I watched the interview a few moment after it was posted, but was too tired to post then.
My main thought was : Putin the teacher. Now, after having read all the comments posted here so far, i would say "The student making an interview of the teacher", student who, despite his experience and notwithstanding his popularity, still have some lessons to learn in journalism in general, lesson that would help him to adapt to any kind of interviewee. We can't blame him, he comes from a country where the show and narrative has more importance than the truth, and truth requires details (and explanations) when lies have been sown - he's not used to, and some here already pointed this out. Same apply to any US watcher, and from more to more in EU, i mean, the fact this it was a lesson, a course, given by Putin the teacher.
My second thought was that, as also already spotted here in the comments, that not all westerners (i mean citizen/people who will watch the interview) will be able to watch it to the end, some have probably already clicked the link, checked the lenght of the interview, then close the broswer's TAB. That's the sad part and it's directly linked to the "idiocratisation" of the populations performed these last 30+ years. It also echoes with what some already noticed here : a Tucker who comes from a world where journalists want fast-pace interviews, quick questions & quick answers, do it fast, no need for details that could bother people who can't think, the show must go on. We can see that Tucker takes on him, he constantly have the feet ready to press the accelerator pedal and doing it a couple of time, but Putin uses the brake one and teach a lesson to Tucker, something like "look at the paysages, the details & facts, the history, these are important to well understand a subject".
Some quotes saved during the lecture :
I'm not sure about Americans understanding NATO and eastern expansion breaking promises, Maidan coup, neonazis and Bandera, Nordstream, Minsk and Istanbul agreements.
I wonder, among the ones who watched the interview (fully), what % did not understand what was said ?
Also, what i'm thinking about now is : suppose that this interview has to be watched at school, starting at 15y old up to universities. What % of these youths, the (full-force) smartphone/tik-tok/FBook/... population, would be in measure to follow & understand it ? I can't help (again) to think about the movie Idiocracy. I sometimes watched some old french street interviews of the population during the 60 & 70ies, french ones (INA archive documents). I can imagine such people being able to follow such interview, willing to, because quite more would know & understand the importance of the global worldwide situation, they would simply understand the importance of this interview, its usefulness. Now i'm thinking about a couple of youths of my entourage (and yes, many adults too) ... i mean, they are hopeless, except a few ones, the PTB, or 4D STS, well did their job, they have a 90% of young population ready for dinner, they won't try to escape, half boiled already, easy preys ! But ...ok ... that's another topic.
Is that a correct conclusion to draw from what Putin said?
About what Tucker thinks while saying that he thinks Putin is wounded by being rejected.
No it's not a good conclusion, Putin was clear about, but projection was stronger on Tucker's side.
Neverthless, thinking twice about this, it's possible that Putin felt it, and i explain why : Suppose that you are the manager & representative of a football team, a team you lead and train during 20+ years, a team you love and which love you, you saw improvements, you know they became very good, they are "your boys" and you are proud of them, you are proud of your team. And you ask if your team can join the league in order to compete with other teams, to share and get more experience, to enrich any player's life too (STO thinking). but that you are responded "no". In that sense Putin may (maybe) have felt wounded, not for him, but for his guys, because after all, it's not only him who is rejected, it's all the russians, and being a normal personn with his emotions this would be ... normal that he feels at least sad about, not for him personaly, but his people. But if this happened, it's already a couple of months or a few years ago, when he concluded that there is nothing to expect from the psychopaths ruling the western mafia.
On the other side of this small "football" story, with all the "efforts" our leaders are doing (by "painting" us badly, by showing "our decadent values") + all the hate they constantly show toward russia, the wish to join this rotten league is fading away. What i hope is that the average russian understand that we are a population whose liberty was taken away by a big globalist mafia and that this mafia has unlimited money and they know the right things to do to brainstorm and fool people's perceptions (ie: their populations). This does not fully excuses the people, but at least help to understand why we are in this situation. The more you know on someone, the more your empathy have grips it can hold onto and play its role.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Chinese government is great or impeccable. Just that if you want to understand it, it's best if you first pay attention to those who threaten it. Maybe that is one of the reasons why China and Russia get along? Both are "giants" geographically speaking, and have focused on national unity and defending from outside threats. Some may see that as repression, others as the best they can do in such vast territories to prevent Western powers from interfering.
think that is a very good point. The more pressure and interference from outside, the more a country will have to actively defend itself and its interests and this will lead to more socalled repressive measures to protect itself. Such measures will of course then be used by outside forces interested in interfering, to point the finger and say "Look how repressive they are and how free we are".
This is a topic i had in mind since a certain time. The idea that one of the reasons (and maybe the main reason) the Chinese government decided to put in place such restrictive and also "big brother is watching you" like measures is at first to protect from, literrally, the western social corruption. When the covid started in China, i remember the long explanation the C's gave in the session of 21/3/2020 :
A: The virus did not appear first in China. There were experiments at Fort Detrick regarding the creation of a vaccine that would make humans more controllable. This vaccine had unexpected effects and in some cases did the opposite of what was intended. The strain escaped into a population and further mutated. Indeed it was carried to China by US soldiers. China soon knew the type and origin and launched a massive campaign to control the situation. This was seen by Western powers as a good model to follow with additional add-on factors. In the meantime further mutations have occurred, some engineered via STO forces by virtue of the virus taking hold in certain persons whose spiritual force was able to direct the progression. At this point, there are two major strains. The elite need to stop the spread of that which they "created".
... launching a massive campaign well illustrate the level of ... fear the Chinese government has in regard to the US.
Implementing massive population controls, in this case on the more diffuse danger of societal infection, resonates with their reaction to the first cases of covid recorded in China. This makes me think about the Wetiko virus, but not just that, the simply decadence of the occident, at all levels (that i won't list here), that they need to avoid at all cost any "infection" in their society.
The Chinese mentality or we could even say race is the one (or one of the ones) in the world which have the most similarities (not the right term but all will understand) acting as a beehive or an anthill, it's like if this was bound into their genes. This may explain why they seem to well accept the actual measures, there would be quite more to say and discuss about, but i would dare to say that it probably plays a important role. With such a huge population, it's easy to find some who do want their freedom and do not accept to play their "ant" role (if i can say like this), such people could quickly gather, unite, start to provoke troubles, supported by western $$$ who would quickly finance them. How to prevent such "social infection hotbed" then ? What would one decide if he was Xi Jinping ?
He spelled it out in his 'after the interview' video: "I was annoyed. And I thought, look, I am American, so I asked you a specific question and I want a specific answer. Stop!" To me, it sounds like it's more than frustration. I can hear typical arrogance. In this aspect, his profession and specific style might have gotten in the way and prevent him from having even better conversation with Putin. Oliver Stone, for example, didn't have that problem.
