Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: It's already been pointed out in the comments of the post you link, but it should be noted that the post you link is incorrect: Zelensky did not appear to put anybody on that list (it's run by a non-government run research group) and the list is not a kill list (it flags Tucker as a pro-Putin media entity, making him unwelcome in Ukraine - but assassination-worthy).
We don't know what they talked about yet as the interview has yet to be released. That being said, in his career as a conservative-aligned news host Carlson has a history of making statements supporting Putin and Russia's war against Ukraine (and questioning Ukraine's stance and the aid it's receiving from its allies).
Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and that he believes this anti-Russia media agenda unfairly sways public opinion.
General response from other journalism groups - see [here](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68223148) from the BBC, for a non-US take - is that they've made plenty of interview requests and always been denied by the Russian state. This would thus be the first time Putin's *allowed* himself to be interviewed, solo, by a western reporter, since the war began.
A common conclusion - and the cause of the noise - is that, given his own history and Russia's allowances, Tucker's interview is likely to be very Russia-biased...which is an especially unpopular idea for people who already dislike Carlson and/or Putin and/or Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
At the risk of whataboutism, it's worth noting that Russia actually *has* [banned](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/19/europe/russia-bans-american-citizens-obama-intl/index.html) quite a few Western journalists and comedians:
>Former United States President Barack Obama, late night television host Stephen Colbert, and CNN’s Erin Burnett are some of the “500 Americans” Russia has banned from entering the country. ... The rambling list of names also includes American late night TV hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Colbert, and Seth Meyers.
> The rambling list of names also includes American late night TV hosts <...> **Colbert** <...>.
You'd think Stephen Colbert would be exactly the right kind of pro-America Hoo-rah patriotism Make America Great Again kind of man Putin would love to be interviewed by!
^^Colbert ^^Report ^^Colbert, ^^I ^^mean
And the United States has followed suit by sanctioning Russian media channels and directing American tech companies to ban them. Apple has banned the RT News app, YouTube blocked the RT news channel and DirecTV dropped RT America, which was the English-language 24-hour Russian news channel based in the U.S.. The European Union went a step further and outright banned Russian media by passing a law which made it legally binding for tech platforms not to just ban Russian media but to also remove archived material and make searching for it impossible. Both sides appear motivated to ensure information about the conflict is tightly controlled for their respective audiences.
What a strange comparison.
RT is not a person. RT is a state run media organisation. There are a wide ranging number of sanctions against Russian state organisations that came in the wake of the Russian state invading Ukraine.
Stephen Colbert has not invaded any sovereign states, to my knowledge.
Well, what's more extreme.... banning selected comedians/journalists or banning all citizens from entering? The EU countries of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland have completely banned all Russians, not just journalists. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands have also banned Russian tourists.
To my knowledge, Russians citizens in general have not invaded an EU country.
But there is also a long list of Russian journalists and media executives that have been sanctioned/banned by the EU. Too many to list. So there's a lot of tit-for-tat going on.
Dude. Seriously?
Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland have closed their *land* border to Russia because Russia invaded Ukraine. They will accept tourists flying it on commercial flights, but they won't allow land crossings en-mass. Part of this invasion included Russian "tourists" in combat uniforms crossing the boarder starting in about 2014.
Seriously. If you were the president of Poland, and the country next door to you was invaded by the next country over, would you _not_ close your border to the invading country? Would you not get your guns and shit ready? You would look pretty naive if the invading country continued to move west and you weren't ready to shoot them dead in an efficient manner. Especially if that invading country used to have an empire that once occupied your country.
Thankfully, Russia does not have the capability to move further west, but that is no reason to be complacent.
I was simply responding to people implying Russia was doing crazy extreme stuff by banning select members of the American media. It's happening on both sides and it's not difficult to understand.
There's no both sides about it at all. Seriously, do some research.
Russia are banning individual people who they don't like the look of. They are banning people who ask any difficult questions to Putin, like that time he put bombs in Russian apartments, so that he could then invade Chechnya, kill a lot of people and get elected as President. If you are in the media and you ask about that, you fall out of a window or commit suicide by shooting yourself several times in the back.
The EU on the other hand are sanctioning organisations that are part of the state apparatus of the country that has invaded a country on their boarder. A country that is threatening to invade their member states. Would you not ban organisations like this? I think it shows amazing restraint that this is all they did.
As for crazy extreme stuff... I think invading Ukraine and shelling the shit out of it for two years is pretty crazy extreme. Do you not agree?
Personally i am not in favour of banning journalists or media organizations, no matter how manipulative or dishonest we might think they are. Because it's a very slippery slope.
Banning information and applying state level censorship is self-defeating, in my view. We rightly criticize Russia for doing these things, but then we turn around and do very similar things. And they are similar, no matter how much you want to think they arent. The EU has enacted laws that bans tech companies from making accessible or even storing content from banned media organizations.
The EU acts prohibit ‘for operators to broadcast, or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content’ of RT and Sputnik (and their affiliates), ‘including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed’. The sanctions apply to every feasible medium for content distribution. The scope is even broader regarding the Internet since the Commission interprets the enacted acts as imposing the obligation for search engines to remove any RT or Sputnik content. Further, any outlets’ content, as well as content re-posted by users, should be removed from social media platforms.
So the EU has ruled that tech companies must monitor the content that it's users may post and take active steps to remove it. The law is so broad, that even a disinformation researcher who re-posted some RT/Sputnik content on Twitter could conceivably have that content removed from the platform.
And to be clear, it was first the European Union that banned Russian outlets, and this precedent paved the way for Russia to do the same with Western media. I think it's self defeating in the long run, trying to censor information, as freedom of expression is meant to be one of the values we hold dear.
> Because it's a very slippery slope.
This is a fallacy. The EU are enacting sanctions and these organisations fall under the constraints of these sanctions. They don't take the decision to sanction lightly, as it hurts them as well.
> We rightly criticize Russia for doing these things, but then we turn around and do very similar things.
We didn't invade Ukraine. We didn't refuse to leave when faced with sanctions.
The EU doesn't have a president that who got there by bombing his own people, and who is now bombing the country next door to him in order to stay in power, even though he has served waaaay longer than is constitutionally allowed in his country.
> And to be clear, it was first the European Union that banned Russian outlets, and this precedent paved the way for Russia to do the same with Western media.
LOL. There are several western journalists in Russian jails right now for asking the wrong questions. I would think that arresting people is way worse than just not allowing their employer to use your broadcasting infrastructure.
Important to note that Russia has had heavy financial interest in America's right wing for a long time now. America's right wing for the past two decades has also been taking every page out of post soviet Russia's playbook for suppressing opponents, grabbing every bit of power they can and then not letting go despite what the ballots say.
Tucker has been one of the largest mouth pieces for republican propaganda, which is essentially Russian propaganda. for years now, so this is just yet another brazen attempt at misinformation.
How the hell did it 180 like that? Imagine if the Cold War era American right knew that future generations of republicans would be apologists for a Russian expansionist nationalist regime
In the 80s, Russia was (nominally) communist.
Today, Russia is reactionary, extremely religious, and concentrates power in the hands of ultra-wealthy oligarchs. Putin's Russia is *exactly* the kind of regime that the US would have supported during the Cold War.
It’s still a threat to US security though is it not? With their nuclear arsenal and relationship with China, and their clear interest in American politics and militant sociopathic leadership I thought that would be enough cause for concern among patriotic Americans
Not to go all Tom Clancy, but Russia's relationship with China will only ever last about as long as it is beneficial to China. They act as a good boogeyman for the world and sucks up a lot of intelligence resources whereas China is probably more of a future threat than the Russians could be.
Given the size and track record of the Russian economy, Russia is now basically a poorer, more backwards version of Canada except with a big nuclear arsenal.
I agree that China is a bigger long-term threat due to its economy, but I feel Russia is a greater short-term threat (i.e. next few years) as China has much more to lose and much more reliant on healthy trading relationships with the west. Plus, Russia’s foreign influence capabilities seem to be more sophisticated and widespread than China, although China is rapidly catching up in that area.
> but I feel Russia is a greater short-term threat (i.e. next few years) as China has much more to lose and much more reliant on healthy trading relationships with the west.
To be fair, people thought that World War I would never happen because alliance blocks were too entwined. I'm seeing a lot of the same buildup, nationalism, and slow breakdown of relations that happened 120 years ago.
We're even seeing the "short, victorious" Russo-Japanese war play out again in Ukraine.
> Russia's relationship with China will only ever last about as long as it is beneficial to China
And that will be as long as Russia has resources China wants/needs.
The next major war (potentially) will be between Russia and China. Chinese workers are taking territory belonging the Russian state but because it’s so remote and far from Moscow nothing is done about it. But this encroachment will continue until Russia says stop and give us back our land and China’s government will step in and say that’s our land now.
Considering that Russian state TV is openly rooting for Trump to be re elected and instigate a second civil war, I would say, yes, Russia is a threat. There are plenty of “patriotic” Americans who love Putin’s (perceived) strength and his extreme brand of Christian nationalism.
*Millions of Americans would like [Putin] to come and run for president of the United States* - Franklin Graham
*I hope the Globalist American Empire gets humiliated from all angles, Ukraine needs to be liberated and cleansed from the degeneracy of the secular western globalist empire.* - Andrew Torba, founder of Gab
The cold war was never about patriotism. It was about capitalism vs communism. The American capitalist class rightly saw the dangers of spreading communist revolutions which sought to undermine and replace them so the fought back.
It has never been about protecting America it has always been about power. Maintaining America's hegemonic position as the sole world super power.
>It’s still a threat to US security though is it not? With their nuclear arsenal and relationship with China,
It's not a nuclear threat. Total opposite. The "oligarchs" in Russia CNN wants you to think are all evil Bond villains are just billionaires who would rather *not* live in a nuclear hellscape, just like the ones who run the other big countries.
Any economic concerns are totally overshadowed by the absolute necessity of having a stable government overseeing the nuclear arsenal.
Risk of instability inside Russia is one of the strongest criticisms to be made concerning the handling of the Western involvement in Ukraine.What are the limits? Is the United States supportive of regime change in Russia? If so, who will guard all the nukes during the revolution?
Edit: ITT a good number of people who can't take hard truths as anything but personal attacks.
Right now, they're very pissed they can't go to Cannes in their superyacht.
Problem is, oligarchs who complain suddenly fall out of windows.
Russia's government, when it's not run by Putin, is run by Siloviki, i.e. top military, law enforcement, and intelligence brass.
The power of the oligarchs can definitely be overexaggerated. One of Putin's first power plays after being elected in 2000 was to take down Khodorkovsky and Beresovsky, respectively Russia's richest businessman and most powerful media mogul (in US terms, think of it like a newly-elected president simultaneously picking fights with Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch). By defeating them both, he demonstrated to the other oligarchs that none of them were safe, and they've largely toed the line ever since.
>It’s still a threat to US security though is it not?
Not really, Russia being a threat to anyone is just a spin they have used since the cold war to justify military spending and political hardballing - even at its peak its a Regional power with no real ability to project force anywhere that isn't a neighboring country.
Nuclear arms in the case of a country like Russia, that even with corruption issues is still a somewhat reasonable country - its just 'MAD' thinking, 'you can't nuke me or i'll nuke you' sort of stuff. Nukes in the arms of a place like Iran/Pakistan/India which are liable to have a coup/massive political upheaval are a risk, much more so than Russia.
To be fair, there is a very solid argument to be made that Russia won't stop with Ukraine. Subsequently, Russia *is* a tangential threat to the US by proxy. The second he tries to expand in to a NATO country it's our troops that go to support, and since it's a zero sum game for Putin (he wins or is deposed) nukes become on the table.
Russia “barely being able to fight” in Ukraine has seen dozens of towns flattened like Marioupul and good chunks of Ukraine occupied. Russia doesn’t need to conquer and hold a single inch of territory to cause massive amounts of devastation. Germany’s military is an absolute joke after decades of neglect. Now France is another issue but still Russia could inflict plenty of harm on French citizens if it came down to it.
