Reasoned analysis of Tucker's interview with Putin. I disagree. Politely. Comments, please
20240229
Carlson was doing his job as a newsman. Putin lied. It is our job, not his, to recognize the lies. Here is my analysis of this pro-Tucker Zerohedge piece. The article is on the left margin. My comments have a purple stripe.
"Americans Are Being Lied To About Ukraine" - Tucker Carlson Reflects On Putin, Zelensky, Navalny & Nuclear War
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Feb 29, 2024 - 01:11 PM
The international attacks on Tucker Carlson, especially from within US mainstream media and NATO-connected circles, have only increased following his hugely controversial eight day visit to Russia earlier this month where he interviewed President Vladimir Putin. Russian state media has even this week claimed authorities uncovered an "assassination plot" - rumored to have been backed by Kiev.
The assassination plot would fit right in with Russia's propaganda MO.
It would be stupid and out of character. And a typical Russian lie, like MH17, Nova Kakhovka and so many more.
This week the former FOX prime time host was interviewed about his trip and the whole Putin interview experience in three-hour podcast hosted by Lex Fridman. Tucker Carlson revealed more about what motivated him to do the televised Putin segment, and further discussed his personal take on the Russia-Ukraine war and where it could go from here, now having entered its third year. Interestingly, Carlson's main critique of the war focused not on Putin or the Kremlin's actions in Ukraine, which of course are not under his control or influence, but on the impact to America.
Tucker is right that the American government is charged with looking after the interests of America and Americans.
I happen to believe that defending Ukraine against Russian aggression is in America's interest. But I believe in free speech. He should be allowed his own opinion,
Carlson explained that the West's escalation of the conflict long ago into a full-blown proxy war has not only resulted in more needless Ukrainian deaths, but it has been devastating for the United States. "I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective," Carlson told Fridman. "There’s a war going on that is wrecking the US economy in a way and at a scale that people do not understand." He also generally characterized the response of the US political class to the conflict, along with the American public which has uncritically followed, as naive.
I have a fundamental disagreement with Tucker. I believe that Putin has long wanted to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine's choice is between becoming Russian (and dying anyhow, as Crimea and Donbas citizens are now learning) or to die fighting Russia.
Tucker should look into the atrocities committed against civilians in the occupied areas. The abduction of tens of thousands of children and to Russia. He should recall the misery of the citizens of the Soviet satellites in Eastern and Central Europe.
It is truly a question of dying on one's knees or dying standing up. Ukraine chooses the latter. The Europeans, many of whom recently lived under the Russians, understand this. Tucker does not.
Carlson emphasized that what would be a cautiously realist approach was utterly abandoned by Washington from the start, as has been typical of the past decades of US interventionism abroad. "It doesn’t even matter what I want to happen… that’s a distortion of what is happening," Carlson explained, and pointed to Russia having 100 million more people and more defense industry might "than all of NATO combined."
Tucker is right about the numbers. What he disregards is the fact that Russian society is so shot full with deceit and corruption that the numerical advantage does not translate into a battlefield advantage. If it did, Russia would have won in the early months of the war.
Investigative journalist Tucker should likewise investigate the industrial might of Russia. He should ponder the wisdom of previous ages. Russia is never as strong as it seems or as weak as it seems. Russia is "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,"
Tucker would have said it was folly to fight Russia two years ago. No, it works. And it will work better with American aid.
He described that a big part of the rationale behind the Putin interview was to bring "more information" to the West so that "people could make their own decisions about whether" escalation of weapons to Kiev and jingoistic rhetoric from Western capitals is a good idea.
Tucker has done us a favor of getting Putin's lies assembled into one place to be refuted.
The people who should be refuting Putin's lies are perversely attacking Tucker, who brought them out in the open.
Ultimately, he said, Americans are being lied to:
"Just to be clear, I have no plans to move to Russia. I think I would probably be arrested if I moved to Russia. Ed Snowden, who is the most famous openness, transparency, advocate in the world, I would say along with Assange, doesn’t want to live in Russia. He’s had problems with the Putin government. He’s attacked Putin. They don’t like it. I get it. I get it. I’m just saying, what are the lessons for us?
Thank you for this. Russia is not a place any of us would like to live. That's why Ukraine is fighting.
