Tucker Carlson interviews Putin

Fareed Zakaria’s GPS today 2024.2.18 (35:02) has his take on Tucker Carlson’s comment on Moscow (not the interview), bewilderingly said, ” …you need to get out more Tucker!”

Alexei Navalny (1976-2024), the main political rival of Russian president Vladimir Putin (1952-; 2000), died in prison today.

I thought about the interview Tucker Carlson (1969-) with Putin on Feb 6, 2024.

The interview posted on YouTube is 2:05:41 long.

• ^0:00 TC: On Feb 22, 2022, you’ve addressed your nation, … come to conclusion that US, through nato, might initiate a ‘surprise attack’ … tell us why did you think US will strike you out of the wood.
• ^0:35 WP: It’s not that the US was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia. I didn’t say so. Are we having a talk show or serious conversation?
• TC: Here is the quote
• ^0:53 WP: … You were initially trained in history, as far as I know.
• TC: Yes
• ^1:03 WP: So if you don’t mind I will take only 30 seconds or one minute of your time for giving you a little historical background.
• TC: please.
• ^1:16 WP: Let’s look where our relationship with Ukraine started from where does Ukraine come from? The Russian state started to exist as a centralized state in 862. … A Varangian (wiki) prince from Scandinavia to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000th annuniverary of its statehood. and in Novgorod, there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000th … In 882, Rurik’s successor Prince Oleg, who was, actually, playing the role of regent at Rurik’s young son Bec Rurik had died. by that time, came to Kiev. He outside 2 brother who apparently, had once been members of Rurik’s squad. So, Russia began to develop with two centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod. The next, very significant date in the history of Russia was 988. This was the Baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the treat-grandson of Rural, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Bec of a single integrated economic ties … 1 language, 1 religion, 1 ruler … Back to the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise (1019-54) introduced the order of succession …
• ^4:12  WP: But the fragmented Russia became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan (1162-1227) …
• ^4:56 WP: The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another ‘magnet’ – … Grand Duchy of Lithuania. …
• ^6:38 WP: Poland trying to …
• ^6:50 TC: … I’m losing track of what period history we’re … the Polish …
• ^7:03 WP: It’s 13th century. Now I will tell what happened later and give the dates so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, … When Warsaw did’t answer them n in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow. So Moscow took them away … So that you don’t think that I’m inventing things. I’ll give you teh documents.
• ^8:12 WP: [showing the doc] … Russia didn’t take them – might started a war … Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor which was a rep body of power of the Old Russia state made decision, those old Russian lands became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy. As expected, war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then a truce was concluded.
• ^10:00 WP: … before WWI, … started actively promoting the idea of Ukraine and the Ukrainianzation.  … As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared.  Ukraine should have good relationship with Russia … After 1917 revolution,  The Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the civil war began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed. Under that treaty, the right bank of the Dnieper River (wiki) once again was given back to Poland.
• ^11:30 WP: In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler – they did collaborate with Hitler, you know. Hitler offered Poland peace and a treat of friendship and alliance (we have all he relevant documents in the archives) demanding in return that Poland give back to
• ^12:29 TC: May I ask … you’re making the case that Ukraine, in fact has been Russia for 100s of years … Why wouldn’t you just take it when you became president, 24 years ago?  … why did you wait for so long?
• ^12:49 WP: I’ll tell you. I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explain many things.
• TC: that’s not the point …
• ^12:59 WP: … So before WWII, Poland collaborated with Hitler and of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the …  As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start WWII by attaching them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1939.9.01? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.
• ^13:40  WP: Btw, the USSR – I’ve read some archive documents – behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland.  …
• ^15:23 WP: In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the ussr and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.  Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the ussr as autonomous entitles. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands. … Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to the Russian Empire, that territory was the size of tree to four region of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region.  …
• ^16:54 TC: In 1654? Why didn’t you make this case the first 20 years of your president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?
• ^18:38 WP: I’m not sure whether they should bo back to the 1654 borders, but given Stalin’s time, so called Stalin’s regime – which as many claim saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states, one may say that they could claim back those lands of theirs, while having no right to do that, it is at least understandable.
• ^19:26  TC: Have you told Victor Yanukovich / Yanukovych (? 1950-) he can have these land
• ^20:00 WP: I’ll share a personal story. I went on a road trip on a car from then Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop Kiev, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoy (wiki), and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in a language I didn’t understand – Hungarian – in Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian. I was driving through some kind of a village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits. and black cylinder hats. I asked, “Are they some kind of entertainers?” I was told, “No, they’re not entertainers. They’re Hungarians.” I said, ‘what are they doing here?’ “What do you mean? This is their land, they live here.” This was during the Soviet time. in the 1980s, they preserve the Hungarian language, Hungarian names and all their national costumes. They’re Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement.
• ^21:20  TC: … many national feel frustrated by the redraw borders  … but the fact is, you didn’t make this public till Feb … in the case you may … you feel threat from the West … that including nuclear
• ^21:52 WP: I understand that my long speeches probably fell outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: “Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?” You said – a serious talk. So bear with me please. We are coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established. Then in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestows on Ukraine was “dragged away” by the latter. I’m coming to a very important point of today’s agenda. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union effectively initiated by the Russia leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time. But I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.
• ^22:58  WP: 1st, I think the then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russian and Ukraine were in fact, a common language – more Ethan 90% of the population there spoke Russian; family ties – every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties; common culture; common history; finally, common faith; co-existence within a single state for centuries; and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relations inevitable.
• ^23:44 WP: the 2nd point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore were were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union. and believed that this would be understood by the so-called (now in scare quotes) “civilized West” as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting both from the US and the so-called collective West as a whole.  There were smart people, including in Germany. Egon Bahr (1922-2015), a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the SU that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should also be established to include US, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. But nato needs not to expand. That
• s what he said: “If nato expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia’s borders. That’s all.”He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once (we have a record of this conversation in our archives): “If, he said, you don’t listen to me, I’m never setting my foot in Moscow once again.” He was frustrated with the Soviet leadership. He was right, everything happened just as he had said.
• TC: Of course it did come true … Many in US think the relationship between US and Russia would be fine … but you never explained why you think it happened, except West fear a strong Russia. We’ve strong China …
• ^26:13 WP: The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia bec Russia has 150 million people and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds – over 5% a year.  It used to be even more. But that’s enough for China. As Bismarck once put it, potentials are most important. China’s potentials is enormous – it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity. and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the US, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip. Let’s not talk about who is afraid of whom, let’s not reason in such terms. And let’s get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of “civilized nations,”nothing like this happened. You tricked us (I don’t mean you personally when I say “you”, of course, I’m talking about the US), the promise was that nato would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: “Please don’t, we are as bourgeois now as you are. we are a market economy, and there is no Community Party power. Let’s negotiate.” More over, I have also said this publicly before (let’s look at Yeltsin’s times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the US, remember, he spike in Congress and said the good words, “God bless American”. Everything he said were signals let us in. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia [in 1999], before that Yeltsin was lavished with praise, as soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his vice in support of Serbs, and we couldn’t but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there. I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, be Serbs are also a special and close to us nation. with orthodox culture and so on. It’s a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the US do? In violation of international law and the US Charter it started bombing Belgrade. It was the US that let the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protected and expressed it resentment, what was said? the UN Charter and int’l law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes int’l law. But at that time they started saying that everything was outdated, everything had to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed as they balance of power has changed, it’s true but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.  [Putin didn’t go to Gorbachov (1931-2022) ]
• ^29:16 WP: Well, I became President in 2000,  I thought: okey, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let’s reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I’ve said it publicly I can reiterate, at a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room I said to him, I asked him, “Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join nato, do you think it would happen?” Suddenly he said, “You know, it’s interesting. I think so.” But in the evening, when we had dinner, he said, “You know, I’ve talked to my team, no-no, it’s not possible now.” You can ask him. I think he will watch our interview, he’ll confirm it. I wouldn’t have said anything like that if it hadn’t happened. Well, it’s impossible now.
• ^:TC: Were you sincere?  Would you have joined nato?
• ^30:23 WP: Look, I asked the question. “Is it possible or not?” and the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership’s position was,
• TC: IF he has said yes, would you have joined nato?
• ^30:45 WP: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened. If we had seen some sincere wish on the side of our partners. But it didn’t happen. Well, no means no, okay, fine.
• Why do you think … you clearly bitter about it … why do you think the West rebuffed you then? … why they end the Cold War … fix the relationship? … from your point of view?
• ^31:20 WP: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it’s not bitterness, it’s just a statement of fact. We’re not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it’s not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realized we weren’t welcome there, ^{我们刚刚意识到我们在那里不受欢迎} that’s all.
• ^31:40 WP: Okay, fine. But let’s build relations in another manner, let’s look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the US, I have seen how issues are being resolved in nato.  I will give you another example now, concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all nato members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now I’ll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008. although it’s being discussed, I’m  not going to open a secret to you, say anything new. Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the US in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that the US shouldn’t support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But they continued to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support.  even military support came from the US and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus. I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the US. He says, “It’s impossible! Do you have proof?” I said, “Yes.” I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it and, you know what he said? I apologize, but that’s what happened, I’ll quote. He says, “Well, I’m gonna kick their ass.” We waited and waited for some response – there was no reply. I said to the FSB Director: “Write to the CIA. What’s the result of the conversation with the President?” He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied: “We have been working wit the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.” Just ridiculous. Well. Okay. We realized that it was out of the question.
• TC: forces of opposition to you, do you think CIA is trying to overthrow your government?
• ^34:15 WP: But of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus.  That’s who they called the opposition. This is the second point.
• ^34:28 WP: the 3rd point, a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense (ABM) system was created. The beginning. We persuaded for a long time not do it in the US. Moreover, after I was invited by Bush Jr.’s father, Bush Sr. to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I proposed that the US, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that, we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security. Despite that fact that the US officially said that it was being created gassiest missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together – Russia, the US  and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, “Are you serious?” I said, “Absolutely.”
• TC: May I ask which year was this?
• ^35:42 WP: I don’t remember. It is easy to find out on the internet, when I was in the USA at the invitation of Bush Sr. It is even easier to learn from someone, I’m going to tell you about … I was told it was very interesting. I said, “Just imagine if we could tackle such a global, strategic security challenge together. The world would change. We’ll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.” He says, “Yes.” And asks, “Are you serious?” I said, “Of course.” “We need to think about it,” I’m told.  I said, “Go ahead, please.”
• ^36:22 WP: Then Secretary of Defense Gates, former Director of the CIA, and Secretary of State Rice came here, in this cabinet. Right here, at this table, they sat on this side. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense Minister – on that side. They said to me, “Yes, we have thought about it, we agree.” I said, “Thank God, great.” – “But with some exceptions.”
• TC: so twice you described US president to making decisions and then being undercut, by their agency heads, so it sounds like you’re describing the system is not run by the people who are elected.
• ^37:09 WP: That’s right. that’s right. In the end, they just told us to get lost. I’m not going to tell you the details, bec I think it is incorrect, after all, it was a confidential conversation. But our proposal was declined, that’s a fact. It was right then when I said, “Look, but then we will be forced to take counter measures. We will create such strike systems. that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.” The answer was: “We are not doing this against you, and you do what you want.” assuming that it is not against us, not against the US.” I said, “Okay.” Very well, that’s the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems, with intercontinental range. And we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone – the US and other countries.  in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day. But it wasn’t us, we proposed to goths other way, and we were pushed back.
• ^38:14 WP: Now, about nato’s expansion to the East. Well, we were promised, no nato to the East, not an inch to the East, as we were told.  And then what? They said, “Well, it’s not enshrined on paper, so we’ll expand.” So there were five waves of expansion. the Baltic States, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on.
• ^38:38 WP: And now I come to the main thing: They have come to Ukraine ultimately. In 2008 at the summit in Bucharest they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join nato were open.  ^{2008年, 在布加勒斯特峰会上, 他们宣布乌克兰和格鲁吉亚加入北约的大门是敞开的} Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seemed to be against it as well as some other European countries. But the, as it turned out later, President Bush, and he is such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, “He exerted pressure on us and we had to agree.” It’s ridiculous, it’s like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this, what kind of people are these, who are they? You see, they were pressed, they agreed. And then they say, “Ukraine won’t be in nato, you know.” I say, “I don’t know. I know you agreed in 2008, why won’t you agree in the future?” “Well, they pressed us then.” I say, “why won’t they press you tomorrow? And you’ll agree again.” Well, it’s nonsensical. Who’s there to talk to, I just don’t understand. We’re ready to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? None.
• ^39:53 WP: So, they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed. What kind of relations there were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia. And during the elections in already independent, sovereign Ukraine, which gained it independence as a result of the Declaration, of independence, and by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to nato were open to it. Oh, come on! This is not how we agreed. Now all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they’ve relied on an electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or another. This is the south-east of Ukraine, this is a large number of people.
• ^40:41 WP:
• ^41:47 WP: The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US, something was not to someone’s liking and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for, was organized. Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay, Viktor Yushchenko who was considered a pro-Western politician, came to power. Fine, we have built relationship with him
• ^43:01 WP: treaty with EU … association it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had a free-trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine which under this association, had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our market. We said, ‘No, this is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then.’ Yanukovich started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European partners: “I need more time to think before signing.” The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps. Which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.
• TC: So he (Ukraine) did more trade with Russia than EU?
• ^43:47 WP: Of course. It’s not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the matter of cooperation ties which the entire Ukraine economy was based on. The cooperation ties between the enterprises were very close since the times
• of the ussr. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa.
• ^: WP: Calm Yanukovich down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement.
• ^44:37 WP: We said, “alright. Agreed. Let’s do it this way. As the Americans requested us, Yanukovich did use neither the Armed forces, nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? Who do you think you’re?
• TC: With the backing of who?
• ^45: WP: With the backing of CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand.  Maybe we should thank God they didn’t let you in. Although, it is a serious organization, I understand. My former vis-à-vis (in relation to; with regard to), in the sense that I served in the First Main Directorate – Soviet Union intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically they did everything right, they achieved their goal of changing the government.  … So in 2008 the doors of nato were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup, they started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup, they created a threat to Crimea 克里米亚 which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbass in 2014 … when that failed, they started another one … All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of nato’s doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence that’s what it would have been. It’s just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross. because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith and in fact,  a part of Russian people, in the face of this ‘war machine’.
• TC: 8 years … what was the moment you decide to do this?
• ^47:18 WP: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict. BTW, back then the rep of three European countries, Germany, Poland and France – arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the Gov of Yanukovich and the opposition. … So the coup and these countries chose to not remember … I don’t know if the US know anything about that agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its there guarantors who instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup. Although, it was meaningless, believe me. bec Yanukovich agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold early election which he had no chance to win. Frankly speaking, everyone knew that. Then why the coup, why the victims? Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbass? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is.  CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the Deputy Secretaries of State said that it cost a large sum of money, 5 billion.  … All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action without losing Crimea.
• ^49:45  WP: And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk Agreement. which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014, in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbass was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials and then president himself said that they don’t like anything about the Minsk Agreement. …
• TC: is there anyone to talk to? Call US president, Secretary of State? If you keep militarize, Ukraine and nato forces will get … we’re going to act.
• ^50:54  WP: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the US and European countries’ leadership to stop these developments immediately, to implement the Minsk Agreement. Frankly speaking, I didn’t know how we were going to this but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were completed for Ukraine: they included lost of elements of those Donbass territories. independence. That’s true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I’m saying this to you now: I honestly believe that it we managed to convince the residents of Donbass – and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukraine statehood – then gradually the wounds would start to heal. When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No, nobody wanted that, everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen. And the situation got to the point, when the Ukrainian side announced: “No, we will not do anything.” They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.
• TC: Can you stop it now? If you’ve achieved your aims?
•  ^52:40  WP: No. We haven’t achieved our aims yet, bec one of them is denazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi 新纳粹主义 movement. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early last year. and it was not our initiative, bec we were told (by the Europeans, in particular) that “it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents.” My counterparts in France and Germany said, “How can you imagine them signing a treaty  with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev. “I sai, ‘All right’, We withdrew the troops from Kiev. As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul  into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation wit the help of the US, and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed. And that is how it looks now.
• TC: what is the de-nazification?
• ^54:10  WP: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue. Denazification: After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identify. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler.   I’ve already said that in the early 19th century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared,  they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia But due to the historical development,
• ^55:03 WP: these territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted.

