Thanks
@Jenn. I did also watch Tucker's prelude to the interview. I just didn't care for his explanation. My disappointment stemmed from his furthering American stereotypes such as impatience, arrogance, and rudeness. Since he is somewhat of a representative of conservative America to the world at this point I wish that he had not jumped to his initial conclusion about Putin's communication style. I do think he may have been pretty nervous about this interview from his initial video announcing the meeting from Moscow. Perhaps his fear or nervousness explains what I thought was out of character behavior from him during the interview.
Well I think the problem here is this is an interview for an American audience. I absolutely love long form interviews. I know people who are literally on IQ-lowering Tiktok and are addicted to it. One commented how much more "truth" they found on Tiktok, and I was like "how much truth can you actually digest in a few minutes?" Unfortunately that is his target audience, and I was highly worried during that 30 minute stretch that he would lose a lot of Americans, and Tucker was probably thinking the same thing during the interview and while taping that intro basically to warn Americans to have patience and stick around.
Alexander Mercouris basically stated the same thing after the interview on an episode of the Duran.
What really concerned me was the answer that Tucker gave at the "World Government Summit." He replied he DID ask him the question, but he did not follow up with the answer to the question. It is pretty clear to me in some sense that the Russian understanding of the American culture is almost as lacking as the reverse in terms of thinking in those terms. It is just two different mentalities, which to some extent better explains why Russia really is not doing as good in the propaganda war. Putin would have been well served to have an American like Scott Ritter come in and help him prepare some talking points that would stick in the minds of Americans, so that anyone watching the interview when asked like Tucker did above COULD concisely answer why Russia invaded. You could still provide all the background but organize the points in such a way that the talking points stick in people's minds (marketing firms do this all the time in the west, and they are VERY good at what they do).
The two most compelling reasons, from an American perspective, would have been to bring up #1 - Americans were literally about to put nuclear capable missiles (that could be loaded in the middle of the night on Russia's borders) in the Ukraine, and Zelensky literally said he would develop nukes while NATO countries APPLAUDED him for it DAYS before the invasion! Then you just make the Cuban Missile Crisis analogy that every American understands. Then you can link it to the stories he gave on WHY he had reason to fear those American missiles.
Then #2 (arguably the best argument) - Russia signed a legally binding treaty with the Donbass, France, Germany and Ukraine, and Russia was a GUARANTOR of that agreement. What do you think guarantor means? It means you are somewhat obligated to help ENFORCE it if someone violates it, as Zelensky openly did - both in his words and by bombing the crap out of the Donbass. So again the analogy, just as if Britain was attacked by some country, the US would be asked under Article 5 to provide military assistance, Russia was similar obliged as guarantor to help the Donbass when Zelensky broke the treaty and started an unprovoked attack. These points would both be well understood because they tie to realities people in the US have been taught to understand as the real muscle behind the NATO security umbrella; conversely it is hard to talk about local loyalties to the region etc in a history region to a country that is largely a melting pot of people where people probably feel more loyalty to their football teams than ethnic heritages :).
That being said, I am not even sure the American people was the target audience. One person that used to be in intelligence said the real audience was political and business leaders of the world, since they hold a lot of the power. Talking points are less important to them and they have a greater attention span. The other thing this individual said is Tucker was prospectively invited by the Kremlin to do the interview several weeks ago, and a secondary purpose was to deliver Tucker files, not just on Russian history, but evidence elections were stolen and other crimes and the WHO (including the names no one has heard before) responsible which could be verified. Putin said it himself, if we presented the information on Nordstream etc no one would believe us. But if they gave the information to Tucker, and he could validate it.... That would be interesting. Might then be an interesting next couple of weeks if that is the case :)
www.dailymail.co.uk
www.sott.net
