Oliver Stones "The Putin Interviews": Historic Documentary about Putin

[luc]

One (hopefully) final note on this: I never used the word "offended." I merely said that it was an unfortunate moment in the interview (again, on the "bad day" comment), and then I analyzed the various ways in which it was unfortunate in the posts I did on this topic in response to what was being said here.

I actually think disagreements can be useful in that they help to sharpen one's own argument, or can point to weaknesses in one's argument, which opens up new things to think about. It's in that spirit that I like to discuss and analyze. But unfortunately when there is disagreement things can get polarized, and then there really is no useful debate going on since the subtler points get overlooked.

Just a note Heather that I don't think you need to justify your comments, if that was your intention here - I thought what you wrote about Putin's comments was insightful and I didn't get the impression that you were offended at all. Plus, it led to a fruitful discussion and personally, it forced me to straighten out my thinking on the matter. So, all good! :)

 

[Heather]

One (hopefully) final note on this: I never used the word "offended." I merely said that it was an unfortunate moment in the interview (again, on the "bad day" comment), and then I analyzed the various ways in which it was unfortunate in the posts I did on this topic in response to what was being said here.

I actually think disagreements can be useful in that they help to sharpen one's own argument, or can point to weaknesses in one's argument, which opens up new things to think about. It's in that spirit that I like to discuss and analyze. But unfortunately when there is disagreement things can get polarized, and then there really is no useful debate going on since the subtler points get overlooked.

Just a note Heather that I don't think you need to justify your comments, if that was your intention here - I thought what you wrote about Putin's comments was insightful and I didn't get the impression that you were offended at all. Plus, it led to a fruitful discussion and personally, it forced me to straighten out my thinking on the matter. So, all good! :)

Thanks, luc, I appreciate your comments, and I'm glad if what I posted was in some way useful to you (!)

No, I wasn't justifying my own comments so much as summarizing them -- in the context of terms like being "offended" or "too sensitive," which have nothing to do with what I said, or my tone of conversation, etc.

I think that when there is disagreement and things become polarized there can also be high emotions and the impulse to be reactive, as opposed to steady and thoughtful. I'm not immune to this myself. What's probably best in such instances is to step back and take a breath, or even wait 'til such emotions subside. Then one can see more clearly what is actually being said, which might not even resemble what your emotions were having you believe initially.

Anyway, none of this is easy, but I do believe it could allow for conversations of greater depth, with a sense of having been heard and responded to in that vein, etc. In that sense, disagreements are an opportunity not just from a debate standpoint but as concerns the emotional aspect as well.

 

[luc]

No, I wasn't justifying my own comments so much as summarizing them -- in the context of terms like being "offended" or "too sensitive," which have nothing to do with what I said, or my tone of conversation, etc.

I think that when there is disagreement and things become polarized there can also be high emotions and the impulse to be reactive, as opposed to steady and thoughtful. I'm not immune to this myself. What's probably best in such instances is to step back and take a breath, or even wait 'til such emotions subside. Then one can see more clearly what is actually being said, which might not even resemble what your emotions were having you believe initially.

Anyway, none of this is easy, but I do believe it could allow for conversations of greater depth, with a sense of having been heard and responded to in that vein, etc. In that sense, disagreements are an opportunity not just from a debate standpoint but as concerns the emotional aspect as well.

I completely agree - me too, I often get into negative emotions (anxiety, self-doubt, the urge to be right and so on) when there is disagreement. We can learn a lot about our emotional make-up by such experiences I think - recognizing this and thinking twice before reacting already can make a big difference. Sometimes what works for me is to come up with mental images: for example,I picture a dense emotional 'fog' surrounding me that clouds my thinking and my vision. Then I picture a huge vacuum cleaner sucking in all the fog and suddenly the picture becomes clear again.

Or, I try to look at the situation as if I was witnessing someone else instead of me - and often realize how out of proportion my emotional reaction is and that whatever triggered it is no big deal at all. I think these are very important lessons and we can't practice such things enough, here on the forum and in daily life.

 

[Heather]

Hi again, luc.

Actually, another thing I noticed -- again on the topic of disagreements -- is that someone will change his or her viewpoint seemingly because they feel pressured to do so. You know, in order to not make any waves, as it were.

The trick is in knowing what pressures from within and without you are responding to, and that's not always easy. Group consensus can be a powerful thing, even at an unconscious level. So maybe again it's to take more time with things, and in that way discern better what your true thoughts and feelings are.

Or, I try to look at the situation as if I was witnessing someone else instead of me - and often realize how out of proportion my emotional reaction is and that whatever triggered it is no big deal at all. I think these are very important lessons and we can't practice such things enough, here on the forum and in daily life.

What you're describing is another way of putting some distance on the situation, attempting to look at things more objectively.

Funny that something as seemingly basic as communication remains so utterly challenging (!)

 

[judyanderson12]

I had downloaded the four parts using the link that Beau had provided to Paradigmet, since none of the parts were available for viewing to me on YouTube. I watched the first three parts and then this morning when I started to watch Part 4, the music began and everything appeared to be fine, but when they began talking, there was no sound for their voices.

I downloaded it again just in the event it might help, but still there is no sound available for their voices. Any idea what might be going on? Thanks.

Judy

 

[Aeneas]

I really enjoyed the Putin interviews too. He is just heads and shoulders above just about all the current leaders in the world, not to mention that he has a very nuanced view of reality and not black and white as the US or EU "partners". And always keeping the door open with an olive branch in hand, like Ceasar.

Initially I downloaded the videos from youtube, but when I found time to watch them, I noticed that episode 3 was without sound. Not having looked at the thread here and to the solutions such as paradigmet, then I found another alternative which is the Russian youtube, called Rutube, where the episodes can be found in English with subtitles of what Putin says.

