Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

Is that a correct conclusion to draw from what Putin said?

If this interview brought home something in full force, it's that the west consists of irrational, silly and frankly moronic children. We are just so used to it that even the best of us, like Tucker, can fall for these ways of thinking. "Why this man so complicated talk! He hurt cause we mean to him!" The whole interview is the perfect mirror for a mentally ill civilization.
 
Exactly what I was thinking.. And as for Putin feeling "wounded by the West's rejection of Russia", well it's kind of a "juvenile dictionary" way of seeing it I think...understandable when that's the dictionary of the whole political environment you're used to...Putin's just on a whole nother level! At one point in the interview Carlson said something like "you're obviously bitter about the West's rejection", to which Putin replied "Bitter? No, I'm just stating the facts..", which is just what he was doing.
I have to chuckle when Tucker said Putin is wounded by West's rejection. :lol: Really? I think Putin is VERY diplomatic in explaining his position. If he had said in Russian Frankness, Tucker would have said "he is filled with hatred" or even Lunatic and equate him to North Korean guy.

In the West, the tendency of putting themselves in other's shoes is very rare particularly countries they consider(or programmed to consider) inferior. But he says, it is lunatic not to give up Crimea. I guess it is either misreading of style of communication or giving impression of it for public consumption of his western audience.
 
Why there is so much "fuss" about interview with Putin's now. Didn't Megan Kelly did interview with him before? At that time, Fox presented it with their spin to American audience. I guess PTB don't want that this time as they can't spin easily with Tucker's interview- particularly after he parted ways from MSM.

Some people say it will hurt elections. With the hidden "veto" power the voting machines has, no body can win elections against PTB.
 
I find a correlation between Putin’s patient, deliberate history lesson and Russia’s taking its time in Ukraine. The west wants fast answers and rapid progress in the battlefield. Russia gives them neither, which vexes the 5 minute attention span of the MSM-influenced mindset. Things worth doing right require patience and deliberation. The west has the capacity for neither. Thus the new Roman Empire, as Putin so clearly stated, falls an order of magnitude more quickly than the old.
 
Needless to say, it wasn't "Putin's first interview in years." And what do y'all think, is Putin not good at explaining himself? Or did Carlson not understand Putin's explanations?
I think Putin was walking circles around Tucker in this interview. I commend him for doing the interview, but he still acted like a TV journalist at times by completely missing the point and putting words into Putin’s mouth (like when he said Putin was bitter). It shows that even the ‘best’ interviewer in the USA still seemed juvenile for the seriousness of the situation being discussed. After all, Putin did say very early on: are we being serious or not?

Maybe I can give Tucker the benefit of the doubt after too many years of interviewing American politicians that are experts in not answering questions, but he seemed unprepared for the talk.
 
As Putin said, 'China bad' is just another bogeyman tale for kids.
I am guessing that was in context of China being a threat to Russia, which it is not. I also am pretty confident he would not want to live under the Chinese either. China and Russia literally need each other to counter the US. And neither the leadership or Russia or China are stupid enough to play stupid games with nuclear weapons. Say what you will about China, their leadership is quite intelligent - more engineers than the incompetent lawyers who run the United States. And historically China has not been an expansionist power.

But factually speaking, just about every government on the planet is bad. I spent years of research and travel finding the right one to move to - there are not a lot of good choices. In fact only lesser evils. China is definitely one of the bad ones. China might conduct itself well in terms of foreign policy (again, outside of the Taiwan issue), but internally they run a police state. I have actually been to Tibet. Internet access there is HIGHLY CENSORED, much more so than Beijing and Shanghai where they were quiet open (at least prior to Xi, I cannot say after that). I can assume it is the same in the Muslim regions. In Llasa they have this big square dedicated to the Chinese Government that the people there ACTIVELY AVOID they hate the government so much. The people there locally joke about the Panchen Lama is a government stooge (they had a specific epithet, but I forgot it), because basically the choice is all but determined by the CCP.

If you watch the English language version of CTV - their public television, it is striking how absolutely controlled the message is. I remember watching from Hong Kong all these people just agreeing with each other on everything - with no debates or alternative positions. Unfortunately, mainstream media in the West is becoming more like this, just without the civility of the Chinese broadcasters.

These are facts that anyone can verify by traveling there themselves. Does any objective person think that the government should be choosing religious leaders? Does anyone think they should be substantially blocking the information they have access to? How about the way they handled the lockdowns? The West restriction of freedom that we complained about was mild compared to China. And remember, did they or did they not lie to the international community early on about human transmission? Is that something a good government would do? Again these are just facts, not boogeyman stories.

If you were in a group accused of being a cult in China, what do you think would happen to you? Well we know the answer to that. Falun Dafa is a relatively benign practice that has been brutally persecuted. It is not even a political or religious movement. When I was there both 2007 and 2014, they had members prominently in the streets of Hong Kong making people aware of what was going on in the mainland - with photos on posters.

