• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tucker Carlson interviews Putin

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
This is the brief summary. For those who don't have the time to listen to the interview.

1) First of all, Putin needs to speak of the story of Kievan Rus, to be able to speak of Ukraine as nation and as country. He briefly describes how there was no difference between Russia and Ukraine, between Kiev and Moscow, because they were one single nation. In the Middle Ages the great cities of this civilization were Kiev and Novgorod, a city on the shores of the Volga river.
So, Volga, Dnjepr and Don: these are the rivers where the Russian nation arose.
It was Stalin who created Ukraine as national entity, and Ukrainian, a dialect of Russian became national language. Stalin gave Ukraine many territories, including Crimea, which had been Russian for many, many centuries.

2) Russia joining NATO question: After 1991, when Soviet Union collapsed, Russia expected to be welcomed among the club of the civilized nations. None of this happened.
Yeltsin was the most pro-American Russian president in the history of Russia. He shouted God bless America: he meant: let us in.
Despite the fact that USA had bombed Belgrade and Serbia, the spiritual companion of the Russian people; when Russia protested, the Americans said that the UN Charter on war had become obsolete.
When Putin became president in 2000, he tried to restore relations with the US, so he was visited by Clinton at the Kremlin.
Putin asked Clinton: do you think it's possible for Russia to join NATO? Clinton replied: I think it's interesting, I think so. But after he talked to his team, later, he said: no, no, it's not possible now.
So Putin understood that Russia wasn't welcomed in the club of the Western countries. For no reason. Considering the great efforts of rapprochement started by Yeltsin.
Besides, asked by Carlson, Putin said that if Clinton had said yes to joining the NATO, the process of rapprochement would have commenced and it would have eventually happened. But there was no sign of rapprochement from the USA.

3) Ukraine and NATO: Strangely in 2008 the gates of NATO were opened for Ukraine, by POTUS Bush. Ukraine, especially the South-East, has always had a pro-Russian electorate because of the overwhelming presence of Russian-speaking people. In Donbas Russians are the majority.
Even if Putin had asked to respect the buffer zone between NATO countries and the Community of Independent States (Ukraine included), the NATO ignored the request and expanded eastwards, phagocytizing the Baltics, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, etc..etc...
The USA intelligence literally started to colonize Ukraine. When Kučma the pro-Russian president won the elections, the opposition supported by the USA demanded a third round of elections because they didn't like the outcome. This is what Putin calls a coup.
Despite all those efforts to influence Ukraine's politics, Yanukovič came to power anyway after Yushenko.
Then there was the Maidan coup, with the pretext that Yanukovič was a pro-Russia and a pro-Putin president, and he didn't want a trade deal with the European Union.
The USA imposed on Yanukovič to respect the dissidents, and to let Maidan take the lead.
Backed by CIA, the Maidan parties persecuted and killed all those who were against the coup, including the pro-Russian people of Odessa and Donbass, like the Massacre of Odessa demonstrates.
The new government, of Poroshenko, started the war in Donbas using aircraft and artillery, and this war lasted 8 years.
Whereas, Crimea which has always been 99% Russian and Russian-speaking made a referendum and declared itself independent from Ukraine, and later joined the Russian Federation.
The Donbas war started in 2014, and that provoked the reaction of the EU.

4) The Donbas war and the Minsk agreements: The Minsk protocol was drafted by Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE, in 2014, with mediation of France and Germany that were garantors of that protocol. The Protocol was signed in September 2014 also by the self-proclaimed Donbas republic, Donetsk and Luhansk.
Ukraine was asked to respect it. In 2015, a second Minsk agreement was signed as well.
During these eight years Putin tried to convince European leaders to try to stop this war, so that Russia wouldn't have had to invade Donbas to rescue the Russian-speaking people there.
The Minsk agreements had the purpose to rescue the Russians of Donbas and to create a buffer zone against the NATO expansion in the Eastern Part of Ukraine surrounding Crimea: so they were meant to safeguard both Donbas and Crimeans.
In 2022 Macron went to Kiev to try to convince Zelenskyy to respect and implement the agreements. Zelenskyy was willing to accept, but after Macron returned home, the Ukrainian president announced that he was not disposed to respect them.
That's how and that's why the invasion of Russia started: because, despite the desperate plea from the EU, represented by Macron, Zelenskyy (surely obeying some élites from overseas) refused to implement the Minsk agreements.