The main lesson is we are being lied to in a way that’s bewildering and very upsetting. I was mad about it all eight days I was there because I feel like I’m better informed than most people because it’s my job to be informed. I’m skeptical of everything and yet I was completely hoodwinked by it."
It is disappointing that people are trying to shut Tucker up instead of letting him do his job as a newsman.
If he has resisted becoming angry at the American establishment for trying to shut him up and attacking his character, he is a stronger man than I.
Topics highlighted throughout the long-ranging conversion included Carlson's personal take on being one-on-one with a seemingly "nervous" Putin, the question of ending the war in Ukraine, the role of the CIA and Western intelligence services, the prospect that the crisis could spiral into nuclear confrontation with the West, the Alexei Navalny saga, as well as a foray into the Israel-Palestine conflict near the end. Watch the full Carlson-Fridman interview below...
Yeah Putin was nervous.
The following are some key excerpts of Tucker Carlson's words from the interview, selected by ZeroHedge [emphasis ours]...
* * *
Carlson On Putin. "I want to know who this guy is."
I thought he seemed nervous, and I was very surprised by that. And I thought he seemed like someone who’d overthought it a little bit, who had a plan, and I don’t think that’s the right way to go into any interview. My strong sense, having done a lot of them for a long time, is that it’s better to know what you think, to say as much as you can honestly, so you don’t get confused by your own lies, and just to be yourself. And I thought that he went into it like an over-prepared student, and I kept thinking, “Why is he nervous?” But I guess because he thought a lot of people were going to see it...
Carlson knew he was lying. He let him continue lying. That is Carlson's job as a newsman – get him to speak.
It is our job to point out the lies. The American establishment has gotten so used to getting away with shutting people up that they don't know how to argue effectively anymore.
I mean, I asked him as I usually do the most obvious dumbest question ever, which is, “Why’d you do this?” And he had said in a speech that I think is worth reading. I don’t speak Russian, so I haven’t heard it in the original, but he had said at the moment of the beginning of the war, he had given this address to Russians, in which he explained to the fullest extent we have seen so far why he was doing this. And he said in that speech, “I fear that NATO the West, the United States, the Biden administration will preemptively attack us.” And I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” I can’t evaluate whether that’s a fear rooted in reality or one rooted in paranoia. But I thought, “Well, that’s an answer right there.”
That's exactly right. Putin gave him an answer. If Putin believed the answer, it is because he was deceived by his underlings. This has been happening to czars throughout Russia's history. Or maybe Putin really did believe it. Anyhow, it is wrong.
And so I alluded to that in my question and rather than answering it, he went off on this long from my perspective, kind of tiresome, sort of greatest hits of Russian history. And the implication I thought was, “Well, Ukraine is ours, or Eastern Ukraine is ours already.”...
The history that Putin cited is absolutely incorrect and one-sided. It was not Tucker's job to point out out that the time – his job was to get it on record.
The people who are criticizing Tucker should be busy pointing out what a liar Putin is.
I want to know who this guy is. I think a western audience, a global audience, has a right to know more about the guy, and so just let him talk. Because I don’t feel like my reputation’s on the line. People have already drawn conclusions about me, I suppose to the extent they have. I’m not interested really in those conclusions anyway, so just let him talk. And so I calmed down and just let him talk. And in retrospect, I thought that was really, really interesting. Whether you agree with it or not, or whether you think it’s relevant to the war in Ukraine or not, that was his answer. And so it’s inherently significant.
American falsehoods & the Ukraine war
I mean, I guess I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective, which is a tiny group of dumb people in Washington has decided to do this for reasons they won’t really explain. And you don’t have a role in it at all as an American citizen, as the person who’s paying for it, whose children might be drafted to fight it. To shut up and obey, I just reject that completely. I think, I guess I’m a child of a different era. I’m a child of participatory democracy to some extent, where your opinion as a citizen is not irrelevant. And I guess the level of lying about it was starting to drive me crazy.
I disagree with Tucker that Washington is responsible for this war. It seems to me quite clear from reading many books on Russian history and Putin's history in particular that Putin would have made this move anyhow.
