Tucker Carlson to interview Putin

[VictorB02]

On 2/9/2024 at 3:35 AM, Leo Gura said:

@VictorB02 Putin has never been an evil madman, he just has a totally different survival agenda and worldview than America.

The reason it's hard for Americans to understand Putin is simply because they are not faced with Russia's survival challenges and are paradigm-locked into American survival challenges.

I see that, I just don't understand why our politicians act like they don't.

 

On 2/9/2024 at 3:55 AM, Leo Gura said:

And American politicians also have a version of history that suits their agendas. They just aren't conscious of it.

Maybe we really are that unconscious at a collective level... but I can also see how being in an elected position you kind of have to be, because you are much more pressured to be biased towards America then when you are sitting on the sidelines watching the whole thing unfold from a more neutral point of view. At the same time, I just don't understand how fueling Ukraine with weapons of war and billions of dollars is actually benefitial to our survival agenda, especially when we know Russia is one of the worlds great superpowers and now becoming one of our main adversaries again.

If I were working for the long-term survival agenda of America, I would make friends with Russia... not take them on via proxy war. But I guess that's just me. I have a lot more to learn. 
 

Edited February 11 by VictorB02

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, VictorB02 said:

I see that, I just don't understand why our politicians act like they don't.

Because they are not conscious enough to see it. All politicians are mired in profound group-think. Their job depends on them not seeing it.

BTW, Putin suffers from the same problem. It's not like he's open to the Western Green worldview.

Edited February 11 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, VictorB02 said:

but I can also see how being in an elected position you kind of have to be, because you are much more pressured to be biased towards America then when you are sitting on the sidelines watching the whole thing unfold from a more neutral point of view.

Exactly!

That's the pivot for all political conflict.

[zazen]

On 10/02/2024 at 0:26 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

You can easily argue that no justification is sufficient for any wars at all.

I think he is reasonable enough. I would do the same, more or less.

How many sovereign states did the US invade in the last 20 years? How many of your presidents were war criminals? 

You guys have no moral high ground to counter Putin. 

I think when criticising countries, the people of those countries get offended as they personalise it as an attack on them - but usually it’s that we’re referring to the few bad agents who run the show. Not like some monolithic conspiracy but just as a confluence of aligned elite interests. That's why people wonder why there’s very few politicians who do what’s long term and strategically good for their country.

As Leo mentions above - these politicians are ‘mired in groupthink’ they wouldn’t admire otherwise had they the ability to step outside of it, and are beholden to financial and political survival by entities and people they don’t always hold the same views as but where personal interests align to create bad public outcomes.

Strategy requires a long term vision that short term 4 years cycles keeps cutting. Maybe that’s a flaw that needs to be somehow addressed in the political system. Each different political party undoes the work of the previous one on areas they differ in policy.

By the time the party gets the groove of running the nation they get bogged down in saying and doing things they wouldn’t otherwise and prepping for the next election cycle instead of focusing on running the country.

Besides the parties, influence and power lies with private sector (corporatism). The strings they pull politically causes dissonance. For example, US politics see’s Russia as a boogeyman and a current threat to the West (Europe particularly) yet LNG exports have been halted from US who the ‘West’ (Europe) rely on to fuel their economies and military budgets against this threat of Russia.

Surely, you wouldn’t cripple your European allies (Nordstream anyone?) during major war time with Russia who you deem so evil? The only way to squre that circle is either Biden catering to the environmentally minded base of support for the coming election or the private sector pulling strings to cripple European industry/competition and make Europe even more dependent on the US - or the convenient marriage of both.

Thats why the contradiction and dissonance of our own nations sounding good but doing bad exists. Our documents say we’re good ( “human rights, democracy, freedom” ) but the conduct of our state is otherwise - good documents, bad deeds. The imperialist mindset comes from the frame that anyones freedom anywhere is a threat to their supremacy everywhere.

Thats why the US can set up 800 global bases including surrounding (in their softened words “to contain”) the borders and seas of Russia and China and frame it as acceptable, but if the role was reversed (Chinese/Russian base in Mexico?) they’d call it a national security threat from a entity wishing to dominate. Even Westerners themselves now feel disillusioned from their nations claiming an Angelic nature written in the ink of charters which is then contradicted in action. Those nations that call this out or challenge it have to pay the blood price through wars, interventionist coups, sanctions and propaganda campaigns that demonise them - which only turns the world more hostile towards the West and isolates it 

Edited February 11 by zazen

[zazen]

 

[Leo Gura]

@zazen RFK makes some good points. But I somehow doubt that Putin would not have taken chunks of Ukraine regardless. After all, according to Putin, historically Ukraine is not a thing.

Fundamentally Putin does not recognize that Ukraine has soverignty. Are we really supposed to believe the US forced him into this view?

What would RFK do if Putin tried to grab Ukraine anyway? Just give it to him?

