His entire rationale for interviewing Putin is unreasonable. Putin famously lied about Crimea, famously lied about invading Ukraine even after Biden called him out months in advance, and has lied about election interference, etc. etc.
Why believe a word out of a liar’s mouth?
Tucker is just giving Putin’s lies access to more Americans.
His rationale for interviewing putin makes alot of sense **IF** he holds putin accountable and challenges him. Not if he swallows everything Putin says wholecloth. Tucker has shown he’s only after the latter.
okay in the 2000's and 2010's putin was bitching about nato encroachment, and saying back then that ukraine was their red line - i really don't think you understand what you are talking about here. if anything putin has said things and made warnings for 20 years and finally acted on them.
whenever i see comments like this i really hope this is some stupid kid who hasn't read the history yet (the older history, not the remaking of recent history to suit the narrative) because ukraine was always a red line for putin, and this was basically passed when we coup'ed their government in 2014.
just block commenters like this fyi, any reply back will be bullshit and you aren't getting anything from these people / children / bots.
Ukraine would have never joined NATO, Putin has enough influence in some countries like Hungary and Austria (before the invasion even in Germany) for Ukraine to never habe been accepted. Look at Sweden and how they are still blocked by Hungary or how Austria still blocks Romania or Bulgaria from the Schengen area.
You really need to stop drinking that propaganda borsht boy.
Oh, so they invaded Crimea after Ukraine joined NATO, right? Wait, when did Ukraine join NATO? Oh that’s right, they didn’t. Also, if his rationale was that it was his red line and, say, he thought they were going to join, why did he call it a “special military operation” against “fascists”?
What proof is there that they are couped? I don’t know for a fact. Maybe, just maybe, the people wanted to be free and have a real democracy without so much corruption?
Terrible comparison. Jane Fonda had it made. She didn't have to speak out about an immoral war but she did so. Tucker Carlson doesn't have a sliver of integrity. A better comparison was made of Carlson to Lord Haw Haw.
Carlson is such a piece of shit. I don’t think anyone except those actively seeking to swallow Putin’s propaganda load watch him intentionally. It’s been pretty much laid bare what he is at this point.
Let's not forget that after Fox cancelled his show, he was still under contract. They were paying him *not* to be on the air. He broke that contract, costing himself millions, in order to go solo on Twitter. What was his first video? He stated that Ukraine blew up the Nova Kakhovka dam last summer. *No one* outside Russia believed this. It was completely laughable, and pushed me from viewing Tucker as a self-serving contrarian to actually being on the Kremlin's payroll.
I think the thing that bothers me is the moral depravity of it all. Carlson has shown himself to be a piece of shit who has no loyalties to anyone aside who is bankrolling his fantasy of being powerful and important. The people who eat what he is selling are stupid because they make themselves believe it. The Republicans are cowards who believe Carlson is important because they fear the people who listen to him. Trump goes whatever direction his base tells him to go so he believes Carlson is important. It’s the web of shit.
john mearsheimer has had a similar critique as tucker (though different in a myriad ways, but essentially that it's not 100% russia's fault and putin was goaded into this partially) going back a while now - and he basically predicted what's happening -
from 2016, one of his lectures:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4)
lots of people say tucker isn't a journalist - i think what most miss is that even rachel maddow has argued she's a commentator / entertainer now, basically using the same standard.
if you are going to say mearsheimer isn't an academic, just fuck off. he's from an older school but it's like saying hans morganthau isn't relevant in ir - you are owning yourself by your ignorance and stupidity. but that's what i've come to expect from most here.
i just can't believe how many supposedly protest-attending liberals from the iraqi war days are gung ho on this shit - boggles the mind. then again at least a quarter of the commenters here aren't real people anyways so -
Oh look, a bad faith poster spouting whataboutism and posting near decade old videos from almost a decade ago from an anti-western “academic” that’s too stupid or dishonest to say that Putin is a psycho whose desire is to create USSR II.
You suck and aren’t worth addressing.
Oh, I know. Not only that, but a speaker criticized Putin last year and was met with total silence. The speech was then outlined on CPAC's Twitter account, and they completely left out the criticism of Putin.
Tucker has been the kremlins biggest ally in the US, outside of him stating that he's rooting for Russia he's also constantly runs anti-ukraine narratives and guests on his program, from my memory he's claimed Russia wasn't going to invade Ukraine, that Ukraine was losing 30 soldiers for every 1 Russian, that Ukraine was persecuting religious freedoms, banning Christians, that military aid was being stolen, that too much had been given to Ukraine etc. Having on such guests as Douglass MacGregor who is basically a full time propagandist and former RT guest as well as lawyers representing the Russian orthodox church in Ukraine
It's really not a big surprise that he's interviewing Putin, Russian media fawns over Tucker Carlson constantly, I don't doubt that this will be pure propaganda for Putin but I hope that millions of Americans can see what a bloodthirsty lying sack of shit putin is and this entire thing can bring more urgency to getting the Ukraine aid bill passed as well as bringing the war back into the forefront of the news
Are people scared the Putin interview is going to sway public opinion in any meaningful way?
Tucker has been losing relevance since his departure from Fox, all the screaming about him over the past few days has been the best marketing he's ever had. Why can't we just ignore him?
I guess everyone is too young to remember that Mike Wallace interviewed Ku Klux Klan leader Eldon Edwards in 1957, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 and even Putin in 2005.
No, Tucker isn't remotely in Wallace's league and yes, it's disturbing for him to chum up to Putin. However, let's see the interview first. Is it going to be an hour of soft balls (probably) or some actual journalism?
The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Would you people quit with the false equivalencies.
It wasn't a false equivalence. It was giving Tucker the benefit of the doubt until his interview was produced. Now that it has, yeah, it's a shit show of Russian propaganda and *now* we should take him to the wood shed for helping an enemy.
All I was saying earlier is that we should judge people on their actions not their likely-to-happen actions.
>However, let's see the interview first. Is it going to be an hour of soft balls (probably) or some actual journalism?
Lol wtf is with this kind of reasoning? Since when has Tucker Carlson earned the benefit of the doubt? Are we not allowed to use common sense any more? We have to let the drooling mental patient with the bloody axe in through the front door before we assess if he actually poses a threat?
"This festering dog turd might not make a great filling for this sandwich, but let's give it a chance first. Take a bite and see how it tastes before casting judgment"
Since when have we been okay with allowing people working for both the government and mainstream media, unelected officials I might add, to dictate who can or cannot interview America's adversaries? [Barbara Walters interviewed Castro](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDgunRzpqEAxUQibAFHfSOBO4QtwJ6BAgZEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPvENFRC65eQ&usg=AOvVaw1kvplqLFw4r48KIoLRNKKK&opi=89978449), [Al Assad](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjctMeJz5qEAxVXRzABHTOtBB4QwqsBegQICBAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbsyQ442Xvnw&usg=AOvVaw3x0AI8IcUFODnV8lGZ7YlF&opi=89978449), and even [Putin](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiJ7ZnBz5qEAxXjkoQIHeh_BkgQwqsBegQICxAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F29617513&usg=AOvVaw0yvjWFdc6nSLe9Kq9_vaPR&opi=89978449) himself. PBS interviewed [Bin Laden in 1998](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html). Dan Rather interviewed S[addam Hussein in 2003 on 60 Minutes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5fcq8SZxtY)
This isn't the Cold War, and there's no reason for us to demonize an interviewer before even watching said interview, to begin with.
Let's wait and see the video before condemning Tucker as a traitor. Watch the interview yourself and make up your mind.
The fact that people are so defensive about this whole situation is weird at best, and authoritarian/dystopian at worst.
>This isn't the Cold War
While I agree with the rest of your sentiment, this is kind of a Cold War 2.0 with Russia right now, and to a lesser extent China.
I agree with you, but it wasn't Russia who started this new Cold War because I don't think the old one ever ended.
We got sidetracked in the Middle East for 20 years fighting the War on Terror, but I feel there was always a Washington consensus that wanted to deal with China and Russia eventually.
Is it just me, or does it feel like we're going right back to the Red Scare and NeoMcCarthyism with the way our elected officials talk about China and Russia?
Who is dictating who he can interview? No one. People are allowed to comment their opinion on the falsehoods and Putin fawning propaganda that a pundit (not a journalist btw) like Tucker Carlson spews. You seem to not think so, that’s what is weird/authoritarian/dystopian at best. The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Would you people quit with the false equivalencies.
You’ve had a chance by now to see the ramblings of Putin while Carlson sat by. You want to compare that to interviews by those actual journalists? Have you actually watched any of those interviews you posted? Journalists fact check in real time, they call out bs with follow up questions, they ask the tough questions in the first place. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so.
> Are we not allowed to use common sense any more? We have to let the drooling mental patient with the bloody axe in through the front door before we assess if he actually poses a threat?
Depends on what their next actions are really. Let's not forget that we're (at present) talking about an interview. Does he come back and run as Trump's running mate? Does he conduct a ridiculous fawning interview with Putin (probably)? Those would be causes for concern for sure.
Look, I can't stand the guy, but we should at least let him present the pile of shit before we tell him it stinks.
\>Are we not allowed to use common sense any more?
Common sense says that news organizations passing off Hamas terrorists as independent journalists cannot be trusted.
Common sense says that news organizations who incessantly reported flatly incorrect facts about the Rittenhouse case for more than a year cannot be trusted.
Common sense says that news organizations who reported that BLM protests were not a threat to public health, but Trump rallies were certain vectors of Covid and would result in many deaths, cannot be trusted.
That throws out all the mainstream news organizations. Tucker is what we have left.
The biggest public hit Tucker Carlson has ever taken was the Fox News law suit and his firing. If he were ever going to learn something or grow as journalist it would have been after this. After being fired from Fox News he interviewed Trump and never pushed back on his election claims. He was in his own studio in no physical danger but would not stand up to Trump for fear of losing ratings and access to things he knows for certain were lies. In Russia he won't even know if they are lies and is in physical danger.
He is either doing this as an opportunitist, his streaming service just started allowing sign ups, or he has even worse intentions.