5)The reason of the invasion in 2022: Putin said it was necessary to rescue the Donbas civilians. The Kiev government targeted not only the separatists, but also civilians with aircraft and artillery. So the invasion was necessary to rescue and protect Russian-speaking civilians, living in Donbas since ever.
Denazification (denacifikacija) was another important goal of the the operation: Ukrainian Nationalists who want to wage war against the Russian speaking people of Ukraine, are the descendants of those who collaborated with the Nazis in 1940, letting them easily reach the Volga.
They have always seen Russians as the oppressors, despite the fact that many Russian presidents have tried to do their best for Ukraine.
The Russian troops reached Kiev with the intent to undo the Nazi government. But they were dissuaded from occupying the city, because the NATO and the West deceived Moscow, saying that if they had withdrawn, they would have signed the peace agreements in Istanbul.
The Russian troops believed them and did withdraw, but the negotiators in Istanbul ripped off the peace agreements between Russia and Ukraine, and so Putin was tricked. In the meantime, NATO countries, especially US sent their weapons and warfare that made Ukrainian soldiers regain territories.

6)The impossibility of a peace agreement: Zelenskyy prevents any peace operations from being carried out. The peace negotiations of Istanbul failed because someone orders him not to negotiate with Russia. He is prevented from seeking a peace agreement with Russia, himself because he passed a law that forbids any Ukrainian from seeking peace with Russia.
Putin makes Carlson understand that it's the US that is using Ukraine as the battlefield of a buffer zone. So Ukrainians are the sacrificial victims, the cannon fodder in this war between Russia and the NATO.

7)Russia's alleged expansionism: Carlson asks Putin whether he is interested in conquering Eastern Europe, the old USSR. Putin readily replies that Russians have zero interest in countries like Poland, Baltics, etc...
They want to live in peace with them. So they only way they can be at war with them is in the very unrealistic scenario where Poland or Latvia or other countries invade Russia.
Then he clarifies that it's the US that refused to welcome Russia into the NATO. Because the goal of the US is to weaken Russia as much as possible through a war. And its satellite countries (in Europe) are forced to obey its orders.
The Ukraine War is a provocation: a proxy war meant to destroy Russian economy and force Russia to become a satellite country of the US, just like all of Europe.
Putin is shocked that the average American cares about Ukraine when in the Americas there are so many problems, including the Mexican border and the mass immigration from Central America. They should be dealing with their business, instead of caring what Europeans do or don't.

8)Nordstream: Carlson asks the tremendous question: Who blew up Nordstream? Putin smiles and immediately answers: вы, vy, which means you guys, meaning you Americans did, for sure. Carlson is interested and want to know more details.
Putin said that he has no idea of who did it specifically and how the operation of sabotage was carried out. Nevertheless only the CIA and the NATO, together could have done something so risky and in plain sight, because it takes millions and millions of dollars to train the saboteurs and to enable them to survive, after the operation.
Of course those pipelines belong to Russia. Russia would have never destroyed its own assets because it's her who had to repair them, and she needs the billions to fund the Ukrainian war. So it's illogical.

9) What being a Christian leader means: Carlson then asks Putin: "You are a Christian leader. What does it mean this war to you?" Putin replies by mentioning that Ukraine is the cradle of the Russian Christian Civilization, because Prince Vladímir I Svjatoslavič was baptized in Kiev. So Christianity is very important to them, Orthodoxy is the fundament of our history and our identity.
Carlson asks him "How do you reconcile this Christian spirit with being a leader who has to kill? To wage a war against enemies? Since Christ said “turn the other cheek?”
Putin replies: "It's easy when it comes with protecting your fatherland, your family, your loved ones. We won't attack anyone, unless we are attacked, first. It's self-defense, after the Maidan coup: we try to protect our Russian compatriots in Donbas, who were brutally attacked by Ukrainian aircraft from 2014 onward"

10) Elon Musk. Elon Musk is brought up about AI and the internet. Putin says that the new empire of the 21st century is scientific progress and development. Elon Musk is very smart, but we need to regulate these things at international level.

11) Evan Gershkovich: Carlson asks Putin: "Will you release Wall Street journal Evan Gershkovich and give him to us Americans?". Putin looks weary, and says: "We have granted so many things and made so many concessions that we have run out of them, I guess. Nobody has ever reciprocated. We expect mutual respect, from the West. Gershkovich is considered a spy, according to the Russian law. He spied on us and on our security".

12) Peace negotiations: Carlson says he will ask Putin one more question: "Are you worried that what is happening in Ukraine can lead to something much larger? How motivated are you to come to terms with the other party?". Putin answers: "I have already said we are willing to negotiate. It is Ukraine and the West who don't want to negotiate, since Ukraine is a satellite state of the US. Ukraine was prevented from negotiating by the British Prime Minister, because Ukraine is a satellite state, of course."
Carlson looks confused and asks him: "if it's the US that gives orders to Zelenskyy, why don't you interact with Biden directly?". Putin replies: "If the Ukrainian president refuses to negotiate, it means it's Washington DC that instructed him to do that. So it's up to the US".
Carlson, surprised asks him, then: "So you do want a negotiated settlement to what is happening in Ukraine?". Putin readily points out: "We have already done that. We initiated the document in Istanbul and the Ukrainian delegation signed the provisions; nevertheless they didn't sign the entire document because PM Johnson prevented them from doing it."
Carlson: "Do you think its' too humiliating for NATO to accept Russia's conquest of Donbas and the other two regions?"
Putin: "I said that they are probably trying to achieve a peace agreement. Let them do it with dignity. They do want it but they are struggling to understand how they can do that, without announcing they were wrong.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I'd wager good money that @Estro Felino is an Andrew Tate fan.
Dearest, you have the occasion to convince me that Putin is the bad guy here.

For instance: I believe that certain elitist people in the US provoked the war in Donbas in 2014 to push Putin to invade.
Because they crave for Russia's assets and resources like ravenous wolves.

Try to convince me I am wrong.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Dearest, you have the occasion to convince me that Putin is the bad guy here.

For instance: I believe that certain elitist people in the US provoked the war in Donbas in 2014 to push Putin to invade.
Because they crave for Russia's assets and resources like ravenous wolves.

Try to convince me I am wrong.
If assassinating journalists, critics, and political rivals, persecuting LGBT citizens, carrying out unprovoked invasions, and facilitating war crimes such as the rape, torture, and trafficking of children isn't enough to convince you, then you're a lost cause. You like to frequently remind everyone of your Christian faith, but it's totally meaningless without the inclusion of an actual moral compass.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If assassinating journalists, critics, and political rivals, persecuting LGBT citizens, carrying out unprovoked invasions, and facilitating war crimes such as the rape, torture, and trafficking of children isn't enough to convince you, then you're a lost cause. You like to frequently remind everyone of your Christian faith, but it's totally meaningless without the inclusion of an actual moral compass.

I am not saying that Putin is a saint.
I am speaking of the Ukrainian war...
who started it.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Being fond of pretty young women is an important trait for politicians. How can politics be done if it isn't for a fondness for pretty young women?! Nations would fall and lawlessness would reign supreme if a fondness for pretty young women were to cease to be in politicians!
Honestly I think that a womanizer Prime Minister is 100,000 times better than a POTUS linked to Muslim Brotherhood.
;)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Conquest is very, very, very actual.
For instance, China is conquering Eastern Africa. Conquest is not a factual conquest: it's the creation of puppet states that obey a superpower.

Well, then, it would be a covert, underground "conquest" which is unknown to the general public and official sources. A puppet state is still, officially, independent and sovereign (with the implication that anyone who denies it must be castigated as some kind of "conspiracy nut").

It's not really the same thing as imperial conquest, though. It's cheaper and appears more "benevolent" than outright conquest, but it's also riskier since it requires the trust of some local strongman to be a loyal puppet to the larger power. Moreover, it also has to be someone who commands the loyalty of the people within their country - and that's the real sticking point. The U.S. has had a history of backing unreliable puppets, such as Thieu in Vietnam, the Shah in Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, and so on.

The way I see it, there's one of two paths we can take, as a nation. We can take the decent and benevolent route, insisting upon good relations with all nations, respecting their sovereignty and dealing with everyone equally, fairly, and justly. Or, we can take the imperialist, hegemonic route, except through open, direct conquest and by appointing our own territorial governors. But this deceptive, mendacious "puppet government" business is the worst of both worlds. It's a failed, ineffective strategy which should be abandoned.


Ukraine must become a EU country so it will become free: it will be none's puppet state.
It will have the chance to have representatives in a EU parliament.

They became independent and sovereign when both Russia and Ukraine (along with all the other Republics) seceded from the Soviet Union, thus causing the dissolution of that state.

You should really, really, listen to the interview. At least the first part, which is not that long.
Putin points out that after Yeltsin who said "God bless America", Russians did want to be America's allies and to join the NATO.

Well, yes, I do believe that part. When I was in Russia in the mid-1980s, most of the Russians I met had very positive views of America and the West. They just wanted to have peaceful, amicable relations with us. By that time, they had grown more afraid of China than they were of the U.S.

We could have had peaceful, amicable relations with them back in 1945, thus avoiding the Cold War entirely. That might have happened had FDR lived out his fourth term in office.


