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.
Yes. There's this concept I coined I call Collective Libertarianism which is associated to what Russia and China state is the most important value within the UN Charter--no matter the size of the nation and its attributes, all are equal and must be treated equally, which could be restated as: To each their own as long as it doesn't infringe upon others. Underneath all that is the concept of indivisible security and the understanding that hegemony isn't moral and debases all of Humanity, not just the hegemonic power. Those who gained power in the USA upon FDR's demise threw all that under the bus so the USA could become the Outlaw US Empire and continue its plundering ways--a process that actually began during WW1.
Putin talked directly to the Deep State and told them they cannot change the "objective factors" that are now reshaping geopolitics and that they must change their ways or become outliers--that sickened part of the brain. Putin served the ball; now it's up to the DS to keep its return volley inbounds.
Great summation, I agree. The DS will most likely do what it always does, double down. And they'll get away with it until the entire house of cards collapses as is pretty much inevitable at this point.
Breaking the addiction and affliction of/to Megalomania and Pleonexia is very difficult as Putin sort of described with his reference to Rome. Some sort of serious setback that affects the DS will need to occur for any enlightenment to arise there I'm afraid. It's entirely possible the outliers will be exiled from the Global Brain as the two bloc scenario I've been writing about for the past two years becomes reality.
I made a similar comment in a twitter thread and got this back: "The only ones trying to foist a nationalist ideology is russia. russians were always free to be russian even in Ukraine". I dropped a few links on them which they'll no doubt ignore since that's what the self-righteous, wilfully ignorant typically do.
I'd saved but couldn't find to post it a link to legislation being introduced in Ukraine, seems like it was in 2018, that would require ethnic Russians to undergo a "re-education" after which they *might* be granted limited rights of citizenship. If anyone has that, please share!
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.
Putin crafted his message to the Outlaw US Empire's Deep State elites quite well given the constraints. As I wrote in another comment, the ball's in the DS's court.
There's the questions he didn't ask, but that's his choice and what was covered was important -besides time is limited, so it's a pass. However asking for the release of a convicted spy, well I found that to be a cheap stunt; look, Putin gave me a present. Not just Americans will see this and that's a good thing. I watched the full interview and President Putin is absolutely consistent - over the last decade plus I haven't missed an opportunity to listen, read, or see what he has to say.
Thank you dormoch altbinhax. Sounds about right to me. Peskov summed it up well the day before: Tucker is not pro Ukraine or Russia, he is simply pro USA (or words to that effect). What irks me about Tucker is that he is whitewasher for Trump but I guess the USA and its faulty product line just churns out this twisted shite. So perhaps the carefully crafted neocon eggshell is finally cracked and sane dialogue might get a chance but the cynic in me reminds me of what these turds did to Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Libya and so on.
It will take a truckload of Tuckers to slaughter the Hydra this time around. But then it is year of the dragon and it sure has started off well. Stay well all.
Thanks for the transcript. I got into the interview about 40 minutes in and watched it all again after they finished. I did enjoy the historical information but I enjoy history. I can see where others may not have enjoyed it much. I don’t know how much of a difference this will make overall to alter opinion but it serves as a marker in time, and who knows. Maybe some will be curious.
If anything, it impressed upon viewers the fact that Russia is one of the older civilization states on the planet, something IMO the USA cannot claim to be yet. The crazy energy/financing situation Putin described ought to fascinate and enrage Europeans. And note he didn't need to overtly add the USA to that mix as people know who calls the shots.
Perhaps part of President Putin's point with the historical review is that, from Russia's perspective, a deal is a deal -- even if it was a treaty made by our forefathers centuries ago. Hence the 1990s US promise not to expand NATO was seen by Russia as a firm commitment -- whereas the DC Swamp Rats saw it as something they would wriggle out of when it suited them.
If that assessment is close to the mark, then the implication is that Russia now believes the US/West/NATO to be untrustworthy. Consequently, there will be no deal to end the fighting in the Ukraine.
Yes, Honor is very important in Russia. You'll see them honoring their contracts even in wartime with the enemy as in this case. Putin coined the correct descriptive term Empire of Lies for excellent reasons. One of the major reasons why the Soviet State broke from the top->down is because the elite abandoned honor as a value and the proletariat knew that, thus the phrase "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." Le Carre in "Russia House" caught that aspect of Russianness very well when the nuclear weapons scientist asked Barley if he was serious about his pledge to which Barley said yes, quite. That's why the Russians and Chinese get along so well as they both place great value in honor and veracity.
Putin, as repeatedly shown here by Karl, and in MoA is a master of details and has his act together. As impressive as always. I thought that Carlson was underprepared and that his staff did not prepare him well enough.
The trigger to the February invasion was well covered, Zelensky moving troops to invade East Ukraine. The recognition of the two break away 'volks republiks' and their recognition by the Russian Dima. The Defense Agreement drawn up afterwards, etc.
All the same, Carlson is performing a public service to the USA and not many minds will be changed.
Topics that might have swayed minds were mostly avoided--cultural values, although Christianity was touched upon. IMO, Carlson was disappointed by his performance, thus the disclaimer at the beginning of the video. I would think the Russian versions don't have such an intro but haven't bothered to look. IMO, Carlson should have put together a program introducing Putin the person to his audience that stressed the fact that he's been elected president three times and will win a fourth time in March. His ratings fluctuate from 75-85%. Why!? In other words, Carlson could do much more of a service for Americans by showing them Russia and Russians along with the interview. But then that's what I'm trying to do despite my small audience; and not just Russia, but China and the RoW.
