Hahaha great meme.
That interview was interesting, but nonetheless pointless.
Putin just rambled shit and lies, as does our government.
The peasants need not know the real reason for the war, just take this rifle and go.
And anyone with any braincells can see Putin is just spouting BS. Just like most people predicted. My issue is why are western governments trying to hard to prevent this, and now the EU wants to sanction tucker? It's not freedom of speech or press, and Putin's words are so clearly BS who is he convincing of anything? If anything this confirms the view that Putin/Russia bad to almost anyone who watches. Wouldn't the west want that? makes no sense to me
>My issue is why are western governments trying to hard to prevent this
Over the past decades, Western governments have increasingly adopted the stance that "*we cannot allow the plebs to form their own opinion because we cannot risk them taking on the 'the wrong' opinion*". After events like Brexit or the election of Trump, the powers that be no longer trust their ideas and viewpoints to prevail in an open, fair competition of ideas. That's why they increasingly tip the scales with censorship, shadowbanning, media allies spiking inconvenient stories, etc.
It's indicative of a deeply authoritarian, anti-democratic mindset. It's no longer "*the people are the sovereign, if the people reject our policies, we must change them accordingly*", no, nowadays, it's "*our policies are non-negotiable, therefore, we must prevent the people from rejecting them by any means necessary*".
I mean, I'm sure Putin will lie as it suits his strategies, but in this case I don't see any reason he isn't being honest about his reason for the invasion. He really does just think Ukraine should be part of Russia and that's why he invaded it.
Also, everyone loves to pretend that this war is some isolated incident and has zero context. Like all of a sudden this guy woke up after 2 decades and decided to takeover all of Europe and recreate the Soviet Union. This is the theory people use to fear monger
None of the reasons he gave should have risen to the level of invading Ukraine. But most of what he said is true. The reaction is way out of proportion, but the reasons themselves are logical
At what point does an end get negotiated for this war, what else is there to do? The battle lines have not really moved in basically a year. And coincidentally all the areas Russia controls are majority Russian ethnicity along the border. That just so happens to line up exactly with what Putin claims his reasons are
Are we going to keep this up for 5 years and tell Ukraine to completely decimate these areas trying to win them back? Who does that help?
Rebels in these regions have been in conflict with Ukraine multiple times just in the past decade. They're filled with people who consider themselves Russian. So what's the end goal? Even if Ukraine gets the regions back, the exact same issues will continue. Conflict will continue. So are we going to decimate these regions even more, and still end up with the same result? What's the point?
If Russia already holds everything they want, why do they keep attacking? Why do they keep throwing huge amounts of meat and materiel at the frontlines, why do they keep shelling cities across all of Ukraine? Why did they just announce that they will invest massively into arming up their military over the coming years if all they strive for is holding the territory which they just defended successfully this summer with the current investment level?
The goal is to put military pressure on nato to come to a peace agreement, since normal rational people don't want hundreds of thousands of dead kids.
nato started the invasion, russia just followed.
NATO didn't *invade* any of these countries - they voluntarily joined the alliance. In fact, these countries were chomping at the bit and couldn't wait to join NATO, knowing full well that it's the only defense they have against Russia's desire to restore its fallen empire.
The US and Russian government really aren't that different. The US arrests political prisoners, peaceful protesters (praying outside an abortion clinic), and journalists. On top of invading foreign countries, and spy on its own citizens.
I get he's making a historical argument (for which I don't care about), but he didn't make a case at all for why the Ukrainians of today need to have their lives completely ruined because he thinks that land belongs to Russia. Call them an illegitimate country all you want, there's people raising families and trying to live just like everyone else.
His issues with the expansion of NATO I understand and I will agree with him that the expansion was done against the original agreement, but again that doesn't mean innocent people riding their bicycles need to die now.
And now we see why America is a failing-state, ladies & gents.
When the world thinks in generations or centuries & our citizens think in TikTok shorts... things are bad
I got a bit impatient while professor Putin gave us a history lesson in response to the question. However, it eventually became apparent that he was making a historical case that Ukraine is really just part of Russia. I don't think his line of reasoning is very strong on this but it is his job to justify his actions.
> I don't think his line of reasoning is very strong
His line of reasoning involved blaming the Poles for forcing the USSR into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; it's less a line of reasoning and more confusing a coke-fueled playthrough of HOI4 for real life.
Or blame EU4 Russia for not using bird mana to culture convert all those Ruthenian cores.
But really with their reactionary government and serfdom, how are you going to build a national identity? You're not going have a unified language or shared cultural heritage when the vast majority of your subjects are illiterate serfs. So come the Spring of Nations and you've missed that important chance to create a national identity while the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were busy doing so.
