Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[Chaze]

We’ve already concluded that Putin completely outclassed Tucker in his interview. But after reexamining it further, it’s actually very disappointing just how woefully unprepared and deliberately disingenuous Carlson was with some of his questions. He tried to bait Putin a few times actually with deceptively framed questions.

But Putin’s rebuttals were as close to perfect as you can get when you’re doing this off the cuff.

For example, look at this query by Carlson:

“On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country”. And to American ears that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?”

Now unless I’ve accidentally overlooked it, nowhere in Putin’s address on Feb. 24, 2022 did he say this. (The transcript for this address can be read here.) Carlson literally made this statement up ex nihilio. But why?

Putin’s response was nothing short of masterful:

“It's not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia. I didn't say so.
Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?”

This was a unique point in the interview because it displayed Putin’s raw talent to neutralize any pernicious intentions (whether intentional or not) and showed that it was he who was in command of the dialogue.

But Carlson’s repetitive interruptions and attempts to redirect Putin’s train of thought didn’t pan out very well him. Tucker even had the audacity just a little while later to make reference to his initial deceptively constructed question:

“… many nations feel frustrated by their re-drawn borders after the wars of the 20th century, and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mention, but the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain at great length that you thought a physical threat from the West and NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?”

What was the purpose of this? What does Tucker get out of baiting him? Maybe he really was just trying to save face for his audience? It’s like he was trying too hard to show that he wasn’t going to shill for Putin, all the while doing everything he could to parade all the stereotypes of the Western man.

Regardless, Putin didn’t bite and instead politely insulted him:

“ I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: “Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?” You said — a serious talk. So bear with me please.”

And then proceeded to show that there are levels to this— that he was quite a few steps higher up on the ladder. That’s why his lengthy parts of the “serious conversation” using factual historical context was absolutely necessary! (Putin clearly possesses the de rigueur of his ancestors.)

I still like Tucker. I still think that he is an excellent journalist—probably one of my favorites. But a very important lesson I gleaned from this interview, particularly from Tucker, is that a lot of us Westerners have GOT to grow up and shed this sense of entitlement. It’s more ingrained into us than a lot of us are aware of, and we don’t really recognize it until we’re challenged to do so. And when staring into the eyes of the “Russian Soul”—figuratively speaking—and taking the time to genuinely try and understand it… It’s awe-inspiring.

 

[loreta]

Personally, I think the interview was good, aimed at an American audience. The questions that seem a bit silly are questions that the general public is asking, an opportunity for Putin to set the record straight. And I think that before an interview, the participants look at the questions that will be asked. There's a certain amount of control, I think. What I also liked about this interview was that Carlson allowed Putin to speak at length. The interviewer's silence or restraint is as important as the questions he asks.

 

[Ben]

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).

If the points he made didn't stick in someone's mind already, I don't know what would. Also, Scott addressed this directly himself here:

Tucker Madness is Good for America

The former Fox News talk show host-turned independent media phenomenon, Tucker Carlson, is in Moscow, where he has committed the mortal sin of interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin. The interview is scheduled to air at 6 pm eastern time on Thursday, February 8. Let there be no...

www.scottritterextra.com

Would I have loved to have the opportunity that has been given to Tucker Carlson?

Hell, yes.

Am I upset that he got this interview, and I did not?

To be honest, I was—more than a little.

But that’s because I’m only human, and jealousy is very much a human trait that resides inside me as much as anyone else.

But I’m over it.

Let’s be honest—I’m an expert, a historian.

I’m not your classic journalist.

He goes on to explain how this interview was an opportunity to do something different and reach a wider audience. People who would have been turned off by a detailed historical discussion and need a different kind of journalistic style to get through to them.

In short, Tucker’s interview will be everything that any interview I might have conducted would not have been. It will be a game-changing moment, a historical event. It will shake Russophobia in America to its core and, in doing so, hopefully set in motion the grounds for a broader discussion of US-Russian relations that could set America on a trajectory away from conflict, helping eliminate the possibility of a nuclear war.

In the end, we got both approaches because Putin saw the opportunity to use an open ended, no time limits, format to get his preliminary history lesson across.

 

[T.C.]

For Tucker to come away with the idea that Putin is bitter towards the West due to it's leaders not accepting Russia into NATO and always stabbing it in the back, suggests to me that he's just projecting.

That's probably how he feels about his leaders, the PTB in America. Heck, he applied to the CIA and was rejected, right? I'm thinking if this interpretation of his came through in this way, about Putin, it's probably quite a big program for him. Could be the way he sees a lot of the world and his own life and experiences - bitterness due to rejection, which leads to motivation.

I guess that's what he's trying to say about Putin: "He invaded Ukraine because he's angry at the west."

 

[genero81]

Maybe he really was just trying to save face for his audience? It’s like he was trying too hard to show that he wasn’t going to shill for Putin, all the while doing everything he could to parade all the stereotypes of the Western man.