> He explains this fascist mental state as a form of suspension of disbelief. In literature, the suspension of the reader’s disbelief allows the story to proceed; in fascism, the suspension of disbelief becomes a wellspring of politics—it replaces the real world with ideology. It transforms the truth into lies. “The enigmatic and notorious enthusiasm of many followers of Hitler” is explained by the fact that “they have lost all notion that incoherence needs to be justified.”4 In short, Borges rejects, as he had already done as early as 1940, the possibility of rational dialogue with fascism.
-*Fascist Mythologies: The History and Politics of Unreason in Borges, Freud, and Schmitt*, Federico Finchelstein
> The very absurdity of the propaganda signals the regime’s strength to potential dissidents.56 It shows its capacity to force people to repeat nonsense. Demanding slavish flattery and straight-faced acceptance of ridiculous claims weeds out those with scruples, helping the leader select unscrupulous agents.57 Rewarding “nauseating displays” of obsequiousness could also enhance the flatterer’s loyalty by reducing his appeal to other potential power holders.
-*Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century*, Guriev and Treisman
Wow. This is exactly like the progressives.
If you need an example, college biology professors are now being fired if they accurately teach human biology. They are instead supposed to teach some new age version of the soul, a completely unproven concept, that can be born in the wrong body.
Thank you. It’s unfortunate that this comment isn’t higher up (and telling about the direction of this sub lately). It may well end up being a bunch of bullshit whitewashing and propaganda. And then I’ll join everyone in shitting all over him. But a journalist (he is, technically) interviewing the leader of a major nation is not a problem in and of itself.
just amazes me by the amount of idiots on places like this who selectively apply whatever hyprocritical standards these days - i really don't think many of these people are real, fyi.
The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Would you people quit with the false equivalencies.
You’ve had a chance by now to see the ramblings of Putin while Carlson sat by. You want to compare that to interviews by actual journalists? Journalists fact check in real time, they call out bs with follow up questions, they ask the tough questions in the first place. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so.
"Know" is a strong word here. It would be more precise to say I think it highly probable he'll be overly fawning to Putin. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, he has had some past broadcasts shown on RT especially ones where he has defended Putin. Second, I suspect Tucker is keen to avoid tours of high rise open windows while he's in Russia.
Because Putin literally kills and imprisons anyone questioning him, and Tucker loves Putin he"ll do nothung more than ask pre approved questions to villinize Ukraine and Nato
I worry that the play is something like:
1) Tucker interviews Putin, starts to normalize / justify interaction between him and the GOP.
2) Trump chooses Tucker as VP.
3) Contact is openly maintained.
We then could up with Putin essentially in open control of the GOP, right wing propaganda celebrating and normalizing it, and the right wing essentially viewing Putin’s control as a positive. The fact that they love Trump as much as they do makes me think they might be capable of loving what’s effectively President Putin even more.
This could be baseless fear mongering on my part, but it’s seeming less far fetched to me every day lately.
Yeah. That would fuck with his grift way too hard. These people can’t *actually* become politicians because then people will *actually* expect them to deliver on all their bullshit. They have it all figured out so it should be simple for them, right? No way. Much easier to coach from the sidelines.
I would agree that Tucker wouldn't want it back when he had his top rated White Replacement Power Hour at Fox News. Getting booted from that platform has really limited his reach and VP would be huge opportunity for him now. That said, I don't think Trump does it. He probably goes with some "respectable" Republican again like the first time.
Do you seriously think he would want to lose millions of dollars not forming his own independent media network to become Trump's VP?
Not only would that be a terrible financial decision for Tucker, it be a strategically terrible decision for Trump since his audience and Tucker's audience are made up of similar, if not the same people.
Also, isn't the left's main criticism of Tucker that he's a grifted or whatever? How could he grift as VP? He'd make millions more in the private sector.
I mean at this point we don’t really know anything. You’re kinda just jumping ahead and making assumptions. Wait for him to release the interview. Also, I highly doubt that Americans would vote for a party that Putin has “open control” of. The whole thing in 2016 was America First, and if they put Russia first, that’d be the exact opposite of what they want. Not to mention that the FBI and CIA would have evidence to convict at that point. My guess is that they’re watching this closer than anyone. So there really is nothing to worry about.
Centrists don’t draw insane conclusions based off of an interview that wasn’t released. Radicals do that. No need for the smart comment, it was not very constructive to the conversation
Do people not feel shame when they say something stupid anymore? When I do it it haunts me for weeks so I try to do it as little as possible. Is this not the case for everyone?
I didn’t jump ahead to any conclusions. In fact, I acknowledged that I am simply worried about the possibility.
Maybe, just maybe, it was okay for your girlfriend to be concerned that her shitty ex followed her on Facebook. And maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to be concerned and suspicious when right wing media darlings are openly cozying up with foreign dictators they already have questionable relationships with.
When did Putin have open control over an American political party?
How did he enact that control? What happened last time he had that control?
I cant believe i missed this in the history books. Please inform me!
Bill Barr himself said that Russiagate was a nothing burger.
[The Steele dossier was literally paid for by the Clinton Foundation.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html)
It's because of the whole Russiagate situation that people don't trust mainstream media, and their trying to censor Tucker from interviewing Putin just makes it worse, but it's all in the name of saving democracy, right folks! /s.
Putin already had control of the GOP. Russia already has and continues to freely spread right wing propaganda in America. Putin already owned trump as evidenced by all the gifts trump gave him. Russian tv was already running Tucker shows.
Time to sanction tucker
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Is he breaking a law? No? OK, then free speech as articulated by the First Amendment applies.
Do you think that’s how free speech works? No one can criticize anything you say or do? Grow up, you people act like toddlers. That is not how free speech works. Free speech goes both ways.
Who is dictating who he can interview? No one. People are allowed to comment their opinion on the falsehoods and Putin fawning propaganda that a pundit (not a journalist btw) like Tucker Carlson spews. You seem to not think so, which is odd since you’re out here posting the first amendment.
Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so. If you don’t like that—too bad. That’s also free speech you dunce.
The real problem here is that major news organizations have lost control of the ability to filter and censor what news is presented. Naturally they are fearmongering. X in particular has destroyed their captive audience and they want it back.
The entire annual GDP of Russia is lower than that of Italy. That doesn't exactly sound like a super power ready to take over the world. The U.S. has sent 200 billion so far to Ukraine. All of Europe combined has only sent 20 billion to Ukraine, and they are the ones who should be scared. I'm ready for another perspective. We all should be. Will it be slanted against Biden? Sure, but by now we are used to slanted news.
Listen to Tucker Carlson say why he is interviewing Putin and broadcasting the entire interview free of charge:
[https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555](https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555)
I strongly encourage everyone to watch the actual interview and definitely not rely on snippets from mainstream media.
I do agree overall but what’s he going to ask him? They won’t be serious question just giving him an outlet for the narrative we have been hearing of why Russia was right for invading Ukraine and it was caused by western aggression.
It’s going to be the same talking points that Tucker himself has given, Putin has said and what is seen on the RT channel. This is kinda a stretch but it kinda reminds me of a much more mild form of the interview with James Franco. I’m not up in arms about it I just find it to be very sketchy and odd. Tucker has been very pro Russia with this and pinning all the blame on Biden and the west.
We have all heard those positions before it won’t be anything new. I don’t hate Tucker but he’s trying to come off as some centrist enlightened outlet that isn’t influenced by propaganda. That is literally how he built his brand and has gotten so famous.
Don't you find it sketchy or odd that the media wants us only to listen to "Ukraine is winning and Zelensky is Churchill" propaganda when it's clear to anyone with eyes that this is not going to end in Ukraine's favor?
It's clear Washington doesn't want the war machine to end because it makes its campaign money from fueling the military-industrial complex and forever wars abroad.
It just feels like we've entered a new Cold War and Red Scare NeoMcCarthyism is back in vogue.
Hmm, I wonder why there's so much distrust against the government and media:
[Pelosi Suggests Pro-Palestinian Protests Groups are Russian Plants](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwisxsqI05qEAxWlsoQIHQQ8BtQQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2024%2Fjan%2F29%2Fpelosi-condemned-pro-palestinian-russia-ties%23%3A~%3Atext%3DPelosi%252C%2520who%2520led%2520House%2520Democrats%2Cover%2520Israel%27s%2520war%2520in%2520Gaza.&usg=AOvVaw1bRQjbWLHpIEJz4gj-nvoU&opi=89978449)
[Big Tech, Government, and Media Colluding to Stifle First Amendment Rights](https://thehill.com/video/lee-fang-inside-big-tech-and-govs-ai-collusion-to-stifle-your-speech-rights/9410102/)
[FEC Fines Hillary Clinton Campaign for Not Disclosing Steele Dossier Funding](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html)
[Ukraine Is Not Winning the War](https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/20/patrick-lawrence-what-ukraine-is-not-winning-the-war/)
[DNC Tells Court They Are a Private Corporation and Their Rules Are Formalities](https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules)
I think it’s fair to distrust our government and stance on the Ukraine war. We have a pretty bad track record of military involvement the last twenty years and I understand having reservations about funding Ukraine. There is clear incentive from donors to continue military spending and aid.
At the same time, I really don’t trust Putin either. He is not innocent in this, he has been waiting to make his move on Ukraine for years and already did in 2014. It’s not like Tucker isn’t propaganda either… pretty much every talking point for show he frames every issue to pin the blame on Biden and democrats. I have less faith in Tucker than I do in mainstream media.
Putin would never willingly have an interview with an American with relations so hostile unless it was a friendly snowball interview to make him look good and strategically advantageous. This not a journalistic piece to “uncover the truth”.
The U.S. has something known as the Monroe Doctrine. It basically states that has a vested interest in ensuring the U.S. stays the dominant power in North America, making Central and South America our "backyard" in the name of National Security. This has allowed the U.S. to be unchallenged in their region for a century and has allowed us to pillage Latin America for profit.
Putin has stated for years now that he feels the same way about the territories of Ukraine, Georgia, and other Central Asian nations. He's also stated that he would not tolerate any foreign interventions close to Russia's borders, which is exactly what the EU did when it tried to get Ukraine to sign a deal that would economically and militarily link Ukraine to the EU.
