#Vladimir Putin owns Carlson | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 7 days

Text

It’s not too late, because it’s never too late. No outcomes are ever preordained, nothing is ever over, and you can always affect what happens tomorrow by making the right choices today. The U.S. Congress is finally making one of those right choices. Soon, American weapons and ammunition will once again start flowing to Ukraine.

But delays do have a price. By dawdling for so many months, by heading down the blind alley of border reform before turning back, congressional Republicans who blocked weapons and ammunition for Ukraine did an enormous amount of damage, some of it irreparable. Over the past six months, Ukraine lost territory, lives, and infrastructure. If Ukraine had not been deprived of air defense, the city of Kharkiv might still have most of its power plants. People who have died in the near-daily bombardment of Odesa might still be alive. Ukrainian soldiers who spent weeks at the front lines rationing ammunition might not be so demoralized.

The delay has changed American politics too. Only a minority of House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, joined most Democrats to approve $60 billion in aid yesterday. What is now clearly a pro-Russia Republican caucus has consolidated inside Congress. The lesson is clear: Anyone who seeks to manipulate the foreign policy of the United States, whether the tin-pot autocrat in Hungary or the Communist Party of China, now knows that a carefully designed propaganda campaign, when targeted at the right people, can succeed well beyond what anyone once thought possible. From the first days of the 2022 Russian invasion, President Vladimir Putin has been trying to conquer Ukraine through psychological games as well as military force. He needed to persuade Americans, Europeans, and above all Ukrainians that victory was impossible, that the only alternative was surrender, and that the Ukrainian state would disappear in due course.

Plenty of Americans and Europeans, though not so many Ukrainians, supported this view. Pro-Russia influencers—Tucker Carlson, J. D. Vance, David Sacks—backed up by an army of pro-Russia trolls on X and other social-media platforms, helped feed the narrative of failure and convinced a minority in Congress to block aid for Ukraine. It’s instructive to trace the path of a social-media post that falsely claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky owns two yachts, how it traveled up the food chain late last year, from the keyboard of a propagandist through the echo chamber created by trolls and into the brains of American lawmakers. According to Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, some of his colleagues worried out loud, during debates about military aid to Ukraine, that “people will buy yachts with this money.” They had read the false stories and believed they were true.

But with the passage of this aid bill, Russia’s demoralization campaign has suffered a severe setback. This is also a setback for the Russian war effort, and not only because the Ukrainians will now have more ammunition. Suddenly the Russian military and Russian society are once again faced with the prospect of a very long war. Ukraine, backed by the combined military and economic forces of the United States and the European Union, is a much different opponent than Ukraine isolated and alone.

That doesn’t mean that the Russians will quickly give up: Putin and the propagandists who support him on state television have repeatedly stated that their goal is not to gain a bit of extra territory but to control all of Ukraine. They don’t want to swap land for peace. They want to occupy Kharkiv, Odesa, Kyiv, and more. Now, while their goals become harder to reach, is a good moment for the democratic countries backing Ukraine to recalibrate our strategy too.

Once the aid package becomes law this week, the psychological advantage will once again be on our side. Let’s use it. As Johnson himself recommended, the Biden administration should immediately pressure European allies to release the $300 billion in Russian assets that they jointly hold and send it to Ukraine. There are excellent legal and moral arguments for doing so—the money can legitimately be considered a form of reparations. This shift would also make clear to the Kremlin that it has no path back to what used to be called “normal” relations, and that the price Russia is paying for its colonial war will only continue to grow.

This is also a good moment for both Europeans and Americans to take the sanctions and export-control regimes imposed on Russia more seriously. If NATO were running a true economic-pressure campaign, thousands of people would be involved, with banks of screens at a central command center and constantly updated intelligence. Instead, the task has been left to a smattering of people across different agencies in different countries who may or may not be aware of what others are doing.

As American aid resumes, the Ukrainians should be actively encouraged to pursue the asymmetric warfare that they do best. The air and naval drone campaign that pushed the Black Sea Fleet away from their coastline, the raids on Russian gas and oil facilities thousands of miles from Ukraine, the recruitment of Russian soldiers, in Russia, to join pro-Ukraine Russian units fighting on the border—we need more of this, not less. The Biden administration should also heed Johnson’s suggestion that the United States supply more and better long-range weapons so that Ukrainians can hit Russian missile launchers before the missiles reach Ukraine. If the U.S. had done so in the autumn of 2022, when Ukraine was taking back territory, the world might look a lot different today.

This war will be over only when the Russians no longer want to fight—and they will stop fighting when they realize they cannot win. Now it is our turn to convince them, as well as our own pro-Russia caucus, that their invasion will fail. The best way to do that is to believe it ourselves.

32 notes · View notes

gusty-wind · 3 months

Text

#the great awakening #war is real #ncswic

20 notes · View notes

simply-ivanka · 3 months

Text

Tucker Carlson announces his controversial interview with Putin will air Thursday at 6pm EST on his own website and X - as Hillary Clinton brands fired Fox News host a 'useful idiot' | Daily Mail Online

#repost #tucker carlson #russia #putin

11 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months

Text

Bagley * * * *

“You are not allowed to give up.”

February 17, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Vladimir Putin killed his chief political opponent on Friday. Alexei Navalny, a Russian hero and patriot, is the latest in a long line of victims of Putin’s murderous regime. Navalny was in prison north of the Artic circle when he allegedly “died suddenly” on a “walk.” Most of Putin’s victims “fall out” of second-floor windows or die from exotic poisons or nerve agents. President Biden said,

Make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Navalny's death. What has happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin's brutality. No one should be fooled, not in Russia, not at home, not anywhere in the world.

Of Navalny, Biden said,

He was brave. He was principled. He was dedicated to building a Russia where the rule of law existed and where it applied to everybody.

Putin kills with impunity. Coincidentally, Donald Trump is currently urging the Supreme Court to grant him (and all other US presidents) the power to kill their political opponents with impunity. Even more coincidentally, Trump has not condemned Putin’s assassination of Navalny—leaving Trump alone among US and Western democratic leaders, all of whom condemned Putin for the death of Navalny.

The assassination of Navalny comes as the GOP is under the thrall of Putin. Trump and congressional Republicans are doing Putin’s work by refusing to provide supplemental funding for Ukraine. MAGA poster boy Tucker Carlson provided a platform last week for Putin to spread his lies about Russia’s history and territorial claims—including his claim that Ukraine is “not really a separate country.” Even Putin was derisive of Tucker Carlson’s pathetic interview. See Business Insider, Putin Says He Thought Tucker Carlson Would Ask Tougher Questions.