I would like to know something:
how did the US consider Europe? A colony? A worthless insignificant military colony?
Or a strategic partner?

The US relationship with Europe was originally established and embedded in our relationship with our Mother Country. During much of the 19th century, the US was somewhat fearful of possible European hegemony in the Americas, so we tried to refrain from any direct entanglements with European politics (except where it affected the Americas or the Pacific Rim).

My own opinion is that the Europeans were pretty much running the entire world by 1900 - with America being the equivalent of a cocky teenage upstart - naive, inexperienced - yet still with great potential that had yet to be realized. However, our perspective on Europe and the world had somewhat mirrored the British perspective, which made sense, considering that we both spoke the same language (more or less). Our interests were closely aligned, being that we were both sea powers and depended on freedom of the seas and the security of trade routes. Both the US and Britain also had a shared interest in not wanting any single individual power or monarch to have complete control over Europe. Having a divided Europe with a balance of power worked well for British interests, which indirectly benefited American interests.

I think the Europeans of that era might be faulted for a certain degree of haughty, aristocratic, hubristic pretense which was becoming rapidly outdated and impractical. Looking back to old photos and footage of the Russian Tsar or the German Kaiser, one can't help but think that they were just so out of place in the 20th century, with attitudes and rituals more suited for the 16th century. They were both ultimately hoisted by their own petards. They lost the loyalty of their people and lost control over their countries.

Even Britain seemed to be getting too big for its britches, as they were zealously opposed to any idea of sharing global hegemony with either Germany or Russia. They wanted to keep Russia bottled up and cut off from the world, from Manchuria to the Dardanelles. And they feared the growing power of Germany, particularly as France weakened. The idea of Germany taking parts of the French Empire and/or displacing France as the main continental power seemed unpalatable to Britain. Meanwhile, the Russians had an affinity for their fellow Slavic Orthodox brethren in the Balkans and a longstanding enmity against Turkey over control of the city of Istanbul (Constantinople). The Germans and Austrians also wanted to extend their influence into the Balkans and Middle East.

When looking at events from the 19th century up to the World Wars, one might get the sense that Britain had some sort of fear that, if either Germany or Russia had been able to gain some geopolitical advantage or strategic position, they would automatically become aggressive and threatening towards Britain and their imperial holdings.

Thus, the British opposed the Russians attempting to take the Dardanelles and were also worried about Russian forays into Persia, Afghanistan, and Manchuria, as that was seen as threatening British interests. Likewise, the British interceded on behalf of the French to prevent the Germans from seizing French-controlled Morocco. The British didn't mind if the French controlled it, but the idea of German control was unacceptable.

At the time, the U.S. was (more or less) uninvolved in these various European conflicts and disputes. We were still mostly focused on the Americas, but started to plant our flag across the Pacific. Our view of Europe would not be that of a colony or anything subservient to the US, but more something like "the old country." Our view of Europe also came through the eyes of millions of immigrants who had plenty to say about the old country (keeping in mind that they left those countries for a reason). Among other things, this created an impression in Americans' minds (that still holds today) that, if nothing else, America was a better place to live than Europe was at the time. Otherwise, so many millions of them wouldn't have been relocating here.

To be sure, the numerous wars and petty squabbles among European aristocrats also left a somewhat bad impression of Europe on Americans. All that "storied pomp." World War I represented the last great hurrah of European nobility. It was collective stupidity on a monumental and tragic scale. Nationalism run amok. Woodrow Wilson didn't trust any of the belligerents, even Britain and France. It just turned out that he saw them as the lesser among many evils, although he still disagreed with their war aims. As it turned out, it was those very war aims which sparked extremist movements in both Germany and Russia, which would have to be dealt with later on.

The only real winner of WW1 was America. France and Britain were also on the winning side, but they had paid an enormous cost which led to domestic troubles at home and growing resistance movements in their empires. It was the beginning of the end for European colonialism in the world.

So, you ask how does the US consider Europe? I consider that they once had the whole world in their grasp, on top of everything - and ended up losing it all because of their greed-driven, puffed up egos and blind arrogance which caused petty, tribalistic squabbles. The end result is that most European states had to be "liberated" by either the US or the USSR (which was still nominally European, yet often considered an outsider). They're not "colonies." Americans still have strong sentimental attachments to their old countries and ancestral homelands to ever really think of them in that way.

Maybe they view Europe as something analogous to elderly grandparents who need protection and care. ;)

I spoke with some Danes. Everyone in Denmark knows it was NATO ships.
You need to have billions at your disposal to make something so risky and in plain sight.
No ship can enter the Baltic Sea without hundreds of controls.

