Ep. 73 The Vladimir Putin Interview pic.twitter.com/67YuZRkfLL

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 8, 2024

J.R. said:

---

Tucker is a douce and I'd like to punch him right, square in the puss!

---

Didn't see the interview as I rarely watch any talking heads.

What did he say while with Putin that pissed you off ?

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.

---

So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?

Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?

I hope Putin is assassinated. Next corrupt despot up. Kinda like we do it in the United States now.

Sam Lowry 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. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

If you think I didn't listen to the interview or have reached an incorrect conclusion, just identify my error already. No need for the passive aggressive response.

I listened to the first 30 minutes, and then finished up the interview in the car, admittedly skipping around over the final hour and a half of the interview. Are there a number of things Putin said I agree with? Absolutely. As I said above, the U.S. made a terrible mistake in how it handled NATO expansion and talk of Ukraine joining NATO. Could the security assurances that Russia has been asking for since the Clinton admin have changed the dynamic, and avoided this war? I think it's a good possibility. As I said above, I think the bellicose talk was a catalyst for what happened.

But that first 30 mins - with Putin's lengthy recitation of Russia's history with Ukrainian territory - led me to the conclusion (as many others have pointed out) that he also desires Ukrainian territory, and holds imperialistic Russia in high esteem. He's undoubtedly thinking about his legacy in expanding Russia's borders. So, even though I think we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, I also realize this man is a cunning, cut-throat and calculating despot (can you really argue otherwise?). Does that mean we cannot work with him or have peace with him? Of course not. We do it everyday (see Saudi Arabia). But let's not forget what kind of man we are dealing with, and that his motivations are mixed. This man has a lot of innocent blood on his hands.

Surely not even you believe his stated goal of "de-nazification" and security is the sole reason for the invasion. You're smarter than that.

KaiBear 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.

---

So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?

Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?

---

Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry 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. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

If you think I didn't listen to the interview or have reached an incorrect conclusion, just identify my error already. No need for the passive aggressive response.

I listened to the first 30 minutes, and then finished up the interview in the car, admittedly skipping around over the final hour and a half of the interview. Are there a number of things Putin said I agree with? Absolutely. As I said above, the U.S. made a terrible mistake in how it handled NATO expansion and talk of Ukraine joining NATO. Could the security assurances that Russia has been asking for since the Clinton admin have changed the dynamic, and avoided this war? I think it's a good possibility. As I said above, I think the bellicose talk was a catalyst for what happened.

But that first 30 mins - with Putin's lengthy recitation of Russia's history with Ukrainian territory - led me to the conclusion (as many others have pointed out) that he also desires Ukrainian territory, and holds imperialistic Russia in high esteem. He's undoubtedly thinking about his legacy in expanding Russia's borders. So, even though I think we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, I also realize this man is a cunning, cut-throat and calculating despot (can you really argue otherwise?). Does that mean we cannot work with him or have peace with him? Of course not. We do it everyday (see Saudi Arabia). But let's not forget what kind of man we are dealing with, and that his motivations are mixed. This man has a lot of innocent blood on his hands.

Surely not even you believe his stated goal of "de-nazification" and security is the sole reason for the invasion. You're smarter than that.

---

I'm not being passive-aggressive, I just don't think you can draw conclusions from the first 30 minutes. All he does there is put the matter in context.

I recommend keep sending less money than we spend on dry cleaning to watch Ukraine make a fool out of Russia but not too much that Europe doesn't build an actual military.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry 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. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

If you think I didn't listen to the interview or have reached an incorrect conclusion, just identify my error already. No need for the passive aggressive response.

I listened to the first 30 minutes, and then finished up the interview in the car, admittedly skipping around over the final hour and a half of the interview. Are there a number of things Putin said I agree with? Absolutely. As I said above, the U.S. made a terrible mistake in how it handled NATO expansion and talk of Ukraine joining NATO. Could the security assurances that Russia has been asking for since the Clinton admin have changed the dynamic, and avoided this war? I think it's a good possibility. As I said above, I think the bellicose talk was a catalyst for what happened.

But that first 30 mins - with Putin's lengthy recitation of Russia's history with Ukrainian territory - led me to the conclusion (as many others have pointed out) that he also desires Ukrainian territory, and holds imperialistic Russia in high esteem. He's undoubtedly thinking about his legacy in expanding Russia's borders. So, even though I think we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, I also realize this man is a cunning, cut-throat and calculating despot (can you really argue otherwise?). Does that mean we cannot work with him or have peace with him? Of course not. We do it everyday (see Saudi Arabia). But let's not forget what kind of man we are dealing with, and that his motivations are mixed. This man has a lot of innocent blood on his hands.

Surely not even you believe his stated goal of "de-nazification" and security is the sole reason for the invasion. You're smarter than that.

---

I'm not being passive-aggressive, I just don't think you can draw conclusions from the first 30 minutes. All he does there is put the matter in context.

---

Meh, when you go on a 25 minute diatribe about the history of Russia and Ukraine in what certainly looked and sounded like an attempt to justify the idea that Ukraine is historically part of Russia - a diatribe that even Tucker himself described as "not relevant" - it certainly lends credence to the idea (and reports) that Putin is motivated, at least in part, by Russian expansionism. That didn't help his argument that Russia's goal is merely security. Not in the least.

Again, we shouldn't be in this proxy war, and Biden likely could have prevented it. But let's not forget the kind of person we are dealing with.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear 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.

---

So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?

Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?

---

Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.

---

Sorry to be dense .

All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.



Is there something else ?

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear 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.

---

So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?

Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?

---

Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.

---

Sorry to be dense .

All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.



Is there something else ?

---

I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.

What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.

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.

what's the word for 'pettifogging' in rooskie???

gave up after 3 minutes....

:yawn:

- KKM

curious what his remarks were re: Fyodor, tho.

BID.

{ sipping coffee }

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.

Schwarzenegger's message to the Russian people: My father was a Nazi. Don't be like him. Putin is a fascist dictator like Hitler. Don't believe his lies. Don't follow his illegal orders. Don't participate in the illegal war against the people of Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/0dOiazmHXe

— Jamison Daniel (@AntiquarianMuse) February 9, 2024

Putin blaming Poland for it being invaded by the Nazi's while Tucker nods in agreement is peak MAGA.

Putin conveniently leaves out that Russia and Germany mutually invaded Poland with intent to decide the spoils.
pic.twitter.com/T5c2QBoxwT

— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) February 9, 2024

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

ron.reagan said:

---

I recommend keep sending less money than we spend on dry cleaning to watch Ukraine make a fool out of Russia but not too much that Europe doesn't build an actual military.

---

While most European countries are not yet meeting their NATO spending targets....Europe has plenty of military might.

["This year alone, the total defense spending of all EU member states is roughly 270 billion euros," Michel said.
Spending hit 240 billion euros last year, itself a record and an overall increase of 6% over 2021, as the EU's 27 member states ratcheted up their purchases of new hardware.
The European Defense Agency said six countries had increased their spending by over 10% in 2022, with NATO applicant Sweden splashing over 30% more. ]

https://www.courthousenews.com/eu-defense-spending-to-reach-record-295-billion-in-2023/#:~:text=%22This%20year%20alone%2C%20the%20total,their%20purchases%20of%20new%20hardware.

[Russia's military spending in 2021 hit $66bn, says the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). But even then, the USA was spending $801bn a year, ]


The USA and Europe spend well over a trillion a year on defense spending.

While Russia can barely hit $100 billion.

And even worse for Russia is that it spends a big part of its GDP on that military…taking away from much needed spending on other areas of the economy [the country is set to spend 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on the military]

While the Europeans out spend Russia while not even hitting their 2% GDP targets

[Currently, the 27 member states of the E.U. can field an impressive 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, roughly on par with the size of the U.S. armed forces (approximately 1.4 million) and significantly bigger than Russia's military (850,000)]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/18/european-union-army-ukraine/

boognish_bear said:

---

Putin blaming Poland for it being invaded by the Nazi's while Tucker nods in agreement is peak MAGA.

Putin conveniently leaves out that Russia and Germany mutually invaded Poland with intent to decide the spoils.
pic.twitter.com/T5c2QBoxwT

— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) February 9, 2024

---

He's right, though. Poland was slaughtering ethnic Germans in Prussa which led Hitler to come in and retake Prussia and kill a whole lot Poles, slavs, Jews, gypsies etc.

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.

Tucker Carlson continues to spew Kremlin propaganda, now claiming that Crimea is “part of Russia.”

Other than Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela & a few others, the US and the vast majority of the world don’t recognize Crimea as part of Russiapic.twitter.com/tAqDS6PnUX

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 9, 2024

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?

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? What are the nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, in your opinion?

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. Is it an inability, or are you afraid to go on record?

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?

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?

muddybrazos said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Putin blaming Poland for it being invaded by the Nazi's while Tucker nods in agreement is peak MAGA.

Putin conveniently leaves out that Russia and Germany mutually invaded Poland with intent to decide the spoils.
pic.twitter.com/T5c2QBoxwT

— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) February 9, 2024

---

He's right, though. Poland was slaughtering ethnic Germans in Prussa which led Hitler to come in and retake Prussia and kill a whole lot Poles, slavs, Jews, gypsies etc.

---

If that was true about Poland to the extent you infer, why did the Germans have to stage a Polish attack on a radio station to warrant the war?

Dictators like to beat their chest and prove their power over others. That is why they invade.

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.

---

That wasn't Putin that killed those people. That was gravity.