President Biden also condemned Congress for its inaction on Ukraine in his remarks on the assassination of Navalny. After his formal remarks, a reporter asked President Biden if there was anything the US could do to accelerate the delivery of aid to Ukraine. Biden responded,

No, but it’s about time [Congress] step[s] up, don’t you think? Instead of going on a two-week vacation.” Two weeks, they’re walking away. Two weeks. What are they thinking? My God, this is bizarre, and it’s just reinforcing all of the concern and almost – I won’t say panic – but real concern about the United States being a reliable ally. This is outrageous.

The heroism of Navalny highlights the cowardice of House Republicans. Mike Johnson is damaging US foreign policy so he does not provoke the ire of Marjorie Taylor Greene. See op-ed by Eric Garcia in The Independent, Navalny’s death has shown Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson up as a coward.

Garcia explains that Mike Johnson did not spend the last two work days on the Senate bill granting aid to Ukraine but instead wasted time on the Mayorkas impeachment:

Johnson did [so] in the service of appeasing Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump ally from Georgia, who is also an ardent opponent of funding for Ukraine. The fact [Johnson] refused to cross the person largely responsible for him being Speaker shows how unserious he is. Marjorie Taylor Greene has pledged that if aid to Ukraine goes to the floor of the House, she will file a motion to vacate the chair of Johnson. This comes despite the fact that many in Johnson’s conference want to support Ukraine and most Democrats would vote to help pass a bill doing so.

In other words, Mike Johnson is willing to allow Ukraine to fall to Putin because he wants to remain in his job as Speaker of the House—under the thumb of Marjorie Taylor Greene. What a pathetic, cowardly existence.

Against Mike Johnson’s cowardice (emblematic of all congressional Republicans) is the heroism of Alexei Navalny. In anticipation of his own assassination, Navalny left these words to those who remained behind:

If they decided to kill me, then it means we are incredibly strong. We need to utilize this power to not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed . . . . We don’t realize how strong we actually are. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing, so don’t be inactive. You’re not allowed to give up.

We do not need to make Alexei Navalny’s ultimate sacrifice to follow in his footsteps. We just need not to give up—even when the odds against us seem overwhelming. We can do that. We have been doing that.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

#political cartoons #authoritarianism #Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #courage #Alexei Navalny #Putin #war in Ukraine #aid to ukraine #Mike Johnson #cowardice #Cowardly House Republicans

10 notes · View notes

misfitwashere · 3 months

Text

It’s been an exceedingly weird 24 hours.

Last night the Senate released the text of the national security supplemental bill on which a bipartisan team of negotiators has been working for four months. Negotiators were working on adding a border component to an urgent measure to fund aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza, since extremist House Republicans said they would not pass such a measure until Congress also addressed what they insisted was a crisis at the U.S. border.

The measure appropriated $60.1 billion in military aid to Ukraine, $14.1 billion in security aid for Israel, and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for Palestinians, Ukrainians, and other civilians in crises. It also invested about $20 billion in securing the southern border of the U.S., money to be used in hiring new officials, expanding detention facilities, and increasing the screening abilities of border agents to detect illicit fentanyl and other drugs.

Other provisions would trigger border closures if the volume of migrants climbs past a certain number and make it more difficult to qualify for asylum. At the same time, the measure offered more pathways to citizenship and more work visas.

But it appears the MAGA Republicans never really intended for such a measure to pass. They apparently thought that demanding that Congress agree to a border measure, which it has not been able to do now for decades, would kill the national security bill altogether. Certainly, once news began to spread that the negotiators were close to a deal, both former president Trump and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who said he was conferring with Trump, came out strongly against the measure even before anyone knew what was in it.

Trump and MAGA Republicans have been drumming up hysteria about the border as an issue before the 2024 election in part because they have very little else to run on. Voters are angry at the Republicans’ restrictions on abortion—especially in Texas, which has had a number of high-profile cases—and the economy is too strong for Republicans to get much traction by attacking it, especially as the numbers under Biden are dramatically stronger than those under Trump.

Keeping alive the immigration issue could cut into those numbers, especially in Texas.

But as David Kurtz points out in Talking Points Memo today, it is a terrible mistake to forget that the measure Trump and the MAGA Republicans are blocking is primarily a bill to fund Ukraine’s war against Russia’s invasion, because the administration believes that Ukraine’s stand against Russia is vital for our own national security. Without U.S. weapons and money, Ukraine is running out of ammunition and Russian forces are beginning to take back the territory Ukrainian forces had pushed them out of.

Funding Ukraine is popular in the U.S., even among a majority of non-MAGA Republicans. Americans recognize that Ukraine’s forces are not simply defending their sovereign territory, they are defending the rules-based international order that protects the United States. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, is trying to destroy that order, replacing it with the idea that bigger countries can conquer smaller countries at will.

Putin’s war on Ukraine has drained Russia’s money and men—just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russian civilian airplanes are malfunctioning as sanctions bite—and Putin would clearly like the U.S. to abandon Ukraine and clear the way for him to take control of the country.

Trump and the MAGA Republicans have always had an unusually close relationship with Putin. Over the weekend, former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson, who routinely echoed Russian talking points on his show, was spotted in Moscow. Reports say he has been there since last Thursday, staying in the city’s top hotels and visiting its main cultural sites.

Carlson was fired from Fox in the wake of the election lies in which he participated, and which cost the company $787 million. He said on his now-defunct show that in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, he was “rooting for Moscow.” The Russian Union of Journalists has said they would gladly accept Carlson as a member.

President Joe Biden and his administration, along with congressional Democrats, are so adamant that the U.S. must aid Ukraine that they were willing to cut a deal with the Republicans in order to get that funding through. That deal did not include a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers, people brought to the U.S. without documentation as children who have never known another home but this one, a demand Democrats in the past have stood by. Biden today expressed his frustration that the Republicans excluded the Dreamers from the bill, but he still urged Congress to pass it.

Indeed, as soon as the bill was available, Biden urged Congress to pass it immediately and promised to sign it into law as soon as Congress sent it to him. Over the course of today, those interested in a border measure joined with those interested in aiding Ukraine to call for the bill’s passage. The spectrum of those urging Congress to pass the bill was wide. The right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Border Patrol union both called for the bill’s immediate passage.

But MAGA Republicans stood against the bill from the start. By midday, the top Republicans in the House—Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY)—had released a statement saying: “Any consideration of this Senate bill in its current form is a waste of time. It is DEAD on arrival in the House. We encourage the U.S. Senate to reject it.” Although it seemed clear that the measure would pass the House if it came to the floor, Johnson said he would not introduce it.