Edited February 11 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

"100 billion dollars could have been used otherwise" - disingenious  statements like that is what makes the current political discussions completely dogshit and a lot of you eat it up cause you don't look up the things behind the statements that were made. 

RFK failed to demonstrate how can you directly convert air defense capabilities, artillery and antitank weapons to money that can be used for the things he described. He used the same extremely surface level and completely biased engagement when it came to the vaccines. 

I dont know why would any of you post these people as an authority to speak on any subject matter ,when they don't have an ounce of intellectual honesty. These people are so fucking ideologically driven that they don't have a spine to honestly engage with any of the facts anymore.

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, zurew said:

completely dogshit

Your points would be stronger if you used less harsh rhetoric.

RFK is a thoughtful and authentic guy, even if you disagree with him. He has some refeshing and powerful critiques of corporatism.

Edited February 11 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your points would be stronger if you used less harsh rhetoric.

RFK is a thoughtful and authentic guy, even if you disagree with him. He has some refeshing and powerful critiques of corporatism.

I have no sympathy for people who are that disingenious with their talking points and who poisions the political discourse and minds that much.

The very thing that he can provide valuable insight is what makes him even more dangerous, because a lot of people will use him as a authority for information because he seems truthworthy based on his good insights and then you will accept a lot of his disingenious and outright bad takes as fact, when you don't have time or when you don't want to do research on the specific subject matter.

Is it that much to ask to not be intellectually lazy?Do  we need to cherish people and politicians who can't meet that basic of a standard?

Edited February 11 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Fundamentally Putin does not recognize that Ukraine has soverignty. Are we really supposed to believe the US forced him into this view?

To begin with, no country, least of all US, really believes in sovereignty for other nations. When they become powerful enough they will begin to meddle in the affairs of smaller states.

You already know n number of examples of how US and CIA did this.

Likewise Ukraine would have turned into a puppet state of Russia

If 1) CIA didn't meddle in Ukraine elections. 2) NATO didn't expand eastward.

Ukraine wouldn't need to be invaded. They would be under the control of Russia anyway that you wouldn't need force to control them.

Putin values the sovereignty of his own state. He also knows that NATO will never stop their expansion until they have their nuclear base in Ukraine which would eventually kill the sovereignty of Russia in the long run. 

They have the right to take precautionary measures to protect Russian Sovereignity. 

US should have listened when Putin was reasonable. They outright dismissed him which is why Ukraine is turning into a graveyard. 

[zazen]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@zazen RFK makes some good points. But I somehow doubt that Putin would not have taken chunks of Ukraine regardless. After all, according to Putin, historically Ukraine is not a thing.

Fundamentally Putin does not recognize that Ukraine has soverignty. Are we really supposed to believe the US forced him into this view?

What would RFK do if Putin tried to grab Ukraine anyway? Just give it to him?

True, hard to tell if he would have taken more of Ukraine. It’s one thing to have the power to take territory, but another to have the staying power within a territory - especially against a population resistant to it which more of Western Ukraine would be. 

Holding the view that Ukraine doesn’t exist as a ‘sovereign’ state is dangerous. A similar parallel to this is when the extreme elements of the anti-Israel camp don’t recognise Israel to exist or that it shouldn’t. It’s one thing to have this view within yourself, it’s another to use this as a basis for action. Whether he acted on this view as the main catalyst for invading or it was just on the periphery and used to justify his actions after the fact is another. 
 

The US didn’t force this view on him, but they contributed to him acting upon it and using it as justification in retrospect - besides the other main reasons of a legitimate threat being on their border with NATO expansion. Besides 2014 and other factors leading up to it I’m guessing Putin seized this chance while the West is distracted with its own domestic issues and before the Russian population declines and ages to levels making it unfeasible to secure a territorial buffer zone in the future.

RFK I’m guessing would have listened to Western analysts who weren’t given the spotlight due to imperial interests and not provoked the inevitable. Once war erupts it’s too late but it can be settled. Boris could have aided in peace but hindered it - this is well known in UK but is often lost in the flood of propaganda and deflection.

 

@zurew You don’t have to agree with all the points someone makes. Even if you don’t like the messenger for whatever reason, if the message has some valid points it’s worth sharing.

Edited February 11 by zazen

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

But I somehow doubt that Putin would not have taken chunks of Ukraine regardless.

No leader of any nation is insane enough to be driven ideologically and risk a global war for their own beliefs. Putin simply won't invade another country because he feels like it or because he fundamentally believes some other country is his own country. This is an oversimplification of the compex geopolitical situation of the area.

Sanctions would ruin their economy and destabilize their political hold. So he is aware of all the shit he has to take because of his decisions and wouldn't do so unless in the interest of Russia. 

Putin invaded Ukraine simply because he calculated that not invading Ukraine would lead to a slow demise of Russia by US/NATO forces in Ukraine. Invading then would risk a full on nuclear war. 