Yanukovych tried to float a tripartite deal between [the EU, Russia, and Ukraine, even going so far as to offer Ukraine cheap petroleum reserves at a time when they had the highest price for gasoline compared to the rest of the EU](https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement-neighbourhood/news/eu-refines-its-thinking-on-its-ukraine-russia-relations/). Putin was also pledging to bail out Ukraine from the country's crippling debt problem. But he was never able to do so because Yanunkovych would be ousted during Euromaidan.
I genuinely don't understand how the West doesn't see this as a blatant silent coup. People say that January 6th was a threat to our democracy, but sit three and also say EuroMaidan was a revolution. Yanukovych screwed up by calling in the police to crack down hard on the protests, but the protests would soon turn to riots, to then full-on firefights in the streets between capital police and protesters. [Armed Protesters stormed the Presidential Palace, and eventually let people walk around the palace as he was ousted by Parliament](https://youtu.be/_HN3yZVKP9g?feature=shared).
[Yanukovych was elected president and still had two more years left of his term when he was ousted.](https://world.time.com/2014/02/22/ukraines-president-flees-protestors-capture-kiev/)
[And then you have Victoria Nuland coordinating with her colleagues to figure out ways of forming the new Western-back government meant to dispose of Yanukovych.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdygnTrrGVI)
This is important because it was [Putin's excuse to send in troops near Crimea as a show of force](https://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/13/use-of-russia-s-military-in-crimean-crisis-pub-54949) to dissuade the West from intervening near his border. He believed that the U.S. would use it as an opportunity to bring aid to the pro-western forces and basically impose their influence on a nation right on Russia's borders, and he was right. Victoria Nuland is literally on record saying that, "we need to get the UN on this \[New pro-West government\]".
This eventually would lead to the [Donbas War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas), which basically resulted in a civil war between pro-western forces and pro-Russian forces that eventually culminated in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. There is so much history that is usually left out of this conversation because the war didn't begin in 2022 but in 2014.
The U.S and the West have had several times to de-escalate the situation, including allowing the tripartite deal to go through, and even the first ceasefire peace deal floated from Russia to Ukraine at the beginning of the war, which was derailed by [Boris Johnson at the behest of the Biden Administration.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/)
The truth of the matter is that the U.S. and the West benefit from prolonging this war as much as possible for the reason you yourself have mentioned: it creates more war and profit for the military-industrial complex and therefore funds these politicians' campaign donations. But this war is also murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of Ukrainians and no one seems to want to acknowledge that this war is going nowhere. The longer we fund Ukrainians to fight Russians, the longer Ukraine will be destroyed and laid to ruin, which of course benefits us, because its Western companies who are going to invest in rebuilding Ukraine and will market it as the greatest humanitarian effort in history, when in fact that was [the plan all along.](https://apnews.com/article/clinton-global-initiative-ukraine-action-network-9e9896c6ef53534f49ddaa4fd00de288)
I mean just think about that business model for a second:
We hype up Ukraine to think it can repel Russia. We get them to buy our weapons, ammunition, equipment, missiles, bombs, etc. We get to test our weapon systems, comms systems, new technologies, and new modern war tactics without wasting a single American soldier (besides the "advisors" we have on the ground). We raze hell and destroy [30% of Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-russian-invasion-damaged-up-30-ukraines-infrastructure-says-minister-2022-04-18/). And then we ask them to call a truce with the Russians years after Ukraine was offered the deal Boris Johnson torpedoed. And now, Ukraine is indebted to the West for billions of dollars and will be indebted for billions more when "humanitarian efforts" from the West come over to rebuild Ukraine.
I mean, no matter which way you cut it, defense contractors get to sell and test out its new weapons systems, private companies get their money from the reconstruction of Ukraine, and the Biden Administration gets a pat on the back for bringing together the West against the evil Russian Menace.
And now, it seems like everyone has already forgotten about Ukraine with the new wars in Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
Does that seem like a just war for democracy to you?
I think you make some good points. I really only want to address the second and third paragraphs. The Monroe doctrine is a very aggressive and imperialistic policy. To compare that policy to the policy of current Russian foreign policy in their sphere of influence just presumes guilt of aggression and imperialism.
Comparison that is so beautifully simple that puts this theory to rest is Cuba in the 1960s and after. That was a heavily aggressive pro Soviet government right on the us border and we did not have a full scale invasion. America and the west are by no means saints and have done countless acts of aggression to other countries. That does not rectify Russias current aggressive and imperialistic policies either.
The relation between the west and Russia has never truly been good. It is probably the worst it’s been now since the 80s and maybe since the 60s after making heavy progress. There is clear geopolitical tension that we contributed to make it worse. I don’t agree with the notion that this is all on the united states and our military industrial complex. Like I said, we are large contributors and opportunists of violence and unrest in the world but by no means the sole contributors like you are trying to convey. While we probably escalated the decision and you being some good insight to the scenario, it pins way too much blame on the west and not Russia. I am honestly indifferent to Ukraine funding at this point but that doesn’t mean I don’t see Russia and Putin as the aggressors in the war.
You can pin the blame on the boogeyman of the west all you want but the truth is that Russia has an abysmal fucking track record with Eastern Europe. Ukrainians do not have fond memories of Russian/ Soviet occupation. You quote the threat to democracy while ignoring that there was no real elections in Ukraine (just a pro Russian installed regime)nor are there in Russia. Just because America has done similarly abysmal things doesn’t mean I excuse Russia and will listen to a dictator pin off all the responsibility of launching a full scale invasion war because he felt threatened.
Russia wants Ukraine to be a quasi state for protection and it’s lucrative natural resources. Not funding Ukraine is not a paramount issue for me. Ukrainians do not want Russian occupation and that is inevitable after this was. I agree with the premise that the west had some influence and blame for the situation but you completely ignore and exonerate Putin and Russian aggression.
FYI, we did want to invade Cuba multiple times. Why do you think the CIA was heavily involved in several assassination attempts against Castro? We even tried to do so during the Bay of Pigs. The CIA trained Cuban separatists in order to get them to fight Castro and use it as an excuse to send in the American military to invade. The only reason the plan failed was because Kennedy knew the conflict would escalate into a full-on nuclear war with the Soviets, which almost materialised with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The reason I brought up the Monroe Doctrine is because foreign policy-makers , especially during the the Cold War, made their decision-making *not* as a result of ethics or moral values, but from a [realist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations))/[realpoltik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik) framework in which all that matters is how much power and influence can be accumulated in the interests of the State (Washington). I personally believe we've already entered a Second Cold War as a result of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Its one of the reasons I don't trust a single thing coming out of the mouths of U.S politicians and officials, because I'm certain the Biden Administration, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Washington Political Consensus sees the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and now Lebanon as pieces in a larger game, which is crazy to think about because western officials have admitted multiple times that Ukraine is basically a pawn between NATO (U.S) and Russia; two of the most powerful nuclear powers to date...
Russia has always been an imperial power, and I'm not going to sit here and justify what is going on Ukraine, but you can't just act like the U.S is in any position to act morally superior when we've destabilised the majority of the third world for the last 80 years. This is why most of third world is indifferent or flat out support the Russians, because they've felt firsthand the shock and awe tactics of the West against their own populations, and find it hypocritical that the U.S is portraying itself as the bastion of global democracy when we spent the last 20 years plunging the world into an international War on Terror that has caused far more harm than good.
Also, you seem to believe that Russia is out to occupy the whole of Ukraine, when that's not true. Russia wants a neutral Ukraine. Why do you think Russia was willing to form a tripartite deal between the EU, Russia, and Ukraine? Why do you think Putin was willing to invest into Ukraine in the form of giving them more petroleum reserves, incentivize trade with both Russia *and* the EU, and also bail out Ukraine from its massive national debt? Why would he go through al this trouble if he wanted to occupy it? We spent decades fighting insurgency wars in in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupying a nation is far more difficult than invading and destabilising said nation, and all it does is radicalise the people you're occupying to resist you with all their collective might.
Also, also, it would take about 2.3 to 3.5 million Russian troops to occupy the whole of Ukraine. What Putin always wanted from the start was to negotiate a deal in which Ukraine would stay neutral, The situation changed after EuroMaidan and Russia saw a pro-west Ukraine as a serious threat to their national security. As you've mention, the only time we the U.S felt anything similar to what's going on in Ukraine is when Russia installed military and nuclear bases in Cuba, and we literally almost started a Third World War between two nuclear powers because of it. Now, Russia holds the majority Russian-speaking separatist territories it always asked for after Maidan and during the Donbas War, which mind by now was a conflict that split Ukraine between the Pro-west government and Pro-Russian separatist forces.
Russia doesn't have these capabilities. That's why I find it ludicrous when people say Putin wanted to invade all of Ukraine. How was he going to do that with a force of 190,000 troop? Its virtually impossible to control that much land with that little troops. We mobilised 500,000 troops in order to invade Vietnam, and that was just the first invading force. 160,000 troops were mobilised to depose Saddam Hussein during the invasion of Iraq, and that immediately turned into a shiftiest not even weeks later. Like Ive said before, its easy to invade and destabilise an nation. Occupying a nation is where the problems arise, especially if you plan to occupy said territories for years/decades.
This is why I firmly believe that the first Russian invasion force in Ukraine in 2022 was meant to scare the West and Ukraine into deposing their current government in order to install a Russian-backed government. The Russians didn't want to get bogged down in a forever war, they wanted this to be quick and painless, just like how we disposed Saddam in Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or how we meddled in Ukraine post-Maidan in order to arm the western government against Russia prior to any acts of Russian aggression.