A storm raged throughout the day as the Republican senators who had negotiated the bill joined with Republican senators who want Ukraine aid and with Democrats to demand the passage of the bill. Former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul noted that Johnson was “blocking the overwhelming majority of the House. Last September, when a related piece of legislation was on the floor, the House voted 311 to 117 in favor of continuing to provide security assistance to Ukraine.” In the Senate, CNN’s Manu Raju reported, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urged the bill’s passage, noting: “This is a humanitarian and security crisis of historic proportions, and Senate Republicans have insisted—not just for months but for years—that this urgent crisis demanded action.”

But by the end of the day, enough Republicans had peeled away from the measure that senior senate reporter for Punchbowl News Andrew Desiderio reported that McConnell had ceased to push the measure, saying that “the political mood in the country has changed.”

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) wrote. “They literally demanded specific policy, got it, and then killed it.”

Foreign affairs journalist Anne Applebaum reflected on the teetering national security measure and wrote: “People will die, today, because of the cynical game played by the American Republican party. Their irresponsibility is breathtaking.”

Foreign affairs specialist Tom Nichols of The Atlantic wrote: “Letting Ukraine fall because of [Republicans’] cultish loyalty to Trump will be a betrayal that will stain America forever—and probably end up pulling us into a fight for Europe later. This is one of the rare moments when the path to disaster is clearly marked and avoidable.”

Former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) summed up the day’s crisis over the national security measure: “On Trump’s orders, Republicans in Congress are rejecting the border security deal. They’re also abandoning America’s allies in Ukraine. Trump and the [Republicans] are losing the war on purpose in an inexcusable betrayal that will strengthen America’s enemies for years to come.”

#political commentary

6 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 2 months

Text

youtube

It's not healthy to believe your own propaganda. Unfortunately Vladimir Putin buys his own distorted views of Russian history which he then peddles to people like Tucker Carlson who are utterly clueless about Eastern Europe.

Masha Lavrova of The Kyiv Independent interviewed British historian Dr. Jade McGlynn of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London.

Putin's deformation of history is a major feature of what has been driving Russia's aggression.

Putin's attempt to restore the glories of the Russian Empire only serves to weaken Russia in the 21st century. But Putin's grandiose self-deception probably keeps him from acknowledging this.

Dr. McGlynn points out that Putin simply doesn't accept Ukraine as a real country. That's the root of the problem.

If we look at what Putin has said about Ukraine, you know, even if we only go back to 2014, there's plenty of evidence that this is not going to be solved by just giving him a little bit more of Ukrainian land. This is about a war to reshape the global order and, in Russia's view, it has the right, and also it has the need. [ … ] Because Russia is a "great state" and Ukraine is a "colony", it will therefore either be a colony of the West, which he [Putin] doesn't want, or be a colony of Russia, which he does want.

She blames the lack of understanding by some alleged Russia specialists in the West on their inability to understand Russian. They are simply unable to understand Putin and the context of what he's been saying for the past 10 years.

Speaking of Russian, in the vid Dr. McGlynn uses the Russian name for Ivan the Terrible which is Ivan Groznyy — or Иван Грозный in Cyrillic script.

5 notes · View notes

dialogue-queered · 11 months

Text

11 June 2023

Beneath the veneer of Russian military “tactics”, you see the stupid leer of destruction for the sake of it. The Kremlin can’t create, so all that is left is to destroy. Not in some pseudo-glorious self-immolation, the people behind atrocities are petty cowards, but more like a loser smearing their faeces over life. In Russia’s wars the very senselessness seems to be the sense.

After the casual mass executions at Bucha; after the bombing of maternity wards in Mariupol; after the laying to waste of whole cities in Donbas; after the children’s torture chambers, the missiles aimed at freezing civilians to death in the dead of winter, we now have the apocalyptic sight of the waters of the vast Dnipro, a river that when you are on it can feel as wide as a sea, bursting through the destroyed dam at Kakhovka. The reservoir held as much water as the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Its destruction has already submerged settlements where more than 40,000 people live. It has already wiped out animal sanctuaries and nature reserves. It will decimate agriculture in the bread basket of Ukraine that feeds so much of the world, most notably in the Middle East and Africa. To Russian genocide add ecocide.

The dam has been controlled by Russia for more than a year. The Ukrainian government has been warning that Russia had plans to blast it since October.

Seismologists in Norway have confirmed that massive blasts, the type associated with explosives rather than an accidental breach, came from the reservoir the night of its destruction. Some – including the American pro-Putin media personality Tucker Carlson – argue Russia couldn’t be behind the devastation, given the damage has spread to Russian-controlled territories, potentially restricting water supply to Crimea. But if “Russia wouldn’t damage its own people” is your argument then it’s one that doesn’t hold, pardon the tactless pun, much water. One of the least accurate quotes about Russia is Winston Churchill’s line about it being “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” This makes it sound as if Russia is driven by some theory of rational choice – when century after century the opposite appears to be the case.

Few have captured the Russian cycle of self-destruction and the destruction of others as well as the Ukrainian literary critic Tetyana Ogarkova. In her rewording of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Russian classic novel Crime and Punishment, a novel about a murderer who kills simply because he can, Ogarkova calls Russia a culture where you have “crime without punishment, and punishment without crime”. The powerful murder with impunity; the victims are punished for no reason.

When not bringing humanitarian aid to the front lines, Ogarkova presents a podcast together with her husband, the philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko. It’s remarkable for showing two people thinking calmly while under daily bombardment. It reminds me of German-Jewish philosophers such as Walter Benjamin, who kept writing lucidly even as they fled the Nazis. As they try to make sense of the evil bearing down on their country, Ogarkova and Yermolenko note the difference between Hitler and Stalin: while Nazis had some rules about who they punished (non-Aryans; communists) in Stalin’s terror anyone could be a victim at any moment. Random violence runs through Russian history.Reacting to how Vladimir Putin’s Russia is constantly changing its reasons for invading Ukraine – from “denazification” to “reclaiming historic lands” to “Nato expansion” – Ogarkova and Yermolenko decide that the very brutal nature of the invasion is its essence: the war crimes are the point. Russia claims to be a powerful “pole” in the world to balance the west – but has failed to create a successful political model others would want to join. So it has nothing left to offer except to drag everyone down to its own depths.“How dare you live like this,” went a resentful piece of graffiti by Russian soldiers in Bucha. “What’s the point of the world when there is no place for Russia in it,” complains Putin. After the dam at Kakhovka was destroyed, a General Dobruzhinsky crowed on a popular Russian talkshow: “We should blow up the Kyiv water reservoir too.” “Why?” asked the host. “Just to show them.” But, as Ogarkova and Yermolenko explore, Russians also send their soldiers to die senselessly in the meat grinder of the Donbas, their bodies left uncollected on the battlefield, their relatives not informed of their death so as to avoid paying them. On TV, presenters praise how “no one knows how to die like us”. Meanwhile, villagers on the Russian-occupied side of the river are being abandoned by the authorities. Being “liberated” by Russia means joining its empire of humiliation.

