I watched with interest evaluations of the Putin interview last night aired on Russian state television’s Vesti program, read assorted articles on this subject published in yesterday’s Johnson’s Russia List and the comments which readers posted on my website or sent to me directly via email.
I think the issues are worthy of further discussion and that is the objective of today’s essay.
It should come as no surprise that yesterday’s Vesti only sang the praises of the interview and of Putin’s performance in particular. In that context they put on air the very complimentary remarks of two Americans from the intelligence community who in recent months have become the darlings of Russian television: Scott Ritter and Larry Johnson. I will only say that both showed poor judgment in giving unqualified thumbs-up. Why? I hope that will become clear from what I have to say today to amplify and dig down deeper into the critique that I sketched yesterday.
By its nature, a website like mine attracts a goodly number of Russia-cheerleaders who don’t want to hear any sour notes. Many of these folks know little or nothing about Russia and rely on guesswork that ignores highly relevant facts available to Russia speakers.
The question of who was the target audience for the Tucker Carlson-Putin interview is critical. Was it the United States? the Collective West? the Russian domestic public? China, India and the Global South?
As I said yesterday, the Kremlin elites hoped that the interview would get around U.S. censorship and bring the Russian perspective directly to the ears and eyes of the broad American public, which also, of course, includes American elites. It is highly likely that Tucker Carlson was on the same wave length, since Americans are the folks he hopes to entice to become paying subscribers to his Network and also because he likely believes he can influence the course of history by waking up his compatriots. Each time Carlson brings in 40 million viewers he puts to shame the likes of CNN whose viewer numbers are ten times less, if I may be generous to them.
With this objective in mind, I continue to believe that Putin’s decision to deliver a 30 minute opening history lecture by way of answer to Carlson’s question of why Russia invaded was a bad decision. It was bad for several reasons. One is that it was boring for the general public. Yes, the interview attracted 140 million ‘hits’ on Carlson’s website, but we are not told how long those viewers stayed tuned. Secondly, Putin is not a professional historian and anything he said would be pulled to pieces by academics in the States, not just by the usual journalistic commentators. Thirdly, the history going back to the 9th century had nothing to do with the decision to invade Ukraine, which was prompted and justified internally in the Kremlin by reasons of Realpolitik, not by what is called Romantic Nationalism.
As I have said in the past, Realpolitik does not go down well with the general public in Russia as in many other countries whereas Romantic Nationalism does. Mothers don’t willingly send their sons to die for Realpolitik. Hence, the story of how Russians and Ukrainians are just brothers and similar platitudes in many of Putin’s speeches to his domestic audience. But if you have any marketing sense, and I tell you frankly that the people advising Putin seem at times to have zero marketing sense, then you prepare your speech around who is the intended audience, in this case the USA.
Putin’s explanation of why he chose to invade should have started with the year 2008, when the U.S. insisted that NATO offer membership to Ukraine. After all, the trigger for the war in February 2022 was the refusal of the United States to negotiate on Russia’s demand that Ukraine remain neutral and that NATO pull back to its 1996 borders. Note that after one hour of the interview Purin himself says this, but I believe it is too late and many who came to Tucker’s platform will not have stayed with it long enough to hear this.
In the same vein, Putin never answered Tucker Carlson’s reasonable question as to why, knowing as he did that modern Ukraine is an ‘artificial state’ concocted by Lenin and his associates in 1922 to satisfy their own needs to consolidate power throughout what had been the Russian Empire, knowing as he did that the Russian speakers in the Donbas were being persecuted before 2014 and were being bombed and shelled after 2014, why did he wait so long to move against the regime in Kiev. Fair question, I might add, as I poke back at some readers who insisted that Carlson is just an ignorant clown.
The answer is available and well known among Russia’s foreign policy professionals: Putin could not dare act until Russia’s armed forces were sufficiently modernized and strengthened, until the Russian economy was made similarly robust to survive any threats coming from the West should Russia forcefully push for regime change in Kiev. That moment arrived in 2018 when Putin announced to the world the serial production of strategic arms including hypersonic missiles that put Russia years ahead of the USA and presented a window of opportunity to act. Meanwhile conventional weapons of superior quality were being delivered to the armed forces and the economy was being readied for the most severe sanctions, beginning with the ‘import substitution’ programs launched in 2014. I do not see why setting out these real motivations on air to the American public was not done.
A couple of readers noted that Tucker introduced his Sinophobe thinking into the interview with Putin, asking pointedly whether Russians are happy to be rushing into the arms of China, whether they understand that Xi is using BRICS to dominate its partners just as Washington has been doing with its allies. Putin responded in line with what he has been saying at many forums, namely that Russia and China have an exceptionally strong cooperation in many spheres that is mutually beneficial. However, he added something that I have rarely heard him say: “Russia and China have thousands of kilometers of common borders. You don’t choose your neighbors, just as you don’t choose your relatives.” Here is precisely the Realpolitik mentality that I have alluded to above. The game is not about kissy-kissy. It is about the necessities of life and playing with the hand you are dealt.
If I may expand on the China issue, I believe Russia had no particular interest in how many Chinese or Indians tuned in to watch the interview. The Chinese as a people may or may not have particularly warm feelings for Russians. I can assure you that the man in the street Russian has mixed feelings about China, of which the most evident are fear and envy. The Chinese loggers who rape the forests of Eastern Siberia are denounced in Russian media, as are the many Chinese farmer settlers in the Far East who find Russian wives and move in permanently, changing the fragile demography. But none of this can or should influence policy in Moscow, which is focused on the big picture of Russian interests.
China is without question one of the most supportive countries in the world in Russia’s hour of need. And Xi’s actions are similarly based on realism. As the hero of The Queen of Spades Hermann sings in his last aria, Сегодня ты, завтра я! – Today it is you, tomorrow it will be me!
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Fortsetzung zu Carlsons Interview mit Wladimir Putin
Ich habe mit Interesse die Auswertungen des Putin-Interviews verfolgt, das gestern Abend im russischen Staatsfernsehen Vesti ausgestrahlt wurde, und verschiedene Artikel zu diesem Thema gelesen, die in der gestrigen Johnson’s Russia List veröffentlicht wurden, sowie die Kommentare, die Leser auf meiner Website veröffentlicht oder mir direkt per E-Mail zugesandt haben.
Ich denke, die Fragen sind es wert, weiter diskutiert zu werden, und das ist das Ziel des heutigen Aufsatzes.
Es dürfte nicht überraschen, dass die gestrige Ausgabe von Vesti nur Lobeshymnen auf das Interview und vor allem auf Putins Auftritt sang. In diesem Zusammenhang wurden die sehr lobenden Äußerungen von zwei Amerikanern aus dem Geheimdienstbereich gesendet, die in den letzten Monaten zu den Lieblingen des russischen Fernsehens geworden sind: Scott Ritter und Larry Johnson. Ich möchte nur sagen, dass beide ein schlechtes Urteilsvermögen bewiesen haben, indem sie unqualifizierte Lobeshymnen von sich gaben. Und warum? Ich hoffe, das wird aus dem deutlich, was ich heute zu sagen habe, um die Kritik, die ich gestern skizziert habe, zu erweitern und zu vertiefen.
Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass eine Website wie die meine eine beträchtliche Anzahl von Russland-Befürwortern anzieht, die nichts Schlechtes hören wollen. Viele dieser Leute wissen wenig oder gar nichts über Russland, verlassen sich auf Vermutungen und ignorieren höchst relevante Fakten, die Menschen zur Verfügung stehen, die russisch sprechen.
Die Frage, an wen sich das Tucker Carlson-Putin-Interview gerichtet hat, ist von entscheidender Bedeutung. Waren es die Vereinigten Staaten? Der kollektive Westen? Die russische Öffentlichkeit im Inland? China, Indien und der globale Süden?
Wie ich gestern gesagt habe, hofften die Kreml-Eliten, dass das Interview die US-Zensur umgehen und die russische Perspektive direkt in die Ohren und Augen der breiten amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit bringen würde, zu der natürlich auch die amerikanischen Eliten gehören. Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass Tucker Carlson auf derselben Wellenlänge geschwommen ist, da er hofft, Amerikaner zu zahlenden Abonnenten seines Senders zu machen, und auch, weil er wahrscheinlich glaubt, den Lauf der Geschichte beeinflussen zu können, indem er seine Landsleute aufrüttelt. Jedes Mal, wenn Carlson 40 Millionen Zuschauer erreicht, stellt er einen Sender wie CNN in den Schatten, dessen Zuschauerzahlen zehnmal geringer sind, wenn es hoch kommt.
Mit diesem Ziel vor Augen bin ich nach wie vor der Meinung, dass Putins Entscheidung, als Antwort auf Carlsons Frage, warum Russland einmarschiert ist, eine 30-minütige historische Eröffnungsrede zu halten, eine schlechte Entscheidung war. Sie war aus mehreren Gründen schlecht. Einer ist, dass es für die Öffentlichkeit langweilig war. Ja, das Interview hatte 140 Millionen “Hits” auf Carlsons Website, aber wir erfahren nicht, wie lange diese Zuschauer drangeblieben sind. Zweitens ist Putin kein professioneller Historiker, und alles, was er sagte, würde von Akademikern in den USA zerpflückt werden, nicht nur von den üblichen journalistischen Kommentatoren. Drittens hatte die bis ins 9. Jahrhundert zurückreichende Geschichte nichts mit der Entscheidung zu tun, in die Ukraine einzumarschieren, die im Kreml intern durch realpolitische Gründe und nicht durch den so genannten romantischen Nationalismus veranlasst und gerechtfertigt wurde.
Wie ich bereits in der Vergangenheit gesagt habe, kommt die Realpolitik in Russland wie in vielen anderen Ländern bei der breiten Öffentlichkeit nicht gut an, der romantische Nationalismus hingegen schon. Mütter schicken ihre Söhne nicht bereitwillig in den Tod für die Realpolitik. Daher die Geschichte, dass Russen und Ukrainer nur Brüder sind, und ähnliche Plattitüden in vielen von Putins Reden an sein heimisches Publikum. Aber wenn man einen gewissen Sinn für Marketing hat, und ich sage Ihnen ganz offen, dass die Leute, die Putin beraten, bisweilen null Sinn für Marketing zu haben scheinen, dann bereitet man seine Rede darauf vor, wer das Zielpublikum ist, in diesem Fall die USA.
Putins Erklärung, warum er sich für die Invasion entschieden hat, hätte mit dem Jahr 2008 beginnen sollen, als die USA darauf bestanden, der Ukraine die NATO-Mitgliedschaft anzubieten. Schließlich war der Auslöser für den Krieg im Februar 2022 die Weigerung der Vereinigten Staaten, über die russische Forderung zu verhandeln, dass die Ukraine neutral bleibt und die NATO sich auf ihre Grenzen von 1996 zurückzieht. Man beachte, dass Putin dies nach einer Stunde des Interviews selbst sagt, aber ich glaube, es ist zu spät und viele, die zu Tuckers Plattform gekommen sind, werden nicht lange genug dabei geblieben sein, um dies zu hören.
Ebenso hat Putin nie auf die berechtigte Frage von Tucker Carlson geantwortet, warum er so lange damit gewartet hat, gegen das Regime in Kiew vorzugehen, obwohl er wusste, dass die moderne Ukraine ein “künstlicher Staat” ist, der 1922 von Lenin und seinen Verbündeten zur Befriedigung ihrer eigenen Bedürfnisse nach Machtkonsolidierung im gesamten ehemaligen Russischen Reich erfunden wurde, und obwohl er wusste, dass die russischsprachigen Menschen im Donbass vor 2014 verfolgt und nach 2014 bombardiert und beschossen wurden. Eine berechtigte Frage, wie ich hinzufügen möchte, da ich einigen Lesern widerspreche, die darauf bestanden, dass Carlson nur ein ignoranter Clown ist.
Die Antwort liegt auf der Hand und ist unter Russlands Außenpolitikern wohlbekannt: Putin konnte es nicht wagen zu handeln, bevor Russlands Streitkräfte nicht ausreichend modernisiert und gestärkt waren und die russische Wirtschaft nicht ähnlich robust war, um jegliche Bedrohung aus dem Westen zu überstehen, sollte Russland mit Nachdruck auf einen Regimewechsel in Kiew drängen. Dieser Moment war 2018 gekommen, als Putin der Welt die Serienproduktion strategischer Waffen ankündigte, darunter Hyperschallraketen, die Russland den USA um Jahre voraus sind und die Gelegenheit zum Handeln boten. In der Zwischenzeit wurden konventionelle Waffen von höchster Qualität an die Streitkräfte geliefert und die Wirtschaft wurde auf die schärfsten Sanktionen vorbereitet, beginnend mit den 2014 eingeleiteten “Importsubstitutionsprogrammen”. Ich verstehe nicht, warum diese wahren Beweggründe der amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit nicht offen dargelegt wurden.
Einige Leser merkten an, dass Tucker seine sinophobe Denkweise in das Interview mit Putin einbrachte, indem er pointiert fragte, ob die Russen froh sind, China in die Arme zu laufen, ob sie verstehen, dass Xi die BRICS-Staaten benutzt, um seine Partner zu dominieren, so wie es Washington mit seinen Verbündeten getan hat. Putin antwortete im Einklang mit dem, was er auf vielen Foren gesagt hat, nämlich dass Russland und China in vielen Bereichen eine außergewöhnlich enge Zusammenarbeit pflegen, die für beide Seiten von Vorteil ist. Er fügte jedoch etwas hinzu, was ich selten von ihm habe sagen hören: “Russland und China haben Tausende von Kilometern gemeinsamer Grenzen. Man sucht sich seine Nachbarn nicht aus, genauso wenig wie man sich seine Verwandten aussucht.” Hier zeigt sich genau die Mentalität der Realpolitik, auf die ich oben angespielt habe. In diesem Spiel geht es nicht um Kussmund. Es geht um die Notwendigkeiten des Lebens und darum, mit dem Blatt zu spielen, das man erhält.
Wenn ich noch etwas zu China sagen darf: Ich glaube, Russland hatte kein besonderes Interesse daran, wie viele Chinesen oder Inder das Interview verfolgen. Die Chinesen als Volk mögen besonders warme Gefühle für die Russen haben oder auch nicht. Ich kann Ihnen versichern, dass ein normaler Russe China mit gemischten Gefühlen begegnet, von denen die offensichtlichsten Angst und Neid sind. Die chinesischen Holzfäller, die die Wälder Ostsibiriens plündern, werden in den russischen Medien angeprangert, ebenso wie die vielen chinesischen Siedler im Fernen Osten, die russische Ehefrauen finden und für immer dort einziehen, was die fragile Demographie verändert. Aber nichts davon kann oder sollte die Politik in Moskau beeinflussen, die sich auf das große Ganze der russischen Interessen konzentriert.
China ist ohne Frage eines der Länder, die Russland in der Stunde der Not am meisten unterstützen. Und auch Xis Handeln ist von Realismus geprägt. Wie der Held der Pique Dame Hermann in seiner letzten Arie singt: Сегодня ты, завтра я! – Heute bist du es, morgen werde ich es sein!
Gilbert Doctorow 
Your criticism of the Putin-Carlson interview is not entirely unfounded but a bit too negative. As most U.S. citizens are almost entirely ignorant of Russian history, including the vast majority of the U.S. Senate. Judging from their juvenile Russophobia. It was worthwhile for Putin to begin at the beginning. Americans need to get off of this propaganda cartoon impression of Russia and move to a greater understanding of a once again great power with a rich history that predates our own country. The podcast can be replayed and skipped ahead by anyone who was bored with Putin’s history lesson.
Tucker Carlson can be critiqued for his inappropriate behaviors at times. His ambush at the end of the program was pure pandering to his reporter brethren. Most of whom despise him anyway when they are not being jealous of his success as an entertainer who gets ratings they can only dream of. Carlson did let Putin speak though he did interrupt at times. Each time he did, Putin put him in his place. Margaret Thatcher never suffered fools gladly and was celebrated for dismissing their hysteria and impertinence. When you are gifted an audience with the leader of one of the world’s most powerful nations, some deference is more than appropriate.
We tuned in to listen to Putin, not Carlson. Reporters often forget that.
Putin’s target audience was primarily the people of the U.S. But also those in Europe, Ukraine itself and the rest of the world. People living in India or China would likely wish that Modi or Xi would have likewise educated the world about the rich history of their countries when facing a similar global audience.
It was sensible for Putin to express the deep historical connection between Russians still living in Ukraine as well as the non-Russian regions consisting of Poles, Hungarians, etc. The point being that Ukraine as a nation is somewhat of an artificial construct. An amalgam of people whose ethnic origins mainly come from neighboring countries. And that more of those come from Russia than any other single country. How many people who tuned in know where the battle of Poltava took place, when it happened (1709) and that Peter the Great defeated Charles XII of Sweden in what is now Ukraine. That Russia under Catherine the Great encompassed Kiev, Crimea, Odessa and beyond. Or how the Russians drove the German Wehrmacht from Stalingrad back through all of Ukraine during WW2.
Putin also explained how the U.S. had used NATO to threaten and contain Russia ever since the end of WW2. That Putin himself had requested entry into NATO through Bill Clinton and was refused. That the U.S. and NATO routinely made agreements and treaties with Russia that they simply ignored whenever it suited their interests.
There is still a great deal that U.S. voters don’t know about Russia and the dirty deeds done by the U.S. and NATO in Ukraine. But Putin had to start somewhere and so began at the beginning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The idea of appealing to the US audience was misguided and unrealistic to begin with. Actually for the reason stated by VVP, namely that the US media is as well controlled as any other state which has to work to generate support for its policies. It’s unfortunate if that is what the Russian media were building up a false hope for a breakthrough in that direction. If anything, this whole period of history should teach Russian upper classes to let go of their attachment to the West and hoping to win over their friendship – as with most of the world, the West gives back mostly just contempt and lame stereotypes.
On the other hand, the global audience – i.e. not the West — should not be discounted. It is they who could make, and now, will break the US hold on international trade. In the broadest sense, it’s baked in, entirely due to the fact that US picked a fight with China — but the path from here to there is not set in stone, and some paths are a lot bloodier than others. South Asia is key.
I thought there were two fundamental messages delivered. First of course came the history. Okay. Second, to me, was the point that there was a peace deal on the table, and it was thrown away by the Ukraine-NATO side, and continues to be obstructed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting follow up by Dr. Doctorow. He has a valid point that Russia did not commence the Special Military Operations until they had made sure that they were ready for it . But disagree that that his website attracts only Russia Cheer leaders.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Critical scrutiny of any of the post-interview analysis is also required:
“Yes, the interview attracted 140 million ‘hits’ on Carlson’s website, but we are not told how long those viewers stayed tuned.”
Or where those viewers lived. Which means that we do not know either way on both questions.
An assumption that the majority in the West, fed on meaningless soundbites and starved as they are of grown up analysis, lapped this up is just as valid as an assumption – based as it is on the notion that the majority in the West have a lower attention span of a goldfish – that they did not.
LikeLike
Dr Doctorow, I have to agree with your assessment that the interview represents a missed opportunity on a number of levels. The half hour history lecture on why Ukraine is not a real state was worse than a distraction, it plays right into the hands of the Western narrative that February 24, 2022 was an act motivated purely by irredentism. Putin missed the opportunity to focus laser-like on the cause being NATO expansion, culminating in the de-facto NATOization of Ukraine. I have always assumed the ‘brotherly people’ speeches, which began on February 22, 2022, were essential to bolster domestic support for the war, as you suggest. Was this interview too primarily for domestic consumption?
If not, the question of *why* Putin felt the need to repeat the romantic nationalism spiel, presumably knowing full well how this would be used by Western propagandists, is an important one. Such a cavalier attitude to what was, let’s face it a huge soft power opportunity, is odd to say the least. One is left with the impression that he simply does not care how it plays in the West – which begs the question of why the interview was granted at all. Does he not care because victory is assured and just around the corner? Does he not care because he is reconciled to the Russo-phobic neocons pushing it all the way (God help us)? Whatever the reason, Putin’s utter disregard for even the most basic ‘optics’ suggests to me a peaceful settlement is nowhere in sight. Meanwhile on the battlefield the intensity has picked up and it seems the heavily depleted and degraded Ukrainian military will start to come apart in the not too distant future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I do not blame Putin. I blame advisors in his Administration. For years now I was puzzled at their complete failure to use Soft Power opportunities properly. A case in point is the annual gatherings of the Valdai discussion group which has at times had several dozen Western invitees. Year after year they invited the same Putin-haters like Angela Stent. Professor Stent would pose for the group photos, put the picture on her desk at Georgetown University to show her closeness to people in power and then proceed to denounce Putin and Russia at every opportunity at forums and in writing. There were numerous others like her who were ‘regulars’ until Covid put an end to the invites.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting. On Twitter, the only meme about the interview was the 30 minutes starting pre-1000AD. Certainly not appropriate for a USA audience. Carlson, however, may have caught what Putin was trying to do and asked that key question that you highlight (i.e., “why wait”). I think that in the PR war of legalism, Putin does not want to look like he also used the period of the Minsk Accords to re-arm in full expectation of where we are today. Doing so turns the whole affair in Realpolitik and that does not serve Russia’s domestic or foreign audience at all.
LikeLike
“In the same vein, Putin never answered Tucker Carlson’s reasonable question as to why… did he wait so long to move against the regime in Kiev.”
He did answer it… In his speech and in this interview:
“And the situation got to the point, when the Ukrainian side announced: “No, we will not implement 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.”
It was when Ukraine was preparing to launch an invasion that Russia preemptively struck and not before. Was Russia ready militarily at that time? I daresay not. That has been shown again and again during the war. Have they strengthened militarily to an extraordinary extent since? Yes. Will they continue to strengthen? Yes.
LikeLike
I would also add that the world has been treated to explanation after explanation after explanation ad nauseum dating back to biblical times of Israel’s right to Palestinian land. That Mr. Putin’s historical treatment of the Ukrainian conflict should be dismissed as inappropriate to the American audience seems unrealistic to me.
LikeLike
I think that one reason for the 30 minute history lesson was to demonstrate the interviewee’s considerable intellectual capacity and ability to communicate his views at length on a complicated subject.
The difference between this man and the incoherent stutterers who represent the west would not be lost on the viewer, wherever he or she resides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that the interview was a missed opportunity to appeal directly the regular Americans. They would have been put off by the first 25 minutes, which were frankly boring. Carlson at one point mockingly said “do you think all countries have a right to go back to their 1657 borders?” or something to that effect, which would be the more typical educated American reaction. Who cares about what happened 300 years ago, or even 100 years ago, you accepted those borders just a few years ago and the world cannot fight wars to return to 1918 lines on a map.
The rest of the interview was “fine” and would go down pretty well with Americans who kept at least a little bit of an open mind. What surprised me more however is what Putin admitted or implied: he was quite ok with the draft treaties in Istanbul, which if we remember did not even settle the position of Crimea as Russian, let alone grandiose claims to Odessa, Kharkov, even Kiev. Putin did not say he would revisit those terms, but the strong implication is he would offer Ukraine quite generous terms even now from the point of view of Soloyiev for example. I also heard hints of monetary payment to Ukraine, he went on about finding some way for the west for make the loss of territory appetizing and of relations between the two countries eventually healing.
I think we are heading for a peace settlement in late 2024 and that the terms will take a lot of pro-Russians by surprise
LikeLike
Oh, and I don’t think he was trying to talk to regular Americans. He was talking to the elite. He knows which way regular Americans are going to vote. They don’t need convincing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the biggest problem for those in the US is the ability to find this site. The US propaganda machine makes it very hard. Keep up the good work.
My own opinion is that the news maker here is Mr. Putin, as his words are rarely heard in the West. Tucker did a reasonably good job, considering his background. He was wise enough to keep his mouth shut, for the most part. The prisoner bit was probably a requirement of the management.
We are so starved for information reasonably unbiased reporting in the West, that this was a big event.
We also know so little about Russian history, the backgrounder by Mr. Putin, was very useful. I thought his intent was to counter the “exceptionalist” history of the West, and place Russia as a civilization vs a newbie state. This is similar to Chinese framing.
After sitting all the way through it, I felt like I had only watched for about a half and hour, but then I’ve always enjoyed a well told story, and fortunately or not, do not have the attention span of a cricket.
My opinion of Mr. Putin is neither here nor there, but I am motivated by the survival of my children.
LikeLike
There’s another reason the 1,000-year history is important: there is no independent polity or country in it called Ukraine. There are Poles, there are Lituanians, etc. But there is no internationally recognized country of Ukraine that once existed and was lost, like Bohemia, like Burgundy, like Aragon, like the Kingdom of Naples, like the Kongdom of Leon, Navarre, etc. And this is perfectly consistent with the West’s own historic record.
LikeLike
Very good and important point.
LikeLike
“By its nature, a website like mine attracts a goodly number of Russia-cheerleaders who don’t want to hear any sour notes. Many of these folks know little or nothing about Russia and rely on guesswork that ignores highly relevant facts available to Russia speakers”.
Don’t know if my comment on the original post was judged to be “Russia-cheerleading”, and yes, I admit, I’m not a “Russia” speaker, but I was addressing how the interview might be received by an American audience, in particular the elite decision makers. I was born here 60 years ago and have lived here all my life, so I think I’m qualified to opine on the topic. And hopefully, as a regular reader of your blog, as well as years of reading people like Stephen Cohen, I do know a little something about Russia.
LikeLike
Every day, there are more and more people who are interested in working from home. They either aim for a better work-life balance or want to start their own business to increase their earning potential. w There are many job options available online, and it is important to do your research so you can decide which is the best fit for you. In this article, we will explore a list of potential make money from home jobs.
Here…. https://WorkBalance11.blogspot.com
LikeLike
As a German, I was struck by two details of Putin’s historical statements. 1. Poland co-operated with Hitler’s Germany to smash Czechoslovakia. 2. Hitler had tried to solve the corridor problem, the Danzig question peacefully. A peaceful solution was not possible because the Western Allies supported Poland’s nationalist regime. The Anglo-American world would be well advised to reconsider its false historiography of Germany. In any case, Germany’s withdrawal from NATO and a return to a pro-Russian policy in the spirit of Bismarck would be in the interests of our country.
LikeLike
As a born German, grown up in the sixties, now 74 years old, living again in Germany, with Australian Citizenship, I support the importance of Putin trying to explain war about Ukraine on historical grounds, without analysis of history one cannot understand present!? My view is that the AngloUS colonial empire is using Germany as second time proxy, to colonise and conquer Eurasian heartland scrupulously using bridgehead Ukraine, existential Russian borderland. At the beginning of the Second World War it was AngloUS Finance and industrial support that enabled the rise of the German Nazi dictatorship, meant to use Germany as proxy to conquer and colonise mostly Russia for its immense natural resources to be exploited by the Anglo US empire. Only after the German defeat at Stalingrad the colonial empire realised that the German Nazi Reich was failing same as Napoleon, Russia had proven to be too strong to be conquered, only then the empire withdrew support for Nazi Germany. So for me the war in Ukraine is just another attempt, possibly the last for a long time to come, of the AngloUS colonial empire, including its EU dedicated colonies, to conquer the Russian Federation through the front door, again using Nazis, this time since 1945 CIA nurtured Ukrainian Banderas, as willingly corrupt proxy, and Germany only as strongest financial supporter together with mainly US, but not actual fighting force as they failed as military force before. We shall see how history further unfolds as time is telling; I doubt though that the defeat of Eurasia is on the cards this time either!!
AS a footnote: As it was published on Social Media the interview obviously has been addressing international general public who prefer SM to MSM. So let that general public decide what they think about it all. The supposedly elite and academic „experts“ should hold back their arrogant patronage, at least this time. Anyway this interview will not change the course of history and not determine the outcome of the war in Ukraine anyway. The general SM audience has no power to exert influence in any way in this respect I believe. But time will tell, we shall see what comes of it.
LikeLike
My impression was “unprofessional”. You would expect that before such an interview Putin or someone working for him would coordinate with him how the interview should be structured. Instead I was flabbergasted when Putin started his answer to the first question with some evasive statement that he made the rules in the interview. Whatever you think of Tucker, he knows how to make interesting television. By taking over the direction of the interview Putin made it impossible for him to do that.
LikeLike