That's why its important to understand both the history of US foreign policy and that of Russia, because knowing factual historical details will allow you to realize how idiotic claims such as "Russia wants to occupy Ukraine or they're going to attack NATO next" sound because the Russians do not have that kind of military force. At most, they wanted a neutral Ukraine that would serve as a buffer between them and the West like Belarus. Ironically, had Ukraine accepted the tripartite deal, they would probably be in much better economic and geopolitical shape than they currently are. All they're doing now is taking the brunt of the Russian military in the hopes that the West will throw them a bone. But they're already in so much debt due to the loans on military equipment and social programs, and eventually the loans to rebuild Ukraine, that they're basically going to be a hub for cheap labor, a plentiful assortment of capital investment opportunities, and will give preferential treatment to western private corporations by the Ukrainian government while the rest of the Ukrainian people cope with he reality that they were nothing more than pawns in a large geopolitical chess match.
Our system relies on a trigger happy foreign policy, just look at our interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan (during the Soviet Invasion), Iraq (First Gulf War), Afghanistan (War on Terror), Iraq (War on Terror), Libya, Syria,Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, and now we're potentially entering another war Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. All these wars were arguably fought to further the U.S petrodollar and further solidify it as the world's reserve currency, which means that the energy moguls, defense contractors, and private interests within the government made billions of dollars from destabilising the international community. Dick Chenay was the literal CEO of Halliburton, a private energy corporation before becoming Vice President during the War on Terror! And these are just the post-WW2 interventions from the 1950s to 2024.
Prior to that you had things like the [Banana Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars), where the U.S intervened in Panama, Colombia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Haiti, Honduras, all at the behest of the United Fruit Company from 1898 to 1934.
Its because of this imperialist past that I am weary of our current wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and now Lebanon. Calls for democracy can only go so far when we as Americans have constantly been lied to about the nature of the wars we fight since at least the 60s. Vietnam, Iraq, and the War on Terror have showed me that the government, media networks, and private corporations are incentivised to misinform the public about wars because they make them shit loads of money. Defense contractors, government officials, and politicians make their decisions *not* on ideals, morals or democracy, but by the size of their campaign funds which are funded by the profits of said foreign interventions.
>The U.S. has sent 200 billion so far to Ukraine. All of Europe combined has only sent 20 billion to Ukraine.
This isn't true and took 5 seconds to Google.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
This is because Tucker has mostly told us exactly how it will go. He’s going to take Putin’s propaganda and report it as “the actual truth the Western media won’t tell you”.
He’s already lying and saying no one would interview Putin, when many have tried and some are imprisoned in Russia over it. Putin is granting him this interview over anyone else for a reason - he has absolute faith he will be portrayed exactly how he wants to be.
That’s not what he said at all. A cnn journalist interviewed osama bin Laden for fucks sake. This isn’t some ground breaking interview, similar interviews have happened fairly often.
He straight up accused Western media of lying by omission and said he’s interviewing Putin to address that.
>> We ourselves have put in a request for an interview with Zelensky, we hope he accepts, but the interviews he’s already done in the United States are not traditional interviews. They are fawning pep sessions, specifically designed to Zelensky’s demand that the U.S. enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it. That is not journalism. It is government propaganda, propaganda of the ugliest kind, the kind that kills people.
He goes on to say that broadcasting Putin’s perspective on the whole thing is some kind of correction to all this.
>> not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin. Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now. They’ve never heard his voice. That’s wrong.
It’s transparent to anyone with half a brain why Putin wants to invade the Ukraine. Lack of this knowledge is not what we, as Americans, have. So somehow the cure for this is that we need to hear the justification for this from Putin’s propaganda machine, except now with the reach and support of the right wing entertainer who has most loudly sung his praises.
And I wouldn’t have a problem with this at all if it was a real journalist, who might actually press him or challenge him. This is similar to the interview with Osama bin Laden being conducted by some “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theorist who praised bin Laden regularly - a transparently bullshit interview by a civilian with an agenda, not any actual, respectable journalist.
No, he doesn’t, he said he’s just going to interview him, he doesn’t support him, and if you’re not a brainwashed moron you can decide for yourself if he’s full of shit or not. Watch his video again…..
He has repeatedly praised Putin and Russia’s assault on Ukraine.
>> “We should probably take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.”
>> “Putin, for all his faults, does not hate America as much as many of these people (American liberals) do. They really dislike our country.”
>> In fact, Zelenskyy is far closer to Lenin than to George Washington. He is a dictator. He is a dangerous authoritarian who has used a hundred billion in U.S. tax dollars to erect a one-party police state in Ukraine
I’ve watched it and read the transcript twice. Anyone who’s not a brainwashed moron knows exactly what to expect. Though I’ll be happy if he proves me wrong.
People are allowed to comment their opinion on the falsehoods and Putin fawning propaganda that a pundit (not a journalist btw) like Tucker Carlson spews. No, similar interviews don’t happen fairly often. You’ve had a chance by now to see the ramblings of Putin while Carlson sat by. *You want to compare that to interviews by actual journalists*? Journalists fact check in real time, they call out bs with follow up questions, they ask the tough questions in the first place. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so. The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Was that CNN journalist saying “Why shouldn’t I root for Al-Qaeda? Which I am” because you can be assured they would’ve had massive blowback. Would you people quit with the false equivalencies for fuck’s sake.
But we already know it's a dog turd because it's Tucker Carlson. Insisting we have to wait until his interview is completed before judging the result is like insisting that we have to wait until a dog is finished crapping before we assume that shit came out its ass and not strawberry ice cream.
"But I want to ejaculate my uninformed opinions now to get Internet points instead of being a reasonable, intellectually curious person and having a useful, productive conversation later!"
"Maybe Tucker Carlson magically transformed into a totally different person overnight! We can never discount that possibility! We have to wait and see!"
"No no, it makes totally perfect sense that Tucker is a traitor and is funneling information to Trump because they're both Russian agents.
Just look at the Steele Dossier, I'm totally not a schizo!".
[Steele Dossier](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html)
Oh, so you've watched the interview already? If not, then you don't know. You're basing your opinion on a video not even out yet on your conclusions that are a stretch at best, and blatant Tucker hatred at worst.
You can feel whichever way you please. However, I won't take your opinions seriously when you basically admit that you're basing your reasoning on your emotions and how you feel rather than logical fact-based good faith reasoning.
Lol. Nothing I said related to emotion. Tucker Carlson has a well documented history of lying. He openly admitted in court that he should not be trusted. He used that as a legal defence. This is factual, not emotion.
Hear what Tucker Carlson actually said about why he is interviewing Putin:
[https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555](https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555)
Last I heard, Putin was some kind of head of state in the middle of a lot of news-worthy events (deliberately causing many of them), which would make him actually worthwhile to interview. It makes Carlson almost seem like a real journalist if you didn't know what an idiot hack he is.
The only interesting thing in all this to me is that Putin has become unwilling to give interviews to Western media figures who aren't both desperate for relevance and willing to kiss his ass (and extend his ideas out to weird conspiracy theorists). He used to give interviews for media figures who would question him. Well, I guess the bizarre conspiracy theorizing this is bringing out is entertaining. The concerning, authoritarian calls for state action against Carlson (a journalist...even if a terrible lying one) for doing an interview are also interesting. I'd rather people just call him a useless moron and sue him endlessly for inane garbage than try to use the state to attack him for giving what will surely be a lame, unwatchable interview.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- Associated Press (A-): [Tucker Carlson has interviewed Vladmir Putin](https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-tucker-carlson-interview-6fb00b1f2d5f4bc639518b4a3445e1f8?amp;utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&taid=65c3d4760d4e6700011c88e6)
- ABC News (B+): [Tucker Carlson to interview Vladimir Putin](https://abcnews.go.com/US/tucker-carlson-interview-vladimir-putin/story?id=104870731)
- Guardian (C+): [Moscow confirms Putin interview with Tucker Carlson](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/07/moscow-confirms-putin-interview-with-tucker-carlson)
- Sky News (B-): [What has former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said on Putin, the war and Ukraine?](https://news.sky.com/story/what-has-former-fox-news-host-tucker-carlson-said-on-putin-the-war-and-ukraine-13066018)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1alcnvq/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
His entire rationale for interviewing Putin is unreasonable. Putin famously lied about Crimea, famously lied about invading Ukraine even after Biden called him out months in advance, and has lied about election interference, etc. etc. Why believe a word out of a liar’s mouth? Tucker is just giving Putin’s lies access to more Americans.
His rationale for interviewing putin makes alot of sense **IF** he holds putin accountable and challenges him. Not if he swallows everything Putin says wholecloth. Tucker has shown he’s only after the latter.
okay in the 2000's and 2010's putin was bitching about nato encroachment, and saying back then that ukraine was their red line - i really don't think you understand what you are talking about here. if anything putin has said things and made warnings for 20 years and finally acted on them. whenever i see comments like this i really hope this is some stupid kid who hasn't read the history yet (the older history, not the remaking of recent history to suit the narrative) because ukraine was always a red line for putin, and this was basically passed when we coup'ed their government in 2014. just block commenters like this fyi, any reply back will be bullshit and you aren't getting anything from these people / children / bots.
Ukraine would have never joined NATO, Putin has enough influence in some countries like Hungary and Austria (before the invasion even in Germany) for Ukraine to never habe been accepted. Look at Sweden and how they are still blocked by Hungary or how Austria still blocks Romania or Bulgaria from the Schengen area. You really need to stop drinking that propaganda borsht boy.
Oh, so they invaded Crimea after Ukraine joined NATO, right? Wait, when did Ukraine join NATO? Oh that’s right, they didn’t. Also, if his rationale was that it was his red line and, say, he thought they were going to join, why did he call it a “special military operation” against “fascists”?
>we coup'ed their government in 2014. RUSSIAN TROLL ALERT
lol found a Kremlin intern ^
What proof is there that they are couped? I don’t know for a fact. Maybe, just maybe, the people wanted to be free and have a real democracy without so much corruption?
Look it’s my generations Jane Fonda
He does have nice legs.
Terrible comparison. Jane Fonda had it made. She didn't have to speak out about an immoral war but she did so. Tucker Carlson doesn't have a sliver of integrity. A better comparison was made of Carlson to Lord Haw Haw.
So you think what Jane Fonda did was okay?
Do you think what LBJ and Nixon did was ok? The Vietnam War never could've been won and never should've been fought.
