Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Penelope Pnortney's avatar

The overall point of Putin's providing this history IMO was to show that Russian people simply demand the right to be Russian, and not be forced to adopt religious and cultural values that are so antithetical to what they believe.

Expand full comment
richardstevenhack's avatar

Response to Karl Sanchez' "Transcript of the Putin/Carlson Interview"

Ugh, that was a long read. The bolded parts didn't help me because I already knew that stuff, so I was looking for the bits that would probably be significant but overlooked by most people.

I didn't find many. Putin seemed to be at his most disingenuous. Of course I've known since the beginning that no person in his position is going to reveal what he really intends in any detail whatsoever. He understands that the minute you declare intentions you mobilize everyone who wants to stop you. People who think he reveals his deepest intentions via his speeches are delusional.

Scott Ritter was proclaiming on Garland Nixon's show that this interview could "sink the mainstream media". As usual, he was being hyperbolic, since I don't see any chance whatsoever of that happening. At best, the fraction of the US electorate who care about foreign policy AND who have not already made up their mind about the Ukraine conflict might learn something about the history. Otherwise, the rest won't know and won't care. The vast majority will still get their opinions from the MSM which is devoted to sinking this interview. It will be forgotten by Monday.

In my view, Putin spent way too much time on ancient Russian history and not enough on the events immediately after WWII, although he did clearly establish that's when Ukraine went Nazi. He should have spent a little more time on the Ukrainian insurrection from 1947 to 1956.

He also should have spent more time on what the NATO Aegis Ashore installations meant to Russia. But that might have tipped people off to his ultimate objectives, so I'm not surprised he didn't. Basically, this interview was another exercise in keeping the West off-balance, and he did a good job of that.

It occurs to me that all the discussion about the back and forth of trading Ukrainian lands between Poland and Russia is actually meant to say, "Hey, these lands don't really belong to anyone, so we have just as much right to them as anyone else." Most people interpret his previous comments on the issue as suggesting that he thinks Poland, Romania and Hungary have some right to western Ukraine and then they conclude that he doesn't want western Ukraine under Russian control. This has never followed logically.

Instead, I think he is suggesting that it doesn't matter who used to control western Ukraine, in the end Russia will control it because it has to because of NATO using it as a threat. This is why I think he should have mentioned those Aegis installations - but again, that would have tipped off the West, and this whole interview was about not doing that.

I won't bother listening to the two hour video, the transcript was more than enough. Carlson, by the way, I've always found irritating as a journalist and his questions were sophomoric at best.

As a final note, Putin's concept that AI has to be regulated ain't gonna happen. AI is open source, which means I can put an AI on my machine right now, albeit with relatively limited performance. But if I had a few more thousand dollars to purchase a number of AMD Threadripper CPUs and more RAM and a bigger GPU video card, I could run a fairly powerful AI - and train it on my 48TB+ of data - with no guardrails. And my data is full of hacking stuff, tradecraft, and who knows what else.

As the cyberpunk characters always say, "the street finds it own uses for things." The future is anarchist AIs against state AIs. Don't get caught in the crossfire.

Expand full comment
58 more comments...

No posts