8 hours ago, zazen said:

but usually it’s that we’re referring to the few bad agents who run the show

Nah it's a systemic problem. If you make those few random agents disappear overnight, it would solve nothing. Democracy is a distraction when it comes to the decisions of supreme importance.

There are minor differences between red and blue when it comes to such decisions. They are made by the deep state in US and corporate interests.

Those bad agents are people who are coping to survive the system. 

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, zazen said:

@zurew You don’t have to agree with all the points someone makes.

Its not a matter of disagreeing with a point or a perspective, this is a matter of being disingenius and misleading and outright wrong and providing misinformation

Its the same with his misinformation around vaccines, where he said the vaccines killed x amount of people. When he says something like that and he is wrong about the number, its not a matter of disagreeing about the antivaxx perspective, its him being factually wrong about the death number.

Its the difference between using facts to build up your narrative vs factually being wrong.

 

Its very easy: You can still disagree with the premise of funding Ukraine without needing to lie about the facts - For example, someone could have said, that those weapons and defense system should have been used solely for american war means and not for helping other countries or you can come up with any other random reason against the premise.

Edited February 11 by zurew

[Tanz]

Open speech and dialog is important even if you don't like Tucker. I don't think any mainstream journalist has the desire to interview him. 

The people in Hawaii refer them more Hawaiian than American and more or less their land was and is taken over. I don't think America has as much grounds to critique Russia for wanting to take over Ukraine. The average Ukrainian wants to be part of the EU because of the opportunities they will get which is why they want independence and to move towards democracy of the west. 

When people in power want something nice, they have the power to take it so they try. Unfortunately all nations that have power think like this. The west already has taken they they can in the past which is why they can afford the higher moral compass.

There really is no absolute wrong or right in these situations as any.

Edited February 11 by Tanz

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

To begin with, no country, least of all US, really believes in sovereignty for other nations. When they become powerful enough they will begin to meddle in the affairs of smaller states.

But few countries are willing to invade their neighbor. That is the real issue.

The thing that Putin is in denial about is that Ukrainians might genuinely want to side with the West rather than follow Russia. Putin believes that Ukraine could only want to be Western due to CIA manipulation, when in fact they simply don't want a Russian style authoritarian state. This is where Putin is most fooling himself.

Why would Ukraine want to be like Russia when they could be like Germany instead? Doesn't take a genius to make that choice. Russia does not model a desirable system of governance. But of course Putin is too self-biased to see that.

Edited February 12 by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But few countries are willing to invade their neighbor. That is the real issue.

USA tried to invade Cuba in 1961 when Cuba became an anti USA pro USSR country and the invasion failed. Also they put an embargo for decades on Cuba. Cuba can be considered technically a neighbor to USA. So is USA really above this? Would you say Communist Cuba was more of a threat back then to USA than NATO member Ukraine is to Russia these days?

 

[Karmadhi]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

when in fact they simply don't what a Russian style authoritarian state. This is where Putin is most fooling himself.

Is it possible to be pro Russia while being a democracy? You can be conservative but still a democracy. How exactly does being pro Russia linked with authotarism?

I am simply asking here due to ignorance not making any statements.

Edited February 12 by Karmadhi

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

USA tried to invade Cuba in 1961 when Cuba became an anti USA pro USSR country and the invasion failed. Also they put an embargo for decades on Cuba. Cuba can be considered technically a neighbor to USA. So is USA really above this? Would you say Communist Cuba was more of a threat back then to USA than NATO member Ukraine is to Russia these days?

It was wrong for the US to attempt a coup in Cuba. So that answers that.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

How exactly does being pro Russia linked with authotarism?

The core problem that Putin has with the West, and what fuels this conflict, is that his authortrian grip on power would never be allowed in a Western democracy. It is because Putin wants life-long power that he must oppose the West. Yes, the CIA tries to overthrow him because he refuses to leave office and he suppresses any organic political opposition.

The CIA is wrong in their meddling but Putin is not right either. It would be better for Russia if there was genuine democratic opposition and term limits.

Edited February 12 by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The core problem that Putin has with the West, and what fuels this conflict, is that his authortrian grip on power would never be allowed in a Western democracy. It is because Putin wants life-long power that he must oppose the West.

I understand that for Russia style of leadership is totally incompatible with EU political system and values.

But in case of Ukraine for example. Would it be possible for Ukraine to be a not corrupt democracy with decent rule of law while at the same time being in good terms with Russia? Putin's grip for power would be satisfied with a pro Russian foreign policy Ukraine while Ukraine kept its democratic non corrupt institutions for the internal affairs. Assuming Ukraine keeps its sovereignty and all. 

I think it is too late for this now but I am asking this hypothetical scenario to understand the dynamics here.

Could this have worked or am I being naive?

Genuinely curious.