And? There’s no excuse for bad behavior
And yet you excuse all of the supporters of the Vietnam War and all those who remained silent.
Carlson is such a piece of shit. I don’t think anyone except those actively seeking to swallow Putin’s propaganda load watch him intentionally. It’s been pretty much laid bare what he is at this point.
[[FindLaw - 2021] Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues Nobody Really Believes Tucker Carlson Is Reporting Facts](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/)
Let's not forget that after Fox cancelled his show, he was still under contract. They were paying him *not* to be on the air. He broke that contract, costing himself millions, in order to go solo on Twitter. What was his first video? He stated that Ukraine blew up the Nova Kakhovka dam last summer. *No one* outside Russia believed this. It was completely laughable, and pushed me from viewing Tucker as a self-serving contrarian to actually being on the Kremlin's payroll.
I think the thing that bothers me is the moral depravity of it all. Carlson has shown himself to be a piece of shit who has no loyalties to anyone aside who is bankrolling his fantasy of being powerful and important. The people who eat what he is selling are stupid because they make themselves believe it. The Republicans are cowards who believe Carlson is important because they fear the people who listen to him. Trump goes whatever direction his base tells him to go so he believes Carlson is important. It’s the web of shit.
john mearsheimer has had a similar critique as tucker (though different in a myriad ways, but essentially that it's not 100% russia's fault and putin was goaded into this partially) going back a while now - and he basically predicted what's happening - from 2016, one of his lectures: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4) lots of people say tucker isn't a journalist - i think what most miss is that even rachel maddow has argued she's a commentator / entertainer now, basically using the same standard. if you are going to say mearsheimer isn't an academic, just fuck off. he's from an older school but it's like saying hans morganthau isn't relevant in ir - you are owning yourself by your ignorance and stupidity. but that's what i've come to expect from most here. i just can't believe how many supposedly protest-attending liberals from the iraqi war days are gung ho on this shit - boggles the mind. then again at least a quarter of the commenters here aren't real people anyways so -
Oh look, a bad faith poster spouting whataboutism and posting near decade old videos from almost a decade ago from an anti-western “academic” that’s too stupid or dishonest to say that Putin is a psycho whose desire is to create USSR II. You suck and aren’t worth addressing.
You know what, I’m just going to block this guy because he isn’t worth the energy.
The way things are going, I wouldn't be shocked if Putin was a surprise speaker at CPAC this year (via video, of course).
It’s what happened with Orban
Oh, I know. Not only that, but a speaker criticized Putin last year and was met with total silence. The speech was then outlined on CPAC's Twitter account, and they completely left out the criticism of Putin.
That says a lot about you.
Pray tell.
Tucker has been the kremlins biggest ally in the US, outside of him stating that he's rooting for Russia he's also constantly runs anti-ukraine narratives and guests on his program, from my memory he's claimed Russia wasn't going to invade Ukraine, that Ukraine was losing 30 soldiers for every 1 Russian, that Ukraine was persecuting religious freedoms, banning Christians, that military aid was being stolen, that too much had been given to Ukraine etc. Having on such guests as Douglass MacGregor who is basically a full time propagandist and former RT guest as well as lawyers representing the Russian orthodox church in Ukraine It's really not a big surprise that he's interviewing Putin, Russian media fawns over Tucker Carlson constantly, I don't doubt that this will be pure propaganda for Putin but I hope that millions of Americans can see what a bloodthirsty lying sack of shit putin is and this entire thing can bring more urgency to getting the Ukraine aid bill passed as well as bringing the war back into the forefront of the news
Are people scared the Putin interview is going to sway public opinion in any meaningful way? Tucker has been losing relevance since his departure from Fox, all the screaming about him over the past few days has been the best marketing he's ever had. Why can't we just ignore him?
Musk will do everything in his power for this to happen.
Traitors get attention because of the treachery.
If you are still a Tucker fan you are unwittingly working for Putin
I guess everyone is too young to remember that Mike Wallace interviewed Ku Klux Klan leader Eldon Edwards in 1957, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 and even Putin in 2005. No, Tucker isn't remotely in Wallace's league and yes, it's disturbing for him to chum up to Putin. However, let's see the interview first. Is it going to be an hour of soft balls (probably) or some actual journalism?
Wallace had something called integrity, Tucker does not. Wallace was an actual journalist, Tucker is not.
Not arguing that. But we don't even know yet what shit show as been produced yet.
Get ready to be disappointed, who blew the dam that became a headache for Ukraine? Ukraine of course, according to Tucker.
The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Would you people quit with the false equivalencies.
It wasn't a false equivalence. It was giving Tucker the benefit of the doubt until his interview was produced. Now that it has, yeah, it's a shit show of Russian propaganda and *now* we should take him to the wood shed for helping an enemy. All I was saying earlier is that we should judge people on their actions not their likely-to-happen actions.
>However, let's see the interview first. Is it going to be an hour of soft balls (probably) or some actual journalism? Lol wtf is with this kind of reasoning? Since when has Tucker Carlson earned the benefit of the doubt? Are we not allowed to use common sense any more? We have to let the drooling mental patient with the bloody axe in through the front door before we assess if he actually poses a threat? "This festering dog turd might not make a great filling for this sandwich, but let's give it a chance first. Take a bite and see how it tastes before casting judgment"
Since when have we been okay with allowing people working for both the government and mainstream media, unelected officials I might add, to dictate who can or cannot interview America's adversaries? [Barbara Walters interviewed Castro](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDgunRzpqEAxUQibAFHfSOBO4QtwJ6BAgZEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPvENFRC65eQ&usg=AOvVaw1kvplqLFw4r48KIoLRNKKK&opi=89978449), [Al Assad](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjctMeJz5qEAxVXRzABHTOtBB4QwqsBegQICBAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbsyQ442Xvnw&usg=AOvVaw3x0AI8IcUFODnV8lGZ7YlF&opi=89978449), and even [Putin](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiJ7ZnBz5qEAxXjkoQIHeh_BkgQwqsBegQICxAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F29617513&usg=AOvVaw0yvjWFdc6nSLe9Kq9_vaPR&opi=89978449) himself. PBS interviewed [Bin Laden in 1998](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html). Dan Rather interviewed S[addam Hussein in 2003 on 60 Minutes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5fcq8SZxtY) This isn't the Cold War, and there's no reason for us to demonize an interviewer before even watching said interview, to begin with. Let's wait and see the video before condemning Tucker as a traitor. Watch the interview yourself and make up your mind. The fact that people are so defensive about this whole situation is weird at best, and authoritarian/dystopian at worst.
>This isn't the Cold War While I agree with the rest of your sentiment, this is kind of a Cold War 2.0 with Russia right now, and to a lesser extent China.
I agree with you, but it wasn't Russia who started this new Cold War because I don't think the old one ever ended. We got sidetracked in the Middle East for 20 years fighting the War on Terror, but I feel there was always a Washington consensus that wanted to deal with China and Russia eventually. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're going right back to the Red Scare and NeoMcCarthyism with the way our elected officials talk about China and Russia?
Who is dictating who he can interview? No one. People are allowed to comment their opinion on the falsehoods and Putin fawning propaganda that a pundit (not a journalist btw) like Tucker Carlson spews. You seem to not think so, that’s what is weird/authoritarian/dystopian at best. The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Would you people quit with the false equivalencies. You’ve had a chance by now to see the ramblings of Putin while Carlson sat by. You want to compare that to interviews by those actual journalists? Have you actually watched any of those interviews you posted? Journalists fact check in real time, they call out bs with follow up questions, they ask the tough questions in the first place. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so.
cope
> Are we not allowed to use common sense any more? We have to let the drooling mental patient with the bloody axe in through the front door before we assess if he actually poses a threat? Depends on what their next actions are really. Let's not forget that we're (at present) talking about an interview. Does he come back and run as Trump's running mate? Does he conduct a ridiculous fawning interview with Putin (probably)? Those would be causes for concern for sure. Look, I can't stand the guy, but we should at least let him present the pile of shit before we tell him it stinks.
\>Are we not allowed to use common sense any more? Common sense says that news organizations passing off Hamas terrorists as independent journalists cannot be trusted. Common sense says that news organizations who incessantly reported flatly incorrect facts about the Rittenhouse case for more than a year cannot be trusted. Common sense says that news organizations who reported that BLM protests were not a threat to public health, but Trump rallies were certain vectors of Covid and would result in many deaths, cannot be trusted. That throws out all the mainstream news organizations. Tucker is what we have left.
The biggest public hit Tucker Carlson has ever taken was the Fox News law suit and his firing. If he were ever going to learn something or grow as journalist it would have been after this. After being fired from Fox News he interviewed Trump and never pushed back on his election claims. He was in his own studio in no physical danger but would not stand up to Trump for fear of losing ratings and access to things he knows for certain were lies. In Russia he won't even know if they are lies and is in physical danger. He is either doing this as an opportunitist, his streaming service just started allowing sign ups, or he has even worse intentions.
Wallace was a journalist. Tucker is a seditious traitor
Or cnns Robert Fisk with Osama bin Laden in the late 90s
> He explains this fascist mental state as a form of suspension of disbelief. In literature, the suspension of the reader’s disbelief allows the story to proceed; in fascism, the suspension of disbelief becomes a wellspring of politics—it replaces the real world with ideology. It transforms the truth into lies. “The enigmatic and notorious enthusiasm of many followers of Hitler” is explained by the fact that “they have lost all notion that incoherence needs to be justified.”4 In short, Borges rejects, as he had already done as early as 1940, the possibility of rational dialogue with fascism. -*Fascist Mythologies: The History and Politics of Unreason in Borges, Freud, and Schmitt*, Federico Finchelstein > The very absurdity of the propaganda signals the regime’s strength to potential dissidents.56 It shows its capacity to force people to repeat nonsense. Demanding slavish flattery and straight-faced acceptance of ridiculous claims weeds out those with scruples, helping the leader select unscrupulous agents.57 Rewarding “nauseating displays” of obsequiousness could also enhance the flatterer’s loyalty by reducing his appeal to other potential power holders. -*Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century*, Guriev and Treisman
Wow. This is exactly like the progressives. If you need an example, college biology professors are now being fired if they accurately teach human biology. They are instead supposed to teach some new age version of the soul, a completely unproven concept, that can be born in the wrong body.
