Tucker Carlson

Sure go right ahead with your interview of Hitler.

How do I know Putin doesn’t want self determination for the people of Ukraine? Because he invaded it.

How do I know the CCP doesn’t want self determination for the people of Tibet and Taiwan? Are you serious?


His reincarnation is in Moscow.

Sure you don’t have to. But it’s pretty stupid not to, because then your enemy has more information about you than you have about him.

LOL. And how exactly are you going to “stop Putin”? Send him a strongly-worded email? And stop him from doing what, exactly?

I really can’t comprehend how people can sit behind a keyboard and advocate for more war. Sometimes wars are necessary or unavoidable. Sometimes you get a leader of a country whose aggression is unconstrained and cannot be reasoned with - Hitler, of course, was a good example. Whatever else he might be, Putin isn’t Hitler.

1 Like

Have you not been paying attention?

Putin could end the war any time. He started it.

1 Like

What? It was a bit more complicated than that.

I wasn’t suggesting that they did. I was suggesting that they might be interested in resolving such questions in such a manner that outright war is avoided - or at least kicking the can down the road with the same goal. Same sort of reasoning would apply to the ethnic tensions on the Ukraine/Russia border.

Sending all the Ukrainians need to kick him off their land,
Then sending an Thank you Letter to the Ukrainians not an E-mail to Putin.

Are you sure?
We need to talk about this!
Hear me out… ramble, ramble, ramble


Well, they invaded Tibet, and aren’t discussing self determination there. What they are doing is slicing off pieces of Bhutan and India in the Himalayas. And the CCP has made it pretty clear self-determination for Taiwan is off the table.

Well, it could have, but Putin chose invasion.


Well then, other countries could make multilateral agreements without the participation of … whoever doesn’t want to agree. Treaties drawn up by a majority, respected by a majority, will act as some sort of reference point for international behaviour even if imperfect or incomplete.

The problem, I think you’ll find, is that the majority of nations don’t want clarity in these laws. It’s not Russia and China poisoning the well. Almost all Western nations value territorial integrity above all else, and are prepared to commit violence to enforce their will. They wouldn’t want their own options constrained.

What, an excessively lengthy prepared statement about how the entirety of Eastern Europe is Russian Lebensraum doesn’t display a “broad [enough] understanding of history” for you?

Clearly demonstrating his “broad understanding of history” instead of any particular poster’s soft spot for loudmouth authoritarians hidden under a veil of libertarianism

But mearsheimer says we have to give Russia it’s power bubble or it’ll lash out - oh…

worthwhile discussion point

Imo it kinda falls into the same space as say, JRE interviewing Alex Jones. Now Tucker is a hell of a lot smarter than the annoyingly braindead host of aforementioned podcast, and just kinda better in a lot of ways. I don’t much like him, but I can watch some of his interviews and recognize certain aspects that aren’t shit. But JRE-Alex Jones and Tucker-Putin do share a common trait in this case: in both, the interviewer more or less just let them talk their bull with little significant challenge or resistance to make the interview interesting. Whether that’s allowing them to propagandize or just letting the man feel comfortable so he can open up – which I will say, in both cases they seem to act just as they always do – is probably up to individual viewers opinion of interviewer and interviewee. But it made for an astoundingly boring interview devoid of anything actually materially relevant to… Anything but people interested in Russia’s justifications for war, most of which we already basically knew.


Im glad you noted its a partial truth and mentioned his domestic audience and like you say there is some truth there.

But when people make statenents of opinion which leave out the beeding obvious you have to ask is it because they are stupid or trying to deceive by pushing a narrative.

I would suggest Putins primary audience and the one all politicians cater to is their base. In Putins case Russians.

Thats why I would think everyone found his half hour historic rant in the West boring (except @ChewDawg and similar types who are into that sort of thing) certainly not the “hardcore conservatives" who were just as bored by that as everyone else.

But I bet the Russians were lapping up every word. Theres more truth to the claim being made in the latter part of the interview though.

1 Like

This is the right thread for that!

Well, yes and no. There will be an election, but O don’t think he’s worried about rallying his base to make sure he gets enough votes. Seems bleeding obvious to me, but Russia is not a vibrant democracy. The extent to which he was deliberately speaking to this or that audience isn’t worth debating, but to my mind it isn’t necessarily primarily his voting base in Russia

Ok, yeah, his audience for that would largely be domestic Russian first, US Trumpists second, Poles somewhere at the end

Care to be more specific?

Off the top of my head and there were numerous examples, I recall the US border issue came up which is domestic politics. The idea hes up with whats going on with the Superbowl and even more so with Taylor Swift is highly suspect.

As is normal for many high ranking politicians they demand questions in advance, I suspect that was the case in this interview.

Id need to go back and check for specifics if you would like more details, but yes it struck me he was pushing certain western political talking points.

Oh the idea Boris Johnson scuttled talks right back in the beginning, I think it was clear Russia wasn’t going to negotiate peace, but he likes that talking point.

Not just a right wing talking point that one, the anti war left push that talking point too, its very popular.

There is, of course, both. @TT didn’t say, nor did he imply that everyone that listened was just sucking up the propoganda (quite the opposite - he implied a spectrum).

That seems pretty unlikely - he seems smarter than to believe all the nonsense he’s spewing.

finley has a point that “they might be interested in resolving such questions in such a manner that outright war is avoided” - both Putin and the CCP strongly prefer people roll over for them rather than resist. :roll_eyes:


No he does that too, but even if a politician is aiming for a crowd outside his base, everything that is said is framed with the thought how his base will react first and foremost.

Who do you think is more eagerly tuned in to what Putin is saying? Russians or Westerners?

As you already know 1/2 the West couldn’t give a toss what he says, probably more. Do you really think that is true in Russia?

1 Like

I get the impression that a lot of people here are dismissing the whole interview as “propaganda”, i.e., worthless lies. There’s no doubt that Putin is going to want to paint himself in a favourable light, but I’ve now watched almost the whole thing, and like pretty much any political interview I’ve seen four things:

a) Stuff that’s uncontentious, that almost everyone agrees on or can be verified.
b) Stuff that Putin puts his own spin on, but isn’t actually untrue;
c) Stuff that’s hard to verify - such as private conversations.
d) A few instances where he’s just being coy or evades the question.

The only untruth I spotted was Putin claiming that he never threatened nuclear retaliation, and that that was just scaremongering for the European masses. In general, though, he was forthright and honest, for a given value of ‘honest’. He is, after all, a politician.

I don’t observe Tucker sucking up or allowing him to just blather on, apart from his silly laugh (he really needs to sort that out). He puts several challenging questions and is respectful without simpering (unlike, say, that appalling MSM “interview” with Zelensky that’s doing the rounds). And then he shuts up and lets Putin answer. I’m not sure what the peanut gallery imagine the proper approach would have been, or how they would have done it better. In normal human society, though, that’s how people conduct conversations.

What nonsense specifically are you pointing to?

He discusses the run-up to the war at length, and explains how he felt pushed into a corner by all parties reneging on the Minsk agreement. Is he lying about that? Hard to tell. However I find it extremely hard to believe he would start a war with Ukraine for no reason whatsoever. You might argue that he was mistaken about the actions of the other parties - perhaps he was. But I don’t think so. Various independent commentators have made similar observations about the pre-war scenario.

1 Like

I don’t think anyone has ever vaguely suggested this, even if we don’t believe the NATO pushed me into it, or I’m rooting out Nazis narrative.


So the question arises: if Putin was lying about his motivations (and I can see no possible benefit in doing so), why did he invade Ukraine? The internet seems full of mind-readers these days, who apparently know Putin better than he knows himself.

1 Like