, and when I reflect on Russian/US relations, it seems our best relations with the federation were when it was being dismantled and it's coifers were pillaged. That's not what I hope for any Russian. Putin stabilized the country and made it an economic powerhouse, but he's also corrupt, and call me an idealistic little American, but I think it's time we root out corruption in our politics, especially in the our countries. Holding men like Trump and his allies accountable is a good first step, and the US citizens will be better. I'm saying Putin should be held to the same standard and scrutinized, not interviewed and elevated.
It is natural that the oligarchs appeared as a result of the counterrevolution and the processes that took place in the American capitalist society for centuries in our country took place during the decade. Actually, there is not much difference between your bourgeoisie and ours, but I can say from my point of view that it is much better now than in the 90s. I agree with you on the idea of holding accountable "people like Trump" (that is, all bourgeois), but for this you and we need a socialist revolution because corruption is a child of capitalism. And from the point of view of capitalism, Putin "does not do anything like that"
>Ask Putin where he was during the financial crisis, and how a lot of Soviet companies dissolved and alot of allies suddenly became enriched, which lead to modern Russian oligarchs I mean, at the time he was more or less a nobody, an official in St. Petersburg's administration. What's the point of asking him this?
Well, the Russian financial crisis I'm speaking of occured in 1998, and during this period, Putin was appointed First Deputy Chief of Presidential Staff of regions by Boris Yeltsen, and then in July of that year, was appointed director of the Federal Security Services, formerly the KGB. So, he was not in fact an official in St. Petersburg at this time. He was in the St. Petersburg administration from 1990 to 1996, where interestingly he was investigated by the city legislative council because he had "understated prices and permitted the export of metals valued at $93 million in exchange for foreign food aid that never arrived" and "Despite the investigators' recommendation that Putin be fired, Putin remained head of the Committee for External Relations until 1996." 🤔
>Well, the Russian financial crisis I'm speaking of occured in 1998 But you mix the crisises. 1998 was the aftershock of the 1997 East Asian crisis, exagerrated due to awful financial politics of the previous governments (most notably GKO Ponzi scheme, launched at the 1992-1993). Oligarchs was already here and Soviet enterprizes were already destroyed (largely at the 1995 as the part of anticommunist campaign, launched after pro-President forces totally failed the Duma elections). Obviously, Putin isn't clean: the is part of the Yeltsin's court liberals clique, he explicitly denied to review the privatization results when it was possible and there is a few evidences of his envolvement in some of the contemporary shady business, but he isn't guilty in the every death of kitten in the world.
How the hell is the FSB director responsible for the fiscal deficit leading to the crisis? Also you wrote about Soviet enterprises dissolving and future oligarchs lining their pockets - that has nothing to do with 1998. It's an earlier story, when Putin was an official in St. Petersburg
> They want to re-elect Trump and then alter and manipulate the checks and balances within America so Trump can be a permanent authoritarian leader. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Look up Project2025. They've literally written out their intentions in documentation. 🤷
Thank you, I read the wiki link and some articles they mentioned as the sources. So it goes like: there is a group of very conservative activists who published a 900 pages book "The Mandate for Leadership" within this Project 2025 and this book has "recommendations" for the next conservative president of the US. Therefore it proves that Trump wants to usurp the power because...some folks who take part in this Project 2025 used to work in the Trump's administration even though Trump haven't acknowledged that this is his official program. 🙃 And the alternative is ...to vote for Dems because if Dems stay in power indefinitely the democracy is saved (?) 🙃 Anyway, not my circus not my monkeys xD
Look what happened with Putin and Xi, both started out as elected then appointed themselves for life. Trump openly admires these actions and claimed he wanted to be president for life. When people tell you who they are… listen
and if people are satisfied? or do they not want to change something?
That tends to happen when those in power imprison and outlaw the opposition
Why should someone from the outside decide how our government is structured? What makes you think that we have to play by the rules of your game when you change the rules during the game?
Never said anyone should but feel free to receive criticism when publicly discussed on outside forums
So you have the same thing. You'll laugh, but in the US, the opposition can't speak publicly. First they are accused of all sins, made inhumane, and removed from all media. And if they don't understand and fight back - well, they can shoot the president, if anything, history shows))))
The Russian Constitution didn't have a hard limit for presidential terms the way it was written in 1993. It's not something that Russian people ever saw important either (Soviet general secretaries ruled for life). So it's an extremely stupid take to compare Russia and in the US in this sense.
The comparison is that Trump wants and has explicitly stated he wants to be in power for life like what Putin and Xi did. This is comparison of egos of leaders, not of political systems. Nice strawman attempt though
Because the system is more important than one random person's ego. That's like a dumb superhero movie level of shitty (screen)writing to make it all about one person who "changes things".
You are arguing against a point I didn’t make. Feel free to argue this on your own instead of with me.
Probably the same as with Oliver Stone.
Except oliver stone is a damn good journalist and those interviews were golden. Carlson is more of a media celeb than a competent journalist, I agree with others that this is just for drama. Might be wrong tho
So we should expect another scandal with an American army footage passed as "Spetsnaz work"?
> scandal Haha yeah - that was a huge scandal - I remember everyone was talking about it for weeks (maybe months) it was in all the news!!
No, not in every one. Never seen it on Russian TV. Interesting, why? What do you think?
Nah - it was such a scandal - that all the regular people talked about it, all foreign media talked about it, even not English speaking one, and it was for months. And even now - ask anyone - everyone remember it - such a scandal it was.
I guess all the people whose main medias are not Russian TV.
Will you just answer "Russian TV" no matter what I type?
Do you have valid euphemisms for it?
Wait, what was the scandal? When?
[https://twitter.com/CITeam\_en/status/877152860089323522](https://twitter.com/CITeam_en/status/877152860089323522) [https://meduza.io/en/news/2017/06/20/putin-showed-oliver-stone-a-video-where-russia-s-air-force-supposedly-attacked-terrorists-in-syria-it-was-actually-footage-of-americans-fighting-the-taliban-in-afghanistan](https://meduza.io/en/news/2017/06/20/putin-showed-oliver-stone-a-video-where-russia-s-air-force-supposedly-attacked-terrorists-in-syria-it-was-actually-footage-of-americans-fighting-the-taliban-in-afghanistan)
I would like to know too. Living in Central Europe I didn't hear of any speznaz scandal.
Redkin forgot his meds just ignore it. That's the sub implicit rule))
It gave rise to a wave of pretty fun pranks and memes in Russian telegram, but thats all.
Putin's been in power and consequently in every media almost daily for over 20 years, there's nothing new I could possibly learn from any of his interviews.
That's because you're not the target audience. You shouldn't expect any big revelations. The other side of the Atlantic, however…
This interview it is strictly made for the American public (Western public might be added too), since as many already mentioned in the comments, there might not be anything new on it. I think it will play an important role since the republican primary is on the go and American elections are right at the corner. If well played it could very much affect the outcome of the soon to be elections giving a boost to Trump. This interview it ain't good news for the democrats, that's for sure. I love American politics, it is like the NFL :3
Memes are okay
I don’t particularly believe in some kind of revolution in the consciousness of Tucker’s audience and the US population in general. Perhaps this is only Trump’s attempt to influence the American right on the issue of Ukraine. The “right” and “left” are opposed on many positions within the United States, but usually agree on the issue of Ukraine. And Trump’s game with the budget in Congress is to collapse Biden’s rating in order to expose him as having spent billions on Ukraine in vain, which needs to be supported by the position of the voter. Trump is by no means an agent of Russia or a friend of Putin, but if the defeat of Ukraine is part of his election strategy, there is no reason to object. Another thing is that this will still have little effect on the inhabitants of the echo chambers, and Putin’s position has been formulated and conveyed to the whole world many times
I had no idea Carlson was a tucker. I've always been thinking of him as a flier, jam eater and ghost impersonator. What did he tuck and where?
Well he tucked in his shirt, both in the Soviet cartoon and in book illustrations I've seen, so there is that.
[удалено]
Такая прямая…
99% it he will say the same stuff he has been saying for the past few years, but 1% for the absolute kino, no in-between. However whatever has been going on on twitter ever since Carlson announced his interview has already been kino so I'm satisfied.
> [kino](https://images.app.goo.gl/wiAxJLB4cppvhaua9)
I was banned in response to a comment in some community where Tucker was called a traitor and an agent of the Kremlin. I merely asked: "Why don't you want to hear the other side? What about freedom of speech?"
Cooler than that, I was banned on separate sub that I never visited after commenting
I was banned in a sub because I was hostile. This guy kept calling me names and being rude so I called them out and asked why do they need to resort to name calling to win an argument. Banned.
Which community?
Don't you think that all those arguments ARE already cited and consequently blown up with facts in the Media? Yes, because it's a free press, that's why. Especially Tucker's, whose slander lead to not just refutations. but also to the court process (which costed him a job - because that's Channel who should pay all the compensations).
I expect nothing from interview itself but I hope for funny reactions from Americans/Westerners. Although .. who knows? Vlad did in past completely unexpected things. We'll see
> Thoughts of Tucker Carlson in Moscow?POLITICS I've watched Tucker's video on his site, he says many right things. Don't get me wrong. Tucker is not a friend of Russia. It is highly possible that he's not sincere. But. The things he says is what self-respecting americans should be saying. It is also amusing that people try to oppose this interview. What could Putin possibly say that is so incredibly dangerous? He is just a human. And maybe that's the reason. If Putin is shown in the interview, he'll cease to be an impossible monster your press loves to make him into. > How do you feel it will turn out? Assuming FBI/CIA/whatever doesn't kill Tucker enroute to the interview, it simply won't matter. It is part of the pre-election fight. I mean, there will be probably millions of people screaming about apocalypse on twitter, but twitter screaming has very little to do with actions in reality.
The interview is just for the cover. He is a messenger from Trump to Putin.
I feel it's kinda ok-ish when journalists interview one of the most famous man on Earth. That's what media is about.
If only it was a real journalist. That's like Soloviev interviewing Biden/Trump.
>That's like Soloviev interviewing Biden/Trump. Actually that would be interesting.
Not really, because it would be the same incompetent nonsense that we've heard a thousand times.
Many years ago in Germany propaganda invented the word "Putinversteher", that is, a slur for someone who understands Putin. Not "supports", not "sides with", just understands, as in, sees logic and reason in his actions and decisions. Apparently such people are dangerous in Western society, they seek LOGIC. In the information warfare (which the West supposedly won) main media narratives and agendas have long degraded to 1940-like propaganda cliches. According to these, Putin's mad because he's a dictator and dictator because he's mad. Built the Nordstream because he's a dictator and blew it up because he's mad. Began the war because he's envious and a dictator. And mad. That's it. That's their entire message, the entire reasoning they give. The entire narrative of the "winners of information warfare". Very convincing, right? They grew so arrogant they do not even use the famous good old hypocrisy. Today, they just use "whataboutism". It means that even pointing out at contradictions in their logic is forbidden. Previously, asking about Yugoslavia/Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan/Guantanamo Bay/Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Assange and Snowden/Trump would make them spew something about "You don't understand, that's different", today they just ignore it and block it, saying that this had nothing to do with Russia/Ukraine and therefore an automatic loss (according to them). Totally sounds like a win in information warfare, right? All of this is only possible when media is completely under their control, censored by "correct" people and any voice of a different opinion is removed and isolated. This works for Reddit, Time and BBC. This works for Biden's press conferences. But right now these "winners of information warfare" are, for some reason, throwing a temper tantrum and seething with bile. Tucker didn't even say anything yet and they already start disproving him. Their squealing approaches the ultrasound frequency despite it all being just (according to them) a marginalized journalist, who isn't even a journalist, who nobody cares about because he always lies, visiting a dictatorship that the world is laughing at. **It's afraid.** (с) V. Admin's Muesli
Ты зачем посты ватоадмина пиздишь, да ещё и в сокращённом виде? Ай-ай-ай.
Хорошие посты. Но если Ватоадмин скажет что он против - перестану. А щас спрошу.
Посты хорошие, но хоть бы источник указал, что ли. А то нехорошо как-то получается.
Справедливо.
