Tucker Interviews Putin

[Uncle J]

Well I guess that I read it somewhere, and my guts feelings told me that it's likely true? Nevertheless, I can anytime find an article that can support what I believe, but I can't guarantee it's the truth. Yes, there is always the risk that it could be Russian propaganda. Even so, I would believe it to be no less reliable that the information that shaped your beliefs, for the simple reason that Russian propaganda is no less reliable than the Western propaganda!

It's always important to keep in mind that the main goal of propaganda isn't necessarily to get people to believe one thing or another, but to get them to the point where they don't know what to believe and don't trust anything.

Yes, I have an interesting analysis here: http://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/11/w...-in-search-of-natos-non-enlargement-promises/

The tricky part is that it was not a written agreement but oral promises that were broken. Nevertheless Russia has reasons to feel betrayed. The jurist that wrote this article concluded that:

A) From a legal point of view
Western verbal promises made to the Soviet Union cannot be seen as binding by international law. Neither their language asserts their binding force, nor the circumstances under which they were made.

B) From a diplomatic point of view
the notes put those Western politicians who publicly denied that any promises were made to the Soviet Union, in a tricky position. This especially includes Stoltenberg. Arguing that such promises were not legally binding does not excuse that NATO’s Secretary-General wrongly stated that such promises did not exist.

Thanks for finding that, it was a very interesting read. My take is slightly different, as you might guess.

First of all, the statements about NATO not expanding eastward weren't promises made by the West, but were at the most "implied". IOW, no one ever actually told the USSR that NATO promised to not expand east.

Second, the newly discovered documents are from meetings held between the foreign ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany, which means the USSR wasn't even there when the statements were made. So how those internal discussions that the Soviets weren't privy to got turned into an implied promise is a mystery.

Finally, the negotiations etc. were with the Soviet Union, which doesn't exist anymore. So even if there had been a written agreement, it would today be null and void since one of the signatories no longer exists....like a business contract with a company that's gone out of business.

But this is exactly how the foreign policy of the USA is! Why do you use a double standard?

I'm not aware of the US invading another country because it joined an alliance, let alone of me defending such a thing. Do you have an example?

No, I am Swiss, therefore I don't need to take a side because we are neutral ;-).

I'm curious why you're so interested in US domestic politics.

Yes, here it is: https://www.aaronmate.net/p/ukraines-top-negotiator-confirms. In my former post, I put a text for the link, so I understand why you didn't see it. If you follow an internal link you will find an article in an Ukrainian newspaper saying: Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight. However this article also said that the Ukrainians had some reserves as they wanted more security guarantees before accepting peace. However, I don't think it would be an insurmountable barrier that can't be overcome with some rounds of negociations!

Again, thanks for providing the link.

Well yeah, of course they didn't want to give in to all of Putin's demands right after he invaded! I mean, if you're saying that the US and UK "stood in the way of peace" by not just caving to everything Putin wanted....um...okay. I tend to see that as a good thing.

Agree! Courage is above all needed, when we have to recognize that we have been fooled!

Yep, and that means you have to have the courage to look at, and fairly consider, things that don't agree with you.

 

[JJonas]

You're not making sense. "Stop giving military equipment to local police" is not "defund the police", no matter how desperately you try and spin in that way.

You didn't read the article correctly, this is not about military equipment! If you continue with bad faith I don't see the point of continuing to discuss. I think it would be better to agree that we have a different opinion and move on!

And were you aware that many of the high profile events were actually conducted by right-wingers hoping to trigger a race war?

First it was not a huge coordinated effort like BLM, but a few crazy people. This is not only a problem of the right wing because you can find crazy people in all the political spectrum! Here you are comparing a truck with a bike: the amount of destruction from the BLM riots is way bigger as what those few crazy people could do!

Second, I don't trust these leftist media because they have their agenda to follow, and they don't care much about the truth. To some extend, I however agree that it concerns rightist media like Foxnews too. But leftist media seem to me more ready to lie blatantly.

Nope, Republicans have been pretty open about defunding federal law enforcement.

Well as you could read, they didn't want to defund federal law enforcement per se, but it was just a means of exerting pressure to put an end to the dysfonctionnements! OTOH, for BLM and BLM endorsing politicians, the goal is a long term defund of the police for ideological reasons. You can't compare oranges with apples!

And that's where humility and courage come in....sometimes you just have to be brave enough to just say "I was wrong".

That's true. As for me it needs more than a few articles from a biased leftist media to convince me. But if you could find neutral articles, I am ready to admit any wrongs.

 

[Uncle J]

Why do you watch conservative news, if it's so painful for you?

I don't remember saying it was painful for me, but I may have...lol.

I do all that because I think it's important to see what those you disagree with are seeing and listen to what they're hearing. Otherwise, you run the risk of putting yourself in the proverbial echo chamber, where all you hear and see are people and things that agree with you.

 

[JJonas]

It's always important to keep in mind that the main goal of propaganda isn't necessarily to get people to believe one thing or another, but to get them to the point where they don't know what to believe and don't trust anything.

You are talking about subversive propaganda from an outside country, which could, but not always, follow this goal. Inland propaganda has enforced conformity as a goal.

 

[Uncle J]

You didn't read the article correctly, this is not about military equipment! If you continue with bad faith I don't see the point of continuing to discuss. I think it would be better to agree that we have a different opinion and move on!

That's exactly what it said.

"A group of Senate Republicans, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), today are expressing serious concern about a proposed executive order (EO) by the Biden Administration that would limit law enforcement access to nonlethal and lifesaving resources, and impose greater restrictions on federal grant dollars...

The EO would prohibit the transfer of nonlethal tools, such as armored vehicles and flash-bang devices"

Not being in the US, perhaps you weren't aware that at that time, the issuance of military equipment to local police forces was a serious hot-button issue.

First it was not a huge coordinated effort like BLM, but a few crazy people. This is not only a problem of the right wing because you can find crazy people in all the political spectrum! Here you are comparing a truck with a bike: the amount of destruction from the BLM riots is way bigger as what those few crazy people could do!

Here's the difference though....you can't show anywhere where Biden praised the rioting and looting, while I can show you where he specifically condemned it.

“I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted,” Biden said. “Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way.”

Meanwhile, when it came to the "Unite the Right" mess, Donald infamously referred to the people involved as "very fine people".

Second, I don't trust these leftist media because they have their agenda to follow, and they don't care much about the truth. To some extend, I however agree that it concerns rightist media like Foxnews too. But leftist media seem to me more ready to lie blatantly.

That's just lazy thinking. You're simply waving away inconvenient information because it's not what you want to hear, which brings up an obvious question.....why would it bother you to find out that white supremacists were behind some of the notorious events of 2020? Do you sympathize with them or something?

Well as you could read, they didn't want to defund federal law enforcement per se, but it was just a means of exerting pressure to put an end to the dysfonctionnements! OTOH, for BLM and BLM endorsing politicians, the goal is a long term defund of the police for ideological reasons. You can't compare oranges with apples!

Wow, that's quite a set of mental gymnastics you've got going on there.

So Biden signing an EO prohibiting the transfer of military equipment to local police = "defunding the police".

But Republicans actually saying they want to cut the funding of federal police isn't "defunding the police".

Looks to me like you're trapped in classic tribalism. Try and do better.

That's true. As for me it needs more than a few articles from a biased leftist media to convince me. But if you could find neutral articles, I am ready to admit any wrongs.

That's not how it works. Critical thinking and objectivity mean you go ahead and look at those articles, consider their contents fairly, and if you have any doubts about their contents you go look for original source material (in this case, court documents).

So with the articles about white supremacists trying to exploit the protests and hoping to start a race war, if you think that's all one big lie and completely false, all you have to do is check the police reports and court documents yourself.

But the bigger question for me is, why would you be so resistant to learning this info? Why would it bother you to find out that white supremacists were behind some of the violence?

 

[JJonas]

The EO would prohibit the transfer of nonlethal tools, such as armored vehicles and flash-bang devices"

Not being in the US, perhaps you weren't aware that at that time, the issuance of military equipment to local police forces was a serious hot-button issue.

I don't see how nonlethal tools could be military equipment, except maybe for training purpose. So I still believe that Biden, intentionally or not, does politics that causes police to be defunded.

Here's the difference though....you can't show anywhere where Biden praised the rioting and looting, while I can show you where he specifically condemned it.

“I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted,” Biden said. “Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way.”

Thank you for pointing that! I learnt something. OTOH promoting also the mouvement that caused the riots won't help reduce the riots.

That's just lazy thinking. You're simply waving away inconvenient information because it's not what you want to hear, which brings up an obvious question

No. First I don't have a final opinion on the question about the rise of crime in the USA. I considered the link you provided and I am open that the information there could be true. But I saw that the article from Foxnews and the comments below show a different perspective, that also could be true.
Second, I learnt by experience that you can't trust leftist media. Trust is not something granted. It has to be earned!

It looks like to me that we disagree on many things and we can still spend a lot of time debating to no avail. I want to spend my time more productively. I hope that you can understand!

PS: You didn't mention that but I also hope that you valued the pieces of information that showed a nuanced view on the story of the expansion of NATO and of the broken peace process between Russia and Ukraine, and that we can both agree that they are likely true!

 

[Uncle J]

I don't see how nonlethal tools could be military equipment, except maybe for training purpose.

At the time, local police were regularly using things like armored personnel carriers, flash grenades, etc. in situations when they weren't needed, which obviously caused a lot of angst among the public.

So I still believe that Biden, intentionally or not, does politics that causes police to be defunded.

If you ever come across something to back that up, post it.

Meanwhile, President Biden specifically said during his 2022 State of the Union Speech:

"Let’s not abandon our streets. Or choose between safety and equal justice," Biden said. "We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund them with resources and training they need to protect our communities."

Biden also noted that the American Rescue Plan provided $350 billion for local governments to hire more police and invest in "proven strategies like community violence interruption."

Thank you for pointing that! I learnt something.

You're quite welcome.

OTOH promoting also the mouvement that caused the riots won't help reduce the riots.

Well that was 4 years ago and we haven't had a repeat of it.

No. First I don't have a final opinion on the question about the rise of crime in the USA. I considered the link you provided and I am open that the information there could be true. But I saw that the article from Foxnews and the comments below show a different perspective, that also could be true.

I suppose if you want to say all the data showing crime dropping is a made up lie, because you read something in the comments section of a Fox News article, that's your choice.

It looks like to me that we disagree on many things and we can still spend a lot of time debating to no avail. I want to spend my time more productively. I hope that you can understand!

No problem.

PS: You didn't mention that but I also hope that you valued the pieces of information that showed a nuanced view on the story of the expansion of NATO and of the broken peace process between Russia and Ukraine, and that we can both agree that they are likely true!

I did and I responded to it. Thanks again.

 

[ezrider]

BLM riots

Um....those took place in 2020, when Donald was president. Sheesh.

Thanks for pointing that. I didn't remember correctly that by the time he acceded to presidency, these riots already stopped.

Oh yes, the old BLM riots. And let us not also forget about the clashes between the Proud Boys and Antifa that raged on our tv sets from the streets of Portland. Where did all those riots go? Why isn't BLM still rioting? Did all the Proud Boys get locked up after the Jan 6 insurrection? Where is Antifa? Why don't I hear about them anymore? Did they just disappear?

What happened? What changed.....??? Hmm.... Oh, that's right Biden was elected as the President and not all of Trumps men where courageous enough to pull off the coup. So it seems to me all the rioting ended after the Trump administration ended. And when it ended, so did his funding for Academi and the mercenaries who were unleashed upon us to destabilize our cities and foment the rioting. That was to be used to justify the implementing the Insurrection Act, but they were instructed by Trump himself on live tv to stand back and stand by. How much changed that night?

 

[Corn Pop]

That's another thread .

My battle with what I did wasn't alluded to directly .but that this effort might be the same as Vietnam .mission creep ,nation building which we already are doing via aid to keep the economy going,arms .

The only next step is to send troops in.we are training them here and giving them aid and healing the wounded .

I was talking to old man scrooge before he died and his brother was a world war veteran as he was a year too young to serve, and hidden away he had all this information, and i said i want to see it, so old man scrooge gave it to me, his brother was a poet and just reading his basic daily diary and his stories it traumatised me trying to understand it was deeply distrubing, his diary cut off the day he was killed, he wrote alot of poetry and they not politically correct.

Alot of testimony of what he was going through and what happened. I think im one of the only people who have seen it, i dont know if old man scrooge ever read it himself.

 

[Riven]

The last time the German military was "among the strongest in the world" was during WWII. They're currently spending 1.57% of their GDP on defense. Would increasing that by 0.43% make or break NATO? I tend to doubt it.

Probably not. But a strong Germany is better for NATO than a weak Germany. If we ever ended up in a two front war, it would be nice to know that Germany can hold it's own against Russia. Right now I'm not convinced that it can.

So they all agreed in 2014 to start dedicating more of their GDP to defense spending, and since then have done exactly that, with some currently meeting or exceeding the 2% target, others being less than half a percent under that, and a minority (mostly smaller countries) being between 1.0% and 1.5%.

I certainly don't see that as a reason to start threatening them. And actually a good diplomat would tell them "Good job, keep it up" thereby strengthening NATO, rather than undermining it.

But do you recall what happened in 2014? Russia took control of Crimea. It took an act of aggression to get these NATO members to start investing more in defense.

Well yeah, seeing as how we're (by far) the largest NATO country and spend (by our own volition) more on defense than the rest of the world combined.

I mean, we can't intentionally spend that much on defense and then get upset when we use it.

Yeah, but I don't think we use the investment as a reason to use it. The strength of our military, much like nuclear weapons, should first act as a deterrent to other armies that would otherwise attack us or attack our allies.

That's good to hear, because IMO this goes far beyond just about anything else he's done (and that's saying something). I mean, encouraging Putin to invade a NATO ally, and saying if he did he could do whatever the hell he wants?

As I said, IMO that's treasonous. It's the sort of thing that Trumps (lol) anything else a candidate says or promises to do.

It's just such a stupid thing to say. He had to know he was going to get blowback from those comments.

 

[JJonas]

I did and I responded to it. Thanks again.

Sorry, I missed that! Then I want to address your answer:

Thanks for finding that, it was a very interesting read. My take is slightly different, as you might guess.

First of all, the statements about NATO not expanding eastward weren't promises made by the West, but were at the most "implied". IOW, no one ever actually told the USSR that NATO promised to not expand east.

Second, the newly discovered documents are from meetings held between the foreign ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany, which means the USSR wasn't even there when the statements were made. So how those internal discussions that the Soviets weren't privy to got turned into an implied promise is a mystery.

Finally, the negotiations etc. were with the Soviet Union, which doesn't exist anymore. So even if there had been a written agreement, it would today be null and void since one of the signatories no longer exists....like a business contract with a company that's gone out of business.

Concerning your statement that no ever actually told the USSR that NATO promised to not expand east, the article I linked to stated the opposite:

The ILC further stated that unilateral acts can indeed produce legal effects when three conditions apply: such unilateral acts 1) take the form of a formal declaration (written or oral), 2) are directed towards an addressee, and 3) are made “with the intent to produce obligations under international law.”

The first two conditions are relatively easy to assess in the given situation. The ICJ confirmed that unilateral acts can be made in various forms, and oral promises can fall under this category. The meeting notes also show that certain promises were made during the 2+4 negotiations, it was made clear that NATO would not expand beyond the Elbe. Moreover, the notes reveal that this information was made clear “to the Soviet Union”, and therefore was directed to and reached an addressee.

Moreover, at the time of the negotiation, I understand that it was clear that the Soviet Union was about to dissolve. Even if is true that promises to the Soviet Union became legally void after its collapse, one can argue that for morally reasons they should be kept, especially for a side that pretends to have a superior morality! Anyway, pretending that these promises weren't never made to the Soviet Union is a blatant lie, which is always wrong!

Again, thanks for providing the link.

Well yeah, of course they didn't want to give in to all of Putin's demands right after he invaded! I mean, if you're saying that the US and UK "stood in the way of peace" by not just caving to everything Putin wanted....um...okay. I tend to see that as a good thing.

Well if you pay attention to the wording, it becomes clear, that the US and UK didn't give the choice to the Ukraine to continue the peace process if they wanted to. They didn't respect the sovereignty of Ukraine!

I'm curious why you're so interested in US domestic politics.

There is a saying, that every change that happen in the US comes in Europe after 10 years. We can debate if it's true or not, but it is undeniable that the US has a great influence on western countries. By the way, I have family in the US.

 

[Uncle J]

Probably not. But a strong Germany is better for NATO than a weak Germany. If we ever ended up in a two front war, it would be nice to know that Germany can hold it's own against Russia. Right now I'm not convinced that it can.

By itself, certainly not. The US and maybe China are probably the only countries that could take on Russia all by themselves, with no help at all.

But do you recall what happened in 2014? Russia took control of Crimea. It took an act of aggression to get these NATO members to start investing more in defense.

Yep.

Yeah, but I don't think we use the investment as a reason to use it. The strength of our military, much like nuclear weapons, should first act as a deterrent to other armies that would otherwise attack us or attack our allies.

Sure, but that doesn't negate the point. We can't spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, and then be surprised when our treaty allies rely on us more than anyone else.

It's just such a stupid thing to say. He had to know he was going to get blowback from those comments.

I guess it depends on who his audience was. If it was a signal to Putin, then mission accomplished.

 

[Uncle J]

Concerning your statement that no ever actually told the USSR that NATO promised to not expand east, the article I linked to stated the opposite:

Ah, thanks for spotting that.

I went back and re-read the article and noticed a few other things, namely that the Soviets were allegedly told that NATO "shouldn't" expand eastward, and that the people who said that weren't heads of state or even foreign ministers.

So together with....

Moreover, at the time of the negotiation, I understand that it was clear that the Soviet Union was about to dissolve.

....I don't think Russia has much of a case, and this is certainly no excuse to invade Ukraine and do the horrible things they've done there.

Even if is true that promises to the Soviet Union became legally void after its collapse, one can argue that for morally reasons they should be kept, especially for a side that pretends to have a superior morality! Anyway, pretending that these promises weren't never made to the Soviet Union is a blatant lie, which is always wrong!

Well in sum, we have western officials who weren't authorized to make promises to other countries telling the Soviet Union that NATO "should not" move east with none of that making its way into the final treaty/agreement, and it all being done with the USSR, an entity that no longer exists (e.g., like reaching an agreement with Yugoslavia and later Serbia saying it's still valid).

I mean, if NATO not expanding east was such a vital component of these negotiations, the Soviets should have insisted that be put in writing.

Well if you pay attention to the wording, it becomes clear, that the US and UK didn't give the choice to the Ukraine to continue the peace process if they wanted to. They didn't respect the sovereignty of Ukraine!

Um no, there was zero indication that Ukraine wanted to surrender to Putin. They were pretty clear as soon as Putin invaded....they were going to fight.

There is a saying, that every change that happen in the US comes in Europe after 10 years. We can debate if it's true or not, but it is undeniable that the US has a great influence on western countries. By the way, I have family in the US.

Ok, makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Uncle J]

After the death of Alexei Navalny, Tucker Carlson is getting quite a bit of blowback for his Putin love and apologetics for Navalny's death.

Tucker Carlson faces new backlash over Putin interview after Navalny death

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is facing a fresh wave of criticism over his controversial interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week — and his subsequent comments that “every leader kills people” — following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny on Friday...

Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), accused Carlson of having “made a bunch of Russian propaganda in Moscow. Then he said publicly “leaders kill people” and then Putin murdered Navalny — his most famous and powerful dissident. Americans should not forget this,” she tweeted.

Former Wyoming Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney called Carlson “Putin’s useful idiot,” as she shared a story about Navalny’s death.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who had previously also called Tucker one of Russia’s “useful idiots,” wrote after Navalny’s death: “History will not be kind to those in America who make apologies for Putin and praise Russian autocracy.”

 

[jasonc]

https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-2024-02-14/?fbclid=IwAR3OYHMqgi-Dy73HNquVlOEEGu9s_mzgTN-poc53KeVgpM1draI-DmytuCM

 

[Riven]

After the death of Alexei Navalny, Tucker Carlson is getting quite a bit of blowback for his Putin love and apologetics for Navalny's death.

Tucker Carlson faces new backlash over Putin interview after Navalny death

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is facing a fresh wave of criticism over his controversial interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week — and his subsequent comments that “every leader kills people” — following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny on Friday...

Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), accused Carlson of having “made a bunch of Russian propaganda in Moscow. Then he said publicly “leaders kill people” and then Putin murdered Navalny — his most famous and powerful dissident. Americans should not forget this,” she tweeted.

Former Wyoming Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney called Carlson “Putin’s useful idiot,” as she shared a story about Navalny’s death.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who had previously also called Tucker one of Russia’s “useful idiots,” wrote after Navalny’s death: “History will not be kind to those in America who make apologies for Putin and praise Russian autocracy.”

But why? All he did was interview him.

 

[Uncle J]

But why? All he did was interview him.

Because he gave a platform for an authoritarian dictator and war criminal to spew his propaganda, unquestioned and without scrutiny. And then afterwards when asked about Putin's history of murdering political opponents and critics, Carlson basically engaged in apologetics.

 

[Riven]

Because he gave a platform for an authoritarian dictator and war criminal to spew his propaganda, unquestioned and without scrutiny. And then afterwards when asked about Putin's history of murdering political opponents and critics, Carlson basically engaged in apologetics.

How is it any different than the UN letting Putin speak? Or a journalist interviewing Charlie Manson when he was alive? A sit down interview is just basic journalism.

 

[Uncle J]

How is it any different than the UN letting Putin speak? Or a journalist interviewing Charlie Manson when he was alive? A sit down interview is just basic journalism.

Because it wasn't an interview by a journalist. It was a Putin-lover providing an authoritarian dictator a platform to spew propaganda. Carlson never asked him any hard-hitting questions or follow-ups, nor did he confront him with his record of atrocities. Heck, Tucker barely even talked.

 

[Riven]

Because it wasn't an interview by a journalist. It was a Putin-lover providing an authoritarian dictator a platform to spew propaganda.

He's the leader of Russia. You don't have to like him, but many people, especially here in the States, wanted to hear what he had to say.

Carlson never asked him any hard-hitting questions or follow-ups, nor did he confront him with his record of atrocities.

I agree. I thought Tucker should have been more assertive. But consider the fact that he was in Russia. The fact that he even went to a nation that we're basically at war with, and to sit down with the enemy leader for a chat, is honestly quite something.

Heck, Tucker barely even talked.

That's one of the things people liked about the interview. Putin was allowed a great deal of time to speak uninterrupted. One of the criticisms of American media is how the pundits talk over the guests. It was a nice change of pace, IMO.

The legacy media is only upset because they didn't get the opportunity for the interview. Like it or not, independent media like Tucker is the future. There have been talks of Donald Trump going on the Joe Rogan show.