I might resume later on, but 55 minutes is it for now. Why? Obama, in his 2020 memoir A Promised Land,  described his first meeting with then prime minister Putin in July 2009. Having warned by his Russia team, the president let off by saying he understood Putin had some grievances. “Let’s hear it.”  Fifty-five minutes later, Putin wrapped up his soliloquy.

This is the impression I got for these 55 minutes. Putin did 99% talking and his grievance this time, is, “the US & the West didn’t want to play with me…” They won’t include Russia even when he begged. And, invading Ukraine was being pushed to the wall by the US.

Oh well.

贼眉鼠眼的主要对手Navalny死在监狱里… 俺看了前55分钟 Tucker Carlson 卡尔森的2个多小时的采访.

为啥55分钟
还记得俺聊奥巴马在他2020年出版的回录忆? 他写到: 2009 年7月, 他与时任总理普京首次会面. 因为他的俄队提醒他 要给贼眉鼠眼一点时间诉苦. 所以他轻松地说, let’s hear it (他理解贼有一些委屈/不满…). 没想到 足足五十五分钟后, 贼贼才结束了他的义愤填膺还是委屈的独白.

卡尔森的采访前十几分钟贼贼不停的聊历史;卡一头雾水, 问 “矮子, 您在讲石器时代还是武器时代 (ok, 石器武器是俺的 不过卡是掉队了).
这55分钟 贼贼主要的义愤填膺/委屈 就是一句话没人愿意加他玩+北约不停的扩张.他反反复复说他是被逼上梁山了
… 俺都跪舔了 你们也不加俺玩
俺无聊 才看这个. 看了55分钟觉得贼眉鼠眼更无聊. 委屈 清白的好像一个小处女似的
您一天到晚 暗杀明杀 毒药 啥啥气的 谁愿意和你玩?
… 贼贼的演技不错 挺搞笑的🥸

媒体对卡的采访赞少
(俺挺想知道卡是怎么得到这个机会的 – a huge get for him …)
昨天Fareed 在他的节目尾聊了几句 主要冲着卡对莫斯科的赞美. “You need to get out more Tucker!”
这二个🇺🇸节目主持人间 我比较相信Fareed.

声明 俺不懂俄文 是靠他人翻译的(用的是他原话 英文字幕… ). 虽然讨厌贼眉鼠眼 但他的谈吐挺得体 他去脱口秀应该可以胜任
(俄文挺好听的. 前不久遇上一群讲德文的瑞士人 – 那个难听. 和台山方言差不多 像在吵架 …)
有很多人说卡没有问重点
不知道 啥是重点 – 贼眉鼠眼不停的伸冤. 反正我想知道的 他都自供了 侵略乌克兰是🇺🇸逼他上梁山的