Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[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!

 

[XPan]

You may find this interesting...

Thomas Röper (Anti-Spiegel), german journalist who lives in St Petersburg since 30 years, made a translation of an interview between Putin and reporter Saburin:

Putin kritisiert das Carlson-Interview und spricht über Baerbock und Bidens Gedächtnis – Anti-Spiegel

www.anti-spiegel.ru

from Anti-Spiegel, Thomas Röper
15 February 2024 15:34



Putin criticises the Carlson interview and talks about Baerbock and Biden's memory

Russian President Putin has criticised the interview with Tucker Carlson in an interview. He also spoke about Baerbock and Biden's mental state. Once again, the German media only report fragments of what Putin said.

The furore over the interview Putin gave to Tucker Carlson has still not completely died down in the West. However, in my first assessment of the interview, which I wrote immediately afterwards, I immediately criticised some things about the interview and explained what I would have done differently if I had been sitting there instead of Carlson.

I find it interesting that when Putin was asked about the interview by a Russian journalist, he basically made the same criticisms as I did. Putin openly said that he did not enjoy "this interview very much".

Putin also spoke out about Baerbock and her Nazi grandfather, and about the issue of what many call the "guilt cult" of the Germans. These statements by Putin may be new to many, but they are not new, because Putin has often made such comments in the past, as German readers of my book "Seht Ihr, was Ihr angerichtet habt?" (Do you see what you've done?) were able to read back in 2019. And it was interesting to see what Putin had to say about US President Biden's state of mind, which is currently also being discussed by the Western media. He also answered the question of whether Biden or Trump would be the "better" US president for Russia.

Because the Western media have again only reported fragments of the interview and so as not to give you my interpretation of Putin's words, I have translated the 20-minute interview that Putin gave to a Russian journalist.

---

Start of the translation:

Sarubin:
Vladimir Vladimirovich, your interview with Tucker Carlson has already been viewed a billion times. There are many different positive comments. But it is clear which comments come from leading Western politicians. The British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, for example, called, and I quote, "your attempt to explain the reason for launching the military operation and justify it with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia ridiculous and absurd". What do you think of such assessments?

Putin:
Firstly, it is good that they are looking at it and listening to me. If we are not able to have a direct dialogue with them today for some reason to do with them, we should be grateful to Mr Carlson that we can do so through him as a mediator. So the fact that they see and hear it is good.

But the fact that they are twisting what I said is bad, and they are twisting the map. Why? Because I didn't say anything like that. I didn't say that the start of our military operation in Ukraine had anything to do with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia. Where is that in my interview? There is the recording, they should show me where specifically I said that.

I was talking about something else, I was talking about the fact that we were constantly being deceived about the fact that NATO was not being expanded eastwards. Incidentally, the first person to say that was the then Secretary General of NATO, and that was a representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. He said: Not an inch to the east. Then there were five expansions and total deception. We were and are naturally concerned about the possibility of Ukraine being admitted to NATO, because that threatens our security. I have also spoken about that.

But the immediate trigger was the complete refusal of the current Ukrainian government to implement the Minsk Agreement and the incessant attacks with numerous casualties on the Donbass republics, the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, which we did not recognise for eight years and which finally turned to us with a request for recognition because they recognised the hopelessness of resolving the problems within the framework of the Minsk Agreement. We recognised them, then concluded the well-known Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with them and, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, fulfilled our obligations under that treaty.

As I said before, we did not start the war, we are just trying to end it. In the first phase, we tried to do this by peaceful means - through the Minsk Agreement. As it turned out later, we were led around by the nose here too, because both the former German Chancellor and the former French President admitted this and publicly stated that they had no intention of implementing the agreement, but only wanted to stall for time in order to pump additional weapons into the Ukrainian regime, which they did. The only thing we can regret is that we did not take action sooner, believing that we were dealing with decent people.