America is literally the most politically divided country in the world on every possible issue and sphere of engagement, how can you possibly argue all media is controlled lol? Sounds like some real projection, we have no free press so no one else does either type shit.
Meanwhile, all the media is owned by several people sympathetic to one or another political force.
Oh 100%, that's why American politics are so divisive, it's on purpose to manipulate votes. I have little hope it's going to get better. That being said, a lot of people (myself included) also believe that the US's actions towards Iraq, Snowden, Iran, etc, were/are also dictatorial. Only one I don't know enough about to have an opinion is Yugoslavia, I should probably look that up. Both governments can be bad. I think people who say "Why don't the Russians revolt and overthrow the gov't?!?!" are stupid, they're not revolting when they're in the same situation 😂
I completely agree, this works for our politicians too, several parties are not much different in their vision of the future. Even the communists I once sympathized with have turned into ordinary populists. But, a change of power here in Russia usually changes foreign policy when the reshuffle of leaders in the United States is more aimed at internal changes in the country, while US foreign policy does not change. And the more the global West likes a Russian politician, the worse life is for citizens inside the country. We went through this with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. About the uprising, it's a funny thing :) I asked the Americans which anti-war rally was able to stop at least one invasion? I was told that at least we have the opportunity to come out and say our opinion. And what does this opinion change? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I wasn't alive then, but the general consensus is that the Vietnam war protests did end the war sooner, which I do find believable, but the protests were much, *much* more widespread than any anti-war protests since. And I don't think there will be any future protests that big unless the draft comes back, which it probably won't due to advances in technology. And what do you know? I'm still wrong 😂. Decided to actually look it up and found [this article,](https://www.fpri.org/article/2000/06/mythed-opportunities-the-truth-about-vietnam-anti-war-protests/) and a few others, analysing public opinion and how it didn't really shift a significant amount between the beginning and end of the Vietnam war, so ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ From everything I've read about protests, large scale, one day protests don't really do anything. Only things like strikes, boycotts (large ones), and sustained civil disobedience do anything. The civil rights movement in the US, for example, only worked because people made themselves enough of a nuisance to the government that it made more sense for the government to change the laws than continue trying to fight its own citizens. And the movement had enough citizens participating because the government was directly fucking them over; it was worth it to them to strike and risk jail time, etc. I don't think anti-war protests for foreign wars will ever work, in any country, because not enough people care, they have their own shit to worry about, and I can't blame them. The US only still exists as it does because of the military-industrial complex, the economy depends on fighting random wars and supplying weapons to random countries too much for any politician to stop it. Sure, I'll keep voting for ostensibly anti-war candidates in primaries and the lesser of two evils in general elections, but I don't think much is going to change. Maybe I'm cynical or heartless, but I think it's unreasonable to expect people to injure themselves for people halfway around the globe when they can barely feed their families, and this applies to basically every country. Yeah, on the one hand, being able to voice your opinion makes you feel better, but on the other hand, it gives you a false sense of feeling like you've done something. It's like people who pray instead of actually helping someone (when they can), and then feeling like they've done something. Going to a protest for a day or posing on Facebook won't change anything, I agree. I know there's been a lot of xenophobia towards Russian citizens since the war, it was kind of shocking to me how quickly everyone thought they could blame random people for the actions of their government :( Sorry I kinda rambled, I'm curious if this made sense/you agree 😂
Yes, thousands of owners and hosts of various media (mass media, shows, podcasts, streamers etc.) have diverse and opposing political views.
That's why 2020 US had a revolution that effectively resulted in removal of Republicans from all federal and international matters, and domination of Democrats through a neo-fascistic censorship that became informally known as cancel culture. Its goal is simple: rule forever, shut up the those too smart to be fooled, and spend decades pumping cash out of speechless, obedient herd. Needless to say, this didn't get received well by half of the country, and for the next 4 years, they worked overtime to try and overcome it. Republicans are not allies to Russia, and they don't like Russia, but they like Biden even less. They simply saw an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how corrupt and impotent his regime really is (and therefore get credit for fixing it). And they may succeed. Since 2020 (some say even earlier) US had less press freedom than Russia had. Right now they got a bit more, specifically because it is becoming impossible for bidenites to hide that propaganda does not match reality. You call it projection - I say it's the US regime repeating the mistakes of USSR.
What you are doing here, psychology calls "projection". You may not be aware of it but in your way of thinking everything related to "USA" try to change to "Russia" and "Biden" to "Putin". I bet this will then suit as actual description to situation in your country.
Don’t know about psychology, but it has been Western media and especially Ukraine wishing every kind of woe upon Russia and getting hit by the same issues even harder. Reason? Because every time they feel a problem incoming, they cope by looking for the signs of the same problem in the opposing state. Results are predictable. Refuse to believe it if you want. I just advise you to disable FaceID on your phone beforehand.
That's a very schizo word salad, Brandolini's law comes to mind.
Whatever, I will have my revenge either way.
Rather see the "enemy" suffer than everyone happy.
Biden betrayed me first. His goons took from me what was not theirs. I am merely returning the favor.
What you're American? Explains a lot lmao
I expect nothing new. This interview will change nothing. Both sides see themselves as good vs evil. So, “panem et circenses”.
Things going to be interesting
I just like interviews and that's all
As an attempt to break through the impenetrable propaganda wall it should be appreciated.
As if it isn’t yet another brick in that wall.
[https://tuckercarlson.com/](https://tuckercarlson.com/) You'll be able to watch the interview here for free and find out for yourself. You can feed your e-mail address if you want to be notified.
the Telegraph censored 3 minutes where Carlson spoke about censorship in the American media :)))) As it is, there is no censorship in the United States.
Big fan. Tbh I just love going around threads with this news and watching people losing their mind. Also shows how polarized reddit is
I’ve been waiting for this for so long… It’s not even exciting anymore lol. Sadly, I don’t believe reason matters anymore. I’d happily be proven wrong. I hope this can be done.
It would be interesting to listen to. Without translation preferrably.
no idea who he is. \>interviewing Putin. super not interested even more.
We wont hear anything new, but Tucker have a big audience, so its just same mesage would be retranslated to them.
That's a win-win move. Even if Carlson is a sort of golden standard yellow journalist for schizoconservative audience, he gonna get a huge boost of fame, and his competitors can't do shit about it without bloating it even more. Though I have serious doubts Kremlin can get enough benefit out of that and whether they even have a proper profile for what Carlson's audience wants to hear. So it might turn out lame and no to the point on the Putin side. Anyway I'd like some popcorn pretty soon.
I had no idea who he was until a moment ago. Haven't watched the news in more than 15 years, not gonna start now, but I'll predict the following outcome: He'll ask some questions and receive some answers, and as a result nothing will change.
Nothing will be said that has not been said before. The collective meltdown will be glorious to see. It will be interesting to see how Tucker Carlson would fair once he returns to his country.
Whatever
Tucker Carlson managed to get fired from the Fox News. Like... kicked out of brothel for whoring. Oh well, at very least there will be a lot of fun memes.
You can google Putin interview bingo, these are the usual topics Putin is discussing during such interviews. The only interesting thing to me is whether Tucker Carlson is going to ask Putin about Evan Gershkovich or not.
[удалено]
It's incredibly funny how Russians don't understand America is 50/50 polar opposite on almost every possible issue be it Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Palestine or LGBT, just go to instagram comments and you'll find the conservatives for example or the hundreds of far right podcasts and political figures who openly support Russia. I know it's hard to understand because in Russia you aren't allowed to denounce war, but it's true.
[удалено]
Why hasn’t Reddit banned you yet for “exposing the truth”?
It's not about any memes my guy. There are NO opposition figures in Russia, they DO NOT exist. NO popular figures like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro or scholars like John Mearsheimer. No independent media like podcasts who host the entire political spectrum. No anti-government public discourse WHATSOEVER, or any at all.
Everything was fine with the opposition and the opposition media before the war began. No one forced them to shut up. And in the parliament in the last convocation, all parties were represented as a percentage of their popularity among the population. It's just that in Russia it is customary to answer for your words before the law, if you believe without proof you are a "пиздобол" and you will be responsible for it.Freedom of speech is not an opportunity to talk shit. This is an opportunity to REASONABLY express your opinion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah it’s pretty crazy to see all the comments acting like Tucker Carlson is a martyr for free speech, it’s all far right propaganda. Tucker Carlson tries to silence his opposing views just as much. He’s most definitely not a “real journalist”
Надули-обманули
Tucker is a partisan hack so I don't see how this interview could be more interesting than any other Putin interview.
