Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

Crimea and Donbas had relative autonomy prior to Russian meddling, and the Sudan situation wasn't a U.S. driven outcome. If anything we were too hands off, and the body counts were absurd.

There are limits to popular sovereignty, including the right to redraw borders….

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

Crimea and Donbas had relative autonomy prior to Russian meddling, and the Sudan situation wasn't a U.S. driven outcome. If anything we were too hands off, and the body counts were absurd.

There are limits to popular sovereignty, including the right to redraw borders….

---

You still not explained why DC supports secession in lots of places around the world.


But specifically opposes it at home and in Donbas.


You would almost think Washington does not care about principle of popular sovereignty but only cares about what benefits their power…

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

A few of these interventions were specifically in support of secessionist movements….

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Love him or hate him……

This Putin interview just solidified Tucker's reputation as the biggest name in journalism.

---

Quote:

---

It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

---

Quote:

---

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

You found the smoking gun…Good grief.

Do you also plan to use Putin's reference to Zelensky clapping for the old man in the Canadian parliament?

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

You found the smoking gun…Good grief.

Do you also plan to use Putin's reference to Zelensky clapping for the old man in the Canadian parliament?

---

I'm not the one cherry-picking. Fascists are indeed very active (their militias were involved in the civil war, for crying out loud), and they have deep roots in Ukraine's postwar history. Comparing them with the likes of Wernher von Braun is some serious denialism.

---

This reminds of the folks who frame those who have confederate flags and historical sentiment to the Confederacy are looking to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow. The slander is by inference and is intended to marginalize right wing political opinion. Hell, most of the Trumpers would support these so called "neo-Nazis" platforms (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, and nation first position).

You know this is about quelling Ukrainian nationalism, no matter how much you want to participate in the propaganda game. That's the real denial.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

You found the smoking gun…Good grief.

Do you also plan to use Putin's reference to Zelensky clapping for the old man in the Canadian parliament?

---

I'm not the one cherry-picking. Fascists are indeed very active (their militias were involved in the civil war, for crying out loud), and they have deep roots in Ukraine's postwar history. Comparing them with the likes of Wernher von Braun is some serious denialism.

---

This reminds of the folks who frame those who have confederate flags and historical sentiment to the Confederacy are looking to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow. The slander is by inference and is intended to marginalize right wing political opinion. Hell, most of the Trumpers would support these so called "neo-Nazis" platforms (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, and nation first position).

You know this is about quelling Ukrainian nationalism, no matter how much you want to participate in the propaganda game. That's the real denial.

---

Moscow wants to crush Ukrainian nationalism just like DC wants to crush American nationalism.


Which do you think is a greater threat to the American people and our freedom?

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

---

Missed the entire part about the Obama-Nuland sponsored 2014 coup in Ukraine and the initiation of hostilities by Ukraine in Donbass, eh? Figures.

Quote:

---

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Such a cold blooded killer that the Russians wanted to join NATO after the end of the cold war, but the DC termite class and MIC threw away a once in a generation peace dividend.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Love him or hate him……

This Putin interview just solidified Tucker's reputation as the biggest name in journalism.

---

No question he has a large following (I used to like the guy as well). Having watched the rest of the interview, it's wasn't bad. He asked some decent questions.

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

Question regarding my hypothetical above: Would you be cool with Mexico invading the Rio Grande valley and taking it by force if polls showed a significant portion of residents in that area would rather be a part of Mexico?

---

Are you awake and watching the news?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

So you're completely cool with each state voting whether or not they want to remain a part of the union and the ultimate break up of the United States.

---

Absolutely. In fact, if you truly believe in freedom and representative government, you must believe in this. The United States is not some inviolable, eternal construct. Its a relatively new nation on the world stage. We've had two federal constitutions in 250 years. We no longer share a common faith or language, let alone origin or origin story.

The most important contribution of ours to political science are the ideas of the Declaration of Independence which begins by saying "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

A pretty strong case can be made that this is the most fundamentally American idea of all, and if you don't believe this you're about as un-American as the most radical Iranian mullah in Tehran.

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement%85

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is%85.

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

You found the smoking gun%85Good grief.

Do you also plan to use Putin's reference to Zelensky clapping for the old man in the Canadian parliament?

---

I'm not the one cherry-picking. Fascists are indeed very active (their militias were involved in the civil war, for crying out loud), and they have deep roots in Ukraine's postwar history. Comparing them with the likes of Wernher von Braun is some serious denialism.

---

This reminds of the folks who frame those who have confederate flags and historical sentiment to the Confederacy are looking to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow. The slander is by inference and is intended to marginalize right wing political opinion. Hell, most of the Trumpers would support these so called "neo-Nazis" platforms (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, and nation first position).

You know this is about quelling Ukrainian nationalism, no matter how much you want to participate in the propaganda game. That's the real denial.

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---