Sarubin:
Carlson was criticised immediately before the interview and after the interview he is now being accused of allegedly asking too few tough questions, of being too soft with you, whereas you were very comfortable with him. Do you think that you crushed the American journalist with your authority?

Putin:
I think that your Carlson - when I say "your", I mean that he is a representative of your journalistic profession - is a dangerous person. And that's the reason why: Because, frankly, I thought he was going to behave aggressively and ask these so-called sharp questions.

I was not only prepared for that, I wanted it, because it would have given me the opportunity to answer just as sharply, which I think would have given our whole conversation a certain specificity. But he chose a different tactic, he tried to interrupt me several times, but still, for a Western journalist, he was surprisingly patient and listened to my long dialogues, especially the ones about history. He didn't give me the opportunity to do what I was ready to do. To be honest, I didn't enjoy this interview very much. But he stuck strictly to his plan and he executed it. I can't judge how meaningful it was in the end. It's up to the viewers, listeners or perhaps readers of the material to draw their own conclusions.

Sarubin:
After this interview, there were immediate calls for sanctions against Tucker Carlson and there is talk that he could be arrested there. Is that even possible?

Putin:
Assange is in prison and nobody remembers him, only people close to him are talking about it. That's it. These are the peculiarities of public awareness: the issue disappears and that's it. However, Assange has at least been accused of leaking some state secrets. It's hard to pin anything on Carlson because he didn't touch any secrets at all. Nevertheless, I think that in today's America, in today's USA, anything is theoretically possible.

From Carlson's own point of view it would be sad, I don't envy him somehow, but it was his decision. He knew what he was getting himself into. But from the point of view of making people around the world realise what they are in inverted commas modern "liberal democratic" dictatorship supposedly represented by the US ruling class today, it would probably be good for them to show their true colours.

Sarubin:
Carlson said that after the interview... Just to dispel any doubts that have arisen, here's my question. Carlson said that after the interview you had another conversation, and now everyone is wondering what it was about.

Putin:
As I said and as I understood it, he proceeded according to his own plan, and that's all, he didn't go beyond that plan. For example, there were some other topics that I think would have been important to talk about. But I didn't impose any additional topics that the journalist didn't bring up in the conversation with me.

The question of the demonisation of Russia, for example in connection with the inter-ethnic events, with the pogroms of the Jews in the Russian Empire, that should of course have come up in such an official part. But one of the topics we talked about when the cameras were off was something that the US Secretary of State Mr Blinken spoke about several times, that his relatives, his great-grandfather, fled Russia because of the Jewish pogroms.

And this topic comes up again and again in various countries around the world, in Europe, in the USA. I repeat, it comes up to demonise Russia, to show what kind of barbarians, villains and robbers live here. But if you look at what the current US Secretary of State has said, and not at the political slogans, but at the core of the problems that exist, then a lot becomes clear here too.

We have all this in our archives. For example, Mr Blinken's great-grandfather left the Russian Empire. I think he was born somewhere in the province of Poltava and then lived in Kiev and left it. The question arises: does Mr Blinken believe that this was originally Russian territory, Kiev and the surrounding areas? That is the first.

Secondly, when he says he fled Russia before the Jewish pogroms, he means at least, I want to emphasise this, that there was no Ukraine in 1904, and it was in 1904 that Mr Blinken's great-great-grandfather left Kiev for the USA, so there was no Ukraine there when he says he fled Russia. By all accounts, Mr Blinken is our man. He just stupidly makes such statements in public. That could lead to failure.

Sarubin:
Articles have recently been published in the German media about the fact that the grandfather of the current German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was an ardent Nazi. Given everything that has happened in relations between our countries in recent years, could it be that this "virus" of National Socialism is perhaps being passed on in the country on a genetic level?

Putin:
This is also one of the subspecies of extreme nationalism.