Additionally is the French version dubbed in French. The episodes can be found here: _https://rutube.ru/video/fa2c54495589ba5ab40bf54c78b27ee1/

They are called: Conversations avec monsieur Poutine 1-4

 

[Divide by Zero]

Thanks for the links.


To French speakers, why would Putin's name change spelling to Poutine in French? Other foreign names like Sarkozy and so on are not translated or changed in spelling...


From what I know, in Canada there's a French food called Poutine which is why it confuses my why the French spell his name this way.

 

[mkrnhr]

To French speakers, why would Putin's name change spelling to Poutine in French? Other foreign names like Sarkozy and so on are not translated or changed in spelling...

Changing the spelling makes sense in this case in order to keep closer to the original pronunciation of the name, especially with the vowels. For example "u" in French doesn't sound the same as in English (although in the case of "Putin", it shouldn't sound like "piu-teen" in English). The English "u" like in "pool" is written "ou" in French. In French "in" is not pronounced "i-n" either unless there is the "e" at the end. The other reason why it shouldn't be spelled "Putin" in French is because it would sound like a dirty word.

Added: Some fun with French vowels: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-I4v00d3A8

 

[Ca.]

Oliver Stone discusses his documentary series “The Putin Interviews.” on Charlie ROse
Published on Jun 27, 2017

http://<iframe width="560" height="...C8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Charlie Rose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Rose

Charles Peete "Charlie" Rose, Jr. is an American television talk show host and journalist. Since 1991, he has hosted Charlie Rose, an interview show distributed nationally by PBS since 1993. Rose has also co-anchored CBS This Morning since 2012. Wikipedia
Born: January 5, 1942 (age 75), Henderson, NC
Height: 6′ 3″
Partner: Amanda Burden (1993–)
Spouse: Mary King (m. 1968–1980)
Education: Duke University, Duke University School of Law, New York University

_https://www.google.com/search?q=Charlie+rose&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj967Cry-3UAhUmC8AKHeUICzIQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1267&bih=873#imgrc=kXufE-0-LFbOAM:

 

[munaychasumaq]

The deep moment in the interview,when Oliver Stone asked Putin if he trust in his bodyguards,he asked with a Russia Saying:"Those who are destined to be hanged are not going to drown"...Russian philosophy.

 

[Elohir]

I really enjoyed the Putin interviews too. He is just heads and shoulders above just about all the current leaders in the world, not to mention that he has a very nuanced view of reality and not black and white as the US or EU "partners". And always keeping the door open with an olive branch in hand, like Ceasar.

Initially I downloaded the videos from youtube, but when I found time to watch them, I noticed that episode 3 was without sound. Not having looked at the thread here and to the solutions such as paradigmet, then I found another alternative which is the Russian youtube, called Rutube, where the episodes can be found in English with subtitles of what Putin says.

Additionally is the French version dubbed in French. The episodes can be found here: _https://rutube.ru/video/fa2c54495589ba5ab40bf54c78b27ee1/

They are called: Conversations avec monsieur Poutine 1-4

Thank you very much for the link ;)

 

[Cosmos]

In case you also wondered which books were lying on Putin’s desk when he guided Stone through his office. Two of them we know now. The first one was Oliver Stones book in russian and the other was “Nationalisation of the Ruble: the Path to free Russia” written [urlhttps://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29446.msg723657.html#msg723657]by Nikolai Starikov[/url].

Other books of Starikov include:

"Who Killed the Russian Empire? Mystery of 20th Century.", Moscow, Yauza, Eksmo, 2006. (in Russian)
"Myths and Truth about Civil War. Who Finished Off Russia?", Moscow, Yauza, Eksmo, 2006. (in Russian)
"Betrayed Russia. Our 'Allies' from Godunov to Nicholas II.", Moscow, Yauza, Eksmo, 2007. (in Russian)
"1917:Not A Revolution But Special Operation!", Yauza, Eksmo, 2007 (in Russian)
"Who is financing Russia's collapse? From Decembrists to Mujahideen.", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2008. (in Russian)
"Who Forced Hitler to Attack Stalin?", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2008. (in Russian)
"Who Set Hitler Against Stalin? Hitler's Terrible Blunder", Piter, 2015 (English translation of the above book)
"Seek the Oil. Why is Our Stabilizing Fund Placed There?", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2008. (in Russian)
"Crisi$: How is It Organized", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2009. (in Russian)
"Salvation of US Dollar - War", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2009. (in Russian)
"Rouble Nationalization: The Way to Russia's Freedom", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2011. (in Russian/English).
"Crisis: How is it done? (+ audio CD, read the author)", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2011. (in Russian).
"Chaos and Revolution - Weapons Of US Dollar.", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2011. (in Russian).
"Ukraine - Chaos and Revolution - Weapons Of US Dollar.", St. Petersburg, Piter, 2014. (in Russian).

English translations of parts of Starikovs "Who Forced Hitler to Attack Stalin?" are available at orientalreview.org under menu item 'episodes'. The following link has a list towards the end where these articles may be reached:

_http://orientalreview.org/2015/04/25/episode-15-poland-betrayed-vi/

 

[Cosmos]

Does anybody know which the other books were on the table?

 

[Turgon]

Does anybody know which the other books were on the table?

I don't think there were many books on the table, mainly newspapers. Here's a snapshot of that scene, in case some Native Russian members might see it differently.

 

[Cosmos]

Does anybody know which the other books were on the table?

I don't think there were many books on the table, mainly newspapers. Here's a snapshot of that scene, in case some Native Russian members might see it differently.

Yes it weren't many. From the picture it were three, so one we don't know yet.