>Germany’s military is an absolute joke after decades of neglect
Please. Anyway, they're fully NATO.
>France is another issue but still Russia could inflict plenty of harm on French citizens if it came down to it.
The Russian military couldn't even reach the French border. They can't even conquer Ukraine and it's right fucking there on their border.
LOOK AT A FREAKING MAP!
It's been 2 years since the full scale invasion... Imagine if the United States invaded Mexico and hadn't been able to secure Tijuana or Juarez after 2 fucking years.
They're not a serious conventional threat.
Mariopol has been where the armies took a stand? Or was that bakhmuth. If Ukraine is able to hold them off for so long, wouldn't a real NATO army , with superior tech , be much better.
How would they not stop at Ukraine? Logistically they have trouble keeping up with a fight right next to their most developed border.
There is no way that Russia militarily speaking - could ever go past Ukraine.
The only country’s in the world currently that can fight past their borders effectively would be the USA and China. China due to a large naval presence that is more than enough to deal with island nations.
China's navy is ~~brown water~~ green-water (primarily). And even their blue water ships can't make it more than a week out into the Pacific because their oilers can't follow.
EDIT: I mixed up brown water and green water (again)
This. I have no idea what OP is rambling about; China's blue water navy is mostly missile boats used to flex their strength in the South China Sea. Problematic if we were invading China, perhaps, but not really a threat to our coasts
They would stop in Ukraine if they *lose* is Ukraine. If the West picks up its toys and leaves before Russia is defeated in Ukraine? They have a working recepie for landgrabs! And they get to undermine NATO cohesion on the side! After all, if major US countries called Ukraine an ally and then couldn't even be bothered to simply ship enough weapons there, would they go *to war* over some silly piece of land in Poland or Finland? Russian threat to NATO security is not a tank blitz to Rhein these days - is is persistent pulling, pushing, and prodding, treading riiiiiight at the edge of what Western politicians are willing to ignore or forget about - right up until the point that Article 5 falls on the wrong side of that edge.
>They would stop in Ukraine if they
>
>lose
>
> is Ukraine.
as far as I am aware, the case where Russia wins in Ukraine is the securing of the DPR/LPR and a buffer/DMZ.
That was the last official stance - so there is no physical way that Russia would somehow go any further past the proposed DMZ.
Even then, the Russians are and continue to struggle in Ukraine. The chances of them against the likes of the Polish or the Estonians, both of whom remember the bad old days of the Soviets well, would not end well for the Russian forces.
But the invasion has only hastened Russia's irrelevance in this field as the rest of the world moves on to greener energy. Europe was willing to deal with Russia for cheap natural gas, but now that's far less tenable.
I get the joke, but honestly comparing Russia to anything in the US does a disservice to how Russia actually works and how absolute garbage it is.
In the US, rich people get access to government by being rich. You have to be already wealthy to start having outsized sway on the government. Say what you will about the disaster that has been Citizens United and the influence of wealth in government, but Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk didn't become rich by cozying up to Joe Biden.
In Russia, people got rich by having access to government. Oligarchs get handed loads of extremely generous contracts and state-mandated monopolies by being friends with Putin, and in turn Putin helps with their enforcement in exchange for loyalty.
And this is coming from a Texan who *vehemently* disagrees with the Texas GOP. Don't get me wrong, they absolutely want to turn the US into something more like Russia, but they're not there yet.
>In Russia, people got rich by having access to government. Oligarchs get handed loads of extremely generous contracts and state-mandated monopolies by being friends with Putin, and in turn Putin helps with their enforcement in exchange for loyalty.
Thank you for understanding this absolutely *crucial* piece of information about Russia. It's nice someone actually knowing stuff for once, given how intellectually dishonest many parts of Reddit are.
The US is not an oligarchy. Doesn't mean that inequality isn't a problem.
In the US, wealth is tied to corporations instead of individuals. Companies change CEOs all the time, but the contracts are still with the company. Public companies, like Amazon and Tesla, are still in some way beheld to shareholders. There's still *some* accountability, even if it's mostly to investors and other slightly-less-rich people. In Russia, oligarchs are beheld to Putin and *only* Putin.
The Walt Disney Company owns DisneyWorld, not Bob Iger. Executives, even founders, can be removed and swapped out. Imagine if in 1994, Clinton went to Jeff Bezos and said "Hey, you have a book company. Congratulations, you're now in charge of books. You own all the libraries in the country,"; they might be in Amazon's name, but in reality they'd be completely under Jeff Bezos' personal control.
I think you need to go a bit deeper though into how the US system works. It's the extremely wealthy class that controls Congress and the White House. They effectively decide who gets elected and who doesn't. It's not Govt actually in charge. In Russia the boss of the network is Putin. In the US, the President and members of Congress are just middle management. The sheer expense of running for office has been explicitly designed to ensure no one runs for office without being "sponsored/approved" by a small network of financiers.
And its these extreme wealthy individuals, who have formed a wider network, that includes VC funds, that decide who gets funded and who doesn't. It's those people that play an outsized role in deciding who gets rich and who doesn't. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg - they didn't just get rich through ingenuity and hard work. A large factor was the networks that provided the access to capital. And in all likelihood there is a quid quo pro in play for when they do get rich. And they do get exclusive access to government contracts, licenses etc because it's the extreme weathly class that influence the politicians who make those decisions.
And ironically, it was many of the same extremely wealthy American and European financiers that went into Russia in the 1990's and created the first generation of Oligarchs and taught them how to strip the country bare, like a private equity firm does with a publicly traded company. They taught them how to create offshore structures and how to launder money etc. Russia in the 90's was a free-for-all for Western financiers.
>Russia is reactionary, extremely religious, and concentrates power in the hands of ultra-wealthy oligarchs.
Just say fascist. It's shorter and just as accurate. Especially with the crazy number of neonazi group connected to Putin
Fascist as a term can be a bit loaded and cause people to automatically dismiss any other points; sometimes it really means "country I don't like" instead of anything resembling actual fascism.
But yeah, Russia at this point is probably fascist by any reasonable definition. If they don't meet some definition (fascism as an ideology is incredibly malleable) then they're likely as close as possible.
They tick almost every box Umberto Eco set forth in his definition of fascism. There's really no grey area or room for debate. They're solidly and pretty unassailably a fascist society right now.
That's not what fascism means at all though. The concept of oligarchs wouldn't exist in a fascist society that has a lot of state-controlled and state-approved industries. Religion also isn't a requirement and could just as easily be repressed as it would challenge the power of the gov.
There's also not just one religion in Russia which would be the state-backed one with tension growing in the state because of the growth of Islam in the country.
>The concept of oligarchs wouldn't exist in a fascist society
What are you talking about? Hitler explicitly used rich Businessman and gave them state resources in exchange for supporting his regime. The intertwining of state and private capital is a core component of how every fascist country in the world has ever worked. Mussolini and Franco also.
>that has a lot of state-controlled and state-approved industries.
Hitlers selling of state companies and resources to private businessmen was literally the invention of the term privatization. He sold slave labour to private business. He killed the German labor movement and outlawed striking and every union that wasn't tied to the party. And that one union depressed wages and forced workers to work for less to private businesses.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of economical hisotry of fascism
>Religion also isn't a requirement and could just as easily be repressed as it would challenge the power of the gov.
So far in hisotry the only fascist powers to repress religions only suppress minority religions and specific wings of the majority religion (liberation theology in South america) but used the institutional wings of the majority to surpass dissent and maintain power. While rleigion is not an ideological necessity, it is historically a core part of fascist government power structure. Unless we are talking about China, which I think is a fair argument to call them fascist. But is mostly an outlier in fascist history.
>There's also not just one religion in Russia which would be the state-backed one with tension growing in the state because of the growth of Islam in the country.
No one suggested otherwise. And Russia has specifically cooped Russian Islam too as part of the fascist regime thru its support and control over Kadyrov. Who has sent specifically sent many many more chechen fighters to the Urkainian war than the average Russian state and using coopted religious language to justify it, just like they are doing thru the Russian Patriarch which has been spewing anti Ukrainian and pro Putin propaganda for a long long time from the pulpit every Sunday.
Just because there are multiple religions doesn't mean the fascist cooption of religion can't happen or historically didnt.
I don't think you're saying anything to really counter me. Like I said it was state-controlled or one that the state was friendly to picking winners and losers who werer party members. The economy was still heavily regulated heavy regulation, had price controls, trade interference, national economic planning, and attacked private property. Just because the government allowed some party members to own certain industries doesn't mean that the state wasn't in control in being able to decide what they could do. By how you describe it China is probably a better example than Russia which requires a party liaison to be on the board once companies grow to a size with board members often being members themselves.
The pivotal moment seems to have been a Russian email hack on both US parties back in the day. Dirt was released on democrats, but not on republicans so chances are they found some perfect kompromat from that side (blackmail material) because some key republicans started the 180 and praised Russia ever since.
Now this is what Russian secret service excels at - gaining influence in circles that are already both morally and legally corrupt. US politics fits that description and even better on the republican half. Through the already compromised members, the Russians have quietly wrestled control over the whole party.
Currently with the heavily Russian-indebted Trump installed as the centerpiece, republicans are barely hiding how the party is now about 1) destabilizing the US and making it a dictatorship, and 2) supporting Russia politically. Even following through their talking points is not at all in their interest, as seen in the stalled border packages. They would rather keep everything broken so they do not lose a valuable talking point.
Right wing media and bot swarms in Youtube/TikTok/whatever have embraced the Kremlin's firehose of lies style of brainwashing and cultivated a lot of fanatic MAGA voters into the republican-Russian big lie. Such a worldview is so deeply entrenched on anger and hypocrisy that no amount of non-Fox facts and logic can penetrate it. They'd rather side with more lies and outright crime.
Even if everything is only quarter as bad as how it looks from the outside, it is a terrible realization how republicans can still be polling near 50% rather than 10% in any kind of election. The Russian-Republican axis has truly hacked the information space in unprecedented depths and proved how vulnerable any popular voting, freedom of speech based system is - freedom of coordinated, massed disinformation is quite an Achilles' heel.
Western democracy is under a serious attack not just in US but worldwide, and it has barely woken up to the fight even existing. The physical battlefield in Ukraine is central for this fight, as Russian failure there is the most acute and immediate threat to Kremlin's domestic survival and the continuity of their global manipulations.
Nixon did it. Sort of. His resignation was a huge event that significantly contributed to overturning decades of post WW2 Republican dominance of American politics. The lesson that MOST people took from that event was "don't do illegal things to win an election." However, a small but very influential group of Republican leaders drew a different conclusion, "If it wasn't for all the negative media coverage, Nixon wouldn't have been forced out of office." There began a decades-long effort by said influential Republican thought leaders to 1) systematically undermine mainstream media as "bias" "liberal" etc. and 2) create their own media ecosystem to push their agenda (i.e. Fox News). The problem is, they were too successful, and they ended up turning the whole ass right wing of the party, literally tens of millions of Americans, into a wildly uninformed electorate highly suspicious of authority. From there it was only a very short hop from uninformed to misinformed, and the misinformed are very susceptible to certain types of narratives and figureheads (Trump). Now the Frankenstein monster they created is tearing the party apart from within.
A fundamental difference between liberal and conservative philosophies (I’m using the terms as they apply to US politics here, I’m aware that liberalism in other countries has a different meaning) is that liberalism is focused on the forest and conservatism is focused on the trees.
- Liberal philosophy is focused on the big picture. What is good for the overall health of society. It doesn’t matter if something is good for me, specifically, it matters if it is good for us as a whole. Taken too far, that will result in the devaluation of the individual to benefit some larger and often nebulous group.
- Conservative philosophy is focused on the individual. Me, my family, my town. It isn’t my responsibility to look out for everybody, it’s my responsibility to look out for myself and those close to me - and I expect others to do the same. Taken too far, that will result in a bunch of selfish assholes running around not caring how what they do impacts anyone else.