By the way, I just remembered that these pogroms in the Russian Empire took place mainly in the south and south-west, in what is now Ukraine. In Kiev, I said, in 1905. If Mr Blinken's ancestor left in 1904, the first mass pogrom in Kiev was in 1905, so his great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather could only learn about it either from newspapers or from the information that came from Kiev at the time.

But these negative mass events basically appeared at the beginning of the 19th century, I think the first mass pogrom was in 1820, in 1821. Of course, these crimes were in Odessa, then in Melitopol, in Zhitomir and in other cities in what is now Ukraine, in Belarus. There were a few events of this kind in Siberia, but the first was connected with the assassination of the Greek patriarch in Constantinople, when the Greeks living there thought that the Jews were somehow involved in the attempted assassination of the patriarch.

But that is unimportant. What is important, by the way, is that these pogroms were countered by resistance groups consisting of Jewish and Russian youth, and that the government, even the tsarist one, made appropriate assessments and tried to prevent these tragic events, also with the help of the army. But, I repeat, that is a different topic.

As for nationalism and national socialism, fascism, I will perhaps tell you something strange. Firstly, the lady herself... what is her name?

Sarubin:
Annalena Baerbok.

Putin:
Yes, Baerbock, so that I don't confuse her surname, she represents the Green Party. Many representatives of this part of the political spectrum in Europe speculate on people's fears and fuel these fears of people about the events that may occur in the world in connection with climate change. And then, by speculating on these fears that they themselves have fuelled, they pursue a political line that is far removed from the one that brought them to power. This is exactly what is happening in Germany now. For example, coal-fired power generation has increased, and it was bigger in the energy mix than in Russia, it was bigger, and now it has become even bigger. Where is this "green" agenda? That's the first thing.

Secondly, people like the German Foreign Minister are of course - she certainly is - hostile to our country, to Russia. But in my opinion, she is also hostile to her own country, because it is difficult to imagine a politician of this calibre disregarding the economic interests of his country, his people, to such an extent. I don't want to go into details now, but that is exactly what happens in practice, and we see it.

The next part of my statement may contradict what I have just said. I don't believe that today's generation of Germans should bear full political responsibility for everything that Nazi Germany did. People of today's generation should not be held responsible for what Hitler and his henchmen did, not only in Germany but also in other parts of the world, in Europe and so on. I think that would be unfair. And in general it is unfair to put this label on the entire German people, it is unfair and an abuse of what people have experienced, what the peoples of the Soviet Union have experienced. I believe it is unfair and unnecessary. We should start from today's realities and look at who is doing what and what policies are being pursued.

Incidentally, I think that would make sense in this context. In my opinion, there are many countries today, including those in which this should not really be a political leitmotif, but unfortunately it is - what do I mean? A kind of exclusivity of some peoples over others, a kind of chosenness and so on. You see, that's where Nazism started! So if it is so widespread, we should also think about building up this anti-fascist, anti-Nazi propaganda and work on a global level. I repeat, on a global level.

And it should not be done on a state level. It will only be effective if it is done at the level of public awareness and public initiative. And it doesn't matter in which country in the world it happens.

Sarubin:
There has been a near panic across the EU about the possible return of Donald Trump to the US presidency. And Trump's latest statements, just the other day, have frightened the European heads of state and government, they are not hiding it. Trump said that the US should only protect European countries if the European countries pay for it. Why has such a relationship developed between Europe, the European heads of government, the politicians and Donald Trump?

Putin:
Trump has always been described as a non-systemic politician. He has his own views on how the US should organise relations with its allies. And sparks have flown before. Take the US withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement in the environmental field, sparks flew there too. But the US president at the time decided that the US would withdraw from the Kyoto agreements, despite the attractiveness of the environmental agenda, because he believed they were damaging the American economy. That's it. He made a strong-willed decision and that was that. And no matter how much the European leaders berated him, he did it. Yes, and then he corrected it.