If the people of the Donbass deserve their sovereignty from the Ukraine, because they voted for it, do not the people of Taiwan deserve the same? Would not the Ukraine attacking the Donbass be effectively the same as China attacking Taiwan (which is rumored to happen this spring in April / May) just for voting for the wrong political party - one that wanted the same self determination the peoples of the Donbass wanted? One that would be more warranted since they have been self governing for over 70 years? I get the US is playing stupid games in Taiwan now (and this would not even be so much of an issue now if not for Kissinger and this whole self contradictory Taiwan policy that makes no sense). I think that is because Biden is all but owned by Xi. Look at who paid Hunter big money - the Ukranians and the Chinese. How is it in the US's best interests to make trouble there now? The only country that really has benefited from the conflict in the Ukraine and this noise over Taiwan is China. The Ukraine situation forced Russia to cut ties with the West and made them more dependent on China, and delivered cheaper gas to China. US obsession with Taiwan the last two years will give China the "cause belli" to invade Taiwan (even though it is a weak one), if they in fact do so. And with the conflict with Russia, prompted by Ukraine, and the troubles in the Middle East, China knows the US practically can't do anything about it (they probably couldn't even at full force because this is in China's backyard). Biden is fueling both of those other fires. Taiwan should not suffer because their only security umbrella is run by corrupt and stupid psychopaths.

If China does invade the peaceful country of Taiwan (which I don't think actually happens unless the West does something stupid in the Ukraine very soon - which IS highly likely given what came out of the Polish air force recently) you will have your definitive answer on the Chinese boogeyman.
 
I liked the final Putin dialog or punch.

"... They will be reunited. Unity is still there. Why are the Ukrainian authorities are dismantling Ukrainian Orthodox church? Because it brings together not only the territory, it brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the souls" It looked Carlson initially shocked( looks to recover with little amusement) but went silent. Putin has to be take initiative to end it by saying "Shall we end here?". Carlson simply nodded like a boy saying "Thank you Mr. President". It looked Carlson was not expecting the closing script.

Putin is the "Boss". ❤️
 
It's a little late, but it's still good for detente.
Sensation: new best friends Tucker and Putin ride a bear in snowy Moscow
The satirical publication BabylonBee used Tucker Carlson's visit to Moscow as an excuse to ridicule stereotypes about Russia. According to his version, the American journalist and the Russian president rode around the capital together on a bear. And the highlight of the program was a joint dive into the ice hole.

While the whole world is holding its breath waiting for Vladimir Putin's exclusive interview with Tucker Carlson, Muscovites report from the field that they saw them drinking vodka together and driving around the Russian capital on a bear.
Read InoSMI in our Telegram channel
The controversial independent journalist and the Russian president reportedly celebrated the end of their conversation according to the traditional Russian custom: they staged a breathtaking bear ride on Red Square and drank several glasses of Stolichnaya.
"Ur-r-r-a-a! Come on, Vladimir, spur him on! Schenkel to him!" Tucker yelled, holding onto Putin, who was sitting on a bear.
"It looks like they got along nicely," said one eyewitness. — And then there were rumors that Tucker Carlson came to Putin for an interview. We didn't know if it was true, but now we saw it with our own eyes and saw for ourselves. I was standing on the corner and munching beef stroganoff, when suddenly I heard some brave screams. I look towards the Kremlin: bah, yes, it's Putin with Tucker — riding a magnificent bear. They also say that they went to the gym together and, instead of a barbell, squeezed beauties with legs from the ears from the chest. Real men, incredibly powerful."
Leading media outlets and American lawmakers have warned the public that Putin's interview with Carlson will surely be full of "disinformation" and "propaganda." "Tucker compromised himself," said Congressman Eric Swalwell. "He drove there for an interview, and ended up riding a bear through the city streets and drinking vodka? I have no doubt: they probably conspired there to rig the election in favor of Donald Trump, but I am not authorized to make further statements yet without the go-ahead of my Chinese contact." (Eric Swalwell accused Trump of colluding with Russia until it turned out that he was in a sexual relationship with a Chinese intelligence officer. InoSMI)
At the time of printing, it became known that Carlson and Putin rode a bear to the nearest ice hole, where, throwing off their shirts, they dived into the icy depths.
СенÑаÑиÑ: новÑе лÑÑÑие дÑÑзÑÑ Ð¢Ð°ÐºÐµÑ Ð¸ ÐÑÑин каÑаÑÑÑÑ Ð½Ð° медведе по заÑнеженной ÐоÑкве

Немного запоздалое, но все равно для разрядки сгодится.
 