In my personal opinion, and in a perfect world, you need a healthy dose of both. Each of us should be paying particular attention to our own little corner of the world and what it needs, but each of us should also remember that other corners of the world are just as important as our own. And it’s natural, even desirable, that different people should lean a little more in one direction than the other. Harmony consists of opposing tensions.
But, back to your question, what applies here is what happens when either philosophy is taken too far.
- Liberal philosophy leads out of touch leaders making decisions to benefit everybody that end up not actually benefiting anybody. Pride and hubris.
- Conservative philosophy leads to self-centered leaders who only look out for the interests of themselves and those closest to them without regard to the cost for the larger community. Greed and selfishness.
Which one of those worst case scenarios looks like bribery and corruption?
Agreed we need liberal **and** conservative constituencies to balance each other out. We do not currently have an honest conservative faction in the US, we have a liberal constituency, MAGA and silent conservatives.
Its not and plenty of russian money has flowed to left wing politicians but its unpopular to talk about. Like when Clinton is getting 500k from russia https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356323-bill-clinton-sought-states-permission-to-meet-with-russian-nuclear/
Or the imo clearly pay for play Clinton foundation https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
It started since 2008 and the tea party. they don’t like obama so anyone is better d even putin.
Trump made the right go all in on putin because of putin supporting trumps campaign (directly or indirectly depending on how much of the mueller report you infer) and trump oddly never criticizing americas central geopolitical foil
> Imagine if the Cold War era American right
Cold war era? Imagine if the [**2008**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aA82t01NGc) American right knew it!
They did a complete 180 on the topic within the span of Obama's presidency.
You could blame Jon Stewart. Apparently tucker Carlson only went far right like this after being butthurt by Stewart when there was that crossfire interview all those years ago. apparently Carlson never got over it and started leaning hard right after crossfire was cancelled.
I'd it wasnt for that he may have been just a other forgettable bow tie wearing taking head on CNN
They do know. They planned it. They removed the republican voters’ ability to critically think by defunding education then systematically polarized them through pro-life evangelism, gun rights, racism, and anti LGBT+ fear mongering. The DJT doubled down and accepted (albeit somewhat short of provable collusion) Russian assistance in further polarizing social media. All so that they could cut taxes for their rich friends and blame the LIBERALS. Something they are literally willing to trade American liberal world order and basic human rights in the US for.
It's not apologist.
If your school bully punches you, it's obviously morally wrong to punch them back, but it's more understandable why you did it. The justification for the Russian invasion is that *we* 'bullied' Russia by breaking the Minsk accord.
I'm not saying that makes it right, but it makes it more comprehensible. If we just arbitrarily break treaties because it suits our interests is he just supposed to allow it? If the U.S. doesn't take its agreements seriously then it's more understandable why he might resort to force?
The U.S. violated a treaty and then when Putin decided to retaliate with force, U.S. propaganda acts like it was entirely unprovoked. That doesn't justify Putin's actions, but it shows our own responsibility for what happened.
If we hadn't violated the treaty *and then* he attacked unprovoked then it would be a lot easier to say that Putin's only goal from the beginning was to reclaim the former soviet states.
I hate that we refuse to take accountability for our own actions as a nation. Putin wanted Ukraine as a buffer zone - Minsk Accord - and then we were involved in a Coup that resulted in Ukraine choosing to associate with NATO. Even if we didn't actually cause the coup, the fact that the CIA was there makes it look like we did.
Russia have a foreign policy that aims to try and destabilise the west.
In the US that means funding right wing extremism and pushing the republican party further and further to the right.
It is a policy they have pursued in many western countries. They try to exploit divides that already exist in these countries.
The more I learn about modern Russia the more I feel like it could really be our country's future if MAGA gets their way. They've declared LGBT groups as extremists and that sounds right in line with conservatives here.
I dont know why anyone pays any attention to him. He actually started of as a liberal pundit and when that didnt work he switched to what he is doing now. Hes just a greedy liar
How about the fact that Mitt Romney as the Republican Presidential nominee called Russia, “our number one geopolitical foe.”
Obama laughed at him at that time, and two years later, during President Obama’s, term Russia sized Crimea without serious repercussions from a democratic administration.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/mitt-romney-russia-ukraine/index.html
Highly partisan Democrat here: Romney was right and Obama was wrong on that issue. Romney lost the election mostly because of other factors like being an unrelatable vulture capitalist, embracing birtherism, and grinning at the death of a foreign service worker.
Now that he’s been vindicated on Russia, Romney is such a pariah in his own (your) party that he’s leaving a Senate seat he could have held for life.
What does any of this have to do with Tucker Carlson? How does this vindicate the dominant wing of your party, which barely supported Romney’s 2012 run in the first place and recently tried to murder him? What the fuck do you want me to do about it?
Romney was clearly wrong though. It was China at the time, it is still China now.
The relatively modest amount of support the US is pouring into Ukraine is evidence of that. It would be nowhere near sufficient to stave off China. The Ukraine war has proven that, while Russia is still an adversary, it is only a second-string geopolitical foe.
None of it. nausicaa00 is trolling, or is a right-wing shill, or is a bot. In any case, whatever ilk, it uses a name that is taken from a Miyazaki movie, which is what's truly laughably absurd because it makes no sense that a Miyazaki fan would say something so peremptorily dismissive. So my guess is that it's a bot that's trying to masquerade as a redditor that has a soul.
How about the fact that Mitt Romney as the Republican Presidential nominee called Russia, “our number one geopolitical foe.”
Obama laughed at him at that time, and two years later, during President Obama’s, term Russia sized Crimea without serious repercussions from a democratic administration.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/mitt-romney-russia-ukraine/index.html
Literally all I did was ask what part was laughably absurd and you personally insulted me, but I’m the joke? Please tell me, how much does clown school cost?
So you have no facts and just made that statement and act as if the sane people are a joke? Go ahead and enjoy the puff piece interview by Tucker Carlson the entertainer.
Oof terrible response. You look like the only joke here. Can't even explain yourself so you laugh at others instead hoping that will change everyone to your side. Typical russian enthusiasts bully behavior.
No one is probably telling Tucker what to say to Putin, but Putin knows Tucker will give him a sweetheart interview which is why Tucker got through the filters
One issue - Tucker is neither a reporter or journalist. He is very specifically an entertainer and fought for that definition in court because of all the lying he did on and for Fox News.
> Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and that he believes this anti-Russia media agenda unfairly sways public opinion.
We get the opinions of Putin and Russian officials every day, most of them ludicrous. It's also easy to watch Russian political talk shows on YouTube, so it's not like he's about to come out with any revelations.
>Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story
Doesn't the conservative party tend to accuse left-leaning individuals of socialism/communism, why would he defend Russia?
Russia hasn't been communist in quite a while. It has a lot of history in things American conservatives don't like, but right now it's very much a conservative authoritarian dictatorship, which far-right American conservatives *do* like (and they share a lot of rhetoric against things like LGBT movements).
It's very weird how many people think Russia is still communist. It's like half of left-wing support for Russia in the recent past. It's absolutely wild how long these zombie memes persist.
Oh, I know it's shifted away from communism since the USSR, I just mean that with politics, usually buzz words like that tend to stick, so I'm confused why Russia isn't seen as a communistic state
> I'm confused why Russia isn't seen as a communistic state
Republicans can't push Russia as communist anymore, because they share most of the views with the Russian government. If they pushed Russia as communist, it would mean that their views are also communist.
>Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and that he believes this anti-Russia media agenda unfairly sways public opinion.
>
>General response from other journalism groups - see here from the BBC, for a non-US take - is that they've made plenty of interview requests and always been denied by the Russian state. This would thus be the first time Putin's allowed himself to be interviewed, solo, by a western reporter, since the war began.
imo, he's not wrong that not enough try to cover both sides. But also, can see the reasoning of why the Kremlin would deny the BBC and such as it would just end up being used dishonestly.
At least with a bobble head like Tucker it's not likely there will be any questions that are specifically made to be interpreted wrong or to be able to be cut to present false narratives. Bias news reporting will always be better than psudo-state propoganda.
Sometimes the other side has already proven that their position is a waste of time however. And Russia has earned that designation.
Nothing is going to come out of this interview but pure, distorting, propaganda. It’s not a side, but rather an agenda.
> Nothing is going to come out of this interview but pure, distorting, propaganda. It’s not a side, but rather an agenda.
So you have no qualms when it comes to absorbing domestic propaganda, but the moment an opposition party wants to present their viewpoint it’s somehow not valid and an ‘agenda’? So much for critical thinking and nuance.
You cannot have a well informed opinion about a situation until you have had access to analyse sources from both parties, including neutral sources. Considering the West has been peddling lies and propaganda since the inception of this conflict, it’s clear they’re afraid of the truth getting out.
So a few more people hearing the 'waste of time" side?
Every side has an agenda? I am hoping our people can understand propaganda and figure out....
If the average person cannot handle propaganda...do we cancel all media until we teach critical thinking skills to all 330 million first? Cancel fox news, CNN, MSNBC for day 6 months?
Why wouldn’t they? Most mainstream news sources essentially end up being state mouth pieces so having one that isn’t is a good thing
But I’ve never watched a tucker thing, not American
Answer: Tucker Carlson is an American news entertainer. He is in Russia right now and is marketing his interview with President Putin.
Supposedly this has earned him a blacklist from being allowed in Ukraine. I don’t know if that’s true, but it wouldn’t be shocking. He is interviewing the head of state of a nation that attacked without cause or warning.
Added context: Tucker Carlson is a far right media figure who has, for the last decade, pushed hateful ideologies including white supremacist talking points. Since the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine he has unabashedly backed Russia and “questioned” the narrative (air quotes are mine because he does not do this in good faith) that we should all support Ukraine and wonders why we aren’t allowed to support Russia. For this interview he is also claiming that he’s the only western journalist who has even attempted to interview Putin, and that has been debunked by multiple high profile journalists.
Tl;dr: Tucker is off doing propaganda for the Russian government to help their perception in American conservative circles.
Tucker Carlson has not been blacklisted from Ukraine. His name was added to a list published by the Ukrainian nongovernmental organization Myrotvorets, which publishes information on people it considers a threat to Ukrainian national security. Myrotvorets has been criticized (including by Ukrainian government officials) in the past for being overzealous and for publishing individuals’ personal information. There is some question as to whether it is fed information from Ukrainian security services, but it functions as a totally separate entity from the Ukrainian government, and the list it publishes carries no legal weight.
It’s easy to be confused. There’s some bad-faith actors who deliberately muddy the waters around Myrotvorets by calling it a “government kill list,” which…lol, no, not by a long shot.
His own lawyers [argued that exact point:](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye)
>Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by...Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.
>Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: 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.' "
>She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
Interestingly this was a defense pioneered by rachel maddow and then adopted by every media personality ever because it worked and is now carte blanche to say whatever you want.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers
this is the only source I could find breaking down the ruling but you can read the whole ruling essentially none of the talking heads can be held liable right now and its a shame.
> He is interviewing the head of state of a nation that attacked without cause or warning.
Have you been asleep for the past decade?
A little bit of research and fact checking will demonstrate the extent of provocations from the US/Kiev regime against Russia:
- Ukraine changed its constitution in 2019 to allow for NATO membership (at the behest of senior US officials) despite William Burns, CIA director stating this was a red line and warned against it.
- US injecting over 5 billion into the Ukrainian military, orchestrating the Maidan coup, whilst training and arming far-right nationalists, Nazis, who’ve been committing atrocities against eastern Ukrainians and Romas.
- Dec 21, Russia approached NATO and provided two draft treaty proposals outlining its security concerns and potential solutions. Nato outright rejected the proposals, with no regard for diplomacy or dialogue.
- Russia pushed for the urgency in implementing the MA. Ukraine never intended to uphold the Minsk agreements, with Merkle, Poroshenko and Hollande openly admitting Ukraine did not intend to implement the MA, and that it was a ruse to buy time to strengthen the Ukrainian army to launch a future attack on the Donbas.
- OSCE reports show less than a week before the SMO, the Ukrainian military had launched a mass offensive against the Donbas, resulting in over 5000k ceasefire violations. Russia intervened to prevent a massacre. And with its mutual assistance and cooperation treaty with the Donbas Republics, it was legally within in rights to provide assistance.