The loathsome Washington establishment certainly did nothing to prevent it. And in fact I may have invited it. If I were Putin considering the prospect of fighting an army of men in dresses I would simply laugh. What the Biden administration has done to the American military is despicable. If Putin is not in awe of the personnel in the American military, he is in good company. Most former American servicemen are likewise disgusted at how it has been degraded.
The idea that Ukraine would inevitably win this war. Now victory was never, as it never is, defined precisely. Nothing’s ever defined precisely, which is always to tell that there’s deception at the heart of the claim. But Ukraine’s on the verge of winning. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I’m hardly a tactician or military expert. For the fifth time, I’m not an expert on Russia or Ukraine. I just looked at Wikipedia. Russia has a hundred million more people than Ukraine, a hundred million.
The facts Tucker is looking at are correct, but his assessment is wrong. The Russian soldiers don't have their heart in this war. They are fighting on foreign territory. Ukrainians have strong esprit de corps and at least during 2023 enjoyed better weaponry.
Let's take Tucker at his word – he is not a tactician or military expert. Let's treat him with respect – and attempt to educate him on these matters. The reaction to Tucker has been 100% unconstructive.
It has much deeper industrial capacity, war material capacity than all of NATO combined. For example, Russia is turning out artillery shells, which are significant in a ground war at a ratio of seven to one compared to all NATO countries combined. That’s all of Europe. Russia is producing seven times the artillery shells as all of Europe combined. What? That’s an amazing fact, and it turns out to be a really significant fact. In fact, the significant fact. But if you ask your average person in this country, even a fairly well-informed person of good faith who’s just trying to understand what’s going on, who’s going to win this war? Well, Ukraine’s going to win. They’re on the right side.
I think Tucker has his numbers wrong on artillery. We should not laugh at him, merely correct him.
Russia is importing artillery from North Korea. Apparently it doesn't work very well. It is hard to know what the facts are. Rather than pointing fingers, we should find out.
...And I raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as of course a traitor or something. But okay, great, I’m a traitor. What’s the answer? What’s the answer? [Vic]Toria Nuland, who I know, not dumb, hasn’t helped the US in any way, an architect of the Iraq war, architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US dollar. Okay, fine, but you’re not stupid. So you’re trying to get a war by acting that way, what’s the other explanation? By the way, NATO didn’t want Ukraine because it didn’t meet the criteria for admission. So why would you say that? Because you want a war, that’s why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of billions. So I don’t care if I sound like some kind of left-wing conspiracy nut, because I’m neither left-wing nor a conspiracy nut. Tell me how I’m wrong.
Ukraine has only one traditional enemy, that is Russia. Ukraine did not want to antagonize Russia. Russia was a major trade partner. A large part of Ukraine, though thoroughly Ukrainian, spoke Russian natively. A large fraction of the population has family on both sides of the border.
Russia is a devious, cautious aggressor. It always moves when it senses weakness in the other party. It only attacked Poland from the east after Germany attacked from the west. It only attacked Ukraine in 2013 when it was confident that the country's defenses had been totally infiltrated by Russian spies and hollowed out by pro-Russian Pres. Yanukovych. It attacks far smaller countries such as Finland, Georgia and Moldova when it senses that their friends will not support them.
Putin apparently sensed that the United States was weak and there would be no significant opposition. He was right – United States State Department responded to the war by offering to spirit Pres. Zelinski out of the country. Everybody was shocked that Ukraine wanted to fight. Ukraine knows this enemy far better than Washington did.
On feeling sorry for Zelensky
If I’m a Russian or a Ukrainian, let’s just be sovereign countries now. We’re not run by the U.S. State Department. We’re just our own countries. I believe in sovereignty, okay? So that’s my view. I also want to say one thing about Zelensky. I attacked him before because I was so offended by his cavalier talk about nuclear exchange because it would kill my family. So I’m really offended by that. Anyone who talks that way I’m offended by. But I do feel for Zelensky. I do. He didn’t run for president to have this happen.
Thank you for little sympathy and respect for Zelinski.
We cannot afford to risk a nuclear exchange of any kind. I do not remember Zelinski being cavalier about it, but if he was it was wrong.