I think Putin was walking circles around Tucker in this interview. I commend him for doing the interview, but he still acted like a TV journalist at times by completely missing the point and putting words into Putin’s mouth (like when he said Putin was bitter). It shows that even the ‘best’ interviewer in the USA still seemed juvenile for the seriousness of the situation being discussed. After all, Putin did say very early on: are we being serious or not?
I was surprised at how fast Tucker spoke at times when interjecting questions or comments, considering everything was going through an interpreter.
 
I very much enjoyed the interview with Tucker and Putin! Putin seemed really excited to share history with everyone, even wanting to present those documents to Tucker (it disappointed me that he didn't take a respectful peek). I got a little emotional when Putin was explaining the history of Ukraine and Russia -- he reminded me so much of my late grandpa, who used to love to give long, detailed, and sometimes tangential history lessons to me and the rest of the family about Europe and his experiences as a WWII-era German refugee. Even his mannerisms were very similar, especially when he was making a point. I think this is what Tucker confused with Putin feeling wounded; his eyes brightened at pointing out the facts, sometimes in a "Can you believe that?" manner, like with the times the West refused to cooperate with Russia. (It's a shame Grandpa bought into the Western propaganda about Putin and hated him, because I think if Putin had been an ordinary dude, they could've been good friends!)

(Also, did Tucker ever watch one of Putin's Q&As? The man has been giving marathon interviews!)

I wish Tucker hadn't interrupted Putin so many times. I can understand losing your attention span listening to someone for a while, and wanting to get an interview more on-track to fit a time frame. To his credit, I think Tucker did a good job keeping up with Putin (not easy with simultaneous interpretation), although if he had listened even more carefully and had known more background, I think Tucker could've seen Putin was trying to give very important context to explain what he could. I get the impression that the questions were not really given ahead of time (I think the question about Orban getting part of Ukraine caught him off guard, for example). This made Putin's responses more impressive to me. He needed more time! (It again reminds me of listening to Grandpa. "Grandpa, what does that have to do with anything?" "Hold on, I'm getting to it!") At the same time, like the statesman he is, I thought Putin sometimes didn't give straight answers so as to not burn bridges and/or give the Western propaganda machine more ammunition. He didn't say much that wasn't easily verifiable. I hope Tucker will watch the interview again and think about it. Putin presented himself as very reasonable, so I hope Tucker's audience will pick up on that.

Some points I thought were totally missed by Tucker, like how he said afterward that Putin didn't come up with a coherent theory on why the West didn't want Russia. I recall Putin saying something like, "It's a big country with its own opinion." The West didn't like a huge sphere of influence it couldn't bully and control. Isn't that reason close enough? (Without getting into talk about the True Semites, of course.) Or when Putin was telling the story about the guy imprisoned in Germany for killing another guy who was brutally killing Russian soldiers. "What does that have to do with Gershkovich being compassionately released?" It means Russia respects the laws of other countries, whether they agree with the act morally or not, and that others should do the same for Russia! They're not going to demand release for nothing when laws are violated. Duh! (Also, seriously Tucker? "He's just a kid!" Gershkovich is 32. He's older than me! If you play in the dirt, you get dirty, especially when dealing with espionage!)

I would love a follow-up interview on Putin talking more about the Russian Soul and what Orthodoxy means for him personally. It was heartwarming to see how he believed despite the differences, the West will fail and the peoples of Russia and Ukraine will unite again. The whole thing is worth watching a second time.

(Also, a little late, but as far as Tucker's face goes, that's really just his interview face, no matter who he's interviewing. It might be a trained expression to show he's listening intently, although I always thought it looked kind of judgmental. I used to watch his show a lot. Nothing cultural about it! He didn't usually raise his eyes and eyebrows as much as he did during this interview, though. I think he was genuinely surprised. He also looked like he was holding back sometimes, when he had bright eyes and a very tiny smile. But maybe I'm reading too much into that, like Tucker did with Putin!)

Thanks for all the links and discussion! It was interesting to hear what everyone thought.
 
I was surprised at how fast Tucker spoke at times when interjecting questions or comments, considering everything was going through an interpreter.
I wondered about that too. Perhaps he was wearing some sort of earpiece that provided a more immediate translation than we received watching the recorded interview.

I was a bit disappointed in Tucker's impatience and interruptions, but it was still a great interview. Perhaps not so groundbreaking for those here, but a great opportunity for others in the world to begin to see the truth of the situation.
 
I am guessing that was in context of China being a threat to Russia, which it is not. I also am pretty confident he would not want to live under the Chinese either. China and Russia literally need each other to counter the US. And neither the leadership or Russia or China are stupid enough to play stupid games with nuclear weapons. Say what you will about China, their leadership is quite intelligent - more engineers than the incompetent lawyers who run the United States. And historically China has not been an expansionist power.