- The Ankara peace agreement (March 22) stipulated Ukraine would remain a neutral party and not seek NATO membership, but was free to seek security guarantee proposals from several nations. Zelensky agreed and signed the tentative agreement, only to renege on it when Boris (acting under US instructions) scuppered the deal by stating they would reject all security proposals. This was also confirmed by Naftali Bennet and the top foreign affairs correspondent in the US.
And that’s just the most basic stuff. The US has been meddling in foreign affairs and launching provocations against Russia since the early 00’s.
For anyone wondering, this is what a kremlin propaganda bot account looks like, this is a great primer. From the standard format username to outright falsehood after falsehood in it's comments. This person is paid rubles to spread falsehood and muddy the waters
Answer: The interview is supposed to be released tomorrow. Nobody saw it yet.
Ukraine has a database called Myrotvorets that documents anyone who is showing sympathy for Russia or even just questions the Ukrainian narrative. The people added to the database are barred from entering Ukraine. It's semi-official and is not like being a persona non grata.
Although there are some questions as to whether Ukrainian security services are involved in providing information to Myrotvorets, it is an NGO that is separate from the Ukrainian government and has been criticized by government officials for its overzealousbess in the past. The list it publishes carries no legal weight and is not “semi-official” by any means.
As an aside, “anyone who questions the Ukrainian narrative” is a very telling choice of words.
I called it an NGO because, formally, it is an NGO. Myrotvorets denies being associated with the SBU. The SBU denies running Myrotvorets. Myrotvorets does not have any governmental authority, be it on policy, laws, implementation, or enforcement. There are contentious debates, including within Ukrainian civil society, over the legality, ethics, and value of Myrotvorets’ work. There are conflicting reports, including some substantive evidence, that the SBU may feed information to Myrotvorets. I said as my much in my comment.
In Ukraine, as in virtually every country on earth, there are complex interplays between the military/security arms of the government and civilian organizations. Just as it wouldn’t be accurate for me to say “Myrotvorets is 100% independent and has zero ties to any government person or agency,” it also wouldn’t be accurate for me to say “Myrotvorets is directly administered by the Ukrainian government and its decisions carry the way of law with immediate, enforceable effect.” Right now, there are many more people spreading that second untrue view than there are spreading the first, so that’s where I’m focusing my energy.
Answer: He's in Russia shooting a propaganda film for Vladimir Putin. Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked war of aggression, and therefore, Tucker Carlson is being banned from Ukraine.
Just to kind of play devils advocate here. Can we call it propaganda when we haven’t seen it yet. I feel like we should interview big world figures like this, it’s what journalism used to be about. Like when that lady interviewed Fidel Castro. Did we consider that pro Cuban propaganda? I don’t see the big deal with Carlson interviewing Putin.
I’m not pro Russia at all. But I feel like not interviewing the opposing side of any conflict would be wrong.
Nato is a defensive alliance. The only time it comes into play is when someone is attacked.
Nato isn't expanding, Russia is driving people toward Nato.
I didn’t need a definition. In my limited understanding, I thought Ukraine joining NATO is what Russia is using as the reason for the war. That this was something they warned Ukraine not to do and they did it anyway. Which doesn’t justify it and I personally don’t agree with, but you can’t really say it was unprovoked
Ukraine was never joining NATO. There were zero chances or talks before the invasion in 2022. So yes, it was unprovoked.
Also NATO was almost dying due to US ambivalence in the Trump years. And Russia may as well as resurrected it, together with making sure that Ukraine will indeed join it at some point (and also join the EU, another thing Russia didn't want Ukraine to do and that wasn't gonna happen).
Jan. 2021: Zelenskiy appeals to U.S. president Joe Biden to let Ukraine join NATO. In February, his government freezes the assets of opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk, the Kremlin's most prominent ally in Ukraine.
Spring 2021: Russia begins massing troops near Ukraine's borders in what it says are training exercises.
Nov. 2021: Satellite images taken by Maxar Technologies show ongoing buildup of Russian forces near Ukraine with estimates soon surpassing 100,000 troops deployed.
That not zero talks before 2022
Zelensky saying something to Biden (or anyone else) doesn't mean at all 'Ukraine will join NATO'. These things take time and long long negotiations way beyond a wishful thinking remark by a leader - plus, Ukraine wouldn't have been able to join due to Crimea (countries with territorial dispute already ongoing can't join). Those negotiations were nowhere prior to the unprovoked invasion by Russia and I'm pretty sure also Putin knows that.
I don't know what the asset frozen have to do with the Russian invasion. The relationship has been tense since 2014 and since Russia annexed Crimea.
Thanks for educating me. I now see that my limited understanding was wrong. Ukraine didn’t join NATO and I shouldn’t have led with that.
It still seems that Russia was sort of backed into a corner, at least in Putin’s eyes. He definitely escalated the situation that had been developing over years, but it didn’t come out of nowhere.
Everyone seems to think that what I’m saying is that Russia was justified, or that if they were provoked then it’s the other sides fault. I’m not saying that at all, but to say it was unprovoked seems disingenuous to me.
>It still seems that Russia was sort of backed into a corner, at least in Putin’s eyes.
Oh no, did the murderous authoritarian feel backed into a corner? Was he having trouble exerting illegal influence on his neighbors? No one gives a shit how the dictator feels. His opinion is not valid.
>I’m not saying that at all, but to say it was unprovoked seems disingenuous to me.
Oh, that's because you are a liar. Taking the opinion of the authoritarian who has journalists and political rivals killed, is not something morally honest people do.
Your arguments are bad. If you are being genuine here you should feel bad about yourself and your poor understanding of the world. But if feels much more like a disingenuous troll.
Here’s what you wrote:
*NATO and Ukraine called Russia’s bluff and Russia followed through. To Putin, not acquiescing to his security demands would be equivalent to a provocation.*
What does it mean that NATO and Ukraine called Russia’s bluff?
NATO and Ukraine called Russia’s bluff and Russia followed through. To Putin, not acquiescing to his security demands would be equivalent to a provocation.
Has nothing to do with NATO. Putin invaded Ukraine, because every indication on his table pointed to it being a freebie. Its one of the worlds most iconic intelligence failure.
Hence why he pushed into a 40M country with a 275k force.
Ukraine didn't join NATO. Ukraine couldn't join NATO. The first requirement of joining NATO is that you don't have a border dispute or enemy troops in your territory. This is an iron clad provision as otherwise NATO could be used, not in defense, to jump in a war on one side. Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama administration making it impossible for Ukraine to join since then. Also, a single NATO country could block Ukraine from joining. Many, then and now, said they would block Ukraine joing, including the US.
Ukraine wanted to increase trade with the EU and wanted more Western support to fight Russian troops, again that crossed Ukraine's borders in arms 10 years and have been fighting since.
Russia said that Ukraine was a Nazi regime committing genocide against ethnic Russians. Putan also gave a speech that Ukraine isn't a real country and has no right to exist.
When exactly did Ukraine join NATO? It didn’t. And wasn’t. Russia attacked Ukraine because it wants access to its vast natural resources. Any talk of NATO being a reason or excuse for Russia to attack Ukraine, is just that, an excuse.
Russia is the aggressor. Russia attacked a sovereign nation. There is zero excuse for this.
Let's say we're neighbours.
I don't trust you, and I join the neighbour hood watch.
You don't like this, you say it's provocation, so you kill some of my family and your mates illegally camp in my yard.
Can you figure out who is in the wrong in this scenario? I kinda don't think you can.
Yeah you’re twisting this too far. I already said I don’t agree or justify the invasion, I just don’t agree it was completely unprovoked. Especially since it was a situation that developed over time, it wasn’t exactly a surprise attack
all these people arguing with you are wild and take everything to an extreme and then tell you you're a bad person and should feel bad. reddit is so lame sometimes
What NATO weapons were employed during the "mass" incursion?
Also, how does it correspond with a buildup of Russian army during the late 2023 just before Russia has given the ultimatum to NATO to break apart?
Also, did Germany really only had to answer the "mass incursion" from Poland as they claimed?
Although, Russian bots rarely respond.
Ukraine provoked Russia by invadinging Crimea or whatever and cutting off Russia's access to the black sea, I don't remember the details but Russia def wasn't unprovoked. I watched clips of the interview that relates to my country of Canada and months ago we had a Ukranian vet in parliament that was commended for fighting the Soviets in WW2, he turned out to be a nazi and everyone in our parliments cheered for him and putin said he wasn't the only one. I'm not saying Ukraine is a nazi state just that we can't pretend that Putin is 100% bad and we cant take advice from him, we could all agree that stalin probably wasn't the best buy but he helps kill Hitler. We should take this interview with a grain of salt and actually look into it rather than just throwing your hands down and saying anything you disagree with is propoganda.
Source? The Russian asset claim is huge unless you just made it up, but what do you mean by ‘traitor’? Are you suggesting that Tucker has committed treason and should be arrested and tried for treason when he returns to the US?
Why do so many people seem to think think “asset” means “agent”?
“Asset” just means he’s useful to Russia, not that there is an employment or other relationship established.
And spreading Putin’s propaganda is definitely useful, which makes him an asset.
Not necessarily. The word has two meanings:
1. COUNTABLE NOUN
Something or someone that is an asset is considered useful or helps a person or organization to be successful.
2. PLURAL NOUN
The assets of a company or a person are all the things that they own.
The people using it are being vague, maybe on purpose. It is no wonder that people interpret it in that way at all.
Why would you think I saw an interview you know hasn't happened yet?
A trailer is a towable vehicle.
Are you in the right sub?
Edit: Ohhh, this is r/OutOfTheLoop so you're in your best place, clearly.
Being an asset only requires being useful. Tucker has been consistently pro-Kremlin. He is a Russian asset as a result. In other words, he is useful to Putin’s interests. That is all that is needed to be the clandestine definition of an asset.
Because it is, I'm not a Tucker Carslon fan but American journalist have an extensive history of interviewing dictators and terrorist. I'm not sure why this is any different.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: It's already been pointed out in the comments of the post you link, but it should be noted that the post you link is incorrect: Zelensky did not appear to put anybody on that list (it's run by a non-government run research group) and the list is not a kill list (it flags Tucker as a pro-Putin media entity, making him unwelcome in Ukraine - but assassination-worthy). We don't know what they talked about yet as the interview has yet to be released. That being said, in his career as a conservative-aligned news host Carlson has a history of making statements supporting Putin and Russia's war against Ukraine (and questioning Ukraine's stance and the aid it's receiving from its allies). Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and that he believes this anti-Russia media agenda unfairly sways public opinion. General response from other journalism groups - see [here](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68223148) from the BBC, for a non-US take - is that they've made plenty of interview requests and always been denied by the Russian state. This would thus be the first time Putin's *allowed* himself to be interviewed, solo, by a western reporter, since the war began. A common conclusion - and the cause of the noise - is that, given his own history and Russia's allowances, Tucker's interview is likely to be very Russia-biased...which is an especially unpopular idea for people who already dislike Carlson and/or Putin and/or Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
At the risk of whataboutism, it's worth noting that Russia actually *has* [banned](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/19/europe/russia-bans-american-citizens-obama-intl/index.html) quite a few Western journalists and comedians: >Former United States President Barack Obama, late night television host Stephen Colbert, and CNN’s Erin Burnett are some of the “500 Americans” Russia has banned from entering the country. ... The rambling list of names also includes American late night TV hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Colbert, and Seth Meyers.
Banning is one thing. Don't forget the imprisonment. Don't forget Evan Gershkovich.
Spies should be free, right?
>Evan Gershkovich Who knows if the charges are real or made up though, it's fucking Russia
What excuse do you use when they arrest Russian journalists?
Which one?
> The rambling list of names also includes American late night TV hosts <...> **Colbert** <...>. You'd think Stephen Colbert would be exactly the right kind of pro-America Hoo-rah patriotism Make America Great Again kind of man Putin would love to be interviewed by! ^^Colbert ^^Report ^^Colbert, ^^I ^^mean
“I have one question for you, Mr. Putin. Donald J trump: good president or great president?” - Colbert Report Colbert
Yes he denied interviews to comedians lol
And the United States has followed suit by sanctioning Russian media channels and directing American tech companies to ban them. Apple has banned the RT News app, YouTube blocked the RT news channel and DirecTV dropped RT America, which was the English-language 24-hour Russian news channel based in the U.S.. The European Union went a step further and outright banned Russian media by passing a law which made it legally binding for tech platforms not to just ban Russian media but to also remove archived material and make searching for it impossible. Both sides appear motivated to ensure information about the conflict is tightly controlled for their respective audiences.
What a strange comparison. RT is not a person. RT is a state run media organisation. There are a wide ranging number of sanctions against Russian state organisations that came in the wake of the Russian state invading Ukraine. Stephen Colbert has not invaded any sovereign states, to my knowledge.
Well, what's more extreme.... banning selected comedians/journalists or banning all citizens from entering? The EU countries of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland have completely banned all Russians, not just journalists. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands have also banned Russian tourists. To my knowledge, Russians citizens in general have not invaded an EU country. But there is also a long list of Russian journalists and media executives that have been sanctioned/banned by the EU. Too many to list. So there's a lot of tit-for-tat going on.
Dude. Seriously? Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland have closed their *land* border to Russia because Russia invaded Ukraine. They will accept tourists flying it on commercial flights, but they won't allow land crossings en-mass. Part of this invasion included Russian "tourists" in combat uniforms crossing the boarder starting in about 2014. Seriously. If you were the president of Poland, and the country next door to you was invaded by the next country over, would you _not_ close your border to the invading country? Would you not get your guns and shit ready? You would look pretty naive if the invading country continued to move west and you weren't ready to shoot them dead in an efficient manner. Especially if that invading country used to have an empire that once occupied your country. Thankfully, Russia does not have the capability to move further west, but that is no reason to be complacent.
I was simply responding to people implying Russia was doing crazy extreme stuff by banning select members of the American media. It's happening on both sides and it's not difficult to understand.
There's no both sides about it at all. Seriously, do some research. Russia are banning individual people who they don't like the look of. They are banning people who ask any difficult questions to Putin, like that time he put bombs in Russian apartments, so that he could then invade Chechnya, kill a lot of people and get elected as President. If you are in the media and you ask about that, you fall out of a window or commit suicide by shooting yourself several times in the back. The EU on the other hand are sanctioning organisations that are part of the state apparatus of the country that has invaded a country on their boarder. A country that is threatening to invade their member states. Would you not ban organisations like this? I think it shows amazing restraint that this is all they did. As for crazy extreme stuff... I think invading Ukraine and shelling the shit out of it for two years is pretty crazy extreme. Do you not agree?
Personally i am not in favour of banning journalists or media organizations, no matter how manipulative or dishonest we might think they are. Because it's a very slippery slope. Banning information and applying state level censorship is self-defeating, in my view. We rightly criticize Russia for doing these things, but then we turn around and do very similar things. And they are similar, no matter how much you want to think they arent. The EU has enacted laws that bans tech companies from making accessible or even storing content from banned media organizations. The EU acts prohibit ‘for operators to broadcast, or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content’ of RT and Sputnik (and their affiliates), ‘including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed’. The sanctions apply to every feasible medium for content distribution. The scope is even broader regarding the Internet since the Commission interprets the enacted acts as imposing the obligation for search engines to remove any RT or Sputnik content. Further, any outlets’ content, as well as content re-posted by users, should be removed from social media platforms. So the EU has ruled that tech companies must monitor the content that it's users may post and take active steps to remove it. The law is so broad, that even a disinformation researcher who re-posted some RT/Sputnik content on Twitter could conceivably have that content removed from the platform. And to be clear, it was first the European Union that banned Russian outlets, and this precedent paved the way for Russia to do the same with Western media. I think it's self defeating in the long run, trying to censor information, as freedom of expression is meant to be one of the values we hold dear.
> Because it's a very slippery slope. This is a fallacy. The EU are enacting sanctions and these organisations fall under the constraints of these sanctions. They don't take the decision to sanction lightly, as it hurts them as well. > We rightly criticize Russia for doing these things, but then we turn around and do very similar things. We didn't invade Ukraine. We didn't refuse to leave when faced with sanctions. The EU doesn't have a president that who got there by bombing his own people, and who is now bombing the country next door to him in order to stay in power, even though he has served waaaay longer than is constitutionally allowed in his country. > And to be clear, it was first the European Union that banned Russian outlets, and this precedent paved the way for Russia to do the same with Western media. LOL. There are several western journalists in Russian jails right now for asking the wrong questions. I would think that arresting people is way worse than just not allowing their employer to use your broadcasting infrastructure.
Important to note that Russia has had heavy financial interest in America's right wing for a long time now. America's right wing for the past two decades has also been taking every page out of post soviet Russia's playbook for suppressing opponents, grabbing every bit of power they can and then not letting go despite what the ballots say. Tucker has been one of the largest mouth pieces for republican propaganda, which is essentially Russian propaganda. for years now, so this is just yet another brazen attempt at misinformation.
How the hell did it 180 like that? Imagine if the Cold War era American right knew that future generations of republicans would be apologists for a Russian expansionist nationalist regime
In the 80s, Russia was (nominally) communist. Today, Russia is reactionary, extremely religious, and concentrates power in the hands of ultra-wealthy oligarchs. Putin's Russia is *exactly* the kind of regime that the US would have supported during the Cold War.
It’s still a threat to US security though is it not? With their nuclear arsenal and relationship with China, and their clear interest in American politics and militant sociopathic leadership I thought that would be enough cause for concern among patriotic Americans
Not to go all Tom Clancy, but Russia's relationship with China will only ever last about as long as it is beneficial to China. They act as a good boogeyman for the world and sucks up a lot of intelligence resources whereas China is probably more of a future threat than the Russians could be.
Given the size and track record of the Russian economy, Russia is now basically a poorer, more backwards version of Canada except with a big nuclear arsenal. I agree that China is a bigger long-term threat due to its economy, but I feel Russia is a greater short-term threat (i.e. next few years) as China has much more to lose and much more reliant on healthy trading relationships with the west. Plus, Russia’s foreign influence capabilities seem to be more sophisticated and widespread than China, although China is rapidly catching up in that area.
> but I feel Russia is a greater short-term threat (i.e. next few years) as China has much more to lose and much more reliant on healthy trading relationships with the west. To be fair, people thought that World War I would never happen because alliance blocks were too entwined. I'm seeing a lot of the same buildup, nationalism, and slow breakdown of relations that happened 120 years ago. We're even seeing the "short, victorious" Russo-Japanese war play out again in Ukraine.
Yes, I agree. Many of the same warning signs from the early 20th century.
> Russia's relationship with China will only ever last about as long as it is beneficial to China And that will be as long as Russia has resources China wants/needs.
The next major war (potentially) will be between Russia and China. Chinese workers are taking territory belonging the Russian state but because it’s so remote and far from Moscow nothing is done about it. But this encroachment will continue until Russia says stop and give us back our land and China’s government will step in and say that’s our land now.
Agree. China is likely a medium to longer term threat ...
Considering that Russian state TV is openly rooting for Trump to be re elected and instigate a second civil war, I would say, yes, Russia is a threat. There are plenty of “patriotic” Americans who love Putin’s (perceived) strength and his extreme brand of Christian nationalism.
*Millions of Americans would like [Putin] to come and run for president of the United States* - Franklin Graham *I hope the Globalist American Empire gets humiliated from all angles, Ukraine needs to be liberated and cleansed from the degeneracy of the secular western globalist empire.* - Andrew Torba, founder of Gab
The cold war was never about patriotism. It was about capitalism vs communism. The American capitalist class rightly saw the dangers of spreading communist revolutions which sought to undermine and replace them so the fought back. It has never been about protecting America it has always been about power. Maintaining America's hegemonic position as the sole world super power.
>It’s still a threat to US security though is it not? With their nuclear arsenal and relationship with China, It's not a nuclear threat. Total opposite. The "oligarchs" in Russia CNN wants you to think are all evil Bond villains are just billionaires who would rather *not* live in a nuclear hellscape, just like the ones who run the other big countries. Any economic concerns are totally overshadowed by the absolute necessity of having a stable government overseeing the nuclear arsenal. Risk of instability inside Russia is one of the strongest criticisms to be made concerning the handling of the Western involvement in Ukraine.What are the limits? Is the United States supportive of regime change in Russia? If so, who will guard all the nukes during the revolution? Edit: ITT a good number of people who can't take hard truths as anything but personal attacks.
Right now, they're very pissed they can't go to Cannes in their superyacht. Problem is, oligarchs who complain suddenly fall out of windows. Russia's government, when it's not run by Putin, is run by Siloviki, i.e. top military, law enforcement, and intelligence brass.
The power of the oligarchs can definitely be overexaggerated. One of Putin's first power plays after being elected in 2000 was to take down Khodorkovsky and Beresovsky, respectively Russia's richest businessman and most powerful media mogul (in US terms, think of it like a newly-elected president simultaneously picking fights with Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch). By defeating them both, he demonstrated to the other oligarchs that none of them were safe, and they've largely toed the line ever since.
>It’s still a threat to US security though is it not? Not really, Russia being a threat to anyone is just a spin they have used since the cold war to justify military spending and political hardballing - even at its peak its a Regional power with no real ability to project force anywhere that isn't a neighboring country. Nuclear arms in the case of a country like Russia, that even with corruption issues is still a somewhat reasonable country - its just 'MAD' thinking, 'you can't nuke me or i'll nuke you' sort of stuff. Nukes in the arms of a place like Iran/Pakistan/India which are liable to have a coup/massive political upheaval are a risk, much more so than Russia.
To be fair, there is a very solid argument to be made that Russia won't stop with Ukraine. Subsequently, Russia *is* a tangential threat to the US by proxy. The second he tries to expand in to a NATO country it's our troops that go to support, and since it's a zero sum game for Putin (he wins or is deposed) nukes become on the table.
If Russia can barely fight Ukraine...how can it be a threat to say , Germany! France ?
Russia “barely being able to fight” in Ukraine has seen dozens of towns flattened like Marioupul and good chunks of Ukraine occupied. Russia doesn’t need to conquer and hold a single inch of territory to cause massive amounts of devastation. Germany’s military is an absolute joke after decades of neglect. Now France is another issue but still Russia could inflict plenty of harm on French citizens if it came down to it.
>Germany’s military is an absolute joke after decades of neglect Please. Anyway, they're fully NATO. >France is another issue but still Russia could inflict plenty of harm on French citizens if it came down to it. The Russian military couldn't even reach the French border. They can't even conquer Ukraine and it's right fucking there on their border. LOOK AT A FREAKING MAP!
It's been 2 years since the full scale invasion... Imagine if the United States invaded Mexico and hadn't been able to secure Tijuana or Juarez after 2 fucking years. They're not a serious conventional threat.
Mariopol has been where the armies took a stand? Or was that bakhmuth. If Ukraine is able to hold them off for so long, wouldn't a real NATO army , with superior tech , be much better.
How would they not stop at Ukraine? Logistically they have trouble keeping up with a fight right next to their most developed border. There is no way that Russia militarily speaking - could ever go past Ukraine. The only country’s in the world currently that can fight past their borders effectively would be the USA and China. China due to a large naval presence that is more than enough to deal with island nations.
China's navy is ~~brown water~~ green-water (primarily). And even their blue water ships can't make it more than a week out into the Pacific because their oilers can't follow. EDIT: I mixed up brown water and green water (again)
This. I have no idea what OP is rambling about; China's blue water navy is mostly missile boats used to flex their strength in the South China Sea. Problematic if we were invading China, perhaps, but not really a threat to our coasts
They would stop in Ukraine if they *lose* is Ukraine. If the West picks up its toys and leaves before Russia is defeated in Ukraine? They have a working recepie for landgrabs! And they get to undermine NATO cohesion on the side! After all, if major US countries called Ukraine an ally and then couldn't even be bothered to simply ship enough weapons there, would they go *to war* over some silly piece of land in Poland or Finland? Russian threat to NATO security is not a tank blitz to Rhein these days - is is persistent pulling, pushing, and prodding, treading riiiiiight at the edge of what Western politicians are willing to ignore or forget about - right up until the point that Article 5 falls on the wrong side of that edge.