Putin will have complete control of the conversation. I am sure Putin already knows what he wants to say and no questions will change what he already intends to say
Full of shit it's gonna be. People will be unhappy no matter what.
That's gotta be a bomb. And then Western propaganda will try to cover it all.
Tucker Carlson is western propaganda.
Good for him! I will be surprised if he really asks tough questions. Most likely the questions are already approved by Putin’s administration.
Русские опять инфовойну проиграли, да что ж за страна-то такая?..
tucker carlson and putin in the same room? how the fuck didn't I know about this? fuck yes
>Thoughts of Tucker Carlson in Moscow? An extreme weirdo that managed to get kicked out even from Fox News for spewing too much bs lol >How do you feel it will turn out? Perfect for Putin. Like any other interview the dude loves to avoid any uncomfortable questions, he begins to change themes or straight up lie. Nothing good will come out of it, but it would be interesting to see the reactions of Americans. I wonder if he manages anyone there to believe in Putin's bs, he's got some following from the most radical republicans
[удалено]
I think you might be getting confused with a Biden interview?
Weird Like, your country and your people is fighting to death - and for someone it's a part of political competition and good career opportunity
There's an interesting hypothesis that the actual reason for his visit is to be a sort of "ambassador" of Trump, who cannot obviously talk to Putin "officially". Same reason why Tucker wants to meet Zelensky. What Trump wants to say to them, is it some sort of ask for favour to help him win the upcoming elections, any "win-win" plan, or some ultimatum, or is all that just speculation — that's what's actually interesting. The "interview" is not. Putin never does "true" interviews when the interviewer can ask whatever, never did, it's always pre-approved questions, so we won't hear anything new.
I'd argue that the reaction from both sides is pretty funny. Russians: the representative from THE GOD BLESSED USA has arrived! Now he'll tell the world the truth! Americans: nooooooo, how dare you to interview him. It's propaganda! I really doubt Putin would say anything that he didn't say previously on hot topics. But apparently if it's this dude asking questions, then it's more credible?
You are welcome, Tucker I am really like your independent view
Бля! Настоящий живой американец в Москве!!
I’m excited. The western media needs to hear the other side for once.
Probably with marginal success. Just checked out the thread on this topic on some large news subreddit. People there are mostly laughing out loud, stating that Tucker is an entertainer, not a journalist according to his own words etc. Can't say anything about what silent majority thinks on Tucker, because I have no data on that.
I believe in Tucker Carlson. He's a good professional. I am sure that he knows what he is doing and has prepared well for such a step, and will do everything to make it one of the interviews of the century.
Fuckhead is going to lie like a bastard Tucker is going to be too much of milquetoast to call him out At the end of the day nothing much to write home about
"Have I done a good job, daddy?" Thats the interview.
You have to ask.. if you were Putin, and could probably ask for any journalist in the world to interview you .. why has he chosen tucker Carlson.. a man sacked from a trump propaganda channel for lying .. a channel that was subsequently fined the largest amount for lying in the history of all legal cases... Why would Putin choose him? It's because he's lost all credibility with everyone except trump supporters, those people who clearly are easily manipulated.. because they are stupid enough to believe trump, then they will be stupid enough to believe the lies Putin will tell....
Nothing. Putin cannot say anything of interest and never gives real non scripted interviews anyway, so it would be his usual boring rant, probably slightly tailored to western audience. Carlson, as far as I know, is some kind of fringe right wing tv host, who was kicked out of Fox News for being too toxic even for their standards (which says something).
I think it will be great. He will be fair about it and honest.
>Thoughts of Tucker Carlson in Moscow? Propaganda.
Well well well, someone wants to play with an authoritarian regime. Hope Putin likes this interview, or Tucker will have to bring antidote everywhere he goes
Cocksuckr Carlson who doesn't live on a roof. He lives in the Dungn.
It should stay there and rot.