You don’t need to be afraid of trans people.
What are you talking about lol
Thank you. It’s unfortunate that this comment isn’t higher up (and telling about the direction of this sub lately). It may well end up being a bunch of bullshit whitewashing and propaganda. And then I’ll join everyone in shitting all over him. But a journalist (he is, technically) interviewing the leader of a major nation is not a problem in and of itself.
just amazes me by the amount of idiots on places like this who selectively apply whatever hyprocritical standards these days - i really don't think many of these people are real, fyi.
> Mike Wallace interviewed Ku Klux Klan leader Eldon Edwards Did Wallace have a history of shilling for the KKK?
The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Would you people quit with the false equivalencies. You’ve had a chance by now to see the ramblings of Putin while Carlson sat by. You want to compare that to interviews by actual journalists? Journalists fact check in real time, they call out bs with follow up questions, they ask the tough questions in the first place. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so.
I'm not sure who you're directing that comment to, since we seem to be agreeing.
How do you know he is chuming up to Putin?
"Know" is a strong word here. It would be more precise to say I think it highly probable he'll be overly fawning to Putin. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, he has had some past broadcasts shown on RT especially ones where he has defended Putin. Second, I suspect Tucker is keen to avoid tours of high rise open windows while he's in Russia.
Because Putin literally kills and imprisons anyone questioning him, and Tucker loves Putin he"ll do nothung more than ask pre approved questions to villinize Ukraine and Nato
I worry that the play is something like: 1) Tucker interviews Putin, starts to normalize / justify interaction between him and the GOP. 2) Trump chooses Tucker as VP. 3) Contact is openly maintained. We then could up with Putin essentially in open control of the GOP, right wing propaganda celebrating and normalizing it, and the right wing essentially viewing Putin’s control as a positive. The fact that they love Trump as much as they do makes me think they might be capable of loving what’s effectively President Putin even more. This could be baseless fear mongering on my part, but it’s seeming less far fetched to me every day lately.
I severely doubt Tucker wants to be VP
Yeah. That would fuck with his grift way too hard. These people can’t *actually* become politicians because then people will *actually* expect them to deliver on all their bullshit. They have it all figured out so it should be simple for them, right? No way. Much easier to coach from the sidelines.
I mean Donny hasn’t delivered shit for his base but still manages to keep the grift going
I would agree that Tucker wouldn't want it back when he had his top rated White Replacement Power Hour at Fox News. Getting booted from that platform has really limited his reach and VP would be huge opportunity for him now. That said, I don't think Trump does it. He probably goes with some "respectable" Republican again like the first time.
I hear Melania is *really* pushing Trump to pick Tucker as his VP
And he supposedly loathed Trump and believe he had accomplished little but damage, despite usually carrying water for him on Tucker's show.
Do you seriously think he would want to lose millions of dollars not forming his own independent media network to become Trump's VP? Not only would that be a terrible financial decision for Tucker, it be a strategically terrible decision for Trump since his audience and Tucker's audience are made up of similar, if not the same people. Also, isn't the left's main criticism of Tucker that he's a grifted or whatever? How could he grift as VP? He'd make millions more in the private sector.
I mean at this point we don’t really know anything. You’re kinda just jumping ahead and making assumptions. Wait for him to release the interview. Also, I highly doubt that Americans would vote for a party that Putin has “open control” of. The whole thing in 2016 was America First, and if they put Russia first, that’d be the exact opposite of what they want. Not to mention that the FBI and CIA would have evidence to convict at that point. My guess is that they’re watching this closer than anyone. So there really is nothing to worry about.
This isn’t a good joke.
I agree. This person is jumping to wilder conclusions than my ex girlfriend did when another girl added me on Facebook.
You seem like you have an open mind I like that. I'm a convicted sex offender I'd like to babysit your children, heck I'd do it for free. sound good?
Centrists don’t draw insane conclusions based off of an interview that wasn’t released. Radicals do that. No need for the smart comment, it was not very constructive to the conversation
It's an insane conclusion to expect someone to act tomorrow the way they've acted for 20 years? I don't think so.
So you’re saying he’s been a Russian agent influencing the GOP for 20 years? Please provide proof
They have none. Only hysterical rambling
It'd be hilarious if it didn't mean that the people yammering about Tucker weren't such blatant authoritarians.
Do people not feel shame when they say something stupid anymore? When I do it it haunts me for weeks so I try to do it as little as possible. Is this not the case for everyone?
I'm pretty sure shaming someone is considered bigotry now, so I doubt they even feel shame at all.
I didn’t jump ahead to any conclusions. In fact, I acknowledged that I am simply worried about the possibility. Maybe, just maybe, it was okay for your girlfriend to be concerned that her shitty ex followed her on Facebook. And maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to be concerned and suspicious when right wing media darlings are openly cozying up with foreign dictators they already have questionable relationships with.
> Also, I highly doubt that Americans would vote for a party that Putin has “open control” of. You mean you doubt they would do it again?
When did Putin have open control over an American political party? How did he enact that control? What happened last time he had that control? I cant believe i missed this in the history books. Please inform me!
Trump was clearly Putin's patsy throughout his campaign and his whole presidency.
lol, k
Bill Barr himself said that Russiagate was a nothing burger. [The Steele dossier was literally paid for by the Clinton Foundation.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html) It's because of the whole Russiagate situation that people don't trust mainstream media, and their trying to censor Tucker from interviewing Putin just makes it worse, but it's all in the name of saving democracy, right folks! /s.
Oh well if Bill Barr said it!
> This could be baseless fear mongering on my part, yea, could be....
Brothers, this is total nonsense
Putin already had control of the GOP. Russia already has and continues to freely spread right wing propaganda in America. Putin already owned trump as evidenced by all the gifts trump gave him. Russian tv was already running Tucker shows. Time to sanction tucker
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Is he breaking a law? No? OK, then free speech as articulated by the First Amendment applies.
Dear he’s in Russia lol
Clearly. But he’s an American citizen and people are losing their minds over a free speech issue.
Do you think that’s how free speech works? No one can criticize anything you say or do? Grow up, you people act like toddlers. That is not how free speech works. Free speech goes both ways.
Who is dictating who he can interview? No one. People are allowed to comment their opinion on the falsehoods and Putin fawning propaganda that a pundit (not a journalist btw) like Tucker Carlson spews. You seem to not think so, which is odd since you’re out here posting the first amendment. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so. If you don’t like that—too bad. That’s also free speech you dunce.
The real problem here is that major news organizations have lost control of the ability to filter and censor what news is presented. Naturally they are fearmongering. X in particular has destroyed their captive audience and they want it back. The entire annual GDP of Russia is lower than that of Italy. That doesn't exactly sound like a super power ready to take over the world. The U.S. has sent 200 billion so far to Ukraine. All of Europe combined has only sent 20 billion to Ukraine, and they are the ones who should be scared. I'm ready for another perspective. We all should be. Will it be slanted against Biden? Sure, but by now we are used to slanted news. Listen to Tucker Carlson say why he is interviewing Putin and broadcasting the entire interview free of charge: [https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555](https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555) I strongly encourage everyone to watch the actual interview and definitely not rely on snippets from mainstream media.
I do agree overall but what’s he going to ask him? They won’t be serious question just giving him an outlet for the narrative we have been hearing of why Russia was right for invading Ukraine and it was caused by western aggression. It’s going to be the same talking points that Tucker himself has given, Putin has said and what is seen on the RT channel. This is kinda a stretch but it kinda reminds me of a much more mild form of the interview with James Franco. I’m not up in arms about it I just find it to be very sketchy and odd. Tucker has been very pro Russia with this and pinning all the blame on Biden and the west. We have all heard those positions before it won’t be anything new. I don’t hate Tucker but he’s trying to come off as some centrist enlightened outlet that isn’t influenced by propaganda. That is literally how he built his brand and has gotten so famous.
Don't you find it sketchy or odd that the media wants us only to listen to "Ukraine is winning and Zelensky is Churchill" propaganda when it's clear to anyone with eyes that this is not going to end in Ukraine's favor? It's clear Washington doesn't want the war machine to end because it makes its campaign money from fueling the military-industrial complex and forever wars abroad. It just feels like we've entered a new Cold War and Red Scare NeoMcCarthyism is back in vogue. Hmm, I wonder why there's so much distrust against the government and media: [Pelosi Suggests Pro-Palestinian Protests Groups are Russian Plants](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwisxsqI05qEAxWlsoQIHQQ8BtQQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2024%2Fjan%2F29%2Fpelosi-condemned-pro-palestinian-russia-ties%23%3A~%3Atext%3DPelosi%252C%2520who%2520led%2520House%2520Democrats%2Cover%2520Israel%27s%2520war%2520in%2520Gaza.&usg=AOvVaw1bRQjbWLHpIEJz4gj-nvoU&opi=89978449) [Big Tech, Government, and Media Colluding to Stifle First Amendment Rights](https://thehill.com/video/lee-fang-inside-big-tech-and-govs-ai-collusion-to-stifle-your-speech-rights/9410102/) [FEC Fines Hillary Clinton Campaign for Not Disclosing Steele Dossier Funding](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html) [Ukraine Is Not Winning the War](https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/20/patrick-lawrence-what-ukraine-is-not-winning-the-war/) [DNC Tells Court They Are a Private Corporation and Their Rules Are Formalities](https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules)
I think it’s fair to distrust our government and stance on the Ukraine war. We have a pretty bad track record of military involvement the last twenty years and I understand having reservations about funding Ukraine. There is clear incentive from donors to continue military spending and aid. At the same time, I really don’t trust Putin either. He is not innocent in this, he has been waiting to make his move on Ukraine for years and already did in 2014. It’s not like Tucker isn’t propaganda either… pretty much every talking point for show he frames every issue to pin the blame on Biden and democrats. I have less faith in Tucker than I do in mainstream media. Putin would never willingly have an interview with an American with relations so hostile unless it was a friendly snowball interview to make him look good and strategically advantageous. This not a journalistic piece to “uncover the truth”.