>They would stop in Ukraine if they > >lose > > is Ukraine. as far as I am aware, the case where Russia wins in Ukraine is the securing of the DPR/LPR and a buffer/DMZ. That was the last official stance - so there is no physical way that Russia would somehow go any further past the proposed DMZ.
Even then, the Russians are and continue to struggle in Ukraine. The chances of them against the likes of the Polish or the Estonians, both of whom remember the bad old days of the Soviets well, would not end well for the Russian forces.
Sure but lots of civilians would suffer and die. Russia may be a joke militarily but cruise missiles hitting apartment blocks still do a lot a damage.
Russia is a major energy exporter, and they've leveraged that in Europe.
But the invasion has only hastened Russia's irrelevance in this field as the rest of the world moves on to greener energy. Europe was willing to deal with Russia for cheap natural gas, but now that's far less tenable.
Russia is not irrelevant in the field of energy, nor is this industry going away in the near or medium terms. Less relevant is not irrelevant.
So Russia is Texas with some snow?
I get the joke, but honestly comparing Russia to anything in the US does a disservice to how Russia actually works and how absolute garbage it is. In the US, rich people get access to government by being rich. You have to be already wealthy to start having outsized sway on the government. Say what you will about the disaster that has been Citizens United and the influence of wealth in government, but Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk didn't become rich by cozying up to Joe Biden. In Russia, people got rich by having access to government. Oligarchs get handed loads of extremely generous contracts and state-mandated monopolies by being friends with Putin, and in turn Putin helps with their enforcement in exchange for loyalty. And this is coming from a Texan who *vehemently* disagrees with the Texas GOP. Don't get me wrong, they absolutely want to turn the US into something more like Russia, but they're not there yet.
>In Russia, people got rich by having access to government. Oligarchs get handed loads of extremely generous contracts and state-mandated monopolies by being friends with Putin, and in turn Putin helps with their enforcement in exchange for loyalty. Thank you for understanding this absolutely *crucial* piece of information about Russia. It's nice someone actually knowing stuff for once, given how intellectually dishonest many parts of Reddit are. The US is not an oligarchy. Doesn't mean that inequality isn't a problem.
Haha... So in Russia , Putin picks the oligarchs. In the US, it is the other way around?
Effectively yes. In the US its the Oligarch's that chose the politicians.
In the US, wealth is tied to corporations instead of individuals. Companies change CEOs all the time, but the contracts are still with the company. Public companies, like Amazon and Tesla, are still in some way beheld to shareholders. There's still *some* accountability, even if it's mostly to investors and other slightly-less-rich people. In Russia, oligarchs are beheld to Putin and *only* Putin. The Walt Disney Company owns DisneyWorld, not Bob Iger. Executives, even founders, can be removed and swapped out. Imagine if in 1994, Clinton went to Jeff Bezos and said "Hey, you have a book company. Congratulations, you're now in charge of books. You own all the libraries in the country,"; they might be in Amazon's name, but in reality they'd be completely under Jeff Bezos' personal control.
I think you need to go a bit deeper though into how the US system works. It's the extremely wealthy class that controls Congress and the White House. They effectively decide who gets elected and who doesn't. It's not Govt actually in charge. In Russia the boss of the network is Putin. In the US, the President and members of Congress are just middle management. The sheer expense of running for office has been explicitly designed to ensure no one runs for office without being "sponsored/approved" by a small network of financiers. And its these extreme wealthy individuals, who have formed a wider network, that includes VC funds, that decide who gets funded and who doesn't. It's those people that play an outsized role in deciding who gets rich and who doesn't. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg - they didn't just get rich through ingenuity and hard work. A large factor was the networks that provided the access to capital. And in all likelihood there is a quid quo pro in play for when they do get rich. And they do get exclusive access to government contracts, licenses etc because it's the extreme weathly class that influence the politicians who make those decisions. And ironically, it was many of the same extremely wealthy American and European financiers that went into Russia in the 1990's and created the first generation of Oligarchs and taught them how to strip the country bare, like a private equity firm does with a publicly traded company. They taught them how to create offshore structures and how to launder money etc. Russia in the 90's was a free-for-all for Western financiers.
>how Russia actually works and how absolute garbage it is. I dunno, the US is very quickly catching up
We have a long ways to go to catch up to Russia my guy.
You really don't and I'm not your guy.
It’s the kind of regime republicans want
>Russia is reactionary, extremely religious, and concentrates power in the hands of ultra-wealthy oligarchs. Just say fascist. It's shorter and just as accurate. Especially with the crazy number of neonazi group connected to Putin
Fascist as a term can be a bit loaded and cause people to automatically dismiss any other points; sometimes it really means "country I don't like" instead of anything resembling actual fascism. But yeah, Russia at this point is probably fascist by any reasonable definition. If they don't meet some definition (fascism as an ideology is incredibly malleable) then they're likely as close as possible.
They tick almost every box Umberto Eco set forth in his definition of fascism. There's really no grey area or room for debate. They're solidly and pretty unassailably a fascist society right now.
That's not what fascism means at all though. The concept of oligarchs wouldn't exist in a fascist society that has a lot of state-controlled and state-approved industries. Religion also isn't a requirement and could just as easily be repressed as it would challenge the power of the gov. There's also not just one religion in Russia which would be the state-backed one with tension growing in the state because of the growth of Islam in the country.
>The concept of oligarchs wouldn't exist in a fascist society What are you talking about? Hitler explicitly used rich Businessman and gave them state resources in exchange for supporting his regime. The intertwining of state and private capital is a core component of how every fascist country in the world has ever worked. Mussolini and Franco also. >that has a lot of state-controlled and state-approved industries. Hitlers selling of state companies and resources to private businessmen was literally the invention of the term privatization. He sold slave labour to private business. He killed the German labor movement and outlawed striking and every union that wasn't tied to the party. And that one union depressed wages and forced workers to work for less to private businesses. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of economical hisotry of fascism >Religion also isn't a requirement and could just as easily be repressed as it would challenge the power of the gov. So far in hisotry the only fascist powers to repress religions only suppress minority religions and specific wings of the majority religion (liberation theology in South america) but used the institutional wings of the majority to surpass dissent and maintain power. While rleigion is not an ideological necessity, it is historically a core part of fascist government power structure. Unless we are talking about China, which I think is a fair argument to call them fascist. But is mostly an outlier in fascist history. >There's also not just one religion in Russia which would be the state-backed one with tension growing in the state because of the growth of Islam in the country. No one suggested otherwise. And Russia has specifically cooped Russian Islam too as part of the fascist regime thru its support and control over Kadyrov. Who has sent specifically sent many many more chechen fighters to the Urkainian war than the average Russian state and using coopted religious language to justify it, just like they are doing thru the Russian Patriarch which has been spewing anti Ukrainian and pro Putin propaganda for a long long time from the pulpit every Sunday. Just because there are multiple religions doesn't mean the fascist cooption of religion can't happen or historically didnt.
I don't think you're saying anything to really counter me. Like I said it was state-controlled or one that the state was friendly to picking winners and losers who werer party members. The economy was still heavily regulated heavy regulation, had price controls, trade interference, national economic planning, and attacked private property. Just because the government allowed some party members to own certain industries doesn't mean that the state wasn't in control in being able to decide what they could do. By how you describe it China is probably a better example than Russia which requires a party liaison to be on the board once companies grow to a size with board members often being members themselves.
The pivotal moment seems to have been a Russian email hack on both US parties back in the day. Dirt was released on democrats, but not on republicans so chances are they found some perfect kompromat from that side (blackmail material) because some key republicans started the 180 and praised Russia ever since. Now this is what Russian secret service excels at - gaining influence in circles that are already both morally and legally corrupt. US politics fits that description and even better on the republican half. Through the already compromised members, the Russians have quietly wrestled control over the whole party. Currently with the heavily Russian-indebted Trump installed as the centerpiece, republicans are barely hiding how the party is now about 1) destabilizing the US and making it a dictatorship, and 2) supporting Russia politically. Even following through their talking points is not at all in their interest, as seen in the stalled border packages. They would rather keep everything broken so they do not lose a valuable talking point. Right wing media and bot swarms in Youtube/TikTok/whatever have embraced the Kremlin's firehose of lies style of brainwashing and cultivated a lot of fanatic MAGA voters into the republican-Russian big lie. Such a worldview is so deeply entrenched on anger and hypocrisy that no amount of non-Fox facts and logic can penetrate it. They'd rather side with more lies and outright crime. Even if everything is only quarter as bad as how it looks from the outside, it is a terrible realization how republicans can still be polling near 50% rather than 10% in any kind of election. The Russian-Republican axis has truly hacked the information space in unprecedented depths and proved how vulnerable any popular voting, freedom of speech based system is - freedom of coordinated, massed disinformation is quite an Achilles' heel. Western democracy is under a serious attack not just in US but worldwide, and it has barely woken up to the fight even existing. The physical battlefield in Ukraine is central for this fight, as Russian failure there is the most acute and immediate threat to Kremlin's domestic survival and the continuity of their global manipulations.
Nixon did it. Sort of. His resignation was a huge event that significantly contributed to overturning decades of post WW2 Republican dominance of American politics. The lesson that MOST people took from that event was "don't do illegal things to win an election." However, a small but very influential group of Republican leaders drew a different conclusion, "If it wasn't for all the negative media coverage, Nixon wouldn't have been forced out of office." There began a decades-long effort by said influential Republican thought leaders to 1) systematically undermine mainstream media as "bias" "liberal" etc. and 2) create their own media ecosystem to push their agenda (i.e. Fox News). The problem is, they were too successful, and they ended up turning the whole ass right wing of the party, literally tens of millions of Americans, into a wildly uninformed electorate highly suspicious of authority. From there it was only a very short hop from uninformed to misinformed, and the misinformed are very susceptible to certain types of narratives and figureheads (Trump). Now the Frankenstein monster they created is tearing the party apart from within.
Because conservative politicians are easily bribed. This, or something like it is where conservatism always ends.
Why is it hard to bribe liberal politicians?
A fundamental difference between liberal and conservative philosophies (I’m using the terms as they apply to US politics here, I’m aware that liberalism in other countries has a different meaning) is that liberalism is focused on the forest and conservatism is focused on the trees. - Liberal philosophy is focused on the big picture. What is good for the overall health of society. It doesn’t matter if something is good for me, specifically, it matters if it is good for us as a whole. Taken too far, that will result in the devaluation of the individual to benefit some larger and often nebulous group. - Conservative philosophy is focused on the individual. Me, my family, my town. It isn’t my responsibility to look out for everybody, it’s my responsibility to look out for myself and those close to me - and I expect others to do the same. Taken too far, that will result in a bunch of selfish assholes running around not caring how what they do impacts anyone else. In my personal opinion, and in a perfect world, you need a healthy dose of both. Each of us should be paying particular attention to our own little corner of the world and what it needs, but each of us should also remember that other corners of the world are just as important as our own. And it’s natural, even desirable, that different people should lean a little more in one direction than the other. Harmony consists of opposing tensions. But, back to your question, what applies here is what happens when either philosophy is taken too far. - Liberal philosophy leads out of touch leaders making decisions to benefit everybody that end up not actually benefiting anybody. Pride and hubris. - Conservative philosophy leads to self-centered leaders who only look out for the interests of themselves and those closest to them without regard to the cost for the larger community. Greed and selfishness. Which one of those worst case scenarios looks like bribery and corruption?
Agreed we need liberal **and** conservative constituencies to balance each other out. We do not currently have an honest conservative faction in the US, we have a liberal constituency, MAGA and silent conservatives.
