Tucker Carlson's Putin Interview


I’ve watched it. There is nothing earth shatteringly new. Putin has changed his characterization of the goals in Ukraine a bit. Now it is strictly about “de-nazification”, and the motivation for invading was to “end the war” that Ukraine and the West (/CIA) had started in 2014. The ending is quite interesting, apparently completely spontaneous, but turned out very powerful.


What is astonishing about that interview is the contrast between President Putin, who can – without notes – review a thousand years of history (with dates) and Joe Biden, whom his own government considers too feeble-minded to be prosecuted for his clear breaches of the laws he swore to uphold.

Interesting that President Putin gently noted occasions when elected US Presidents had been over-ruled by their staffs. (Yeah! Democracy!). And towards the end of that long interview, he did seem to imply that some elements of the US Administration were actively looking for a face-saving way to end the conflict in the Ukraine. Let’s hope they find a way.


The war seems to be more of a WW1 static conflict in which the side with the most manpower and artillery can outlast the other side. Russia has advantages in both key factors. This combines with the fact that eventually, almost assuredly, the US population will become war fatigued. They should be scrambling for an end to the war.

I suppose the people behind Biden figure they can push it into 2025 in which case Biden may not be President or if President can end the war regardless of face. It cannot be a bigger loss than Afghanistan so all that matters to these pukes is that the loss of face doesn’t impact an election.


A full transcript of the interview is available here, courtesy of the Kremlin.


One has to wonder about the timing of yesterday’s “Joe Biden” incoherent rambling press conference – the first one his handlers have forced him to have in a very long time. Was it intended to deflect media/public attention from Carlson’s interview? If so, it was very successful – albeit at the cost of further exposing “Joe Biden’s” mental deterioration.


Seems the site is overloaded (or DDOS-ed) at the moment.


Same for me.
Edit: It just came up…took a long time to load, though.


If you’re having trouble accessing it, the Internet Archive has already made a backup.


No evidence of the Parkinson’s disease or cancer that have been killing Putin for the last 5 years.

Although, IIRC, at one point he said " Yushchenko" when he apparently meant “Kuchma”.

That being said, Tucker missed many rebuttal points.

Tucker should have noted that Putin basically admitted that Transnistria and Moldova are Rumania.

Tucker should have questioned whether Putin viewed Belarus as an integral part of Russia.

Tucker could have noted Russian arms treaties violations.



The Putin interview has spawned hilarious memes. For example, there are the ones in which Tucker asks a world leader a simple question about current events, to which the leader responds with a long history lesson starting in prehistoric times. There are also the ones where Tucker looks askance at some absurd remark. The source stills are funny in their own right, but especially after you’ve seen the video where Tucker often holds the askance pose for a long time while Putin completes his theses.


To be fair, Putin clearly was briefed extensively on he subject before the interview. That sheaf of documents he handed over to Carlson is testament to that. Nevertheless, credit where credit is due; Putin did do it all from memory. The contrast with the American chief executive is stark.


I have read translations of Putin’s speeches since the SMO. As here, he consistently gives his coherent point of view, and unlike western so-called statesmen, can support them with wide-ranging historical context. To my mind, he is quintessentially Russian, an intellectual product of the former Soviet nomenclatura, and appears to be a highly competent specimen thereof. He is educated (as a lawyer, I think) can obviously think on his feet with facility. He comes across as rather human, complete with un-curated body language and facial expressions which look consonant with his words.

I should admit, I have found his - and consequently Russia’s - viewpoint persuasive, for the very historical reasons he cited. He didn’t mention “Kievan Rus”, but the term is obvious immanent shorthand for his historical exposition. Had the US kept its word as to NATO expansion eastward, this war would not have happened. Russia, to its credit, even acquiesced to several NATO moves eastward - which it had formally foresworn. Russia drew the line at Ukraine before 2014 and the US was well aware of this when it fomented the events which came to fruition in 2014 and eventually precipitated this war. We are not the good guys in this (and I’m sad to say, shockingly to myself, that I have been forced to reassess some of my views of my country’s actions going back through the cold war).

Does nobody remember for instance, what we call the “Cuban Missile Crisis”? BTW, the Russians called it the “Turkish Missile Crisis” in honor of the THOR IRBM’s the US had previously placed in Turkey. Is it any wonder, then, our “statesmen” are loathe to cite history (even if they could fleetingly remember there is such a thing).


Some of the Usual Suspects have chuckled at President Putin’s long review of the history of that part of Europe between today’s Germany and today’s Russia. But thinking it over, we might be missing his main point. Clearly, from President Putin’s perspective, a deal is a deal – even if that deal was agreed by our forefathers centuries ago. That contrasts with the debased attitude of the typical DC Swamp lawyer – a deal is whatever I have to say today to get what I want now, and I plan to wriggle out of the commitment tomorrow.

The positive side of the Russian attitude is that there is a high chance that they will respect any deal they make to end Nuland’s slaughter in the Ukraine. The negative side is that Russia now realizes that the DC Swamp is “agreement incapable” – making it very unlikely that Russia will do any deal at all with the West.

Bottom line – the killing will continue.


If the Monroe Doctrine makes sense for the US, something similar makes sense for Russia. Why NATO even exists after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact remains a mystery to me. Actually, it’s not a mystery at all. Colossal grift & money laundry is more like it.

I am no scholar of Russian or Eastern European history but I have always enjoyed Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition, a suite of short piano pieces inspired by painter Viktor Hartmann’s works exhibited in Saint Petersburg. One of those pieces is about Hartmann’s painting of the Great Gate of Kiev, which was Hartmann’s design that was never built. At least in the 19th century, Kiev was important in Russia.


It’s worth looking at Poland’s official response to the Putin-Carlson interview:

Also, here’s the transcript from Kremlin:


The Polish Foreign Ministry’s statement contains some misrepresentations of its own. Just to pick one from point #6, “ Kyiv was the historical capital of Ruthenia.” That’s all well and good but does not refute the claim that Kiev has a historical connection with Russia. Quite the contrary, Ruthenia is a name for Kievan Rus’. As the Wikipedia article notes, “The modern nations of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus’ as their cultural ancestor.” A quick look at the map from 1054 shows that this region had once included much of contemporary Russia, including St. Petersburg. Perhaps the current Polish state has imperialist claim on that city. The statement, “6. The left bank of the Dnieper, including Kyiv, is a historical Russian land” is accurate as written. Namely, there is an historical claim to Kiev by Russia, albeit not an uncontested one.

The takeaway here is not that Russia is lying and Poland is not or vice versa. Rather, it is each side can marshal some historical evidence for its claims, ancient and contemporary. The historical reality is that lands are conquered and change hands many times over the centuries. There is no single answer to the question, “who owns this land?” no matter how much virtue-signaling partisans do about it.


Especially given there were no individual property rights so various rulers claimed various lands as their realm. It just goes to show that today’s governments are no different than 500 or 1000 years ago. They think everything is theirs and cannot acknowledge individuals.

Some argue that the Rus are decedents of the Vikings so screw Poland and Russia, the territory belongs to Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

I didn’t listen to the interview, but if Putin attempted to justify any claims based on historical ‘ownership,’ he would definitely lowered his standing in my estimation.


All these post-facto justifications are on the same level as land acknowledgement* performance art, i.e., idiotic. A pox on all their houses.

*h/t Cyrano


It would be a good idea if everyone actually listened to the discussion before critiquing it.

I listened to the discussion. It did not sound to me like any “post-facto justification”. Rather, the first part of the discussion was a simple historical review showing that boundaries in that part of the world have been in flux for the better part of a millennium, and that there have been very long-standing historical links between what today is called Russia and today called the Ukraine.

The explanation of Russia’s intervention in the Zelensky regime’s assault on Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens came later in the discussion, as did the explanation of Russia’s justifiable concern about US/NATO threatening expansion towards Russia’s borders.

Of course, the discussion was too long for the short attention span West. A Western version would have focused on one of the few new pieces of information in the discussion: When a group of surrounded Ukrainian soldiers were told by the surrounding Russian forces to surrender, the Russian-speaking Ukrainians replied in Russian “Russians do not surrender” and all died fighting. Our Betters have unleashed a horrible civil war.


It would be an even better idea if people didn’t make assumptions without basis. Not only did I listen to the entire interview; I listened to Carlson’s introductory discussion of the interview and his comments afterwards.

My comment regarding post-facto justifications applies to the Polish foreign office as much as it does to Mr Putin. And, btw, it would also be nice if people addressing my comments would take the trouble to read and understand all of them in this thread rather that taking selective quotes. But, hey, it’s all in good fun.