Completely agree. I expected a lot better from Carlson than this bland repeat of old memes.
Either his ego or his staff did not prepare him well. I pay no attention to Carlson so I cannot tell what is not going on. Your readers and most of the MoA crowd could walk circles around Carlson on the Ukraine topic. Hard to believe that he was that lame. Perhaps he incurred the same epiphany as Simplicius, who dropped off my radar.
Simplicius is good in his main field--military analysis. Like many, he has a hard time with very complex contexts which is what's needed to deal with the Big Picture. China appreciated Putin's words, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306963.shtml
MoA has far better military analysts, at least three I can think of, off the top of my head. Unimperator, DownSouth and Milites come to mind, although there are more.
OTOH, Big Serge, a Nom de Plum based on Sergei Witte (half Dutch, half Russian) no one can hold a candle to.
Outraged was great, he obviously had decades of service as a staff officer, once describing his boiling down of the rumod battlefield reports as "second nature". He gave anecdotes from time to time, some from his experience in the gulf war and its long aftermath, as well as preparation. It sounded like he was in the room with the big maps and charts, and told how "we" planned long target lists for airforce bombing runs ... I thought this hints at an american, but I could be wrong of course. Prior before he stopped commenting altogether, he had a short time off, and upon coming back he claimed health issues. He was unique when in his element: sparse, dry and powerful analyses of force dispositions.
Thank you for bolding text in the transcript. I watched the interview in real time and your effort provides an easy summary of important points Putin made.
Putin, as we knew, would have no trouble with a 2 hour interview while Biden stumbles giving a prepared speech.
A couple of comments from MOA which stuck with me:
--- the 5 Eyes countries all wiped out indigenous people while indigenous are mostly OK in Russia
---France and German's last colonial chance is to exploit Russia so they hang on to the war
Russian explorer/trappers weren't too kind to indigenous, particularly in Alaska. Russian government policy however was mostly benevolent. Where that wasn't the case was the Caucasus and with the Turkic peoples along the Black Sea. Funny, though, the Cold War plan to exploit what the West deemed the "Nationality Problem" via divide & rule, which was only successful in Ukraine and the Baltics because the historical foundation already existed.
thanks karl.. i am a transcript type person as well.. however, i made an exception and listened/watched the 2 hour video yesterday.. i appreciate that you've made the transcript available for others to examine more closely.. the way i see it, this was a valuable exchange and i thank carlson and putin for letting and making it happen.. one could say nothing will change, but i don't believe that to be true.. i think these micro events create a history which is harder to erase or disappear.. i am sure it will be trivialized by the west.. that goes without saying, but i continue to believe it is beneficial in the big picture..
and of course what other world leader could sit without notes and speak in a 2 hour interview like this?? obviously this is very important to putin! and it really ought to be more important to those in the west who in a very immature way support a war in ukraine without understanding what it is they are actually supporting.. what is shocking to me is how the whole anti-war movement that i associate from vietnam and on up - have been completely missing in action here... either the western propaganda has been very successful, or a whole lot of people have been conditioned to think this war is somehow okay.. it isn't.. none of the deaths of ukraine or russian people is okay.. it is very wrong and our western gov'ts have okayed it all.. i call bullshit on the west.. it is very clear to me anyway..
Agreed. There's more Putin could have included. The more important, IMO, prisoner swap--the Ukie POWs who were murdered by their own side--is the one that required the time wasted on the other, far more trivial matter. For me, that's the one demerit garnered by Calrson; otherwise, he did a credible job. I have no idea how Western BigLie Media has reacted; I anticipated b would have an article about that but that was an incorrect assumption. IMO, more can be gleaned about Putin the person from his many interactions, and particularly his style of governance--tell us the problems so we can fix them. As with Putin's marathon pressers, the interview could've easily gone two more hours. My own set of questions are vastly different from Carlson's as I don't need to know about Ukraine. Putin's explanation of the energy and Ukie support dynamics was great and could stand alone.
I hope the Russian assigned to read my substack will pass my appreciation up the line to President Putin for the interview and so much else.
Maybe the most important point of the interview was Putin stressing that Russia has always been and is currently willing to negotiate solutions to all of the issues, including the conflict in Ukraine. For two years I’ve been reading comments about how Russia must go all the way to Poland or even neutralize Poland. Russia has to do this or that to bring down the US empire. Almost all of those commenters have been Americans demanding that Putin use Russia to solve their own problems. That attitude is displayed in this thread by someone declaring what Putin should have said.
The reason why this interview will be misunderstood by most Americans is the same reason Putin has been misunderstood by most Americans going back 23 years now. Aside from neo-Nazism being unacceptable, Putin isn’t concerned with ideals of good and evil. He is a realist. Americans, even most who believe themselves above such things, have an incredibly hard time letting go of good vs evil framing. That’s true even when they flip to the “side” that the American state labels as evil.
Putin’s comments here about relations with China encapsulate his thinking well. He recognizes that whether he particularly likes or agrees with China is secondary. The fact of the matter is that Russia and China are neighbors and always will be. His behavior is driven by that reality rather than ideals. The same goes for Eastern European countries, so Russian statements about rolling NATO back to 1997 or earlier are negotiating positions related to neighborly relations rather than declarations of intent.
Excellent observations! There's reality and it can be influenced--shaped--and isn't the domain of just one actor no matter how powerful. The Rome example had that point at its core. Putin made one other important remark that was made somewhat flippantly, paraphrased: I have a country to run, thus foreign affairs is only one portion of my duties. And very little about Russia's domestic situation aside from its economic and military strength were touched on. And those two aspects are the key components to geopolitical power.
Thank you in advance for this. I don't have easy free access to video to view online & prefer text anyway, to be able to take in at my own speed, mull over, review & think about. Especially important I think after see comments at moa about the very different civilizational & cultural perspectives.
In picking up the point where he says the western mind is more "pragmatic" - I'd like to wax along this line a little further. It's profound and important, but hard to grasp. I have no full understanding either, but after more than two decades with this question on my mind, I feel that I may at least add something here.
The issue is subtle, so I shall try to approach it from a personal angle. I'm german, and a few times friends of mine were stating that I'm a "german philosopher", a label I'll accept and wear with a pride. What does it mean? Many things, of course; but among them is a realization that philosophy, which as an occupation has many very different aspects, is inseperable from its conduct as Gespräch (engl. conversation), or dialogue.
I feel that the most interesting conversations between germans and the other european peoples involve, most of all, the italians [I can't comment, but have you been to a trattoria?] and the russians. I knew this when I read Dostoevsky's tale of the murderer Raskolnikov in school (and much later when Mourinho's Inter Milano team kicked Barcelona out of the Champions League with five defenders, and riding a borrowed Bianchi through town). That set something in motion within me, and since those times I've always held a special sweet spot for russians in my heart. I met quite a few of them, and became friends with folks from Moscow, Petersburg, Kiev, Kharkov, Czernowitz, and other places of the far wide east. Some jewish, some not. Some are actually germans whose kin had been living in the east for generations. I marvel at the humour, at the soviet elementary schools, and at their "soul". Dostoevsky has the word already, and he makes clear in no uncertain terms that this sets russia apart from the west. But what does he mean?
Another book from russian literature is concerned with exactly this topic, Ivan Gontcharov's "Oblomow". It is about the friendship between a lazy russian nobilitiy (he only gets up after 100 pages) and an energetic german. It's also been made into also a great movie that I will recommend. But it is still subtle to get at this ... so it was very enlightening for me when I met a russian who's lived in Germany since his age 12, and became a philosopher here. He was fascinated by the systemic thinkers, such as Ernst Cassierer, and despite him speaking with a notable accent to this day, his use of the german language is brilliantly meticulous, so much so that I came to rely on him when in doubt about a wording. Now the intruiging thing is, he relates much to Oblomow, like him he is fond of the german kind, yet he knows he's different, and for me it is exactly the same vice versa.
Let me illustrate what this means by some quick, associative examples readily taken from crude clichés.
Germans are good mechanical engineers, systematical thinkers, formally powerful composers (Bach, Beethoven, Schönberg), ruthlessly efficient soldiers, builders of a state with proper institutions; when left alone, they will produce obsessive scientists like Kant, Gödel, Heisenberg and many others; Husserl, too. That is appreciated by the russians, and they will marvel at the length to which such will to completeness and precision of approach can go.
Russians are less unquestioningly obsessive about such things. When amongst themselves, they will produce more warmth and less outrageous desire to attain formal ends. They are willing to sacrifice when things get real for them (and I find it most shameful that exactly this is so out of view from the german side today, as epitomed by Frau Baerbock and the Leopards rolling east as if nothing had ever happened). They will produce humour that relies on compassion, create music that illustratres experience of emotion, and invent tech stuff and gear that's focused on an intention, to be reached in the most simple way. At the same time, they love arts and convey them with great broadth and depth in their schools, from painting over literature to ballet, and view even sportsmanship much more aesthetized than germans do. Perhaps the most touching thing I can say is that they value their mothers way more than we do.
I can't say much more at this point in my life, especially not on the historical roots of those two national characters. I'm not even sure if it plays a huge role that during the middle ages, german was a language of second class in its own lands, when for centuries books (or "the book"), personal conversations and of course the mass at church were held in latin. Something like this did not happen in Russia, so that russian speakers can be said to be more well connected to their own language than germans. They have an actual russian word for almost everything, and in fact I often feel that they absolutely love using their language; which is not only a lovely thing to do, but it also gives them quite the instrument in a philosophical sense. Apparently, there is nothing in the german language regarding to grammar and vocabulary that russian could not also do. It's just that they seem to have other interests.
Yes, there's the interesting difference between languages that are more or less context dependent--German being very exacting and less context dependent than Russian which is more flexible/fluid and less context dependent--there are no articles in Russian compared with German, Latin/Spanish, English, for example. Teaching them how to learn English as a second language is different for both, and it relates more to the culture that the mechanics of the language, and so it is for all different language/cultures. I taught many different people when I was an ESL instructor of adults, aside from many other things.
On the literature/philosophy issue, I read Hesse and Mann, Marx and Jung, then Tolstoy, Sholokhov, and a bit of Dostoyevsky on the Russian side. So, I'm missing many, but I'm competent on the history, which has always taken a front seat with me.. The key on both sides is the shared attribute of having an open mind and the ability to interact and create a discourse to attain understanding--to eliminate Otherness. I have a plethora of books waiting to be read. But I've discovered the time to read all that literature is when you're young; for when you get old, applying your wisdom/knowledge takes up that reading time. Where Pepe Escobar or Vladamir Putin find time to read is beyond me.
That's a good observation on when in life you tend to read books! I confess that my most time reading nowadays is spent on the MoA boards. I'll list a few factors how this came about.
I gave up on newspapers entirely, to which I had a long love affair before, while now I am not just indignant but outraged. This ethical fury is shared by on MoA, and it is more than a petty rage: anti-imp views on history have come up to a point where the problem often takes actual precedence above many other concerns of living. Then, there is a notable change in my working habits over the years: once I had gathered a foundation of knowledge that allowed me access to many advanced and specialized questions that I happen to pursue for whatever reason - something I'd been wanting to do since I was a child - I am less devoted to topical studies. This comes in bouts. But also I have started to have shiftings of intense interest for things that were totally past myself before: like practicing guitar playing, making beautiful things and stuff using my actual hands, and even tidying a room. My curiosity relies back to books mostly as a secondary option. Primarily I am learning from others. I have also gotten much more intuitive. And like you, I am amassing books to be read "later".
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. You, karl, are certainly a most voracious reader, it just happens to be a quickly passing topic you engage. You chose it from personal motivation, and you are excelling at it. Your earlier studies gave you enough of a background to be able to do this. So what's not to like?
The unread books are probably also not read in full by Escobar and Putin, and certainly not by me either. What some people do is to simply open them, and then have the brilliance to pick up the point from them anyway. I can do this within a range of my specialties, it's an acquired skill. But I know people who literally use wheelbarrows to visit the library. Our juliana of MoA is such a person, hers is a trundler. But I think you are no less effective in working through things; it's just that it is less visible on the outside.
The libraries in Germany are connected through a Fernleihe mailing system, it allows to get your hands on almost anything. No idea if something similar exists in beautiful Oregon, but I'm old enough to remember when the Postal Service was the pride of a Nation. No more, over here. Sad!
That said, I grew up close to a decent Landesarchiv library in Speyer, where they had and actually exhibited (for the giggles) Friedrich Trump's emigration file, who went west to avoid military service. A good friend and colleague of mine is an actual family member, hailing from Neustadt an der Weinstraße.
I've often wondered how you managed to prepare and then act such a foresighted decision like the one to settle in Oregon. Impressive. But there is always some compromise to accept, I guess. I've myself decided not to move distant to a decent library long ago, as one of my priorities. I will risk living close to a strategic target for that. In fact, I do.
At libraries, I would go into the stacks with a listing of books to peruse as reference materials for my writing, pile them onto a cart and take them to a table to sift the usable from those that aren't. That's something I can't do at home with my much smaller library, although the internet has helped greatly.
Moving to Oregon from San Jose, California was easy--we sought a place where the forest met the ocean, found one, built our home, and this year marks 20 years here.
I think this is, or was, patently obvious: Putin “had a different specific audience to address—the Deep State Elite that run the Outlaw US Empire”. Thank you for spelling it out!
President Putin has often said that he was and is prepared to talk to the US - the interview is one way of showing this, and doing this
But, although he does not say so explicitly (as far as I know) his primary audience, when not directly addressing Russians in his numerous tours and travels, meetings which you document, is the rest of the world - this is the only other audience he cares about, and for good reason - this is where the war will be won
This is probably not a format he would have chosen to do so - but it came at an opportune moment and from the right party : one may criticise TC the all livelong day, but he's the right man & the only man in the right place
I read a few good reviews of this event and its importance. It's threat to the Deep State was clearly announced by all the naysayers that appeared prior to the event. Could the event have been better is a question many are asking without explaining what their expectation of "better" means. IMO, it is what it is. We'll need to return to what we've been doing as Russia has many events planned to occur this year, and I have four in my queue already, plus there's Zakharova's weekly briefings, and Lavrov will return to action next week.
Thank you karlof for this text version, so much better to read and stroll back and forth in this fine forest of words.
So after reading it entirely and groking it with much fullness, I can say that Tucker was out of his depth and yet did an excellent job of giving Putin the oxygen and space to put forth his position. I nearly choked on my shiraz at the final paragraphs when Tucker asked if Putin would concede "OK nato you win so leave it all as it currently is" (or words to that effect). The egomania that underpins Tucker in his role as journalist is really inseparable from USA exceptionalism. Sigh, so it goes.
There is much here to consider and the next few months will certainly give cause to the exceptional ones and their nazi parasites to do exactly that.
My next peek will be to see if Gavin Newsom, Governor of California possesses two neurones if rubbed together render sufficient smoke to generate some thought concepts. I believe it will be he who is slipped in to the poll come the great Joe stumble in August - October :{
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.
Yes. There's this concept I coined I call Collective Libertarianism which is associated to what Russia and China state is the most important value within the UN Charter--no matter the size of the nation and its attributes, all are equal and must be treated equally, which could be restated as: To each their own as long as it doesn't infringe upon others. Underneath all that is the concept of indivisible security and the understanding that hegemony isn't moral and debases all of Humanity, not just the hegemonic power. Those who gained power in the USA upon FDR's demise threw all that under the bus so the USA could become the Outlaw US Empire and continue its plundering ways--a process that actually began during WW1.
Putin talked directly to the Deep State and told them they cannot change the "objective factors" that are now reshaping geopolitics and that they must change their ways or become outliers--that sickened part of the brain. Putin served the ball; now it's up to the DS to keep its return volley inbounds.
Great summation, I agree. The DS will most likely do what it always does, double down. And they'll get away with it until the entire house of cards collapses as is pretty much inevitable at this point.
Breaking the addiction and affliction of/to Megalomania and Pleonexia is very difficult as Putin sort of described with his reference to Rome. Some sort of serious setback that affects the DS will need to occur for any enlightenment to arise there I'm afraid. It's entirely possible the outliers will be exiled from the Global Brain as the two bloc scenario I've been writing about for the past two years becomes reality.
I made a similar comment in a twitter thread and got this back: "The only ones trying to foist a nationalist ideology is russia. russians were always free to be russian even in Ukraine". I dropped a few links on them which they'll no doubt ignore since that's what the self-righteous, wilfully ignorant typically do.
I'd saved but couldn't find to post it a link to legislation being introduced in Ukraine, seems like it was in 2018, that would require ethnic Russians to undergo a "re-education" after which they *might* be granted limited rights of citizenship. If anyone has that, please share!
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.
Putin crafted his message to the Outlaw US Empire's Deep State elites quite well given the constraints. As I wrote in another comment, the ball's in the DS's court.
They should have discussed the ongoing genocide in Palestine, genocide by US/UK bombs, missiles, tank shells, artillery, and mass starvation.
It is the most pressing issue right now.
But you weren't caught in the crossfire, you voluntarily held out your arm and accepted the mRNA poison stabs multiple times. Anarchist? Meh.
There's the questions he didn't ask, but that's his choice and what was covered was important -besides time is limited, so it's a pass. However asking for the release of a convicted spy, well I found that to be a cheap stunt; look, Putin gave me a present. Not just Americans will see this and that's a good thing. I watched the full interview and President Putin is absolutely consistent - over the last decade plus I haven't missed an opportunity to listen, read, or see what he has to say.
Yes, I recall the 1968 Chant: The Whole World's Watching! Except then that wasn't really possible whereas it is now.
Thank you dormoch altbinhax. Sounds about right to me. Peskov summed it up well the day before: Tucker is not pro Ukraine or Russia, he is simply pro USA (or words to that effect). What irks me about Tucker is that he is whitewasher for Trump but I guess the USA and its faulty product line just churns out this twisted shite. So perhaps the carefully crafted neocon eggshell is finally cracked and sane dialogue might get a chance but the cynic in me reminds me of what these turds did to Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Libya and so on.
It will take a truckload of Tuckers to slaughter the Hydra this time around. But then it is year of the dragon and it sure has started off well. Stay well all.
IMO, Carlson never really got an education. Sure, he went to school and college, but that doesn't mean he got educated.
Thanks for the transcript. I got into the interview about 40 minutes in and watched it all again after they finished. I did enjoy the historical information but I enjoy history. I can see where others may not have enjoyed it much. I don’t know how much of a difference this will make overall to alter opinion but it serves as a marker in time, and who knows. Maybe some will be curious.
If anything, it impressed upon viewers the fact that Russia is one of the older civilization states on the planet, something IMO the USA cannot claim to be yet. The crazy energy/financing situation Putin described ought to fascinate and enrage Europeans. And note he didn't need to overtly add the USA to that mix as people know who calls the shots.
Perhaps part of President Putin's point with the historical review is that, from Russia's perspective, a deal is a deal -- even if it was a treaty made by our forefathers centuries ago. Hence the 1990s US promise not to expand NATO was seen by Russia as a firm commitment -- whereas the DC Swamp Rats saw it as something they would wriggle out of when it suited them.
If that assessment is close to the mark, then the implication is that Russia now believes the US/West/NATO to be untrustworthy. Consequently, there will be no deal to end the fighting in the Ukraine.
Yes, Honor is very important in Russia. You'll see them honoring their contracts even in wartime with the enemy as in this case. Putin coined the correct descriptive term Empire of Lies for excellent reasons. One of the major reasons why the Soviet State broke from the top->down is because the elite abandoned honor as a value and the proletariat knew that, thus the phrase "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." Le Carre in "Russia House" caught that aspect of Russianness very well when the nuclear weapons scientist asked Barley if he was serious about his pledge to which Barley said yes, quite. That's why the Russians and Chinese get along so well as they both place great value in honor and veracity.
Putin, as repeatedly shown here by Karl, and in MoA is a master of details and has his act together. As impressive as always. I thought that Carlson was underprepared and that his staff did not prepare him well enough.
The trigger to the February invasion was well covered, Zelensky moving troops to invade East Ukraine. The recognition of the two break away 'volks republiks' and their recognition by the Russian Dima. The Defense Agreement drawn up afterwards, etc.
All the same, Carlson is performing a public service to the USA and not many minds will be changed.
Topics that might have swayed minds were mostly avoided--cultural values, although Christianity was touched upon. IMO, Carlson was disappointed by his performance, thus the disclaimer at the beginning of the video. I would think the Russian versions don't have such an intro but haven't bothered to look. IMO, Carlson should have put together a program introducing Putin the person to his audience that stressed the fact that he's been elected president three times and will win a fourth time in March. His ratings fluctuate from 75-85%. Why!? In other words, Carlson could do much more of a service for Americans by showing them Russia and Russians along with the interview. But then that's what I'm trying to do despite my small audience; and not just Russia, but China and the RoW.
Completely agree. I expected a lot better from Carlson than this bland repeat of old memes.
Either his ego or his staff did not prepare him well. I pay no attention to Carlson so I cannot tell what is not going on. Your readers and most of the MoA crowd could walk circles around Carlson on the Ukraine topic. Hard to believe that he was that lame. Perhaps he incurred the same epiphany as Simplicius, who dropped off my radar.
Simplicius is good in his main field--military analysis. Like many, he has a hard time with very complex contexts which is what's needed to deal with the Big Picture. China appreciated Putin's words, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306963.shtml
MoA has far better military analysts, at least three I can think of, off the top of my head. Unimperator, DownSouth and Milites come to mind, although there are more.
OTOH, Big Serge, a Nom de Plum based on Sergei Witte (half Dutch, half Russian) no one can hold a candle to.
Do you recall Outraged?
Outraged was great, he obviously had decades of service as a staff officer, once describing his boiling down of the rumod battlefield reports as "second nature". He gave anecdotes from time to time, some from his experience in the gulf war and its long aftermath, as well as preparation. It sounded like he was in the room with the big maps and charts, and told how "we" planned long target lists for airforce bombing runs ... I thought this hints at an american, but I could be wrong of course. Prior before he stopped commenting altogether, he had a short time off, and upon coming back he claimed health issues. He was unique when in his element: sparse, dry and powerful analyses of force dispositions.
Where did he go?
Thank you for bolding text in the transcript. I watched the interview in real time and your effort provides an easy summary of important points Putin made.
Putin, as we knew, would have no trouble with a 2 hour interview while Biden stumbles giving a prepared speech.
A couple of comments from MOA which stuck with me:
--- the 5 Eyes countries all wiped out indigenous people while indigenous are mostly OK in Russia
---France and German's last colonial chance is to exploit Russia so they hang on to the war
Russian explorer/trappers weren't too kind to indigenous, particularly in Alaska. Russian government policy however was mostly benevolent. Where that wasn't the case was the Caucasus and with the Turkic peoples along the Black Sea. Funny, though, the Cold War plan to exploit what the West deemed the "Nationality Problem" via divide & rule, which was only successful in Ukraine and the Baltics because the historical foundation already existed.
thanks karl.. i am a transcript type person as well.. however, i made an exception and listened/watched the 2 hour video yesterday.. i appreciate that you've made the transcript available for others to examine more closely.. the way i see it, this was a valuable exchange and i thank carlson and putin for letting and making it happen.. one could say nothing will change, but i don't believe that to be true.. i think these micro events create a history which is harder to erase or disappear.. i am sure it will be trivialized by the west.. that goes without saying, but i continue to believe it is beneficial in the big picture..
and of course what other world leader could sit without notes and speak in a 2 hour interview like this?? obviously this is very important to putin! and it really ought to be more important to those in the west who in a very immature way support a war in ukraine without understanding what it is they are actually supporting.. what is shocking to me is how the whole anti-war movement that i associate from vietnam and on up - have been completely missing in action here... either the western propaganda has been very successful, or a whole lot of people have been conditioned to think this war is somehow okay.. it isn't.. none of the deaths of ukraine or russian people is okay.. it is very wrong and our western gov'ts have okayed it all.. i call bullshit on the west.. it is very clear to me anyway..
Agreed. There's more Putin could have included. The more important, IMO, prisoner swap--the Ukie POWs who were murdered by their own side--is the one that required the time wasted on the other, far more trivial matter. For me, that's the one demerit garnered by Calrson; otherwise, he did a credible job. I have no idea how Western BigLie Media has reacted; I anticipated b would have an article about that but that was an incorrect assumption. IMO, more can be gleaned about Putin the person from his many interactions, and particularly his style of governance--tell us the problems so we can fix them. As with Putin's marathon pressers, the interview could've easily gone two more hours. My own set of questions are vastly different from Carlson's as I don't need to know about Ukraine. Putin's explanation of the energy and Ukie support dynamics was great and could stand alone.
I hope the Russian assigned to read my substack will pass my appreciation up the line to President Putin for the interview and so much else.
right on karl.. thanks...
Maybe the most important point of the interview was Putin stressing that Russia has always been and is currently willing to negotiate solutions to all of the issues, including the conflict in Ukraine. For two years I’ve been reading comments about how Russia must go all the way to Poland or even neutralize Poland. Russia has to do this or that to bring down the US empire. Almost all of those commenters have been Americans demanding that Putin use Russia to solve their own problems. That attitude is displayed in this thread by someone declaring what Putin should have said.
The reason why this interview will be misunderstood by most Americans is the same reason Putin has been misunderstood by most Americans going back 23 years now. Aside from neo-Nazism being unacceptable, Putin isn’t concerned with ideals of good and evil. He is a realist. Americans, even most who believe themselves above such things, have an incredibly hard time letting go of good vs evil framing. That’s true even when they flip to the “side” that the American state labels as evil.
Putin’s comments here about relations with China encapsulate his thinking well. He recognizes that whether he particularly likes or agrees with China is secondary. The fact of the matter is that Russia and China are neighbors and always will be. His behavior is driven by that reality rather than ideals. The same goes for Eastern European countries, so Russian statements about rolling NATO back to 1997 or earlier are negotiating positions related to neighborly relations rather than declarations of intent.
Excellent observations! There's reality and it can be influenced--shaped--and isn't the domain of just one actor no matter how powerful. The Rome example had that point at its core. Putin made one other important remark that was made somewhat flippantly, paraphrased: I have a country to run, thus foreign affairs is only one portion of my duties. And very little about Russia's domestic situation aside from its economic and military strength were touched on. And those two aspects are the key components to geopolitical power.
I had the same main takeaway, and that is hopefully what Western puppet masters will hear.
Thank you in advance for this. I don't have easy free access to video to view online & prefer text anyway, to be able to take in at my own speed, mull over, review & think about. Especially important I think after see comments at moa about the very different civilizational & cultural perspectives.
Now to get reading ...
In picking up the point where he says the western mind is more "pragmatic" - I'd like to wax along this line a little further. It's profound and important, but hard to grasp. I have no full understanding either, but after more than two decades with this question on my mind, I feel that I may at least add something here.
The issue is subtle, so I shall try to approach it from a personal angle. I'm german, and a few times friends of mine were stating that I'm a "german philosopher", a label I'll accept and wear with a pride. What does it mean? Many things, of course; but among them is a realization that philosophy, which as an occupation has many very different aspects, is inseperable from its conduct as Gespräch (engl. conversation), or dialogue.
I feel that the most interesting conversations between germans and the other european peoples involve, most of all, the italians [I can't comment, but have you been to a trattoria?] and the russians. I knew this when I read Dostoevsky's tale of the murderer Raskolnikov in school (and much later when Mourinho's Inter Milano team kicked Barcelona out of the Champions League with five defenders, and riding a borrowed Bianchi through town). That set something in motion within me, and since those times I've always held a special sweet spot for russians in my heart. I met quite a few of them, and became friends with folks from Moscow, Petersburg, Kiev, Kharkov, Czernowitz, and other places of the far wide east. Some jewish, some not. Some are actually germans whose kin had been living in the east for generations. I marvel at the humour, at the soviet elementary schools, and at their "soul". Dostoevsky has the word already, and he makes clear in no uncertain terms that this sets russia apart from the west. But what does he mean?
Another book from russian literature is concerned with exactly this topic, Ivan Gontcharov's "Oblomow". It is about the friendship between a lazy russian nobilitiy (he only gets up after 100 pages) and an energetic german. It's also been made into also a great movie that I will recommend. But it is still subtle to get at this ... so it was very enlightening for me when I met a russian who's lived in Germany since his age 12, and became a philosopher here. He was fascinated by the systemic thinkers, such as Ernst Cassierer, and despite him speaking with a notable accent to this day, his use of the german language is brilliantly meticulous, so much so that I came to rely on him when in doubt about a wording. Now the intruiging thing is, he relates much to Oblomow, like him he is fond of the german kind, yet he knows he's different, and for me it is exactly the same vice versa.
Let me illustrate what this means by some quick, associative examples readily taken from crude clichés.
Germans are good mechanical engineers, systematical thinkers, formally powerful composers (Bach, Beethoven, Schönberg), ruthlessly efficient soldiers, builders of a state with proper institutions; when left alone, they will produce obsessive scientists like Kant, Gödel, Heisenberg and many others; Husserl, too. That is appreciated by the russians, and they will marvel at the length to which such will to completeness and precision of approach can go.
Russians are less unquestioningly obsessive about such things. When amongst themselves, they will produce more warmth and less outrageous desire to attain formal ends. They are willing to sacrifice when things get real for them (and I find it most shameful that exactly this is so out of view from the german side today, as epitomed by Frau Baerbock and the Leopards rolling east as if nothing had ever happened). They will produce humour that relies on compassion, create music that illustratres experience of emotion, and invent tech stuff and gear that's focused on an intention, to be reached in the most simple way. At the same time, they love arts and convey them with great broadth and depth in their schools, from painting over literature to ballet, and view even sportsmanship much more aesthetized than germans do. Perhaps the most touching thing I can say is that they value their mothers way more than we do.
I can't say much more at this point in my life, especially not on the historical roots of those two national characters. I'm not even sure if it plays a huge role that during the middle ages, german was a language of second class in its own lands, when for centuries books (or "the book"), personal conversations and of course the mass at church were held in latin. Something like this did not happen in Russia, so that russian speakers can be said to be more well connected to their own language than germans. They have an actual russian word for almost everything, and in fact I often feel that they absolutely love using their language; which is not only a lovely thing to do, but it also gives them quite the instrument in a philosophical sense. Apparently, there is nothing in the german language regarding to grammar and vocabulary that russian could not also do. It's just that they seem to have other interests.
Yes, there's the interesting difference between languages that are more or less context dependent--German being very exacting and less context dependent than Russian which is more flexible/fluid and less context dependent--there are no articles in Russian compared with German, Latin/Spanish, English, for example. Teaching them how to learn English as a second language is different for both, and it relates more to the culture that the mechanics of the language, and so it is for all different language/cultures. I taught many different people when I was an ESL instructor of adults, aside from many other things.
On the literature/philosophy issue, I read Hesse and Mann, Marx and Jung, then Tolstoy, Sholokhov, and a bit of Dostoyevsky on the Russian side. So, I'm missing many, but I'm competent on the history, which has always taken a front seat with me.. The key on both sides is the shared attribute of having an open mind and the ability to interact and create a discourse to attain understanding--to eliminate Otherness. I have a plethora of books waiting to be read. But I've discovered the time to read all that literature is when you're young; for when you get old, applying your wisdom/knowledge takes up that reading time. Where Pepe Escobar or Vladamir Putin find time to read is beyond me.
That's a good observation on when in life you tend to read books! I confess that my most time reading nowadays is spent on the MoA boards. I'll list a few factors how this came about.
I gave up on newspapers entirely, to which I had a long love affair before, while now I am not just indignant but outraged. This ethical fury is shared by on MoA, and it is more than a petty rage: anti-imp views on history have come up to a point where the problem often takes actual precedence above many other concerns of living. Then, there is a notable change in my working habits over the years: once I had gathered a foundation of knowledge that allowed me access to many advanced and specialized questions that I happen to pursue for whatever reason - something I'd been wanting to do since I was a child - I am less devoted to topical studies. This comes in bouts. But also I have started to have shiftings of intense interest for things that were totally past myself before: like practicing guitar playing, making beautiful things and stuff using my actual hands, and even tidying a room. My curiosity relies back to books mostly as a secondary option. Primarily I am learning from others. I have also gotten much more intuitive. And like you, I am amassing books to be read "later".