My impression as well. He was making an effort to come across as doing a serious interview with some hardball questions. Unfortunately, it only made him look somewhat imbecilic.

 

[irjO]

My impression as well. He was making an effort to come across as doing a serious interview with some hardball questions. Unfortunately, it only made him look somewhat imbecilic.

I think this is a bit harsh statement, we gotta give credits where credit is, I had the same sentiment Chaze had as well, but is not so white and black situation, remember that the propaganda against Putin and Russia is so high, that Tucker somehow needed to balance the way he approached the interview. Was the best approach? I couldn’t say so, but is not easy to make this kind of interview a reality, having the intel agencies on your back ready to do whatever it can takes to not let you do it. You can also tell that Tucker pretty much agreed with Putin on almost the majority of the subjects, it’s just not easy to let that sentiment shown for the sake of presenting that image to the American public.
Putin is right, the media on the entire planet ans for now is indeed almost 100% controlled by the US (West).

 

[JGeropoulas]

"If a fish tank is dirty, you clean the tank. You don’t drug the fish."

This interview ties together so many facets of the scheme to sicken, kill and control us! In just the first 10 minutes, I've learned that ONLY IN AMERICA obesity (linked to most COVID deaths) is epidemic, and 60% of adults have pre-diabetes (linked to Alzheimers and many other pervasive health problems) BECAUSE the government subsidizes 10 foods (e.g. sodas) that cause this. BigPharma's (government-assisted) solution is monthly shots that can never be stopped without serious medical problems. WHY? 258 million adults x 60% x $20,000 lifetime cost of shots = $3 TRILLION!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYP5kMj-Kqw

 

[lilies]

22 hours later the Putin interview has reached 149 Million people on Carlson’s X account alone!

This is the reason why Carlson is talking the way he is, I think. He needs to side with USA and express American interests. Plus his Twitter page must drive traffic to precisely where he is making money out of X. He needs his life as well, so he flogs some US politicians, but carefully. Tucker has family. He talked about how much he respects women and his wife. Loves kids. Conservative. So.. Very contradictory, what he is saying: mirrors the torn-way he is feeling probably. Hard to be outside of the frequency fence once in a while. He talked about how he was a journalist in a USA-created war torn country, where he lived in the USA-famous Green Zone and was given an automatic rifle with the others. Then the neighborhood was shot up all of a sudden. He expected military police, everybody taking care of investigating it. NOTHING HAPPENED. USA doesn't care. I think Tucker has a lot to process. And simply he can't. Too much for him. Contradictory data what he would need to go through.

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

"Putin's very wounded because the West rejected Russia." I think, Putin is wounded probably because of the:

Genocide of Donbass Civilians: Women, Elderly, and Children​

..and many other similar examples.
That's why Tucker may have picked up a possible look of being wounded in Putin's eyes.
I would be wounded too. I'll never forget this image. They published a photo from a different angle then, IIRC, cannot find it. But here it is another angle before they censored it. This photo is the most powerful proof of USA Anti-Life Policy. A mother is the creator of life. A baby is a symbol of newly created life. If deeply religious Putin saw this, I can only imagine in part how he felt. So Tuckers use of the word "Wounded.."???! Wounded??!!..

Nelly brings up ‘the Madonna of Gorlovka’ – the name Kristina Zhuk came to be known by on social media after she was killed by a Ukrainian shell in July 2014, along with her 10-month-old daughter. When it happened, Kristina was walking in the park with her daughter. A journalist who happened to be there witnessed the woman’s last agonizing moments, providing one of the first pieces of photographic evidence that Ukraine was using weapons indiscriminately against the people of Donbass.

 

[iamthatis]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757937509265199149

Putin's response when asked for his take on the interview with Tucker:

I, to be honest, thought that he (Tucker Carlson) would be more aggressive and ask tough questions. I was not just prepared for that, I wanted that, because it would have given me the opportunity to respond sharply, which, in my opinion, would have added certain specificity to our conversation. But he chose a different tactic. He attempted to interrupt me several times, yet surprisingly, for a Western journalist, he proved patient, listening to my lengthy replies, especially about history. And he didn't give me a reason to do what I was prepared for. So, honestly speaking, I did not fully enjoy that interview [laughs].

Funny to think that Putin wanted more of a scuffle, and Tucker's excellent manners prevented that.

 

[Alejo]

Yes, but remember some of those wise advisers do believe in a policy of de-escalation by escalation. You can see this in some of the the public discussions. If you detonate a nuke somewhere, like near an Azov stronghold near Lviv, that might actually get the West's and the mind numbed public's attention as to how dangerous a situation this is, and maybe even the figure heads in Kiev, wondering if they are next, gain the courage to break the Western ties that bind them. This is not entirely a position without merit. I even wonder this myself. This might be the only language the West understands, and to be honest I would not be shocked if they did at some point over the next several months detonate a low yield tactical nuke if NATO troops enter Western Ukraine to allow more Ukranian troops to the front lines, as is the rumor now.