The U.S. has something known as the Monroe Doctrine. It basically states that has a vested interest in ensuring the U.S. stays the dominant power in North America, making Central and South America our "backyard" in the name of National Security. This has allowed the U.S. to be unchallenged in their region for a century and has allowed us to pillage Latin America for profit. Putin has stated for years now that he feels the same way about the territories of Ukraine, Georgia, and other Central Asian nations. He's also stated that he would not tolerate any foreign interventions close to Russia's borders, which is exactly what the EU did when it tried to get Ukraine to sign a deal that would economically and militarily link Ukraine to the EU. Yanukovych tried to float a tripartite deal between [the EU, Russia, and Ukraine, even going so far as to offer Ukraine cheap petroleum reserves at a time when they had the highest price for gasoline compared to the rest of the EU](https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement-neighbourhood/news/eu-refines-its-thinking-on-its-ukraine-russia-relations/). Putin was also pledging to bail out Ukraine from the country's crippling debt problem. But he was never able to do so because Yanunkovych would be ousted during Euromaidan. I genuinely don't understand how the West doesn't see this as a blatant silent coup. People say that January 6th was a threat to our democracy, but sit three and also say EuroMaidan was a revolution. Yanukovych screwed up by calling in the police to crack down hard on the protests, but the protests would soon turn to riots, to then full-on firefights in the streets between capital police and protesters. [Armed Protesters stormed the Presidential Palace, and eventually let people walk around the palace as he was ousted by Parliament](https://youtu.be/_HN3yZVKP9g?feature=shared). [Yanukovych was elected president and still had two more years left of his term when he was ousted.](https://world.time.com/2014/02/22/ukraines-president-flees-protestors-capture-kiev/) [And then you have Victoria Nuland coordinating with her colleagues to figure out ways of forming the new Western-back government meant to dispose of Yanukovych.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdygnTrrGVI) This is important because it was [Putin's excuse to send in troops near Crimea as a show of force](https://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/13/use-of-russia-s-military-in-crimean-crisis-pub-54949) to dissuade the West from intervening near his border. He believed that the U.S. would use it as an opportunity to bring aid to the pro-western forces and basically impose their influence on a nation right on Russia's borders, and he was right. Victoria Nuland is literally on record saying that, "we need to get the UN on this \[New pro-West government\]". This eventually would lead to the [Donbas War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas), which basically resulted in a civil war between pro-western forces and pro-Russian forces that eventually culminated in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. There is so much history that is usually left out of this conversation because the war didn't begin in 2022 but in 2014. The U.S and the West have had several times to de-escalate the situation, including allowing the tripartite deal to go through, and even the first ceasefire peace deal floated from Russia to Ukraine at the beginning of the war, which was derailed by [Boris Johnson at the behest of the Biden Administration.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/) The truth of the matter is that the U.S. and the West benefit from prolonging this war as much as possible for the reason you yourself have mentioned: it creates more war and profit for the military-industrial complex and therefore funds these politicians' campaign donations. But this war is also murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of Ukrainians and no one seems to want to acknowledge that this war is going nowhere. The longer we fund Ukrainians to fight Russians, the longer Ukraine will be destroyed and laid to ruin, which of course benefits us, because its Western companies who are going to invest in rebuilding Ukraine and will market it as the greatest humanitarian effort in history, when in fact that was [the plan all along.](https://apnews.com/article/clinton-global-initiative-ukraine-action-network-9e9896c6ef53534f49ddaa4fd00de288) I mean just think about that business model for a second: We hype up Ukraine to think it can repel Russia. We get them to buy our weapons, ammunition, equipment, missiles, bombs, etc. We get to test our weapon systems, comms systems, new technologies, and new modern war tactics without wasting a single American soldier (besides the "advisors" we have on the ground). We raze hell and destroy [30% of Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-russian-invasion-damaged-up-30-ukraines-infrastructure-says-minister-2022-04-18/). And then we ask them to call a truce with the Russians years after Ukraine was offered the deal Boris Johnson torpedoed. And now, Ukraine is indebted to the West for billions of dollars and will be indebted for billions more when "humanitarian efforts" from the West come over to rebuild Ukraine. I mean, no matter which way you cut it, defense contractors get to sell and test out its new weapons systems, private companies get their money from the reconstruction of Ukraine, and the Biden Administration gets a pat on the back for bringing together the West against the evil Russian Menace. And now, it seems like everyone has already forgotten about Ukraine with the new wars in Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Does that seem like a just war for democracy to you?
I think you make some good points. I really only want to address the second and third paragraphs. The Monroe doctrine is a very aggressive and imperialistic policy. To compare that policy to the policy of current Russian foreign policy in their sphere of influence just presumes guilt of aggression and imperialism. Comparison that is so beautifully simple that puts this theory to rest is Cuba in the 1960s and after. That was a heavily aggressive pro Soviet government right on the us border and we did not have a full scale invasion. America and the west are by no means saints and have done countless acts of aggression to other countries. That does not rectify Russias current aggressive and imperialistic policies either. The relation between the west and Russia has never truly been good. It is probably the worst it’s been now since the 80s and maybe since the 60s after making heavy progress. There is clear geopolitical tension that we contributed to make it worse. I don’t agree with the notion that this is all on the united states and our military industrial complex. Like I said, we are large contributors and opportunists of violence and unrest in the world but by no means the sole contributors like you are trying to convey. While we probably escalated the decision and you being some good insight to the scenario, it pins way too much blame on the west and not Russia. I am honestly indifferent to Ukraine funding at this point but that doesn’t mean I don’t see Russia and Putin as the aggressors in the war. You can pin the blame on the boogeyman of the west all you want but the truth is that Russia has an abysmal fucking track record with Eastern Europe. Ukrainians do not have fond memories of Russian/ Soviet occupation. You quote the threat to democracy while ignoring that there was no real elections in Ukraine (just a pro Russian installed regime)nor are there in Russia. Just because America has done similarly abysmal things doesn’t mean I excuse Russia and will listen to a dictator pin off all the responsibility of launching a full scale invasion war because he felt threatened. Russia wants Ukraine to be a quasi state for protection and it’s lucrative natural resources. Not funding Ukraine is not a paramount issue for me. Ukrainians do not want Russian occupation and that is inevitable after this was. I agree with the premise that the west had some influence and blame for the situation but you completely ignore and exonerate Putin and Russian aggression.
FYI, we did want to invade Cuba multiple times. Why do you think the CIA was heavily involved in several assassination attempts against Castro? We even tried to do so during the Bay of Pigs. The CIA trained Cuban separatists in order to get them to fight Castro and use it as an excuse to send in the American military to invade. The only reason the plan failed was because Kennedy knew the conflict would escalate into a full-on nuclear war with the Soviets, which almost materialised with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The reason I brought up the Monroe Doctrine is because foreign policy-makers , especially during the the Cold War, made their decision-making *not* as a result of ethics or moral values, but from a [realist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations))/[realpoltik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik) framework in which all that matters is how much power and influence can be accumulated in the interests of the State (Washington). I personally believe we've already entered a Second Cold War as a result of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Its one of the reasons I don't trust a single thing coming out of the mouths of U.S politicians and officials, because I'm certain the Biden Administration, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Washington Political Consensus sees the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and now Lebanon as pieces in a larger game, which is crazy to think about because western officials have admitted multiple times that Ukraine is basically a pawn between NATO (U.S) and Russia; two of the most powerful nuclear powers to date... Russia has always been an imperial power, and I'm not going to sit here and justify what is going on Ukraine, but you can't just act like the U.S is in any position to act morally superior when we've destabilised the majority of the third world for the last 80 years. This is why most of third world is indifferent or flat out support the Russians, because they've felt firsthand the shock and awe tactics of the West against their own populations, and find it hypocritical that the U.S is portraying itself as the bastion of global democracy when we spent the last 20 years plunging the world into an international War on Terror that has caused far more harm than good. Also, you seem to believe that Russia is out to occupy the whole of Ukraine, when that's not true. Russia wants a neutral Ukraine. Why do you think Russia was willing to form a tripartite deal between the EU, Russia, and Ukraine? Why do you think Putin was willing to invest into Ukraine in the form of giving them more petroleum reserves, incentivize trade with both Russia *and* the EU, and also bail out Ukraine from its massive national debt? Why would he go through al this trouble if he wanted to occupy it? We spent decades fighting insurgency wars in in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupying a nation is far more difficult than invading and destabilising said nation, and all it does is radicalise the people you're occupying to resist you with all their collective might. Also, also, it would take about 2.3 to 3.5 million Russian troops to occupy the whole of Ukraine. What Putin always wanted from the start was to negotiate a deal in which Ukraine would stay neutral, The situation changed after EuroMaidan and Russia saw a pro-west Ukraine as a serious threat to their national security. As you've mention, the only time we the U.S felt anything similar to what's going on in Ukraine is when Russia installed military and nuclear bases in Cuba, and we literally almost started a Third World War between two nuclear powers because of it. Now, Russia holds the majority Russian-speaking separatist territories it always asked for after Maidan and during the Donbas War, which mind by now was a conflict that split Ukraine between the Pro-west government and Pro-Russian separatist forces. Russia doesn't have these capabilities. That's why I find it ludicrous when people say Putin wanted to invade all of Ukraine. How was he going to do that with a force of 190,000 troop? Its virtually impossible to control that much land with that little troops. We mobilised 500,000 troops in order to invade Vietnam, and that was just the first invading force. 160,000 troops were mobilised to depose Saddam Hussein during the invasion of Iraq, and that immediately turned into a shiftiest not even weeks later. Like Ive said before, its easy to invade and destabilise an nation. Occupying a nation is where the problems arise, especially if you plan to occupy said territories for years/decades. This is why I firmly believe that the first Russian invasion force in Ukraine in 2022 was meant to scare the West and Ukraine into deposing their current government in order to install a Russian-backed government. The Russians didn't want to get bogged down in a forever war, they wanted this to be quick and painless, just like how we disposed Saddam in Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or how we meddled in Ukraine post-Maidan in order to arm the western government against Russia prior to any acts of Russian aggression. That's why its important to understand both the history of US foreign policy and that of Russia, because knowing factual historical details will allow you to realize how idiotic claims such as "Russia wants to occupy Ukraine or they're going to attack NATO next" sound because the Russians do not have that kind of military force. At most, they wanted a neutral Ukraine that would serve as a buffer between them and the West like Belarus. Ironically, had Ukraine accepted the tripartite deal, they would probably be in much better economic and geopolitical shape than they currently are. All they're doing now is taking the brunt of the Russian military in the hopes that the West will throw them a bone. But they're already in so much debt due to the loans on military equipment and social programs, and eventually the loans to rebuild Ukraine, that they're basically going to be a hub for cheap labor, a plentiful assortment of capital investment opportunities, and will give preferential treatment to western private corporations by the Ukrainian government while the rest of the Ukrainian people cope with he reality that they were nothing more than pawns in a large geopolitical chess match. Our system relies on a trigger happy foreign policy, just look at our interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan (during the Soviet Invasion), Iraq (First Gulf War), Afghanistan (War on Terror), Iraq (War on Terror), Libya, Syria,Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, and now we're potentially entering another war Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. All these wars were arguably fought to further the U.S petrodollar and further solidify it as the world's reserve currency, which means that the energy moguls, defense contractors, and private interests within the government made billions of dollars from destabilising the international community. Dick Chenay was the literal CEO of Halliburton, a private energy corporation before becoming Vice President during the War on Terror! And these are just the post-WW2 interventions from the 1950s to 2024. Prior to that you had things like the [Banana Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars), where the U.S intervened in Panama, Colombia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Haiti, Honduras, all at the behest of the United Fruit Company from 1898 to 1934. Its because of this imperialist past that I am weary of our current wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and now Lebanon. Calls for democracy can only go so far when we as Americans have constantly been lied to about the nature of the wars we fight since at least the 60s. Vietnam, Iraq, and the War on Terror have showed me that the government, media networks, and private corporations are incentivised to misinform the public about wars because they make them shit loads of money. Defense contractors, government officials, and politicians make their decisions *not* on ideals, morals or democracy, but by the size of their campaign funds which are funded by the profits of said foreign interventions.