Where does this drive to annihilation come from? In 1912 the Russian-Jewish psychoanalyst Sabina Spielrein – who was murdered by the Nazis, while her three brothers were killed in Stalin’s terror -first put forward the idea that people were drawn to death as much as to life. She drew on themes from Russian literature and folklore for her theory of a death drive, but the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, first found her ideas too morbid. After the First World War, he came to agree with her. The desire for death was the desire to let go of responsibility, the burden of individuality, choice, freedom – and sink back into inorganic matter. To just give up. In a culture such as Russia’s, where avoiding facing up to the dark past with all its complex webs of guilt and responsibility is commonplace, such oblivion can be especially seductive.

But Russia is also sending out a similar message to Ukrainians and their allies with these acts of ultra-violent biblical destruction: give in to our immensity, surrender your struggle. And for all Russia’s military defeats and actual socio-economic fragility, this propaganda of the deed can still work.

The reaction in the west to the explosion of the dam has been weirdly muted. Ukrainians are mounting remarkable rescue operations, while Russia continues to shell semi-submerged cities, but they are doing it more or less alone. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has been mystified by the “zero support” from international organisations such as the UN and Red Cross.

Perhaps the relative lack of support comes partly because people feel helpless in the face of something so immense, these Cecil B DeMille-like scenes of giant rivers exploding. It’s the same helplessness some feel when faced with the climate crisis. It’s apposite that the strongest response to Russia’s ecocide came not from governments but the climate activist Greta Thunberg, who clearly laid the blame of what happened on Russia and demanded it be held accountable. But there’s been barely a peep out of western governments or the UN.

Pushing the strange lure of death, oblivion and just giving up is the Russian gambit. How much life do we have left in us?

Peter Pomerantsev is the author of Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: Adventures in Modern Russia

#the guardian #op-ed #the observer #peter pomerantsev #2023 #russo-ukraine war #ukraine #russia

20 notes · View notes

taqato-alim · 3 months

Text

Analysis of: Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia (February 6th, 2024)

youtube

In the following text "document" refers to the subtitles of the video.

Summary of the evaluation:

Shows strong pro-Russian bias and lack of neutrality in its narrative framing

Relies on selective use of facts and anecdotal evidence that lacks context

Does not consider alternative perspectives in its analysis

Uses nationalist and emotionally charged rhetoric rather than impartial reasoning

Makes claims without providing clear evidence to support accusations

Downplays Russia's role in escalating tensions and conflicts

Fails to acknowledge the complexity of geopolitical issues and independence of other states

Does not present a clear or actionable plan for resolving conflicts

References history selectively to justify positions rather than provide nuanced analysis

Employs common propaganda techniques that aim to persuade rather than inform

As a result, the credibility and reliability of its claims are compromised and should be viewed skeptically without independent verification from other sources

In summary, the evaluation found the document exhibited strong biases, propaganda techniques, and lacked objective analysis, so its information cannot be reasonably accepted at face value.

Summary of the key points from the document

The interview was conducted with Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, on February 6, 2024 at around 7:00 pm in the Kremlin building.

The interview focused primarily on the ongoing war in Ukraine - how it started, what is happening currently, and how it might end.

Putin provided a lengthy historical context on Russia and Ukraine dating back to the 9th century to explain the intertwined relationship between the two countries and regions.

NATO's expansion eastward after the Cold War and promises made to not expand NATO were broken, which contributed to rising tensions.

The 2014 coup in Ukraine and takeover of Crimea by Russia were discussed. Putin viewed these actions as responses to threats emerging from Ukraine.

Ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014 in Donbas region escalated the situation further.

Putin blamed the West, especially the US, for interfering in Ukraine and backing nationalist forces there. This further complicated the relationship with Russia.

Putin expressed openness to negotiations but said the Ukrainian government under Western control had refused and prohibited any talks with Russia.

The goal of "denazification" in Ukraine, or dismantling nationalist elements, was discussed as one aim of Russia's military operation.

No clear path or timeline was outlined for how and when the conflict might end, as it depends on negotiations between the sides.

Key stakeholders

Vladimir Putin/Russian government: Intended to justify Russia's perspective and actions to international audiences. Provides an opportunity for Putin to shape the narrative.

Ukrainian government: The content directly challenges their claims and narrative around the origins of the conflict. May feel allegations need to be addressed.

Pro-Russia/separatist forces in Ukraine: Could view the content as validation of their cause and rhetoric used.

United States/NATO: Strong criticisms made of past policies and interventions. May feel need to rebut claims that their actions precipitated the conflict.

European allies: Also implicated in some of Russia's grievances. May impact their own strategic perspectives and policies towards Russia/Ukraine.

International media/viewers: Provides insights but heavily one-sided content requires verification and consideration of other viewpoints. Could influence their own views depending on their existing leaning.

Domestic Russian audience: Helps rally domestic support by sharing Putin's contextual justification behind military action in friendly terms. Validates government position.

Overall, key stakeholders that may be negatively impacted include those opposing Russia's position, while stakeholders aligning with Russia's stance may view it positively, though full verification of claims is not possible. International audiences would need to consider the content skeptically given its propagandistic intent.

Historical claims

Selective evidence: Only references history that supports its narrative, omitting inconvenient facts.

Lacks nuance: Presents a simplistic view that history demonstrates one dominant narrative of cultural/political unity, neglecting complexity.

Contextual flaws: Fails to situate events within full political/economic contexts of the time that challenge its interpretation.

Linear perspective: Implies a singular linear heritage despite periods where territories had different administrations and fluid national identities.

Unverifiable anecdotes: Uses individual stories but without caveats about anecdotes not being representative historical facts.

Propagandistic tone: Emphasis seems to use history more to legitimize current policies than foster informed, impartial understanding.

Overall, while some facts are referenced, the strategic cherry-picking, lack of qualifying context and propagandistic framing undermine the claims as a reliable, well-rounded historical analysis. Independent verification of dubious assertions and consideration of alternative interpretations would strengthen the analysis. A more impartial accounting of complexities, rather than selectively mining the past, is needed for reconciliation.

The ongoing war in Ukraine

One-sided: Provides only the Russian justification/reasoning for military action without acknowledging complexity or opposing views.

Propagandistic: Frames events and policy decisions selectively to shape public opinion in Russia's favor rather than objective analysis.

Downplays escalation: Minimizes Russia's role in ratcheting up tensions/fomenting conflict while emphasizing others' culpability.

Questions remain: Many assertions regarding intent/motivations cannot be independently verified and require third party corroboration.

Context needed: Standalone soundbites may mislead without considering broader geopolitical/historical factors at play on all sides.

Resolution details lacking: Fails to outline realistic measures to de-escalate/resolve actual combat and humanitarian situation for political settlement.