Or it would give the West yet another stick to throw at Russia.

But again, I think their attitude has been clear in their approach to Ukraine, being so precise in their attacks when they could've simply steam rolled over Ukraine in a few weeks, they do wish to protect the country, the population, the infrastructure. Their goal isn't to destroy lives, which a nuke would definitely accomplish. That's what the West would do... "Nuke them to dissuade them, damn the casualties".

What I am saying, victory or success for Russia looks very different than what it may look to us in the West. For us, a quick military victory is the logical goal, Russia understands the situation rather differently. But also, I think Putin mentioned it, who would want to be engaged in a global conflict? attacking at such a large degree, would definitely ensure a global conflict, making the entire world less secure.

 

[iamthatis]

Or it would give the West yet another stick to throw at Russia.

But again, I think their attitude has been clear in their approach to Ukraine, being so precise in their attacks when they could've simply steam rolled over Ukraine in a few weeks, they do wish to protect the country, the population, the infrastructure. Their goal isn't to destroy lives, which a nuke would definitely accomplish. That's what the West would do... "Nuke them to dissuade them, damn the casualties".

What I am saying, victory or success for Russia looks very different than what it may look to us in the West. For us, a quick military victory is the logical goal, Russia understands the situation rather differently. But also, I think Putin mentioned it, who would want to be engaged in a global conflict? attacking at such a large degree, would definitely ensure a global conflict, making the entire world less secure.

I remembered this article by Orlov, who makes some good points as to the Russian logic, very different from Western warfare. The slow pace does a lot for Russia.

- reducing civilian casualties and Russian military casualties as is well known
- gives more time for the internal reorganization of Russia, for instance economically by import substitution and increasing self-sufficiency, etc
- more time to demilitarize and de-Nazify not just Ukraine, but all of NATO as well, drawing them in and destroying materiel and personnel
- gives time for Russians to test their new weapons, both for their own benefit and also for potential customers
- the longer it goes on, the more insane the West looks in the eyes of the world, giving Russia more opportunity to make connections and lay the groundwork for the multipolar world

I've read some Russian commentators who talk about active or pre-emptive nuclear deterrence, given how insane the West is. It's not it Russian military doctrine to engage in a nuclear first strike, tho, so I don't think we'll be seeing that.

Then there's the idea that the aliens probably don't want the planet to nuke itself, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[fifty_five]

Putin's response when asked for his take on the interview with Tucker:

I, to be honest, thought that he (Tucker Carlson) would be more aggressive and ask tough questions. I was not just prepared for that, I wanted that, because it would have given me the opportunity to respond sharply, which, in my opinion, would have added certain specificity to our conversation. But he chose a different tactic. He attempted to interrupt me several times, yet surprisingly, for a Western journalist, he proved patient, listening to my lengthy replies, especially about history. And he didn't give me a reason to do what I was prepared for. So, honestly speaking, I did not fully enjoy that interview [laughs].

Putin's de-turning the knife in the wound .

 

[SummerLite]

My thoughts on Tucker traveling around the world, speaking at the World Government Summit, interviewing Putin, speaking in Canada and whatever else he's going to do, is acting as an ambassador for the American people. He's letting the world know the actions of the US government which includes the globalists agenda is abhorrent to a growing majority in the US and all other western countries. He is their voice that's being silenced. It's a tactic, a crack in the structure and he has the guts to do it.

Recently, there's been speculation on who will be Trumps pick for VP and Tucker was considered a possibility. Wouldn't that be a kicker if he where chosen and here he is traveling around the world beforehand , warming things up. I don't think this will be offered to him but it's an interesting thought considering what he's doing.

The latest word for VP is possibly Ben Carson who is a good man whom I've always liked. He's low key in his demeanor, no drama. Trumps son said Ben would be a good choice but he's probably to nice for the position which I thought a good description. Maybe a calming influence to Trumps flamboyance, balancing it out.

Thats my take, we'll see what else Tucker does.

 

[Cosmos]

Recently, there's been speculation on who will be Trumps pick for VP and Tucker was considered a possibility.

From what Tucker has said so far at various points, I think he does not want to run for any office. In fact, he seems pretty opposed to that idea and probably thinks he isn’t qualified (which is correct IMO). But anything is possible in the Amerika and he certainly could do a far better job then the crazies running the show at the moment!

 

[Beau]

The latest word for VP is possibly Ben Carson who is a good man whom I've always liked. He's low key in his demeanor, no drama. Trumps son said Ben would be a good choice but he's probably to nice for the position which I thought a good description. Maybe a calming influence to Trumps flamboyance, balancing it out.

A lot of people seem to think that Trump will be picking Vivek as his veep. Not the worst pick!