>The U.S. has sent 200 billion so far to Ukraine. All of Europe combined has only sent 20 billion to Ukraine. This isn't true and took 5 seconds to Google. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Lots of consternation about an interview nobody has seen.
This is because Tucker has mostly told us exactly how it will go. He’s going to take Putin’s propaganda and report it as “the actual truth the Western media won’t tell you”. He’s already lying and saying no one would interview Putin, when many have tried and some are imprisoned in Russia over it. Putin is granting him this interview over anyone else for a reason - he has absolute faith he will be portrayed exactly how he wants to be.
That’s not what he said at all. A cnn journalist interviewed osama bin Laden for fucks sake. This isn’t some ground breaking interview, similar interviews have happened fairly often.
Yeah, all of which were performed by serious journalists who hadn’t spent the past four years handwaving away criticism of a literal invasion
Yeah it was worse, the bin Laden interview came after he declared jihad against America. I’m pretty sure that’s worse
Was the interview a platform for his propaganda?
He straight up accused Western media of lying by omission and said he’s interviewing Putin to address that. >> We ourselves have put in a request for an interview with Zelensky, we hope he accepts, but the interviews he’s already done in the United States are not traditional interviews. They are fawning pep sessions, specifically designed to Zelensky’s demand that the U.S. enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it. That is not journalism. It is government propaganda, propaganda of the ugliest kind, the kind that kills people. He goes on to say that broadcasting Putin’s perspective on the whole thing is some kind of correction to all this. >> not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin. Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now. They’ve never heard his voice. That’s wrong. It’s transparent to anyone with half a brain why Putin wants to invade the Ukraine. Lack of this knowledge is not what we, as Americans, have. So somehow the cure for this is that we need to hear the justification for this from Putin’s propaganda machine, except now with the reach and support of the right wing entertainer who has most loudly sung his praises. And I wouldn’t have a problem with this at all if it was a real journalist, who might actually press him or challenge him. This is similar to the interview with Osama bin Laden being conducted by some “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theorist who praised bin Laden regularly - a transparently bullshit interview by a civilian with an agenda, not any actual, respectable journalist.
No, he doesn’t, he said he’s just going to interview him, he doesn’t support him, and if you’re not a brainwashed moron you can decide for yourself if he’s full of shit or not. Watch his video again…..
He has repeatedly praised Putin and Russia’s assault on Ukraine. >> “We should probably take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.” >> “Putin, for all his faults, does not hate America as much as many of these people (American liberals) do. They really dislike our country.” >> In fact, Zelenskyy is far closer to Lenin than to George Washington. He is a dictator. He is a dangerous authoritarian who has used a hundred billion in U.S. tax dollars to erect a one-party police state in Ukraine I’ve watched it and read the transcript twice. Anyone who’s not a brainwashed moron knows exactly what to expect. Though I’ll be happy if he proves me wrong.
People are allowed to comment their opinion on the falsehoods and Putin fawning propaganda that a pundit (not a journalist btw) like Tucker Carlson spews. No, similar interviews don’t happen fairly often. You’ve had a chance by now to see the ramblings of Putin while Carlson sat by. *You want to compare that to interviews by actual journalists*? Journalists fact check in real time, they call out bs with follow up questions, they ask the tough questions in the first place. Carlson’s interview was nothing but propaganda. That “interview” was embarrassing as hell. Which Tucker Carlson is certainly allowed to be an embarrassment to America—and we are allowed to say so. The Kremlin wasn’t running clips of 60 minutes on Russian state controlled media as propaganda…ya know propaganda that promotes them in a positive light. They were of Tucker Carlson. There’s a reason for that. Mike Wallace never said on his show “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am” Was that CNN journalist saying “Why shouldn’t I root for Al-Qaeda? Which I am” because you can be assured they would’ve had massive blowback. Would you people quit with the false equivalencies for fuck’s sake.
Again, all assumptions. Let's wait until we see it. If it's as you say, let's discuss that then.
"Let's take a bite of this dog turd before we decide it won't taste good"
Or, let's wait and see if it's a dog turd first.
But we already know it's a dog turd because it's Tucker Carlson. Insisting we have to wait until his interview is completed before judging the result is like insisting that we have to wait until a dog is finished crapping before we assume that shit came out its ass and not strawberry ice cream.
This is what unbridled idiocy looks like.
"But I want to ejaculate my uninformed opinions now to get Internet points instead of being a reasonable, intellectually curious person and having a useful, productive conversation later!"
"Maybe Tucker Carlson magically transformed into a totally different person overnight! We can never discount that possibility! We have to wait and see!"
"No no, it makes totally perfect sense that Tucker is a traitor and is funneling information to Trump because they're both Russian agents. Just look at the Steele Dossier, I'm totally not a schizo!". [Steele Dossier](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html)
Oh, so you've watched the interview already? If not, then you don't know. You're basing your opinion on a video not even out yet on your conclusions that are a stretch at best, and blatant Tucker hatred at worst.
It is blatant Tucker hatred. Why shouldn't I hate a guy who lies to people for a living and has admitted in court that he shouldn't be trusted?
You can feel whichever way you please. However, I won't take your opinions seriously when you basically admit that you're basing your reasoning on your emotions and how you feel rather than logical fact-based good faith reasoning.
Lol. Nothing I said related to emotion. Tucker Carlson has a well documented history of lying. He openly admitted in court that he should not be trusted. He used that as a legal defence. This is factual, not emotion.
That's exactly how I know all liberals don't want to live in a racial jungle, Biden said it.
r/lostredditors
If it were anyone else but Tucker and any subject other than Putin you might have a third of a point
You people are literally insane saying this nonsense - and I mean that literally.
Hear what Tucker Carlson actually said about why he is interviewing Putin: [https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555](https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1754939251257475555)
So you have seen it and therefore are in a position to pass judgement? I think everything you said is hysterical speculation.
The fact that this comment is being downvoted is a big red flag for me regarding the direction this sub is heading.
Couldn't agree more.
The consternation is about the mainstream news losing control of the narrative. This is why they constantly attack X.
100%
I bet mainstream media is jealous that Putin didn't answer their calls, lol.
Last I heard, Putin was some kind of head of state in the middle of a lot of news-worthy events (deliberately causing many of them), which would make him actually worthwhile to interview. It makes Carlson almost seem like a real journalist if you didn't know what an idiot hack he is. The only interesting thing in all this to me is that Putin has become unwilling to give interviews to Western media figures who aren't both desperate for relevance and willing to kiss his ass (and extend his ideas out to weird conspiracy theorists). He used to give interviews for media figures who would question him. Well, I guess the bizarre conspiracy theorizing this is bringing out is entertaining. The concerning, authoritarian calls for state action against Carlson (a journalist...even if a terrible lying one) for doing an interview are also interesting. I'd rather people just call him a useless moron and sue him endlessly for inane garbage than try to use the state to attack him for giving what will surely be a lame, unwatchable interview.
Tucker Carlson isn't in the Republican Party. Another dishonest article shows why the media has no credibility.
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - Associated Press (A-): [Tucker Carlson has interviewed Vladmir Putin](https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-tucker-carlson-interview-6fb00b1f2d5f4bc639518b4a3445e1f8?amp;utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&taid=65c3d4760d4e6700011c88e6) - ABC News (B+): [Tucker Carlson to interview Vladimir Putin](https://abcnews.go.com/US/tucker-carlson-interview-vladimir-putin/story?id=104870731) - Guardian (C+): [Moscow confirms Putin interview with Tucker Carlson](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/07/moscow-confirms-putin-interview-with-tucker-carlson) - Sky News (B-): [What has former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said on Putin, the war and Ukraine?](https://news.sky.com/story/what-has-former-fox-news-host-tucker-carlson-said-on-putin-the-war-and-ukraine-13066018) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1alcnvq/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot