Dear Tucker,
There doesn’t seem to be any place on your network to leave actual comments. My friend lives down the road in Andover ME and he knows some guy who knows you. So I gave this to him and he said he can get it delivered. Here’s hoping.
Anyway I want to start out by saying your astounding interview in my opinion has brought to the world an example of statesmanship like we haven’t seen in this country, perhaps since the time of JFK. You yourself are a true patriot and obviously one of the last people left capable of investigative journalism, outlawed as it is today. The amount of courage and selfless initiative it took you to set up that meeting has not gone unappreciated by the real citizens of this country.
When I see the vilification heaped on you by legacy media, both before and after the interview, well you can really take all that as just an affirmation of the value and potential of your achievement. You’ve dared to deliver what corporate media may not do, and will not do – pierce the carefully constructed propaganda veil that reinforces the obsolete Cold War mythology that Russia’s raison d’etre is to conquer the world, starring Putin as Darth Vader, etc. Most Americans really believe that – consciously and subconsciously.
Why wouldn’t they? What else do they have to go on?
The managing editors across the board may not evince their secret admiration and jealousy toward you. No – all they’re allowed to disseminate is their high-school-girl little barbs about how you’re Putin’s new shill and betrayer of America, etc. Just because you actually went out and accomplished this sterling example of authentic journalism, something they would never dream of. How dare you do their job…
Their insults are really left-handed compliments, if you think about it. You have done what all politicians, except perhaps for Trump, have been afraid to do for years — you finally opened the long-forbidden dialogue with one of the major powers in the world. And that is just not permitted, except by our own inert, dystopian state department.
The format you chose allowed Putin to present himself to the world in one of his genuine roles – as a scholar and academic, a global statesman with a long-frustrated desire for open negotiations and discourse with the West, unfiltered by politicians and corporate media. Since you’re not a politician, and had an IQ above room temperature, you were no threat. He didn’t worry about clashing with your vested opinions or whatever, as he might with Trump, for example. He fell naturally into the role of professor, and was very patient in laying out the historical backdrop, which he regarded as critically essential for understanding the interview.
I think you might agree that here was a guy who’s used to being misrepresented and not listened to his entire life, especially by the West, and so here was a rare opportunity to speak directly to us through you, without the cloudy filter of fake news. And so the dam burst and he just unloaded on you. Mostly to our benefit.
It seemed that you were a bit nonplussed from the start when he launched into his historical summary, especially when he had said it was going to just be for “one minute,” and then it lasted a half hour. The way you looked at him for that entire exposition, the expression on your face – you had this frozen scowl with furrowed brow and you never blinked the whole time. It was hilarious, Tucker, no offense. It reminded me of a dog watching a fishtank. You expressed no affect, and never once nodded or indicated you had the slightest idea what he was saying – none of the usual responses associated with human conversation.
It was mystifying to me what that expression might betoken – at first I thought you were jet lagged, although I was disabused of that idea with your 10 minute wrap-up in the anteroom. And then I thought you might be mad at him for rambling on and on when he had said it was only going to be a minute … And then there was the possibility that you were intimidated in this alien environment there in the Kremlin, sitting across from a world ruler who’s looking right at you, speaking Russian, while you’re forced to listen to the simultaneous translator. That must have been disorienting in itself – trying to concentrate and comprehend what this alien Caucasian was saying. You really were inscrutable during that time, and we have no idea what was going through your head. You didn’t really address it in the Beck interview.
That history lecture I’m sure will have a lasting place in Speeches of the World in some archive – not only with Russian experts but with any academic specializing in global politics. Only a Russian scholar could have taken in all that information so fast, and we are so grateful that your presence evoked it in the first place, and then that your network provides a transcription. So thank you for enduring it!
I’ve watched the whole thing 3x now and read the transcription. Am still undecided about Putin’s real objective for that 30-minute soliloquy.
At first I thought the reason he went into all this detail was that he was correctly presuming Americans’ general ignorance about Russia, and he didn’t want to be going into a discussion of Ukraine’s current position without his listeners having a bare modicum of historical context. Which no American has. And authority that he is — maybe this was his idea of the minimum background if we’re even going to pretend to have an intelligent dialogue about the current situation in Ukraine.
All the historical minutiae, like with Runik and Oleg, and Catherine the Great, etc. certainly seemed extraneous to our ears. But perhaps it was important for Putin to let us know that Russia started as a single state and then 1000 years ago began breaking into various fragments and permutations. Like after Genghis Khan conquered Ukraine, which then gravitated back to Moscow, and then fragmenting again, etc. But with a common language and religion (Eastern Orthodox) he’s telling us that they’ve still always been one people all along – common heritage, common religion, common culture, right?
And so maybe Putin was not really being pedantic or ostentatious here, letting us know that he could recite all these details from memory. Rather for a man with his academic background as a lawyer, PhD in economics, moving in the highest circles of Russian society all his life – always in the shadow of Dostoyevski, Mussorgsky, Tolstoy – all that – this historical narrative he is delivering is just the briefest summary of Russia’s relation to Ukraine, told in the lexicon of Putin’s natural milieu. This wasn’t some grad school lecture. This was his life – a living history.
But then after listening to a few others, now I’m also considering that he might have been pimping you a little. After ascertaining your degree in history, he’s going to show you what a real history lesson sounds like from a Russian oligarch, etc. And a little pedantry never hurts. Who knows?
Giving him every benefit of the doubt though, looking it over in hindsight, in one aspect we have to appreciate its elegance and brilliance. Obviously you were getting frustrated when you interrupted to ask what century the Polish colonization of Ukraine was. And when he told you he was only up to the 13th century, then you became really impatient and demanded to know how any of this was “relevant to what happened two years ago.”
Now that right there Tucker seemed a bit like bad manners. This wasn’t some press conference with Biden’s pre-hominid kewpie doll. This one was one of the world’s living experts on Russia. Right here you seemed to imply that you weren’t listening or understanding the point of his exposition, because this indeed WAS the complete historical rationale for the entire Ukraine pageant of the past two years. This WAS the answer and it almost seemed you couldn’t be bothered to listen to it. And attendance at a scholarly lecture always requires patience and concentration, etc.
But Putin wasn’t insulted, he wasn’t miffed, and without even a hint of condescension, but with infinite patience, he gently continued your lesson for today.
So he briefly finished up with the Polish War and then went into WWI and WWII and Ukraine’s involvement. And then he did go a bit off the reservation when he started talking about East Prussia and Konigsberg, etc. But you brought him back on track with your question about Ukraine being part of Russia all that time so why didn’t he just take it back when he became president 24 years ago.
Now that was your first good question. Because now he’s going to begin to explain what no American “journalists” or any American has a clue about – how Russia’s choices with Ukraine have been dictated all along by the interaction between the CIA and KGB, which he calls “Special Services.” And how his intentions and attempts at rapprochement and negotiation with the West have always been ridiculed and discarded.
First, in 1939 Hitler was trying to be friendly with Russia because he was just starting out and certainly didn’t need an enemy as big as Russia interfering with his planned invasion of Poland. So Hitler gave back to Russia most of the Ukraine at that time. Which was mostly fine with the Ukraines, given the choice. Russia was then the USSR.
Which arrangement persisted after WW2 was over. Of course there were problems with the Ukraine being given additional border areas which were made part of the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under the USSR. You referred to this in your Hungary question, which really seemed like more of a digression than anything that pertained to the present interview. Guess you were just trying to keep your hand in. Putin didn’t take the bait but brought the discussion back to the end of the USSR in 1991.
Next Putin reminds us that Russia encouraged the dissolution of the USSR. He continued the informative discussion about the cultural interrelationships between Russia and Ukraine after 1991: family interrelationships, common language, common history, common religion, etc. Russia’s new attitude was to de-emphasize divisions among all the original members of the USSR, not just Ukraine. And he explains that Russia did this in order to invite dialogue and cooperation with the West and with NATO.
And then as you pointed out, the opposite happened. And when you asked him why, he responded that America tricked Russia by promising NATO would never expand. Which it did five times – each time a threat to Russia, going back on our word. And Russia never objected because they were still hoping for better relationships with the West.
Who knew that? Good question!
And then he reminds us of another reason for Russia’s estrangement from the West – when we bombed Yugoslavia in 1998, in violation of all our previous agreements. So everything was pushed back to square one, as far as US / Russia relations.
When Russia protested what did we do? Threw out all previous agreements, including the UN charter. Square One.
And that was when Putin asked Bill Clinton if Russia could possibly join NATO. The answer was no. How’s that for international statesmanship? Think about it – the purpose of NATO is to protect against Russian expansion. If we let Russia into NATO – no need for NATO! Which has been true all along. So Putin is just recounting decades of being slapped in the face with every attempt at reconciliation.
Can anybody deny any of this?