But factually speaking, just about every government on the planet is bad. I spent years of research and travel finding the right one to move to - there are not a lot of good choices. In fact only lesser evils. China is definitely one of the bad ones. China might conduct itself well in terms of foreign policy (again, outside of the Taiwan issue), but internally they run a police state. I have actually been to Tibet. Internet access there is HIGHLY CENSORED, much more so than Beijing and Shanghai where they were quiet open (at least prior to Xi, I cannot say after that). I can assume it is the same in the Muslim regions. In Llasa they have this big square dedicated to the Chinese Government that the people there ACTIVELY AVOID they hate the government so much. The people there locally joke about the Panchen Lama is a government stooge (they had a specific epithet, but I forgot it), because basically the choice is all but determined by the CCP.

If you watch the English language version of CTV - their public television, it is striking how absolutely controlled the message is. I remember watching from Hong Kong all these people just agreeing with each other on everything - with no debates or alternative positions. Unfortunately, mainstream media in the West is becoming more like this, just without the civility of the Chinese broadcasters.

These are facts that anyone can verify by traveling there themselves. Does any objective person think that the government should be choosing religious leaders? Does anyone think they should be substantially blocking the information they have access to? How about the way they handled the lockdowns? The West restriction of freedom that we complained about was mild compared to China. And remember, did they or did they not lie to the international community early on about human transmission? Is that something a good government would do? Again these are just facts, not boogeyman stories.

If you were in a group accused of being a cult in China, what do you think would happen to you? Well we know the answer to that. Falun Dafa is a relatively benign practice that has been brutally persecuted. It is not even a political or religious movement. When I was there both 2007 and 2014, they had members prominently in the streets of Hong Kong making people aware of what was going on in the mainland - with photos on posters.

If the people of the Donbass deserve their sovereignty from the Ukraine, because they voted for it, do not the people of Taiwan deserve the same? Would not the Ukraine attacking the Donbass be effectively the same as China attacking Taiwan (which is rumored to happen this spring in April / May) just for voting for the wrong political party - one that wanted the same self determination the peoples of the Donbass wanted? One that would be more warranted since they have been self governing for over 70 years? I get the US is playing stupid games in Taiwan now (and this would not even be so much of an issue now if not for Kissinger and this whole self contradictory Taiwan policy that makes no sense). I think that is because Biden is all but owned by Xi. Look at who paid Hunter big money - the Ukranians and the Chinese. How is it in the US's best interests to make trouble there now? The only country that really has benefited from the conflict in the Ukraine and this noise over Taiwan is China. The Ukraine situation forced Russia to cut ties with the West and made them more dependent on China, and delivered cheaper gas to China. US obsession with Taiwan the last two years will give China the "cause belli" to invade Taiwan (even though it is a weak one), if they in fact do so. And with the conflict with Russia, prompted by Ukraine, and the troubles in the Middle East, China knows the US practically can't do anything about it (they probably couldn't even at full force because this is in China's backyard). Biden is fueling both of those other fires. Taiwan should not suffer because their only security umbrella is run by corrupt and stupid psychopaths.

If China does invade the peaceful country of Taiwan (which I don't think actually happens unless the West does something stupid in the Ukraine very soon - which IS highly likely given what came out of the Polish air force recently) you will have your definitive answer on the Chinese boogeyman.

You're mistaking strife created by the American deep state - designed to destabilize China - for genuine freedom movements. If you wanna keep on believing this bogeyman narrative, which is pretty much pure deep state propaganda, that's up to you. If you're interested in digging deeper, however, there's plenty of sources to look into if you wanna form a more well-rounded and evidence-based perspective.

There's the USA's role in Tibetan 'independence' (esp. the CIA funding that creep the Dalai Llama), and also what Tibetan independence originally looked like (it was a violent theocracy):



The USA's role in the Hong Kong protests, via the NED:



The Western backing of Falun Gong:


Taiwan as an American gun pointed at China's head (hint - those weapons aren't there for 'protecting Taiwanese democracy'):



This is just a trickle. You can find tons more sources on SOTT, articles and books by Matthew Ehret and Cynthia Chung, and the YouTube channels of Carl Zha, Brian Berletic, etc.
 
One further observation regarding the translator, if you watch Putin’s gestures and body language, it seems like it was edited to make the English come out in time with his speech, in some instances even preceding it. I’m sure it was synced afterwards, therefore likely the pauses for interpretation may have been removed. In essence, the interview may have in actuality been perhaps a half hour or so longer. This would account for the day passing between the conversation and the airing. So a lot of Tucker’s expressions were probably just waiting and refraining from reacting so that the end product looked cohesive. In a sense Tucker was being stage-managed to a degree, possibly even after it had concluded: give me a look of surprise, we’ll edit it in later. Just thinking out loud here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom