Before you watch this: a caveat---
Somewhere between the propaganda of the west and the propaganda of Russia lies the actual truth.
Only by exposing both extremes can the middle be discovered.
Stay safe folks.
The interview of the decade.
Posts
Total:
17
I'm listening to it now.
-->
@Greyparrot
привет товарищ
I don't like Putin but we have the right to know his posture.
Let's listen to him.
-->
@IlDiavolo
The last 10 minutes of the interview has the most information.
I'm pretty tired so I'll probably think of other things to say later. For now all I want to comment on is that Putin was mostly right about the facts, I mean the history was all right except for that non-sense about "Hitler had no choice" because Poland wouldn't give up Danzig.
I have no idea why he said that, it's more like a pet theory; incongruent with the rest of the framing.
The maidan coup was definitely not peaceful and definitely involved western deep state (there is a recording).
The Duchy of Kiev was part of the Russian empire for longer than Texas has been a part of the United States and they tell me it's promoting civil war to suggest Texas should be allowed to leave.
Now any talk of entitlements of an ethnicity or culture to land fall on deaf ears when it comes to me. All I care about is who is going to have a more virtuous government. Still the propagandists on the NATO side do harp on about sovereignty this and "___ people aren't they diverse and gloriously homogeneous at the same time" so Putin is responding in the same irrelevant terms.
When I say irrelevant I not only mean morally useless I also mean practically useless. The concept of sovereignty and culture-land connection has never prevented a war, never ended a war, and never will.
He was right that the Canadian parliament cheered for a nazi (like an OG nazi), and even if you say "well they didn't know that" you can't hand waive it away like that. That man was brought there and held up as a Ukrainian national hero by Ukrainians.
There are countless videos and images of neo-nazi imagery from not only the current war but the fighting in the Donbas since 2014.
If you want to criticize Putin for causing a lot of suffering for no observable gains I think that is fair, but he's not out right lying about the nazi problem.
I think the story of Ukraine at this point can be summed up like this: They were corrupt like everything post-soviet was. They got used and abused by the western deep state which includes significant corruption, violence, and propaganda to the point of an anti-democractic coup (because the deep state doesn't give a shit about democracy), at best didn't care that nazis were supporting them just to have the chance to kill people in the Donbas and at worst encouraged the nazis knowing it would maximize the chance of a major conflict.
Putin fancies himself the hero of this story and he thinks he's going to roll though Ukraine and be home by Christmas like Crimea and Georgia. It didn't work out like that, but he's not going to blink which means he's going to lose unless some major changes happen in western leadership.
I can only hope for the collapse of the deep state, it's far more dangerous than Putin's Russia to humanity, there is reason for hope here and in Europe, but that doesn't help Ukraine now and too many are dead already to let bygones be bygones. Putin gambled on a quick victory and he lost.
I hope a full throated endorsement of Putin's attack never comes, but he is an old man and soon we won't have to worry about the pride of individuals like Putin, Trump, Trudeau, or Johnson.
The only way forward and the greatest mistake we need to not make again is to rebuff Russia simply because the military industrial complex needs a reason to steal our money. You treat people like monsters, they become monsters (to you), there is nothing to lose.
Well, Putin threw some real facts, but let's be honest, this interview beneftis Putin since he said what he wanted to say.
Despite this, I would like to see the reaction of the american political elite about the deep state, which apparently is not a conspiracy theory.
It seems like Tucker's presence helped to start negotiations to free Gershkovich
Very nice to see, especially as a history buff
The only reason why Putin is not completely defeated in Ukraine is because North Korea is saving his ass.
Apparently, Ukraine cannot intercept North Korean missiles used by Russia.
-->
@Best.Korea
That is among the most ignorant comments you've ever made.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thanks. I try.
Medieval and Early Modern History
Here he implies that Ukraine isn't a state because Ukraine spent much of its history under the Tartar Yoke + Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What this neglects is that, by Putin's own admission, Kyiv/Kiev is older than (or at least achieved prominence earlier than) Moscow. The modern Russian state isn't centered in Novgorod, whereas Ukraine's capital is still Kyiv. Likewise the modern Russian state wasn't founded by Novgorod but by Moscow, which conquered Novgorod in 1478.
I'll follow up that Jewish statehood had been interrupted longer than Ukraine was under foreign rule: almost 1,900 years vs. 700-800 years. Nonetheless, many of us accept the legitimacy of Israeli statehood on the basis that Israel did exist at some point in the past, and that the Jews have a right to a homeland somewhere. There's no reason to think Ukraine has less of said right, given said facts.
Finally, even if pre-modern Ukraine had never, ever been a state, this is a spurious reason for denying Ukrainian sovereignty today. Many long-marginalized peoples have successfully formed nation-states in the past 200 years; for example, Slovakia and Latvia. What matters is that Ukraine was recognized by Russia as an independent country in the Soviet and post-Soviet eras, and said independence cannot be whimsically revoked once granted (imagine if the UK suddenly tried that with the US). And Russia claims itself to be the legal successor to the Soviet Union, meaning they're in little position to claim the Soviet Union forced anything on Russia against its will.
NATO broke its promise not to expand
IIRC this was promised by a lone diplomat who didn't have the backing of his government, much less the governments of all NATO member states, to make this claim. By Putin's admission it was never an agreement on paper, whereas the 1994 Budapest Memorandum was on paper and Russia violated it after claiming for months in advance that they would do no such thing.
Even if we accept that continuing to expand NATO was a poor way to treat Russia, Ukraine is innocent of whatever we in the West did. They did not deserve to be invaded.
NATO wouldn't let Russia join and tried to hurt Yeltsin in the 1996 elections
After just a couple of years in power, Yeltsin proved not a liberal or pro-democracy reformer but a sort of proto-Putin. He literally shelled the Russian parliament in 1993 and laid the groundwork for how Putin rules over Russia today. The values which Russia were re-embracing were antithetical to the values NATO was built to defend, so rejecting them makes sense on this ground alone. So does supporting the opposition in 1996, since a government split between different factions and competing interests would be more democratic than one with uncontested strongman rule, which would also make Russia a more successful country in the long term.
Furthermore tensions remained high throughout the 90s, with a brief nuclear scare in 1996 when a Norwegian civilian rocket flew over Russian airspace. While Yeltsin handled this well and deescalated the situation, it's clear that the period wouldn't have been ripe for a military alliance with their ex-enemies even if Russia wasn't headed down an authoritarian path.
NATO supported the Chechen rebels
This resource shows there is no evidence to support the claim. While it's understandable that the West would be sympathetic to an anti-colonial movement in the Caucasus, given that Russia is the world's last classical empire, it doesn't appear to be true that America or its allies lent material aid to them.
The US shouldn't have invaded Iraq
Tu quoque fallacy. But sure, let's talk about this.
If nothing else, the circumstances in 2003 were morally ambiguous. The country's people were starving under global sanctions, and the international community feared that Saddam Hussein might rebuild his chemical WMD stockpile at some undetermined point in the future, hence the massive effort that went into stopping him from doing so.
Ukraine, on the other hand, did nothing wrong aside from having an internal revolution that replaced a pro-Russian government with a pro-Western government. A government which then won re-election over and over again, making it legitimate even if (for the sake of argument) it wasn't at first.
NATO's missile defense system
Russia was an ally of Iran, which posed said missile threat to the West. If they didn't want the system being built they could've pressured Iran to stop what they were doing. Same goes for the West Coast missile defense system, since that was in response to North Korea, also an ally of Russia.
As for NATO not cooperating with Russia, Putin was a strongman who had invaded free Georgia by 2008. Any "cooperation" that might've potentially compromised the system when it came to an attack by Russia, a country which was a credible threat to Europe, would've been foolhardy. Integration of NATO and Russian military tech poses opportunities for Russian espionage, which is why the US was very reluctant to sell F-16s to Turkey after they acquired the S-400.
We are now ahead of the US when it comes to hypersonic missile technology
I don't believe this, given that their defense budget is a fraction of ours and given that Ukraine has been able to shoot down Kinzhal missiles on at least one occasion.