And how is Trump's position different in this respect? Basically nothing. He wanted to force the Europeans to increase their defence spending or, as he said, "make them pay us to protect them, to put the nuclear umbrella over their heads" and so on. I don't know, let them sort it out themselves, that's their problem. I think there's a certain logic to it from his point of view. From the Europeans' point of view, there is no logic to it, and they want the US to continue to fulfil some of the functions that have developed since the creation of NATO for free. That's their business.

I don't think NATO has any more use at all, it has no purpose. There is only one reason: it is an instrument of American foreign policy. And if the US thinks that it doesn't need this instrument, then that's their decision.

Sarubin:
The current US President Biden is giving the whole world more and more reason to discuss his state of health every day. He is the president of one of the biggest nuclear powers. At the same time, we all see very specific images every day, to put it mildly. What do you think about when you see and hear all this?

Putin:
I think about the fact that the domestic political campaign, the election campaign, is gaining momentum in the USA. It's getting more and more intense. And from my point of view, it is incorrect to interfere in this process.

Listen, when I met with Biden in Switzerland, that was a few years ago, three years ago, but even then it was said that he was incapable of acting. I saw nothing of the sort. Well, yes, he looked at his papers. To be honest, I looked at mine. There's nothing wrong with that. And the fact that he bumped his head somewhere on the helicopter when he got out - well, who hasn't bumped their head? May the first one throw a stone at him.

Anyway, in my opinion... I'm not a doctor and I don't think I'm qualified to comment. We shouldn't look at that. We should look at the political point of view. I believe that the attitude of the current administration is extremely harmful and wrong. And I said the same thing to President Biden at the time.

Sarubin:
Then a question that was asked four years ago and is now becoming topical again, as it turns out. Who is better for us: Biden or Trump?

Putin:
Biden. He's more experienced, he's predictable, he's a politician of the old mould. But we will work with any leader of the USA in whom the American people have confidence.

Sarubin:
I would like to come back to your interview with Tucker Carlson. We remembered the statements made by the current heads of government of Germany and Great Britain. But there was also someone who spoke out about whom you said in your interview with Carlson: "Where is this Johnson now?" According to Arahamia's admission, it was he who persuaded Kiev not to negotiate with Moscow, but to fight. If the Kiev government had not listened to this, shall we say, advice at the time, how would events have developed?

Putin:
Mr Arahamia said that himself. Look at it synchronised. We didn't pull it out of his nose. He said what he thinks. Why he said that, I don't know. He's such an open person. He said: "If we had fulfilled these agreements, if we had fully implemented the Istanbul agreements, the war would have been over a year and a half ago."

He did say that. In the interview with Mr Carlson, I think I should also have been synchronised with Mr Arahamia. Why did the West take this position? I say "the West" and above all the Anglo-Saxon world, because former Prime Minister Johnson could not act on his own initiative in this matter, on his own initiative and without consultation with Washington. Not only were there probably such consultations, but I believe that he undertook this official trip at the expense of the American government, for which it paid him a travelling allowance. So his position there was that Russia must be fought to the last Ukrainian - that was in brackets, of course - but to the victorious end and to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. They obviously expected this outcome. But as I said to Mr Carlson, I can also repeat it to you: If they see that they are not going to achieve the result, they should actually make corrections. But that is a question of political art, because politics, as you know, is the art of compromise.

End of translation

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

You may find this interesting...

Thank you very much XPan for that translation. I think Carlson should book another interview with Mr. Putin.

 

[iamthatis]

Tucker is having fun being a pleasantly shocked American tourist in Russia.

Shopping in the heart of the sanctioned 'evil empire':

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758148822176329850

Stalin's metro station in the middle of a war:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757901280830505037

There's another one of him in Russia's version of MacDonald's but I haven't found it. Anyways, he seems so genuine and innocent about it all, like a wide-eyed grade schooler on a field trip, very similar vibes to when he went to Hungary and fell in love with the place. No wonder Putin called him a dangerous man!