I think Zelensky’s been completely misused by the State Department, by Toria Nuland, by our Secretary of State, by the policymakers in the U.S. who’ve used Ukraine as a vessel for their ambitions, their geopolitical ambitions, but also the many American businesses who’ve used Ukraine as a way to fleece the American taxpayer, and then by just independent ghouls like Boris Johnson who are hoping to get rich from interviews on it. The whole thing, Zelensky is at the center of this. He’s not driving history. NATO and the United States is driving history. Putin is driving history. There’s this guy, Zelensky. So I do feel for him, and I think he’s in a perilous place.
In this Tucker is absolutely right.
I am not sure if it is true that there could have been a peace deal and that this administration, using Boris Johnson, prevented it. Most Ukrainians are highly suspicious of Russia. It would've been difficult for Zelinski to sell any kind of peace arrangement.
The prospect of nuclear war
Well it’s been what, 80 years? Not even 80 years, 79. And so we haven’t had a world war in 79 years. But one nuclear exchange would of course kill more people than all wars in human history combined.
Russia has a course been bluffing about nuclear war since they acquired the weapons in the late 40s. They have drawn innumerable red lines in this war that have been ignored without damage. You simply cannot let a bully intimidate you.
I am counting. Because I think it obviously, it’s completely demonic and everyone pretends like it’s great. Nuclear weapons are evil.
Nuclear weapons are evil. Even the tactical nuclear weapons that would almost certainly be the first to make an appearance. But there would be no way to limit their use to tactical, and all parties realize that.
The use of them is evil, and the technology itself is evil. And in my opinion, I mean, it’s like if you can’t, that’s just so obvious. And what I’m saying is I’m not against all technology. I took a shower this morning. It was powered by an electric pump, heated by a water heater. I loved it. I sat in an electric sauna. I’m not against all technology, obviously, but the mindless worship of technology?
The possibility of Russia-Ukraine Peace: Putin "wants a settlement"
Putin wants a settlement. He wants to keep the land he has already conquered. That would leave the present de facto borders, which would be very hard for Ukraine to defend, and as in the peace between 2014 and 2022 there would be endless confrontations. There is no way to guarantee a peace. While it is an attractive notion, there is simply no good way to do it.
He [Putin] wants a settlement, he wants a settlement. He doesn’t want to fight with them rhetorically and he just wants to get this done. He made a bunch of offers at the peace deal. We wouldn’t even know this happened if the Israelis hadn’t told us. I’m so grateful that they did that, that Johnson was dispatched by the State Department to stop it. I mean, I think Boris Johnson is a husk of a man. But imagine if you were Boris Johnson and you spend your whole life with Ukraine flag, “I’m for Ukraine,” and then all those kids died because of what you did, and the lines haven’t really moved. It hasn’t been a victory for Ukraine. It’s not going to be a victory for Ukraine. It’s like, how do you feel about yourself if you did that? I mean, I’ve done a lot of shitty things in my life, I feel bad about them, but I’ve never extended a war for no reason. That’s a pretty grave sin in my opinion.
Zelinski believes that Putin's piece offers are insincere. Russia certainly will not concede any of the land that they have conquered so far.
I have no use for Boris Johnson, but I do not think you can lay this on him. Zelinski knew better than to accept a piece. His people would not have accepted it, and Zelinski himself knows it's a bad idea.
Well, the U.S. government’s not allowing negotiations. So that for me is the most upsetting part. It’s like in the end, what Russia does, I’m not implicated in that. What Ukraine does, I’m not implicated in that. I’m not Russian or Ukrainian. I’m an American who grew up really believing in my country. I’m supporting my country through my tax dollars. It’s like I really care about what the U.S. government does because they’re doing it in my name, and I care a lot because I’m American. We are the impediment to peace, which is another way of saying we are responsible for all these innocent people getting dragooned out of public parks in Kiev and sent to go die. What? That is not good. I’m ashamed of it.
I do not think that the United States is preventing negotiations. Once again I think Zelinski knows better than to enter into bad faith negotiations with Putin. And every negotiation with Putin has been bad faith.
Right now it appears that the Chinese are trying to broker something. I think they are in a better position than Washington.
Tucker is listening to the wrong people. I do not see young men being dragooned out of the public parks in Kiev, where I live. I do read about them being dragooned in Russia. Tucker, you need to do some more investigation and get your facts straight.
On the Alexey Navalny saga
Well, it’s awful. I mean, imagine dying in prison. I’ve thought about it a lot. I’ve known a lot of people in prison a lot, including some very good friends of mine. So I felt instantly sad about it. From a geopolitical perspective, I don’t know any more than that. And I laugh at and sort of resent, but mostly find amusing the claims by American politicians, who really are the dumbest politicians in the world actually, “This happened and here’s what it means.” And it’s like, “Actually as a factual matter, we don’t know what happened. We don’t know what happened.” We have no freaking idea what happened. We can say, and I did say, and I will say again, I don’t think you should put opposition figures in prison. I really don’t. I don’t, period. It happens a lot around the world, happens in this country, as you know, and I’m against all of it.
But do we know how we died? The short answer? No, we don’t. Now, if I had to guess, I would say killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding, maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t see it. But maybe they killed him. I mean, they certainly put him in prison, which I’m against. But here’s what I do know is that we don’t know. And so when Chuck Schumer stands up and... Joe Biden reads some card in front of him with lines about Navalny, it’s like, I’m allowed to laugh at that because it’s absurd. You don’t know.
We do not know exactly how he died. We know that a lot of people that Putin does not like tenses suffer unfortunate coincidences. This is of course nothing unique to Russia. The same has happened to the enemies of the left in America.
I think Tucker is stupid to even touch on this subject. Putin probably did it but we can't prove it. Enough said.
An interesting CIA anecdote
I was like, live in foreign countries, see history happen. I’m for that. I applied to the Operations Directorate. They turned me down on the basis of drug use actually. True. But anyway, whatever. I was unsuited for it so I’m glad they turned me down. But the point is I didn’t see CIA as a threat, partly because I was bathing in propaganda about CIA and I didn’t really understand what it was and didn’t want to know. But second, because my impression at the time was it was outwardly focused. It was focused on our enemies. I don’t have a problem with that as much. The fact that CIA is playing in domestic politics and actually has for a long time, was involved in the Kennedy assassination, that’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And I confirmed that from someone who had read their documents that are still not public, it’s shocking.
I think Tucker is right about this.
You can’t have that. And the reason I’m so mad is I really believe in the idea of representative government. Acknowledging its imperfections, but I should have some say, I live here, I’m a citizen. I pay all your freaking taxes. So the fact that they would be tampering with American democracy is so outrageous to me. And I don’t know why Morning Joe is not outraged. This parade of dummies, highly credentialed dummies they have on Morning Joe every day. That doesn’t bother them at all. How could that not bother you? Why is only Glenn Greenwald mad about it? I mean, it’s confirmed. It’s not like a fever dream. It’s real. They played in the last election domestically, and I guess it shows how dumb I am because they’ve been doing that for many years. I mean, the guy who took out Mosaddegh lived on my street. One of the Roosevelt's, CIA officer.
I'm absolutely with Tucker on these points.
Carlson on the Israel-Palestine conflict
I mean, it’s not a topic that I get into a lot because I’m a non-expert and because I’m not… Unlike every other American, I’m not emotionally invested in other countries just in general. I mean, I admire them or not, and I love visiting them. I love Jerusalem, probably my favorite city in the world, but I don’t have an emotional attachment to it. So maybe I’ve got more clarity. I don’t know, maybe less. Here’s my view. I believe in sovereignty as mentioned, and I think each country has to make decisions based on its own interest, but also with reference to its own capabilities and its own long-term interest.
And it’s very unwise for… I’m not a huge fan of treaties. Some are fine, too many bad. But I think US aid, military aid to Israel and the implied security guarantees, some explicit, but many implied, security guarantees of the United States to Israel probably haven’t helped Israel that much long-term. It’s a rich country with a highly capable population. Like every other country, it’s probably best if it makes its decisions based on what it can do by itself. So I would definitely be concerned if I lived in Israel because I think fair or unfair-
I agree with Tucker on this.
But now it’s not possible. If you had a coalition of countries against Israel, I know Israel has nuclear weapons and has a capable military and all that and the backing of the United States, but it’s a small country, I think I’d be very worried. So there’s that. I don’t see any advantage to the United States. I mean, I think it’s important for each country to make its own decisions.
I agree with Tucker on this.