Aren't there a few posters from Denmark who post here on RF?

I would expect there to be NATO ships in the Baltic anyway, as there are multiple NATO countries with ports on the Baltic. Of course, there's going to be some NATO ships in there. My only point was that it would be too obvious and too great a risk for a flagged military vessel to openly attack a pipeline like that. If it was to be done covertly and (presumably) undetected, it seems it would be more prudent to use some low-key, non-descript civilian ship that wouldn't get much attention. Or maybe a submarine. Maybe they used some kind of submersible, like that vessel that sunk on an expedition to the Titanic wreck site last year.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Italian journalists have been there: they have never seen such a scenario. Neither belligerent party did that.
PS: I have a couple of friends who are considered two nymphos. Are you implying that if they fly to Donbas as war nurses, they will be raped by Russian soldiers?
They raped a reporter from their own country so yeah, probably.

Was Russian TV reporter raped on Ukraine front line? What we know."
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Well, then, it would be a covert, underground "conquest" which is unknown to the general public and official sources. A puppet state is still, officially, independent and sovereign (with the implication that anyone who denies it must be castigated as some kind of "conspiracy nut").

It's not really the same thing as imperial conquest, though. It's cheaper and appears more "benevolent" than outright conquest, but it's also riskier since it requires the trust of some local strongman to be a loyal puppet to the larger power. Moreover, it also has to be someone who commands the loyalty of the people within their country - and that's the real sticking point. The U.S. has had a history of backing unreliable puppets, such as Thieu in Vietnam, the Shah in Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, and so on.
It's an invisible conquest, but it's still a conquest. Because those puppet states are countries without freedom to decide anything.
The way I see it, there's one of two paths we can take, as a nation. We can take the decent and benevolent route, insisting upon good relations with all nations, respecting their sovereignty and dealing with everyone equally, fairly, and justly. Or, we can take the imperialist, hegemonic route, except through open, direct conquest and by appointing our own territorial governors. But this deceptive, mendacious "puppet government" business is the worst of both worlds. It's a failed, ineffective strategy which should be abandoned.
Exactly. It's a wrong approach. I think that diplomacy is the most fruitful form of international cooperation.

Well, yes, I do believe that part. When I was in Russia in the mid-1980s, most of the Russians I met had very positive views of America and the West. They just wanted to have peaceful, amicable relations with us. By that time, they had grown more afraid of China than they were of the U.S.

We could have had peaceful, amicable relations with them back in 1945, thus avoiding the Cold War entirely. That might have happened had FDR lived out his fourth term in office.
It goes further than that. In the interview Putin said he asked Clinton whether it was possible for Russia to join.
Clinton didn't answer: it's not possible, for now. He meant: it's not possible. Ever.
So am I wondering: is the NATO a defensive alliance?
Or was it designed to conquer Russia? (that's why she cannot join).
So, you ask how does the US consider Europe? I consider that they once had the whole world in their grasp, on top of everything - and ended up losing it all because of their greed-driven, puffed up egos and blind arrogance which caused petty, tribalistic squabbles. The end result is that most European states had to be "liberated" by either the US or the USSR (which was still nominally European, yet often considered an outsider). They're not "colonies." Americans still have strong sentimental attachments to their old countries and ancestral homelands to ever really think of them in that way.
That's reassuring. :)
But the élites are not commoners. I believe there are élites who consider Europeans' will irrelevant.
And Europe as an insignificant continent to submit.
Aren't there a few posters from Denmark who post here on RF?

I would expect there to be NATO ships in the Baltic anyway, as there are multiple NATO countries with ports on the Baltic. Of course, there's going to be some NATO ships in there. My only point was that it would be too obvious and too great a risk for a flagged military vessel to openly attack a pipeline like that. If it was to be done covertly and (presumably) undetected, it seems it would be more prudent to use some low-key, non-descript civilian ship that wouldn't get much attention. Or maybe a submarine. Maybe they used some kind of submersible, like that vessel that sunk on an expedition to the Titanic wreck site last year.
In the interview Putin firmly said: it was the United States. Meaning the Deep State, so CIA included.
He was absolutely confident in his response.
I think that Germany would never shoot herself in the foot...she underwent this sabotage and that ultimately provoked many problems.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Absolutely! The Trump presidency opened my eyes to the effectiveness of a womanizing racist grifter authoritarian versus the current President who very clearly hates pretty young woman and supports Sharia law.
By womanizer PM I meant Berlusconi, btw.
And I didn't mean Biden. Who is a Christian.
 
Top