Tucker in Russia

[Anonymous]

1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

[Anonymous]

Tucker's timing is impeccable. The Senate just passed a Ukraine funding deal. Maybe Putin will be so mad he keeps Tucker.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/08/senate-gop-democrats-ukraine-israel-funding-congress/72523603007/

[Anonymous]

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm about halfway through through interview. So far, I have mostly learned that surprisingly, the media has accurately reported Putin's motivations. He feels that NATO's eastward expansion is a problem. And he also believes that Russia has a legitimate historical claim to Ukraine.

Oh he thinks they can just claim it right back with an invasion? That’s pretty fked up.

Yes. He was basically making an argument that Russia has a historical claim to the lands. The argument was so "woke" in its logic- basically that he was decolonizing Ukraine -- that I am not convinced he is telling the truth. It seems designed to appeal to the American left. Tucker repeat asked him why he waited over 20 years to make these claims but Putin just dodged the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting interview does Putin really believe all the historical information he gave out about Poland and Ukraine belongings to Russia etc how accurate is it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting interview does Putin really believe all the historical information he gave out about Poland and Ukraine belongings to Russia etc how accurate is it

It's bullshit.

[Anonymous]

My takeaway from the parts I've seen so far was that Putin showed both outright and subtle contempt for Tucker and used this platform to try to show the superiority of Russia with a boring, rambling history lesson that went back into antiquity. Most Americans (including myself, honestly) operate on a much shorter timeline.

Basically, it seems like Putin's invasion of Ukraine has a lot of historical context that mostly was inflamed by post-cold war NATO expansion decisions. I've been reading some interesting George Kennon arguments against NATO expansion back in the late 1990s. It's depressing to realize decisions made decades ago impact whether my children and my neighbors children will fight in wars. I feel like our political system is so broken it is impossible that there is cohesive long-term effective diplomacy or strategy to keep us out of wars.

As someone who can't tell you my ethnicity beyond some sort of Irish, German, Italian, Greek, English blend, I struggle to understand other people's deep connection and feelings of entitlement to certain swathes of land occupied by long ago ancestors. That goes for Russia/Ukraine and also for Israel/Gaza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting interview does Putin really believe all the historical information he gave out about Poland and Ukraine belongings to Russia etc how accurate is it

There’s an interesting The Rest Is Hisyory podcast about Ukrainian history. Basically the answer is that the whole region has a very complicated history with shifting borders for thousands of years. There’s probably just as strong an argument that Ukraine should take over Russia, or Norway should take them both due to the Varangians, and Poland would also be in the mix there. It’s just ridiculous to go back in history this way. Can Spain take over California? No, despite the fact that there are still a lot of Spanish speakers there. It’s just idiotic justification. And Putin is severely mentally ill —- he’s paranoid like Stalin was in his final decade. so you can’t really rely on anything he says. Is he really worried about nato? Maybe but this is a guy who is so worried about people criticizing him that he poisons them or throws them out a window, so his concerns are not exactly rational.

I would be tempted to watch — I sometimes do watch the Russian propaganda pieces just out of interest, but I really can’t stand Putin’s style of talking. He seems to me to be so utterly lacking in charisma that he’s hard to even watch. He makes my skin crawl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

Should we ban entertainers from doing interviews with American adversaries? I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to this on aesthetic or political grounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the parts I've seen so far was that Putin showed both outright and subtle contempt for Tucker and used this platform to try to show the superiority of Russia with a boring, rambling history lesson that went back into antiquity. Most Americans (including myself, honestly) operate on a much shorter timeline.

Basically, it seems like Putin's invasion of Ukraine has a lot of historical context that mostly was inflamed by post-cold war NATO expansion decisions. I've been reading some interesting George Kennon arguments against NATO expansion back in the late 1990s. It's depressing to realize decisions made decades ago impact whether my children and my neighbors children will fight in wars. I feel like our political system is so broken it is impossible that there is cohesive long-term effective diplomacy or strategy to keep us out of wars.

As someone who can't tell you my ethnicity beyond some sort of Irish, German, Italian, Greek, English blend, I struggle to understand other people's deep connection and feelings of entitlement to certain swathes of land occupied by long ago ancestors. That goes for Russia/Ukraine and also for Israel/Gaza.

I was taken aback by how many times he put Tucker down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

Should we ban entertainers from doing interviews with American adversaries? I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to this on aesthetic or political grounds.

Exactly. This argument is so irrational and stupid that it is a fool’s errand to even engage with trolls like this.