They have half our population and 5x our resources. All they ever wanted was a place at the table, a little respect. We have everything to gain by improving relations with them. But we ignorantly and rigidly cling to our benighted 50s mythology. Arms merchants always dictate US policy, right?
You asked: ‘Would you have joined NATO,” etc. Putin answered in the affirmative.
Then you said to him:
-
“you’re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?”
Jesus, Tucker. Wow. Those are questions for him to ask, aren’t they? You’re an American, part of the West. And you’re asking him?? Obviously, it was just a continuation of America’s whole Cold War /evil Russia we-will bury-you mythology – attitude toward Russia since the 50s. Remember? That’s always been our default – hey, it still is! That’s what this whole interview is about. Seemed like you were playing the disingenuous role there for some reason.
Then we see the world-class statesmanship and sophistication kick in again – a type of response utterly outside the American ambassadorial toolbox. Again, he was not insulted but took you at your word and answered directly: ‘why would I guess what motivates the West? What would I learn that America had not already made crystal clear to me?’
I mean that’s what he’s just been talking about for the last 15 minutes – how every single gesture by Russia towards reconciliation since The Paris Peace treaties has been rebuffed and thrown back in their face. And how Russia’s policies right up to the present have been the direct result of our actions towards them.
He then continues to recount how Russia’s patience with the West still did not falter and they continued to suffer each insult in silence and continued to make overtures of better cooperation, etc. We can’t fault him on this, can we? He’s the one who continues to recognize the critical importance for the world’s two greatest superpowers to collaborate somehow instead of just antagonizing each other. Incontrovertibly, it has always been the US default posture to reinforce alienation. So who is showing diplomatic sophistication there?
Putin resumes his narrative of his perception of our mutual interaction, now up to 2008 with the CIA’s continual attempts to undermine and overthrow Russia whenever possible. And he recounts his meeting with Bush Sr when Putin asked if they could work together to come up with a mutual global strategy regarding missile defense, etc. And Bush expressed genuine interest. But was immediately thwarted by his old cronies at the CIA, and the usual rejection ensued.
Who remembers all this today? This is living history, right there on TCN! Excellent work!
That brings us to the coup in Ukraine in 2014. Which again was choreographed by the CIA and worked to Russia’s detriment at every turn. And the confusion and violence that followed disrupted any semblance of a balance of power that had existed. Further complicated by Crimea’s decision to rejoin Russia and all the consequences that brought …. the appearance of Russian troops within Ukraine and the military actions that followed.
And how things continued to be at sixes and sevens right up until the new hostilities in 2022.
Putin then brings up the importance of de-nazification with respect to Ukraine.
Seems like we forget that Russia lost 27 million people in stopping Hitler, and also lost millions in war reparations we promised them but never paid. Putin doesn’t mention this, but their opposition to Nazi ideals, which we seem to have forgotten about, is much more vital to Russia, especially seeing residual nazi influences throughout Ukraine.
The Nazis never invaded American soil. Russia has a much better memory of Nazi behavior than we do, and any trace of that ideology will always be a major sticking point for any type of policy change. Which is why Putin was appalled at the Ukraine president being applauded that time by Canada, the president having himself fought for Nazi ideals. This was insupportable for Putin.
Can anyone think that was unreasonable?
It was during his rather confusing discussion of WWII Naziism that you pointed out that Hitler had been dead for 80 years. Which brought the interview back on point.
Things got further complicated when Ukraine’s puppet president issued a ban on any negotiations or peace talks with Russia! Which means he’s limiting resolution of the Ukraine war to military conflict. So who are the warmongers here?
And that’s when you correctly connected that decision with the US. But then you asked has he called Joe Biden lately?
The connection was correct but your question was a bit sophomoric, don’t you think? He had just finished telling you how every single effort towards rapprochement with the US and the West for many years had been ignored and rebuffed. So again it seemed a bit disrespectful and almost mocking to ask him has he called Joe lately.
Forget the fact that Biden likely couldn’t find Russia on a map. But you expect Putin to pretend that Biden is calling any shots with respect to our Ukraine policy – or has curated any of our actions all along? Again it seemed a bit unrealistic to expect him to take that question seriously.
And then when Putin relented and actually told you about the last time he talked to Biden, you asked him for Biden’s reply!
That was bold, but not in a good way. What did you think – that you had just come up with this brilliant idea for ending the Ukraine war by suggesting to the president of Russia something he’s never ever thought of before – to pick up the phone and call Joe Biden? Wow. Pick up the phone and call Joe… What a brilliant insight! Why didn’t I think of that….?
Trippy. All the stoners listening loved that, Tucker, I’m sure.
But this brought up a key point then: Putin summarized what he’s been saying to the US through all the “agencies” since 2022:
-
“If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks.”
There it is – one of the most significant statements of the entire interview – precisely what Trump’s been saying. It’s very consistent – all Russia’s reactions have been directed by actions of the US. Every one. Putin has a very strong case here, wouldn’t you agree?
So thinking about calling Biden, etc. is a waste of time and just theoretical daydreaming. Both sides already know each other’s positions – very well. No need for casual phone calls. Our actions have spoken quite clearly, over and over: Let it be war, though the heavens fall.
Here was where you guys finally began to dialogue, and you were at your best. When you started asking about NATO, and his intentions for invading NATO countries, etc. And this led to another key feature of the whole interview, right? Territorial expansion. Putin seemed actually amused that he would have to explain that he has no intentions to invade Poland or anywhere else, because why would they do that? What would they have to gain?
They are the largest country on earth, with abundant resources and a robust economy: #1 in Europe. Invasion offers no percentage to them. Putin’s only going to fight wars that he gets dragged into by the West’s actions. Wars that he’s going to win. Like this one.
It’s so logical, and simplicity itself to hear him explain that. And it comes as a relief to our ears because it just goes back to the standard American default, hammered home by all our stultified E. L. Bernays American media since the 50s – the evil Russian bogeyman is going to bury you, etc. And the Bernays axiom: the purpose of government/media is to identify the enemy.
And then Putin correctly names the architects of this permanent portrayal of the evil Russia and their constant threat of invasion: the American war merchants. Why?
-
“in order to extort additional money from U.S. taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia…”
Against a statesman of this calibre, we look like petulant children, don’t you think Tucker? I don’t mean to be romanticizing him here, because of course he’s a killer. He’s responsible for untold thousands of deaths. No less than Obama, Biden, and Bush. But as you said in one of your follow-up interviews, at this level all country leaders are killers.
But Putin is unique in that for once we get to see what an articulate, highly educated, historically-grounded world-class statesman actually looks like. We have nothing to compare to this guy, do we? Name one, at Putin’s level in the US. Name one US statesman at all. Maybe hidden away somewhere in some university some genius is hiding, but no one who would ever advance in US politics or have a voice in corporate media.
So in my opinion this is another of the most significant achievements of this interview – you have shown the world what a true statesman looks like. A rare bird indeed. Thank you.
Next was your very good question about Schumer and the other cretins saying that we have to keep funding Ukraine or else American soldiers will end up fighting there…
That prompted Putin to respond with great clarity and authority. Talking about don’t we have anything better to do, with our border problem and our $33T debt, etc. And why don’t we just negotiate with them …
Why do you have to fly halfway around the world to find a world leader who makes sense? Why don’t our leaders talk like this?
Who blew up NordStream ? That was great, Tucker. Don’t sugarcoat it like that, right?
“You for sure” right back at you.
Then Putin brings up the folly of our posture toward China, the same boogeyman mythology, which works ultimately to our own disadvantage economically, etc. Especially since Russian trade with China has played out well for both sides. Very intelligently stated, facts at his fingertips. Who in America could just elaborate something like that?
Short discussions like this just underline how provincial Washington really is, how they’re too stupid to be working toward the improvement of international trade to our advantage. It’s embarrassing.
“Pressure” is Putin’s word to describe all the vapid policies of America toward Russia – actions which drive them to responses. Arming Ukraine, setting up a puppet government with a mindless thug as “president,” missile defense systems, all these things that Russia wants to dialogue about, always falling on deaf ears. So then the only thing they can do is act. And their acts are merely responses to our refusal to negotiate with them at all. Pressure, pressure, pressure. That’s how Russia sees us.
And if we’re talking about reasonable diplomacy, who can argue with this guy? What American leaders have spoken in such a forthcoming way with the ultimate objective of improved international relations? No one.
So unusual to see a political figure speaking in which every word is not some lie, or some flaccid attempt at sales or persuasion, like every word we see coming out of Washington. This man doesn’t talk like the usual bumbling weasels we get on MSNBC, and in our government. We’re not used to it. This man has actually studied the issues and he’s not trying to sell us anything. He doesn’t need us. He doesn’t fear us. And he’s not trying to save us.
Your question about Orthodox was very curious – like you never heard of the Great Schism a thousand years ago between the Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox, but both still being Christians. And that’s one of the things that unify Russian people despite regional differences. I didn’t get why you even brought it up or how it relates to the objective of the interview.
But then you made a curious statement when you said that Christianity is a nonviolent religion. We don’t have to look at history very hard to see that’s not true. From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to Bloody Mary, Spain violently imposing Christianity on all of South America, countless European wars over religion, etc., many with Christians on both sides both invoking the same God for victory… Don’t even know why you brought it up but it is certainly untenable at face value. Historically, turning the other cheek has never been popular.
And then you went even farther afield with the AI question. What did that have to do with US / Russian diplomacy? What’s next – the weather?
Then you asked for Gershkovich’s release. A very worthy question, though you were probably surprised to find out Putin knew a little more than you did about that guy’s situation. It was a lively discussion and you held your own, and even though it looked like it wasn’t going your way, at the end Putin seemed to indicate that it could be worked out with the “Special Services” / KGB. Was that the impression you got?
I was wondering – in the time you two had alone outside the interview does Putin speak English?
Then you asked the question about Ukraine leading to nuclear war. I guess that was a leading question and always something in the back of every American’s mind when talking about Russia.
And that’s when Putin correctly described Ukraine now as a satellite state of the US, after we gave them $72B. And then Biden forbidding any peace negotiations. It’s blatantly obvious which side is pushing towards nuclear war. Goes back to Putin’s remarks at the beginning of the interview talking about who really determines war policy: the arms merchants. He’s right there – if we’re going to talk turkey, let’s talk turkey.
Then you said: “So I just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying. I don’t think that I am. I think you’re saying you want a negotiated settlement to what’s happening in Ukraine.”
That was kind of cute and I don’t know if it was some kind of East coast sarcasm I’m not familiar with. I mean dude, you’ve been talking to a guy for 2 hours who’s just told you about 50 times that all Russia has ever wanted to do is negotiate with America. Being thwarted at every turn. But he then politely reiterated his position one more time, with feeling.
And then suddenly – it’s over.
What an experience! Again, congratulations, Tucker. I can’t begin to tell you how grateful real Americans are for all your efforts here. You are a true patriot, like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. No doubt this is one of the most notable pieces of investigative journalism since … when?
I think you surpassed your original goals, since you successfully let one of the most censored, mischaracterized statesmen in the world today speak directly to the world, unfiltered, uncensored. Nobody but you could have accomplished that. You have accepted your place in history.
And then your other goal was to let Putin express his intentions about territorial expansion, which he addressed most thoroughly. Those two points, more than justified the entire interview, don’t you think? Despite what all the autistic Monday Morning quarterbacks are saying.
I watched a lot of fake news videos trashing you. Really stupid simians mostly, who obviously only watched little clips of the interview, if any. Predictable responses from a lazy, entitled, virtually obsolete profession – investigative journalism. They pretend that you’re presenting Moscow like it’s Las Vegas, and saying that Russia is the country of the future, and we should all move there, just because they have one pretty train station, etc. But here you are – a leader in their field who had just accomplished something that none of them could have done in a million years. So it’s jealousy, and envy, and that translates into invective and ad hominem attacks – their only tools.
I heard Putin the next day after the interview, saying the interview was much lighter than he expected. Expected more hard-hitting questions… blah blah. Seemed a bit ungracious, to say the least – you just gave Putin a valuable gift that no one else could offer – a direct, unfiltered platform from which to address the people of the world, allowing him to talk as long as he wanted, saying anything he wanted. And it‘s now available unedited to the whole world. How can he complain about that?
You carried no notes or anything into the interview. Was that a rule? If so, I would have liked to have written a couple questions on your cuff:
-
Why did you destroy all those BioWeapons labs in the Ukraine?
Do you see any connection with Tony Fauci?
Can you say something about that?
Now I did see at least two good videos supporting you. Michael Knowles in his “8 minute summary of the Putin Interview.” It is hilarious and very good. Don’t miss it. Also there’s this guy named John Doyle who gave a long-winded accolade to you. Only watch the last 15 minutes – it’s quite good: “5 Missed Ways Putin Hinted at How America ACTUALLY Works”
Excellent job also with your recent interview with Surgeon General Dr Joe Ladapo. We need that guy in Washington! I’ve had that research for years (see enclosed).
Apologize for my longwindedness here, Tucker. Putin’s rubbing off on me. Keep up the great work.
Now go walk the dogs!
Best regards,
Tim O’Shea
7 Mar 2024
408.600.7521
doc77777@gmail.com