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. You, karl, are certainly a most voracious reader, it just happens to be a quickly passing topic you engage. You chose it from personal motivation, and you are excelling at it. Your earlier studies gave you enough of a background to be able to do this. So what's not to like?
The unread books are probably also not read in full by Escobar and Putin, and certainly not by me either. What some people do is to simply open them, and then have the brilliance to pick up the point from them anyway. I can do this within a range of my specialties, it's an acquired skill. But I know people who literally use wheelbarrows to visit the library. Our juliana of MoA is such a person, hers is a trundler. But I think you are no less effective in working through things; it's just that it is less visible on the outside.
It would be nice to live in decent proximity to a university library again. It would also be great to travel like Escobar does.
The libraries in Germany are connected through a Fernleihe mailing system, it allows to get your hands on almost anything. No idea if something similar exists in beautiful Oregon, but I'm old enough to remember when the Postal Service was the pride of a Nation. No more, over here. Sad!
That said, I grew up close to a decent Landesarchiv library in Speyer, where they had and actually exhibited (for the giggles) Friedrich Trump's emigration file, who went west to avoid military service. A good friend and colleague of mine is an actual family member, hailing from Neustadt an der Weinstraße.
I've often wondered how you managed to prepare and then act such a foresighted decision like the one to settle in Oregon. Impressive. But there is always some compromise to accept, I guess. I've myself decided not to move distant to a decent library long ago, as one of my priorities. I will risk living close to a strategic target for that. In fact, I do.
At libraries, I would go into the stacks with a listing of books to peruse as reference materials for my writing, pile them onto a cart and take them to a table to sift the usable from those that aren't. That's something I can't do at home with my much smaller library, although the internet has helped greatly.
Moving to Oregon from San Jose, California was easy--we sought a place where the forest met the ocean, found one, built our home, and this year marks 20 years here.
I think this is, or was, patently obvious: Putin “had a different specific audience to address—the Deep State Elite that run the Outlaw US Empire”. Thank you for spelling it out!
President Putin has often said that he was and is prepared to talk to the US - the interview is one way of showing this, and doing this
But, although he does not say so explicitly (as far as I know) his primary audience, when not directly addressing Russians in his numerous tours and travels, meetings which you document, is the rest of the world - this is the only other audience he cares about, and for good reason - this is where the war will be won
This is probably not a format he would have chosen to do so - but it came at an opportune moment and from the right party : one may criticise TC the all livelong day, but he's the right man & the only man in the right place
I read a few good reviews of this event and its importance. It's threat to the Deep State was clearly announced by all the naysayers that appeared prior to the event. Could the event have been better is a question many are asking without explaining what their expectation of "better" means. IMO, it is what it is. We'll need to return to what we've been doing as Russia has many events planned to occur this year, and I have four in my queue already, plus there's Zakharova's weekly briefings, and Lavrov will return to action next week.
Thanks for this comment - by the way do you know of the reactions within Russia to this interview? Or in China?
Simplicius had a tweet out stating that Putin's speeches are widely reported and followed in China
I look forward to your renewed Russia only reports
Look in this comment thread for the two links I provided to others, and then there are two from RT, https://www.rt.com/russia/592168-tucker-carlson-moscow-putin/ and https://www.rt.com/news/592174-tucker-carlson-putin-interview/
Thanks for this
Thank you karlof for this text version, so much better to read and stroll back and forth in this fine forest of words.
So after reading it entirely and groking it with much fullness, I can say that Tucker was out of his depth and yet did an excellent job of giving Putin the oxygen and space to put forth his position. I nearly choked on my shiraz at the final paragraphs when Tucker asked if Putin would concede "OK nato you win so leave it all as it currently is" (or words to that effect). The egomania that underpins Tucker in his role as journalist is really inseparable from USA exceptionalism. Sigh, so it goes.
There is much here to consider and the next few months will certainly give cause to the exceptional ones and their nazi parasites to do exactly that.
My next peek will be to see if Gavin Newsom, Governor of California possesses two neurones if rubbed together render sufficient smoke to generate some thought concepts. I believe it will be he who is slipped in to the poll come the great Joe stumble in August - October :{
Putin's Metaphysics were fantastic. Yes, a small book could be written based on the main points made. Good review at SCF, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/02/09/tucker-carlson-committed-treason-to-interview-russian-president-vladimir-putin-and-the-world-loved-it/
This related piece by Gilbert Doctorow helps understand why Russian studies graduates in the US are so ignorant and biased against Russia: https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/02/08/responding-to-the-call-for-de-centering-russian-studies-the-field-was-de-centered-from-its-earliest-days/. I've just added two of Doctorow's books, Memoirs of a Russianist vols. I and II, to my ever growing TBR pile.
Tucker Carlson followed up the Putin interviewed by being sensationally interviewed himself at the World Government Summit 2024 being held in Dubai. He was well received - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/tucker-carlson-world-government-summit-2024
Thanks Mike. I read a review of the interview published by RT last night. All the aftereffects seem positive at this point.
Cynthia Chung on 'the interview' is a worthy read:
https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/on-president-putins-interview-with