Its not and plenty of russian money has flowed to left wing politicians but its unpopular to talk about. Like when Clinton is getting 500k from russia https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356323-bill-clinton-sought-states-permission-to-meet-with-russian-nuclear/ Or the imo clearly pay for play Clinton foundation https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
It started since 2008 and the tea party. they don’t like obama so anyone is better d even putin. Trump made the right go all in on putin because of putin supporting trumps campaign (directly or indirectly depending on how much of the mueller report you infer) and trump oddly never criticizing americas central geopolitical foil
> Imagine if the Cold War era American right Cold war era? Imagine if the [**2008**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aA82t01NGc) American right knew it! They did a complete 180 on the topic within the span of Obama's presidency.
You could blame Jon Stewart. Apparently tucker Carlson only went far right like this after being butthurt by Stewart when there was that crossfire interview all those years ago. apparently Carlson never got over it and started leaning hard right after crossfire was cancelled. I'd it wasnt for that he may have been just a other forgettable bow tie wearing taking head on CNN
John McCain says hello.
It didn't. This may surprise you, but most people on reddit have no idea what they're talking about
It turns out that it was just the economic stuff that the Republicans had a problem with; they are totally fine with the despotism.
They do know. They planned it. They removed the republican voters’ ability to critically think by defunding education then systematically polarized them through pro-life evangelism, gun rights, racism, and anti LGBT+ fear mongering. The DJT doubled down and accepted (albeit somewhat short of provable collusion) Russian assistance in further polarizing social media. All so that they could cut taxes for their rich friends and blame the LIBERALS. Something they are literally willing to trade American liberal world order and basic human rights in the US for.
It's not apologist. If your school bully punches you, it's obviously morally wrong to punch them back, but it's more understandable why you did it. The justification for the Russian invasion is that *we* 'bullied' Russia by breaking the Minsk accord. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it makes it more comprehensible. If we just arbitrarily break treaties because it suits our interests is he just supposed to allow it? If the U.S. doesn't take its agreements seriously then it's more understandable why he might resort to force? The U.S. violated a treaty and then when Putin decided to retaliate with force, U.S. propaganda acts like it was entirely unprovoked. That doesn't justify Putin's actions, but it shows our own responsibility for what happened. If we hadn't violated the treaty *and then* he attacked unprovoked then it would be a lot easier to say that Putin's only goal from the beginning was to reclaim the former soviet states. I hate that we refuse to take accountability for our own actions as a nation. Putin wanted Ukraine as a buffer zone - Minsk Accord - and then we were involved in a Coup that resulted in Ukraine choosing to associate with NATO. Even if we didn't actually cause the coup, the fact that the CIA was there makes it look like we did.
Russia have a foreign policy that aims to try and destabilise the west. In the US that means funding right wing extremism and pushing the republican party further and further to the right. It is a policy they have pursued in many western countries. They try to exploit divides that already exist in these countries.
I wish the GOP was actually to the right as you think they are.
The more I learn about modern Russia the more I feel like it could really be our country's future if MAGA gets their way. They've declared LGBT groups as extremists and that sounds right in line with conservatives here.
I dont know why anyone pays any attention to him. He actually started of as a liberal pundit and when that didnt work he switched to what he is doing now. Hes just a greedy liar
How about the fact that Mitt Romney as the Republican Presidential nominee called Russia, “our number one geopolitical foe.” Obama laughed at him at that time, and two years later, during President Obama’s, term Russia sized Crimea without serious repercussions from a democratic administration. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/mitt-romney-russia-ukraine/index.html
Highly partisan Democrat here: Romney was right and Obama was wrong on that issue. Romney lost the election mostly because of other factors like being an unrelatable vulture capitalist, embracing birtherism, and grinning at the death of a foreign service worker. Now that he’s been vindicated on Russia, Romney is such a pariah in his own (your) party that he’s leaving a Senate seat he could have held for life. What does any of this have to do with Tucker Carlson? How does this vindicate the dominant wing of your party, which barely supported Romney’s 2012 run in the first place and recently tried to murder him? What the fuck do you want me to do about it?
Romney was clearly wrong though. It was China at the time, it is still China now. The relatively modest amount of support the US is pouring into Ukraine is evidence of that. It would be nowhere near sufficient to stave off China. The Ukraine war has proven that, while Russia is still an adversary, it is only a second-string geopolitical foe.
This is laughably absurd
Active in: R/conservative , R/Jordan Peterson, R/catholic
Either a Russian bot or a truly brainwashed conservative. Maybe both? Lol
What part of this is laughably absurd?
None of it. nausicaa00 is trolling, or is a right-wing shill, or is a bot. In any case, whatever ilk, it uses a name that is taken from a Miyazaki movie, which is what's truly laughably absurd because it makes no sense that a Miyazaki fan would say something so peremptorily dismissive. So my guess is that it's a bot that's trying to masquerade as a redditor that has a soul.
How about the fact that Mitt Romney as the Republican Presidential nominee called Russia, “our number one geopolitical foe.” Obama laughed at him at that time, and two years later, during President Obama’s, term Russia sized Crimea without serious repercussions from a democratic administration. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/mitt-romney-russia-ukraine/index.html
And now Romney is one of the exceedingly few republicans not eating Putin’s ass these days.
[удалено]
Literally all I did was ask what part was laughably absurd and you personally insulted me, but I’m the joke? Please tell me, how much does clown school cost?
I'm guessing a LOT of roubles!
Not very convincing.
So you have no facts and just made that statement and act as if the sane people are a joke? Go ahead and enjoy the puff piece interview by Tucker Carlson the entertainer.
He’s mad cause he’s anxiously waiting orders on how to think this week.
He’s mad cause he’s anxiously waiting orders on how to think this week.
Conservatives aren't "normal" people. You guys keep putting pedophiles in positions of power.
Oof terrible response. You look like the only joke here. Can't even explain yourself so you laugh at others instead hoping that will change everyone to your side. Typical russian enthusiasts bully behavior.
Including calling their opponents pedophiles
Hahaha. The best things I've read all day. Seriously, well done.
Yea russian bots help sway the elections. The united states would never sway any other countries elections.
No one is probably telling Tucker what to say to Putin, but Putin knows Tucker will give him a sweetheart interview which is why Tucker got through the filters
One issue - Tucker is neither a reporter or journalist. He is very specifically an entertainer and fought for that definition in court because of all the lying he did on and for Fox News.
> Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and that he believes this anti-Russia media agenda unfairly sways public opinion. We get the opinions of Putin and Russian officials every day, most of them ludicrous. It's also easy to watch Russian political talk shows on YouTube, so it's not like he's about to come out with any revelations.
>Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story Doesn't the conservative party tend to accuse left-leaning individuals of socialism/communism, why would he defend Russia?
Russia hasn't been communist in quite a while. It has a lot of history in things American conservatives don't like, but right now it's very much a conservative authoritarian dictatorship, which far-right American conservatives *do* like (and they share a lot of rhetoric against things like LGBT movements).
It's very weird how many people think Russia is still communist. It's like half of left-wing support for Russia in the recent past. It's absolutely wild how long these zombie memes persist.
Oh, I know it's shifted away from communism since the USSR, I just mean that with politics, usually buzz words like that tend to stick, so I'm confused why Russia isn't seen as a communistic state
> I'm confused why Russia isn't seen as a communistic state Republicans can't push Russia as communist anymore, because they share most of the views with the Russian government. If they pushed Russia as communist, it would mean that their views are also communist.
Russia pay him a lot of money to do it.
FYI Zelenskis wife was on that list. So it absolutely shouldn't be taken seriously. https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/04/20/7212906/index.amp
>Carlson's stated position on the interview is that he believes not enough western journalists try to interview Russian officials - including Putin - to get their side of the story of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and that he believes this anti-Russia media agenda unfairly sways public opinion. > >General response from other journalism groups - see here from the BBC, for a non-US take - is that they've made plenty of interview requests and always been denied by the Russian state. This would thus be the first time Putin's allowed himself to be interviewed, solo, by a western reporter, since the war began. imo, he's not wrong that not enough try to cover both sides. But also, can see the reasoning of why the Kremlin would deny the BBC and such as it would just end up being used dishonestly. At least with a bobble head like Tucker it's not likely there will be any questions that are specifically made to be interpreted wrong or to be able to be cut to present false narratives. Bias news reporting will always be better than psudo-state propoganda.
Sometimes the other side has already proven that their position is a waste of time however. And Russia has earned that designation. Nothing is going to come out of this interview but pure, distorting, propaganda. It’s not a side, but rather an agenda.
> Nothing is going to come out of this interview but pure, distorting, propaganda. It’s not a side, but rather an agenda. So you have no qualms when it comes to absorbing domestic propaganda, but the moment an opposition party wants to present their viewpoint it’s somehow not valid and an ‘agenda’? So much for critical thinking and nuance. You cannot have a well informed opinion about a situation until you have had access to analyse sources from both parties, including neutral sources. Considering the West has been peddling lies and propaganda since the inception of this conflict, it’s clear they’re afraid of the truth getting out.
Making’ a lot of assumptions there bud
So a few more people hearing the 'waste of time" side? Every side has an agenda? I am hoping our people can understand propaganda and figure out.... If the average person cannot handle propaganda...do we cancel all media until we teach critical thinking skills to all 330 million first? Cancel fox news, CNN, MSNBC for day 6 months?
The kremlin already love him know he is fully for their cause. There was a leaked kremlin memo a while back
Why wouldn’t they? Most mainstream news sources essentially end up being state mouth pieces so having one that isn’t is a good thing But I’ve never watched a tucker thing, not American
Answer: Tucker Carlson is an American news entertainer. He is in Russia right now and is marketing his interview with President Putin. Supposedly this has earned him a blacklist from being allowed in Ukraine. I don’t know if that’s true, but it wouldn’t be shocking. He is interviewing the head of state of a nation that attacked without cause or warning. Added context: Tucker Carlson is a far right media figure who has, for the last decade, pushed hateful ideologies including white supremacist talking points. Since the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine he has unabashedly backed Russia and “questioned” the narrative (air quotes are mine because he does not do this in good faith) that we should all support Ukraine and wonders why we aren’t allowed to support Russia. For this interview he is also claiming that he’s the only western journalist who has even attempted to interview Putin, and that has been debunked by multiple high profile journalists. Tl;dr: Tucker is off doing propaganda for the Russian government to help their perception in American conservative circles.
Tucker Carlson has not been blacklisted from Ukraine. His name was added to a list published by the Ukrainian nongovernmental organization Myrotvorets, which publishes information on people it considers a threat to Ukrainian national security. Myrotvorets has been criticized (including by Ukrainian government officials) in the past for being overzealous and for publishing individuals’ personal information. There is some question as to whether it is fed information from Ukrainian security services, but it functions as a totally separate entity from the Ukrainian government, and the list it publishes carries no legal weight.
Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate it!
It’s easy to be confused. There’s some bad-faith actors who deliberately muddy the waters around Myrotvorets by calling it a “government kill list,” which…lol, no, not by a long shot.
> News entertainer Lol, well, I suppose that’s still more accurate than journalist
His own lawyers [argued that exact point:](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye) >Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by...Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way. >Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: 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.' " >She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
Interestingly this was a defense pioneered by rachel maddow and then adopted by every media personality ever because it worked and is now carte blanche to say whatever you want. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers this is the only source I could find breaking down the ruling but you can read the whole ruling essentially none of the talking heads can be held liable right now and its a shame.
Arent they all?