Biased perspective: Heavily subjective lens through Russian interests means data should not be accepted at face value without scrutiny/balancing with other sources.

In conclusion, while containing some factual data points, the propagandistic and strategically framed nature of much of the content means it provides limited reliable insight for objectively understanding complex realities on the ground or paths toward resolution when considered alone without verification and counterbalancing with alternate perspectives. Independent corroboration of claims would strengthen its informational value in relation to ongoing events. A more constructive approach balancing practical solutions with grand rhetoric appealing to past grievances could aid progress toward peace.

The intertwined relationship between Russia and Ukraine/related regions

Emphasizes shared history: Highlights linguistic, cultural, religious and economic ties developed over centuries to argue close bonds that persist.

Underscores complex interdependence: Acknowledges populations with mixed identity and that separation of interests cannot be simplistically reduced.

Risks essentializing identity: Framing cultural commonality primarily in ethnic/national terms risks overlooking internal diversity and fluidity of individual/group affinities over time.

Downplays compromising of sovereignty: Minimizes periods where territories shifted control between states in ways contradicting narrative of singular linear heritage.

Strategically wields interdependence: Selectively highlights interdependence for justification of policies while diminishing valid aspirations of populations within states for self-determination.

Risks inciting division: Hyper-nationalist rhetoric appealing to historical/ethnic affinities can encourage split loyalties counter to long-term reconciliation and cooperation.

Overall, while cognizant of factual interconnectedness, the subjective lens and selective contextualization undermine ability to constructively address autonomy/security interests of all populations in the region through cooperation instead of competition based on dated notions of control. A less politicized approach could strengthen prosperity for all.

NATO's expansion eastward

Emphasizes perceived promises broken: Puts focus on claims made to Russian leadership prior to expansion that seem to have fueled greater strategic mistrust over time.

Risks oversimplifying negotiations: Complex multilateral talks around expansion involved many trade-offs and perspectives beyond a single broken Russian pledge.

Associates expansion with provocation: Portrays expansions primarily as aggressive instead of considering them part of shifting countries’ autonomous security calculations and democratic processes over time.

Fails to address Russia's declining relative power: Does not acknowledge NATO expansion also coincided with Russia’s diminished standing amid NATO’s new economic successes—a reality challenging original diplomatic assumptions.

Inflames nationalist narratives: Rhetoric emphasizing broken trust and provocations serves more to stoke domestic support than understanding geopolitical contexts beyond a single state view.

Undermines joint security solutions: Recriminations over past actions hinder cooperation needed to mutually resolve tensions that expansion exacerbated between nuclear powers.

Ultimately a more impartial analysis recognizing multiple perspectives and Russia’s own declining economy could strengthen viability of modernized frameworks ensuring stability for all states in the region. But inflamed rhetoric risks further destabilization.

2014 coup in Ukraine

One-sided depiction: Entirely portrays the Maidan protests/change of government as a "coup" backed by the West without acknowledging internal Ukrainian political dynamics.

Simplifies complex situation: Reduces multi-faceted events to a simplistic narrative of foreign interference while minimizing domestic unrest with the existing government.

Undermines Ukrainian agency: Fails to acknowledge Ukrainian citizens exercised their own autonomous will through valid democratic processes, however imperfect.

Inflammatory language: Terms like "coup" aim more to provoke than objective understanding, fueling greater tensions versus reconciliation.

Interferes with impartial analysis: Biased framing complicates independent scholarly assessment by presupposing conclusions counter to realities on the ground.

Adds to conflict escalation cycle: Provocative rhetoric serves to justify intensified Russian policies of control rather than diplomacy to stabilize the situation cooperatively.

Overall, the inflammatory and conspiratorial framing reflects strategic propangandizing over impartial truth-seeking and risks entrenching conflict more than understanding it for remedies acceptable to all affected populations in the region.

Conflict in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region since 2014

Downplays Russian role: Minimizes Moscow's provision of arms, funding and other support to separatist militants escalating unrest into full conflict.

Portrays as internal Ukrainian issue: Depicts matter largely as a spontaneous reaction within Ukraine rather than proxy dimension involving regional powers.

Ignores ceasefire violations: Fails to address separatist shelling of Ukrainian military positions undermining negotiated end to hostilities.

Presents biased causality: Blames Ukrainian nationalism for conflict escalation rather than entanglement of external geopolitical machinations.

Hinders diplomacy efforts: Propaganda-tinged framing entrenches inflexible positions complicating efforts at durable political solution among adversaries.

Polarizes communities: Risks cementing deep societal divides within Ukraine through scapegoating rhetoric versus reconciling mutual interests.

Ultimately a more impartial diplomatic approach acknowledging shared responsibilities of all sides for adhering to negotiated accords could stabilize situation, whereas bellicose narratives risk making resolution ever more elusive.

Western interference and support for nationalist forces in Ukraine

Lacks substantive evidence: Makes strong accusations but provides no hard proof beyond conjecture to substantiate claims of deliberate interference or backing.

Over-simplifies complex dynamics: Reduces multifaceted political events and social forces to a single narrative of foreign provocation for strategic objectives.

Ignores Agency of Ukrainians: Fails to acknowledge Ukrainians have their own aspirations and agency, reducing their actions entirely to external manipulation.

Propagandistic framing: Using such loaded terms as "interference" aims more to assign blame than impartial analysis, fueling further geopolitical divide.

Undermines diplomacy: Inflexible stances based on unverified claims rather than cooperation poison relations needed to resolve tensions.

Risks entrenching conflict: Inflammatory rhetoric serves political agendas more than reconciliation by polarizing communities and cementing "us vs them" mentalities.

For an accurate understanding, verifiable evidence rather than speculation would be needed to substantiate such grave accusations. Overall, more constructive bilateral diplomacy based on mutual respect seems needed to reduce tensions versus contested nationalist histories.

Openness to negotiations

One-sided portrayal of negotiations: Implicitly frames Russia as open and others as refusing, without acknowledging Russia's own preconditions or role in escalating conflict.

Overlooks legitimacy concerns: Fails to acknowledge Russia's military intervention compromised Ukraine's ability to freely determine its negotiating partners and priorities.

Ignores sovereignty issues: Downplays how negotiations involving annexation of territory damage Ukraine's sovereignty and constrain its autonomy.

Reduces complexity: Simplifies challenges as unilateral refusal rather than recognition of good-faith differences in priorities and pressures each side faces.

Propagandistic language: Terms like "Western control" aim more to assign blame than impartial understanding of domestic political realities in Ukraine.

Risks hindering diplomacy: Inflexible stances based on contested claims likely poison the trust needed to make progress via cooperation.