The "door to" Nato membership was opened to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008
From my understanding, at the time NATO was between cold wars and in the middle of an identity crisis, with it being somewhat unclear why they should continue to exist without a clear enemy. They'd come to view it not just as a military alliance but as a sort of pan-Western civilizational project like the EU. Meaning it wasn't purely for military reasons that said invitation was extended. Likewise, the War on Terror was ongoing so if Ukraine joined it would've meant more bodies to throw at clearing booby-trapped houses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Still, it's understandable why Russia didn't take this well. I'll grant Putin that. But I think it was a long shot in any event, given that frigging Sweden almost didn't make the cut.
Euromaidan was an illegal coup
No, it was a popular uprising (less than a civil war) because Yanukovych chose economic partnership with Russia over the EU. Given how much of a bigger market the EU is compared to Russia, and how much more lucrative that partnership would've been, it's easy to see why. Ukraine was dirt poor after centuries of being yoked to Russia and Yanukovych was squandering what might've been their best chance to rapidly develop.
This didn't involve the military overthrowing Yanukovych. The people brought the country to the point of unrest in order to pressure the parliament to impeach Yanukovych. Which the Ukrainian parliament did, legally. After this the pro-Russian party stupidly boycotted the next wave of elections, which only served to let a pro-Western government get voted in.
Aside from the fact of ordinary people rioting (which people do in all countries), there was nothing illegal about the whole process.
Euromaidan was orchestrated by the West
The West did not magically brainwash 45,000,000 Ukrainians, without which Euromaidan would've been impossible.
Euromaidan was unfavorable to Russia
True, but Russia's response was vastly disproportionate.
There was a threat to Crimea and Donbass
No there was not. Not until Russia brought in little green men and started a war.
Well it’s obvious which Dart participants have a soft spot for Vladimir.
GP and ADOL are obviously commies.
Anyway, that was the first 50 minutes in a nutshell. I'm not sure if I'll watch the rest.
-->
@Swagnarok
Yeah, the 1st hour was clearly geared toward his echo chamber.
-->
@Swagnarok
Even if we accept that continuing to expand NATO was a poor way to treat Russia, Ukraine is innocent of whatever we in the West did. They did not deserve to be invaded.
Iraq and Afghanistan despite the 9/11 attackers being Arabian.
Speaking of which:
The US shouldn't have invaded IraqTu quoque fallacy. But sure, let's talk about this.
No it's not a fallacy. Tu quoquo refers to an attack on an argument. All ducks are birds, all birds are dinosaurs, so all ducks are dinosaurs = a valid syllogism. Claiming it's invalid because "You didn't admit a crocodile was a dinosaur" would be Tu quoque
When someone accuses you of behaving improperly pointing out contradictions in your moral theory is entirely appropriate and not fallacious in the slightest. Note there is a difference between "You claim that scenario is different but it isn't" and "You didn't act according to your claimed morals".
If NATO said "Yes well Iraq was a totally illegal war that violates our moral principles, we made an oopsie" that would be a hard pill to swallow and detract from credibility, but it wouldn't be fatal to the advanced moral theory. In other words it is not fallacious to say "Do X, even if I err by failing to do X".
That is not the case here. NATO countries admit no wrong doing by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also note that NATO's implicit moral framework is not my moral framework. I'm merely making a point about who is committing fallacies and who isn't.
Ukraine, on the other hand, did nothing wrong aside from having an internal revolution that replaced a pro-Russian government with a pro-Western government.
There was a mini-war in the Donbas with nazis fighting. They are accused of atrocities (and it doesn't take much to make that believable, 'nazis').
Now you can claim that Russia started that by arming locals and/or sending in their own agents undercover; but the relevance cannot be sidestepped. You just used people suffering as a justification for invading Iraq.
Euromaidan was an illegal coupNo, it was a popular uprising
Uprisings are always illegal.
The people brought the country to the point of unrest in order to pressure the parliament to impeach Yanukovych.
Sounds like a Jan 6 that worked. Regardless of its legality (which in the long run is irrelevant) the deep state was involved, again, there is a recording of them talking about filling Ukrainian high offices as if they were picking condiments for a burger.
The West did not magically brainwash 45,000,000 Ukrainians, without which Euromaidan would've been impossible.
Well apparently Trump can magically brainwash millions of people by himself. A more mature analysis shows that manipulation must always work with the pre-existing fault lines of the population.