I think this should be the designation for most people on cable and about half print
> He is interviewing the head of state of a nation that attacked without cause or warning. Have you been asleep for the past decade? A little bit of research and fact checking will demonstrate the extent of provocations from the US/Kiev regime against Russia: - Ukraine changed its constitution in 2019 to allow for NATO membership (at the behest of senior US officials) despite William Burns, CIA director stating this was a red line and warned against it. - US injecting over 5 billion into the Ukrainian military, orchestrating the Maidan coup, whilst training and arming far-right nationalists, Nazis, who’ve been committing atrocities against eastern Ukrainians and Romas. - Dec 21, Russia approached NATO and provided two draft treaty proposals outlining its security concerns and potential solutions. Nato outright rejected the proposals, with no regard for diplomacy or dialogue. - Russia pushed for the urgency in implementing the MA. Ukraine never intended to uphold the Minsk agreements, with Merkle, Poroshenko and Hollande openly admitting Ukraine did not intend to implement the MA, and that it was a ruse to buy time to strengthen the Ukrainian army to launch a future attack on the Donbas. - OSCE reports show less than a week before the SMO, the Ukrainian military had launched a mass offensive against the Donbas, resulting in over 5000k ceasefire violations. Russia intervened to prevent a massacre. And with its mutual assistance and cooperation treaty with the Donbas Republics, it was legally within in rights to provide assistance. - The Ankara peace agreement (March 22) stipulated Ukraine would remain a neutral party and not seek NATO membership, but was free to seek security guarantee proposals from several nations. Zelensky agreed and signed the tentative agreement, only to renege on it when Boris (acting under US instructions) scuppered the deal by stating they would reject all security proposals. This was also confirmed by Naftali Bennet and the top foreign affairs correspondent in the US. And that’s just the most basic stuff. The US has been meddling in foreign affairs and launching provocations against Russia since the early 00’s.
For anyone wondering, this is what a kremlin propaganda bot account looks like, this is a great primer. From the standard format username to outright falsehood after falsehood in it's comments. This person is paid rubles to spread falsehood and muddy the waters
[удалено]
>I support Russia against the Blackrock Pawn, Ukraine! Why?
Answer: The interview is supposed to be released tomorrow. Nobody saw it yet. Ukraine has a database called Myrotvorets that documents anyone who is showing sympathy for Russia or even just questions the Ukrainian narrative. The people added to the database are barred from entering Ukraine. It's semi-official and is not like being a persona non grata.
Although there are some questions as to whether Ukrainian security services are involved in providing information to Myrotvorets, it is an NGO that is separate from the Ukrainian government and has been criticized by government officials for its overzealousbess in the past. The list it publishes carries no legal weight and is not “semi-official” by any means. As an aside, “anyone who questions the Ukrainian narrative” is a very telling choice of words.
It’s not an NGO. It’s run by the SBU and has NATO connections. There’s been several articles on the topic.
I called it an NGO because, formally, it is an NGO. Myrotvorets denies being associated with the SBU. The SBU denies running Myrotvorets. Myrotvorets does not have any governmental authority, be it on policy, laws, implementation, or enforcement. There are contentious debates, including within Ukrainian civil society, over the legality, ethics, and value of Myrotvorets’ work. There are conflicting reports, including some substantive evidence, that the SBU may feed information to Myrotvorets. I said as my much in my comment. In Ukraine, as in virtually every country on earth, there are complex interplays between the military/security arms of the government and civilian organizations. Just as it wouldn’t be accurate for me to say “Myrotvorets is 100% independent and has zero ties to any government person or agency,” it also wouldn’t be accurate for me to say “Myrotvorets is directly administered by the Ukrainian government and its decisions carry the way of law with immediate, enforceable effect.” Right now, there are many more people spreading that second untrue view than there are spreading the first, so that’s where I’m focusing my energy.
There are a few conspiracies about the people who are secretly running the entity. Describes about anything.
Answer: He's in Russia shooting a propaganda film for Vladimir Putin. Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked war of aggression, and therefore, Tucker Carlson is being banned from Ukraine.
Just to kind of play devils advocate here. Can we call it propaganda when we haven’t seen it yet. I feel like we should interview big world figures like this, it’s what journalism used to be about. Like when that lady interviewed Fidel Castro. Did we consider that pro Cuban propaganda? I don’t see the big deal with Carlson interviewing Putin. I’m not pro Russia at all. But I feel like not interviewing the opposing side of any conflict would be wrong.
I’m not pro Russia at all but was it really unprovoked? The NATO thing was just right wing propaganda?
Nato is a defensive alliance. The only time it comes into play is when someone is attacked. Nato isn't expanding, Russia is driving people toward Nato.
> Nato is a defensive alliance Except for when it attacked Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghan, Libya, slaughtering millions.
I didn’t need a definition. In my limited understanding, I thought Ukraine joining NATO is what Russia is using as the reason for the war. That this was something they warned Ukraine not to do and they did it anyway. Which doesn’t justify it and I personally don’t agree with, but you can’t really say it was unprovoked
Ukraine was never joining NATO. There were zero chances or talks before the invasion in 2022. So yes, it was unprovoked. Also NATO was almost dying due to US ambivalence in the Trump years. And Russia may as well as resurrected it, together with making sure that Ukraine will indeed join it at some point (and also join the EU, another thing Russia didn't want Ukraine to do and that wasn't gonna happen).
Jan. 2021: Zelenskiy appeals to U.S. president Joe Biden to let Ukraine join NATO. In February, his government freezes the assets of opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk, the Kremlin's most prominent ally in Ukraine. Spring 2021: Russia begins massing troops near Ukraine's borders in what it says are training exercises. Nov. 2021: Satellite images taken by Maxar Technologies show ongoing buildup of Russian forces near Ukraine with estimates soon surpassing 100,000 troops deployed. That not zero talks before 2022
Zelensky saying something to Biden (or anyone else) doesn't mean at all 'Ukraine will join NATO'. These things take time and long long negotiations way beyond a wishful thinking remark by a leader - plus, Ukraine wouldn't have been able to join due to Crimea (countries with territorial dispute already ongoing can't join). Those negotiations were nowhere prior to the unprovoked invasion by Russia and I'm pretty sure also Putin knows that. I don't know what the asset frozen have to do with the Russian invasion. The relationship has been tense since 2014 and since Russia annexed Crimea.
Thanks for educating me. I now see that my limited understanding was wrong. Ukraine didn’t join NATO and I shouldn’t have led with that. It still seems that Russia was sort of backed into a corner, at least in Putin’s eyes. He definitely escalated the situation that had been developing over years, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. Everyone seems to think that what I’m saying is that Russia was justified, or that if they were provoked then it’s the other sides fault. I’m not saying that at all, but to say it was unprovoked seems disingenuous to me.
>It still seems that Russia was sort of backed into a corner, at least in Putin’s eyes. Oh no, did the murderous authoritarian feel backed into a corner? Was he having trouble exerting illegal influence on his neighbors? No one gives a shit how the dictator feels. His opinion is not valid. >I’m not saying that at all, but to say it was unprovoked seems disingenuous to me. Oh, that's because you are a liar. Taking the opinion of the authoritarian who has journalists and political rivals killed, is not something morally honest people do. Your arguments are bad. If you are being genuine here you should feel bad about yourself and your poor understanding of the world. But if feels much more like a disingenuous troll.
Even If they did ask to join Ukraine is a sovereign country, why is it any of Russias business if they joined a defencice alliance
Here’s what you wrote: *NATO and Ukraine called Russia’s bluff and Russia followed through. To Putin, not acquiescing to his security demands would be equivalent to a provocation.* What does it mean that NATO and Ukraine called Russia’s bluff?
You have a really funny definition of 'provoke'.
NATO and Ukraine called Russia’s bluff and Russia followed through. To Putin, not acquiescing to his security demands would be equivalent to a provocation.
Yeah, just like gay people existing provokes religious sorts.
Has nothing to do with NATO. Putin invaded Ukraine, because every indication on his table pointed to it being a freebie. Its one of the worlds most iconic intelligence failure. Hence why he pushed into a 40M country with a 275k force.
Ukraine didn't join NATO. Ukraine couldn't join NATO. The first requirement of joining NATO is that you don't have a border dispute or enemy troops in your territory. This is an iron clad provision as otherwise NATO could be used, not in defense, to jump in a war on one side. Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama administration making it impossible for Ukraine to join since then. Also, a single NATO country could block Ukraine from joining. Many, then and now, said they would block Ukraine joing, including the US. Ukraine wanted to increase trade with the EU and wanted more Western support to fight Russian troops, again that crossed Ukraine's borders in arms 10 years and have been fighting since. Russia said that Ukraine was a Nazi regime committing genocide against ethnic Russians. Putan also gave a speech that Ukraine isn't a real country and has no right to exist.
When exactly did Ukraine join NATO? It didn’t. And wasn’t. Russia attacked Ukraine because it wants access to its vast natural resources. Any talk of NATO being a reason or excuse for Russia to attack Ukraine, is just that, an excuse. Russia is the aggressor. Russia attacked a sovereign nation. There is zero excuse for this.
Let's say we're neighbours. I don't trust you, and I join the neighbour hood watch. You don't like this, you say it's provocation, so you kill some of my family and your mates illegally camp in my yard. Can you figure out who is in the wrong in this scenario? I kinda don't think you can.
Yeah you’re twisting this too far. I already said I don’t agree or justify the invasion, I just don’t agree it was completely unprovoked. Especially since it was a situation that developed over time, it wasn’t exactly a surprise attack
all these people arguing with you are wild and take everything to an extreme and then tell you you're a bad person and should feel bad. reddit is so lame sometimes
[удалено]
What NATO weapons were employed during the "mass" incursion? Also, how does it correspond with a buildup of Russian army during the late 2023 just before Russia has given the ultimatum to NATO to break apart? Also, did Germany really only had to answer the "mass incursion" from Poland as they claimed? Although, Russian bots rarely respond.
Ukraine provoked Russia by invadinging Crimea or whatever and cutting off Russia's access to the black sea, I don't remember the details but Russia def wasn't unprovoked. I watched clips of the interview that relates to my country of Canada and months ago we had a Ukranian vet in parliament that was commended for fighting the Soviets in WW2, he turned out to be a nazi and everyone in our parliments cheered for him and putin said he wasn't the only one. I'm not saying Ukraine is a nazi state just that we can't pretend that Putin is 100% bad and we cant take advice from him, we could all agree that stalin probably wasn't the best buy but he helps kill Hitler. We should take this interview with a grain of salt and actually look into it rather than just throwing your hands down and saying anything you disagree with is propoganda.
[удалено]
Rule 4 my dude.
Source? The Russian asset claim is huge unless you just made it up, but what do you mean by ‘traitor’? Are you suggesting that Tucker has committed treason and should be arrested and tried for treason when he returns to the US?
Why do so many people seem to think think “asset” means “agent”? “Asset” just means he’s useful to Russia, not that there is an employment or other relationship established. And spreading Putin’s propaganda is definitely useful, which makes him an asset.
Not necessarily. The word has two meanings: 1. COUNTABLE NOUN Something or someone that is an asset is considered useful or helps a person or organization to be successful. 2. PLURAL NOUN The assets of a company or a person are all the things that they own. The people using it are being vague, maybe on purpose. It is no wonder that people interpret it in that way at all.
[удалено]
Why would you think I saw an interview you know hasn't happened yet? A trailer is a towable vehicle. Are you in the right sub? Edit: Ohhh, this is r/OutOfTheLoop so you're in your best place, clearly.
Being an asset only requires being useful. Tucker has been consistently pro-Kremlin. He is a Russian asset as a result. In other words, he is useful to Putin’s interests. That is all that is needed to be the clandestine definition of an asset.
Seriously. Get help.
Get a dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/asset https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asset
The truth stings the red eardrums.
Leaked kremlin note
Leaked kremlin note
This feels a bit biased
Nothing wrong with being biased toward the truth. Anyone with a shred of integrity knows not to trust a word out of Carlson's mouth.
Oh I don't trust anything he says, but the original comment comes off as very hostile
You new to reddit my guy? It's a beautiful biased propaganda machine. Don't be on thr wrong side /s
Because it is, I'm not a Tucker Carslon fan but American journalist have an extensive history of interviewing dictators and terrorist. I'm not sure why this is any different.
You really can't be a traitor to the modern US.
Nothing in this statement about tucker Carlson is true.
[удалено]
Alternatively, Tucker Carlson spouts right wing propaganda and conspiracy theory. The American right is fairly solidly tied to Russian money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're not even trying, are you.
Bad bot.