Overall a more balanced and less accusatory perspective acknowledging the multifaceted challenges for all sides could better support constructing diplomatic solutions than divisive rhetoric that risks further entrenching conflicting positions.

Claims about "denazification" in Ukraine

Lacks evidence: No proof is provided that Ukraine's government is actually controlled by neo-Nazis rather than populists.

Reductive argument: Labeling opponents as Nazis downplays Ukraine's own complex nationalist narratives and marginalizes non-extremist concerns.

Echoes propaganda tropes: Uncritically uses terms common in Russian propaganda narratives meant to de-legitimize Ukrainian sovereignty claims.

Ignores nuance: Fails to acknowledge nationalist sentiments exist across many post-Soviet states and do not equate support for extremism.

Potential pretext for control: Could serve to justify open-ended Russian interference by setting impossible standards of "purity" no society fulfills.

Exacerbates tensions: Provocative and stigmatizing discourse damages reconciliation by casting political opponents as ultimate enemies.

Overall, applying explosive labels without evidence risks ratcheting up conflict more than resolution. Diplomacy requires acknowledging diversity of perspectives across interconnected societies in an even-handed manner respectful of all.

The document does not provide a clear path or timeline for how and when the conflict might end.

Some key evaluations:

Lacks specifics: No concrete diplomatic proposals, ceasefire terms, peacekeeping arrangements, political settlement details are outlined.

Vague on resolution: Goals of "de-Nazification" and protecting Russian speakers are nebulous with no roadmap for verifiably implementing and concluding them.

Unilateral focus: Emphasis remains on justifying Russian positions rather than outlining mutually agreeable compromises all sides could accept.

Omits compromise: Fails to acknowledge peaceful resolution requires good faith concessions rather than unilateral enforcement of preferred outcomes.

Propaganda over pragmatism: Rhetoric prioritizes blame over practical cooperation needed to stabilize violence and uplift humanitarian crisis.

Risks prolonging conflict: Absence of a negotiated ‘end state’ vision sustains ambiguity fueling continued escalation by attrition over years.

Overall, the document provides a justification for conflict rather than the inclusive diplomacy essential for its verifiable resolution. Specific proposals balancing interests of all affected communities would better support a durable political settlement and lasting peace.

Quality of reason

Logical Consistency: While some points are logically put, selective evidence and logical fallacies undermine internal consistency.

Use of Evidence: Some facts are cited but heavily skewed interpretation. Questionable anecdotes presented without qualification undermine evidential quality.

Impartiality: Highly partial framing fails tests of neutral principle and omits consideration of counter perspectives.

Objectivity: Subjective lens is not balanced with acknowledging room for alternate views in analyzing multifaceted problems.

Avoidance of Prejudice: Nationalist rhetoric & victim-blaming falls short of impartiality needed for sound understanding across cultural divides.

Clarity: At times difficult to separate statements of fact from interpretations without independent verification due to blending.

Proportion: Overemphasis of some details distorts overall perspective; disproportionate time spent on pet issues vs balanced treatment.

Overall, while containing sporadic well-reasoned points, the pervasive biases, fallacious arguments, skewed use of evidence and lack of impartiality compromise a prudent, well-reasoned analysis. Claims require verification and should not be accepted at face value due to departures from standards of sound rational judgment in evaluating complex, multifaceted problems. Alternative viewpoints would aid critical examination.

Logical fallacies

Cherry picking/selective evidence - Only presents evidence that supports Russia's narrative while omitting alternative perspectives and facts that do not fit its position.

Appeal to history/tradition - Justifies Russia's claims by presenting selective usage of long history between Russia and Ukraine while glossing over periods counter to its stance.

Strawman - At times implies opponents believe certain extreme claims like inevitability of conflict when actual positions are likely more nuanced.

Blaming the victim - Presents Ukraine's actions after 2014 coup as provocative while minimizing Russia's own role in escalating tensions.

Whataboutism - Deflects from discussion of its own positions by pointing fingers at flaws of other countries instead of addressing the issue directly.

Conspiracy theory - Implies US/NATO desire for conflict is due to entrenched interests rather than geopolitical disagreements, without substantive evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Supports some claims with unverifiable stories presented as factual rather than illustrative.

Overall, while containing factual information, the document undermines its own credibility through the extensive use of biased reasoning, selective framing of history and deflection tactics - suggesting the overall narrative is propagandistic rather than a good faith analysis of complex geopolitical issues. Independent verification of questionable claims would be needed.

Bias

Strong Pro-Russian Government Bias: The narrative and framing of issues is constructed entirely from Putin's perspective without acknowledging alternative views.

Lack of Neutrality: No attempt is made to present a balanced, objective analysis. The explicit aim appears to justify Russia's actions rather than explore complex geopolitical issues impartially.

Selective Omission of Facts: Important context like the full history of Russian-Ukrainian relations and Russia's role in previous escalations are omitted or downplayed.

Exclusive Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Unverifiable stories are presented without caveats alongside real facts/events, obscuring what's factual.

Appeals to Emotion: Nationalist rhetoric, victim-blaming other parties aims to elicit emotional agreement with Russia's view rather than reasoned analysis.

Propaganda Techniques: Common tactics like misrepresentation, distractions and cultivated confusion compromise the credibility and verifiability of claims.

Lack of Transparency: Readers are not actively informed of the high level of bias shaping the content and prevented from considering alternative perspectives.

In conclusion, the heavy ideological leaning and propagandistic approach mean the document cannot reasonably be considered an objective analysis and should be treated skeptically rather than taken at face value due to the pervasive biases compromising its reliability and Trustworthiness as a factual account. Independent verification of claims would be needed.

Based on the content and tone of the document, Putin's position comes across as more autocratic than democratic:

Unilateralism: Decisions around Ukraine are portrayed as responses to threats rather than through consultation/compromise.

Top-down narratives: Public understanding is shaped through one-sided messaging rather than open debate of diverse views.

Propaganda techniques: Appeals to emotion, misdirection and confusion undermine standards of transparency/informed consent.

Deflection of responsibility: Focus is on others' actions rather than constructive solutions or acknowledgment of all sides' contributions.

Power centralized: No acknowledgement of other Russian political voices or dissenting domestic public opinion on policies.

Ideological direction: Strategic aims framed by inflexible notions of sovereignty/tradition rather than mutual understanding.

Limited accountability: Public positions subject to little oversight/correction from independent institutions or population.

Victimized identity: Depiction of Russia as acting in defense rather than partnership suggests diminished civil norms.

While democratic values like open debate/transparency are paid lip service, the substance, framing and control of public discourse suggest more autocratic tendencies in how policy issues are addressed and public perspectives are shaped on the international stage.

Rhetorical propaganda devices

Whataboutism: Deflects criticisms of Russia by accusing others of similar or worse actions.

Selective omission: Leaves out important historical/contextual details that undermine Russia's narrative.

Loaded language: Uses emotionally charged terms like "coup" and "nationalism" rather than neutral terms.

Slogans over substance: Employs simple talking points rather than engaging opposing viewpoints.

Appeals to emotion: Invokes nationalist pride and victimization to elicit agreement rather than reason.

Black-and-white thinking: Presents a Manichean view dividing everything into opponents and allies of Russia.

Scapegoating: Blames outside forces rather than address Russia's own role in tensions and conflict.

Confusion techniques: Provides rapid fire claims that are difficult to fact check, cultivating doubt.

The heavy reliance on these common propaganda devices aims more to persuade through emotional manipulation rather than inform readers or have an honest debate. It casts doubt on the document's credibility and objectivity.

Putin's personality

Confident: He speaks authoritatively about Russian perspectives and is unwavering in his views.

Nationalistic: He takes pride in Russian history and values cultural/political independence from the West.

Calculated: He provides nuanced perspectives but ultimate goals seem aimed more at justification than impartial problem-solving.

Frustrated: Past broken promises and perceived Western interference are sources of lingering grievances.

Defensive: He portrays Russia as reacting to external threats rather than examining Russia's own escalatory actions.

Selectively empathetic: He shows care for ethnic Russians affected by the conflict but disregards non-Russian Ukrainian suffering.

Conspiratorial: Tendency to see Western aims in geopolitical dynamics in calculated or intentionally provocative ways without evidence.

Pragmatic: Ready to negotiate but only from position of current Russian control in Ukraine gained via military operation.

Experienced: Has observed global events for decades but solutions still embroiled in outdated notions of great power politics.

Overall, while articulating nuanced perspectives, Putin comes across as ideologically hardened in defending Russian stances, erring more on the side of propaganda than impartial examination of conflicts' inherently complex nature.

Common evaluation criteria

Purpose/Goals: To present Putin's perspective on the conflict in Ukraine and his motivations/justifications for Russia's actions. He is able to fully explain his viewpoint.

Tone: Remains generally respectful and informative as expected in an interview format, though Putin appears firm in his views.

Balance: Both sides of issues are discussed but focus is on Putin providing context for Russia's actions. Interviewer occasionally challenges some assertions.

Factual Accuracy: Varies - some historical contexts and quotes check out but some claims around motivations of others involved are difficult to independently verify.

Perspective/Bias: Content is strongly from Putin's point of view without alternative perspectives included. Not surprising given the format but does not present a balanced analysis.

Flow/Organization: Answers are generally well-explained and on topic in response to questions. Occasional tangents into historical minutiae but overall coherent narrative.

Tone & Delivery: Putin comes across as confident and in control of the dialogue. Frustrations with past actions of others also come through at points.

Overall based on these criteria, the document accomplishes its goal of presenting Putin's perspective on the conflict in Ukraine through an in-depth interview format. However, the heavy focus on his point of view and lack of challenges to some claims mean the content cannot be considered a neutral or fully fact-checked analysis.

3 notes · View notes

drifting-pieces-blog-blog · 2 months

Note

hi, i hope i won't sound borderline hateful (and if i do so, i'm sorry), but given the context in which we all live in, your post misses the point a bit. hamas militants killed more than a thousand israeli civilians, an act of pure evil necessitating punishment. in the process of exacting that punishment israel killed at least 25 thousand people, not counting the wounded and the starving, most of them women and children, which is also an act of pure evil necessitating punishment. the jewish people's past is not the topic of discussion, the state of israel's future is. do countless people needlessly rope historical facts and fiction into the discourse as a way to justify their views on how the conflict should be resolved? yes. the problem is that by seriously engaging with the discussion of historic events you start sounding terribly similar to putin's interview to tucker carlson. like, yeah, sure, prince vladimir christened the eastern slavs a thousand years ago, but what exactly it has to do with the russian rocket that killed a dozen people in odesa yesterday, including several children? why are we wasting our time right now on reading and writing about babylonian captivity and british mandate again when people are being needlessly killed in their thousands by the idf?

You asked a question and legitimately asking questions is a good thing to do! It means you have oppinions but you are also open to discussion about things. I always respect a good question.

What was my post about? My post was about the history of Israel.

I also mentioned multiple times that the leaders of Israel are NOT on my or many people'sgood graces. Different leadership is needed. What is happening to the people of Palestine is not by any means deserved.

I also note that I don't agree with Hamas, because, as you noted, they are militants that did an act of evil.

And while we haven't heard much about this aspect in any media context: I have a pretty good idea that there is a good chance that Hamas could also be abusing their 'own' people of Palestine. If someone in charge can abuse someone else, there is a good chance they can abuse their own people. Much like the the leaders of Russia have historically abused their own people.

Now, I'm not going to get into the history of Russia (though it is a VERY interesting, long, and often scary read that I encourage anyone to do, so long as it's done with an objective lense). (Subjectively I'm going to outright call Putin an evil person that terrifies me and absolutely nothing he says or does is for the good of ANY people. It's also incredibly Stalinistic to approach his claims to land the way he does because he is cherry picking his own country's history.)

Did my history post manage to stay purely objective? No. Did I acknowledge that the Palestines ALSO have history there? Yes. But if people are crying "Colonizer" and demanding that Israel give back indigenous land and that Jews all get out of the whole state of Palestine, I felt that it was a good history lesson to know.

And my post IS about the history of the land and the people that have all lived there from the start.

But yes, the Jewish people's past IS a topic of discussion because it's incredibly relevant to the history of the land. Which was the point of my whole post.

And I also acknowledge that this is a difficult conflict to resolve because it has been going on for FAR longer than 70-80 years.

You have two sets of people that RIGHTFULLY have claim to the same land. How do you resolve that conflict?

Well, for starters, you stop asking foreigners to get involved to solve the problem.

Israel needs new leadership. Hamas needs to go away. The people of Palestine deserve to have their own land where they can feel safe without getting bombed for existing.

What we have going on is that we have a house that legally has ownership claims under two people and while they need to figure out how to divide and share and come together, outside forces that have selfish motives are screaming at both sides to just burn the house down or murder the other owners.

Learning about history is NEVER a waste. What people are doing is expecting the bombing to stop and then everything is going to come up roses. If the cease fire happened right now, while this would be a fantastic event, what do you want to happen next? THAT is the question. We still have a destroyed land, thousands upon tousands of people displaced, and outside forces screaming to just burn the house down.

Which is why if we want to help in any way, we need to support causes that are going to help rebuild the house and encourage actual peace talks to act.

Yes, we do need to get the killing to stop. We need the hostages back. We need the evil people in charge to be removed from the sitaution. But we also need to encourage mediation so that this doesn't keep happening.

So many people have been short sighted. What we need to do is to work on how to keep this from continuing to happen. How to address the heavy history in the room and how to make a place where both people can build a safe place to exist.

And I know that I've opened the door to a lot of people that just want to scream at me about what the idf is doing and disproportionate military response. I'm not saying I approve of the response or that it's warranted. I'm saying: Here is a history.

#Got asked #History is never a waste of time so long as you take the time to learn the FULL history

5 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months

Text

During the broadcast of Sunday Evening With Vladimir Solovyov on Russian state TV, host Vladimir Solovyov proudly announced that he recently traveled to Damascus to interview President of Syria Bashar al-Assad to get his advice about how to interact with “crazed capitalist Western regimes” and “how to combat their lies.” After years of pleading for the attention of the fired Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Solovyov was able to snag the next best thing by interviewing Assad.

Unable to get his mind off Carlson’s ill-fated interview, Solovyov asked Assad for his prediction as to the outcome of the U.S. elections: “I’ll ask the same question that Tucker Carlson asked Putin: Biden or Trump?” Assad opined, “The analysis of the media and other information shows that Trump will win, but I always say that American presidents resemble one another.” He proceeded to assert that the unnamed figures behind the scenes—and not the U.S. presidents—determine the country’s politics.

During the interview, irony died a thousand painful deaths, as Russia’s most notorious propagandist, known for his hypocrisy, lies and nuclear threats, joined the butcher of Syria, known for committing war crimes and repeatedly lying about his actions. Disregarding Assad’s notorious use of chemical weapons against his own people, Solovyov claimed that the Syrian people “have freely made their choice.”

The Russian host alleged that the world is standing on the precipice of potential nuclear apocalypse, claiming that the United States and Israel are likely to be the first to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

Several times, Solovyov unsuccessfully attempted to extract the condemnation of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack against Israel. Taking a page out of Putin’s book, Assad insisted that it’s impossible to discuss that event without delving deep into the history of Israel and Palestine—the way Putin had to educate Carlson on Rurik’s exploits during their talk. The Syrian dictator made no secret of his inspiration for this approach. Assad asked, “Can you separate the war in Ukraine from a historical evolution? Can you describe Russia’s efforts of reunification with the Southern territories without delving into history? Can you separate these efforts from history? All the present is inextricably tied to the past.”

Quoting an unnamed commentator, Solovyov pondered why Russia, with a population of only 150 million, were not afraid to go against the entire NATO, but several billion Muslims can’t defend their Palestinian brothers. He asked, “Why won’t the Arab countries take the steps that would seem justified and necessary, in order to stop the bloody slaughter in Gaza?” Solovyov’s concern was most likely motivated by the well-known talking point among Russian experts, who believe that a wider escalation in the Middle East would distract the U.S. and allies from Ukraine. Assad disappointed him by bemoaning the lack of unity among Arab countries, coupled with strong Western influence in the region.

Solovyov asserted, “The West is constantly lying! This is why we see what is now happening in Ukraine not as our war against Ukraine. For us, this is a holy war and a religious war. We are confronted by Satanism, by the evil in its purest form. Everything that is rejected by our culture and our faith.”

Solovyov then made a comparison that was more damning than exculpatory, by aligning the global condemnation of Assad for his regime’s use of chemical weapons in 2017 with the Bucha massacre in Ukraine. The host stressed, “Our people don’t believe it. The Syrian people don’t believe it. They came out and supported you. Our people came out and supported our Supreme Commander.” In a truly grotesque moment, Solovyov asked Assad, “How do we fight against the lies that are so pervasive?” Assad proceeded to accuse the Western media of keeping everyday people in the dark. Gesturing towards himself and Solovyov, Assad asserted, “We are different. For us, the truth is above all! We are spreading the truth! Transparency is also crucial in politics and government.”

Solovyov brought up the upcoming presidential election in Russia, despite the fact that Putin has no real opponents and the main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, conveniently perished in the run-up to the Kremlin-controlled election charade. He pompously asked, “How much does this election impact the future of the world and not just Russia?” Assad asserted in reply, “The fate of the world depends on Russia—for many reasons, not only because of the war in Ukraine.” He proceeded to explain why the change of leadership in Russia during its fateful war in Ukraine would be impossible to conjure up. Assad asserted that he doesn’t want to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs, but at the same time made it clear that Putin should remain in charge for the good of the country and the world.

Assad pondered out loud, “Does Russia have any other options that would guarantee the kind of policies that will return it to the position of global influence? Of course, not the same as the Soviet Union, but much stronger.” The Syrian dictator repeatedly reiterated that his vocal support for Putin’s continued presidency is merely “his personal opinion.” Solovyov chimed in to reply, “Your personal opinion is very important!”

After praising Putin’s leadership and asserting that it should not be subject to change, Solovyov and Assad awkwardly giggled together, as they jointly mocked and criticized the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.

Solovyov asked, “Do you remember that you are a tyrant and a dictator, just like Vladimir Putin, just like Xi Jinping, just like the Iranian leadership, just like the leadership of [North] Korea? Meanwhile, in America and Europe, they are the democrats. You say that you should listen to the people, but they insist that everyone should listen to them. So who is the tyrant now?” Purporting to slam Western democracies, Assad sounded like he was describing Russia: “There is only one choice, there aren’t many options. The media and celebrities will make it seem that you elected the one you wanted.”

Solovyov repeatedly tried to draw the parallels between Russia and Syria, except for one glaring similarity. He failed to mention that both Assad and Putin are wanted for their war crimes.

7 notes · View notes

bobguz · 1 month

Video

Douglas Macgregor's Response to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and Tucker Car...

In response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Douglas Macgregor, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and military analyst, has advocated for a non-interventionist approach, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy over military escalation. Macgregor has argued that the United States should prioritize its own national interests and refrain from getting entangled in foreign conflicts, particularly those with limited strategic significance. His views align with those of Tucker Carlson, a prominent conservative commentator, who recently conducted a widely-discussed interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During the interview, Carlson emphasized the need for mutual understanding and dialogue between Russia and the West, rather than resorting to confrontation. Both Macgregor and Carlson's perspectives highlight a growing sentiment within certain circles in the United States that favors a more restrained and cautious approach to foreign policy, particularly in dealing with complex geopolitical crises like the one unfolding in Eastern Europe.

#youtube

0 notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 months

Text

Matt Davies

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 5, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 6, 2024

It’s been an exceedingly weird 24 hours.

Keeping alive the immigration issue could cut into those numbers, especially in Texas.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) wrote. “They literally demanded specific policy, got it, and then killed it.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American '#Heather Cox Richardson #border politics #war in Ukraine #Putin #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP #MAGA #national security

6 notes · View notes