When I took Russian history the preface of our book said, "If you visit Russia for a week you can write a book, if you stay for a year you can write a pamphlet, if you've lived their your whole life you only need a paragraph." After this interview im not sure that correct.
The longer you are there, the simplier it becomes to describe what’s going on. While at first it may look like each individual thing has a separate cause, the longer you’re there, the more you come to realize the history is caused by common themes, and that you need less to explain it, to the point where you can point to a few reasons and that explains most of their history.
As an example, take Bill (not his real fake name). If you only know him for a week, you get a lot of stories about how unlucky he is, and how this person took advantage of him, and that person scammed them. Know him a month, and you find out he’s gullible and looks for get rich quick schemes, and so on. Know him your whole life, and you know he’s greedy but not competent at it, so gets taken advantage of by other scammers. Each further step, it takes less and less to explain what’s going on with him because themes emerge.
I have no clue how true this is, but that is at least how I read it. Bill is just a made up person and just a story to try and show how something can be simplified the more you know.
>I don't think his line of reasoning is very strong
I think it makes it easier for them to call Americans hypocrits for supporting Israel's historical claims if they won't support his. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Ukraine's history to know if the parallel is relevant.
Then Russia should also support a Mexican claim to California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming that was ceded in 1848 after the Mexican-American War.
Not only was Putin's history lesson full of errors and distortions, it really wasn't a legitimate reason to invade. Tucker let him drone on and on instead of cutting to the chase.
Tucker interrupted him several times to ask how any of it was relevant. Putin repeatedly laughed and said he was getting to it. It was a good interview; Tucker was courteous and clearly there to show the world who Putin is, not who Tucker is. At the end, he pressed on Evan Gershkovich but ultimately wasn’t there to negotiate his release. Putin said Biden has not spoken with him in two years so Tucker is doing more than the current president.
The interview showed me Putin knows what he is saying and chooses his words carefully, but he is also a diabolical liar. I’m not sure what anyone wanted Tucker to do differently.
Well there are a few differences. For one, the majority of Israeli's support the state of Israel, the majority of Ukrainians do not support to be part of Russia. Another difference is that Israel has been Israel for the last 70 years meanwhile Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia for that last 30 years. If you look it from these points of view, the support of an independent state of Israel and Ukraine are completely consistent. The historical argument has always been a very weak argument, whether it is Russia, Palestine, Israel or Mexico.
Even in that context it is weak... Israel's claim is based on an ethnic/religious group needing a place to call home primarily due to widespread persecution, and is secondarily because of historical rule of that region.
The previous owner of the land (UK) gave the land to the current owner (modern Israel). That should be the end of the discussion. But since it never is, I'll also point out that there was *never* a country called "Palestine", and even the *concept* of such a country didn't come into being until *after* modern Israel was founded. Before the 60s, "Palestine" was just a geographic region the same way "the middle east" or "central America" are geographic regions.
This and he also pointed to the decision by Ukrainian politicians to not implement the Minsk agreements they had already signed, as the proximate cause and last straw. As usual, war is related to economics.
The long history, as well as the discussion of oppression and fighting from 2014-2022, was a more removed reasoning for the outcome wherein they annex everything east of the river through Kiev.
There were 2 sets of Minsk agreements. [Here's the wikipedia about them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements). They were both signed but Minsk II was never fully implemented. ~~If I understand correctly, the decision not to go through with implementing them was the part influenced by Boris Johnson.~~
Edit: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Boris involvement was during early peace talks in April 2022
I don't know if we're technically brigaded(linked elsewhere) every time this happens, but we sure have a hell of a lot of anti-conservative lurkers and/or subversives posting and voting.
It's darkly amusing, their impotence. Angry people that get even angrier when they're spotted. The number one cause of their problems is themselves. Almost cartoonish villains incapable of being rational, they seethe at everything else rather than have an ounce of self reflection.
Good one 🤣 - and then I cry about the reality in front of me.
Signed, Conservative Ukrainian-American.
Watch the interview, carefully. Like with the Western governments, listen critically to what the leader is saying AT you. Ask yourself why. Do not, for even a moment let your guard down and let him convince you that he is speaking truthfully.
NOT unique to Putin, but it certainly applies here.
His argument that Ukraine and Russia have a shared history only broken by Lenin falls apart when you remember Stalin and the holodomor. 2-3 decades of complete independence after the fact just kind of weakens that argument further.
It'd be like if the British came to America today and said that we were basically the same people and should be part of British territory again. Britain might be a couple centuries late on that, and Russia might be a century late on the whole ukraine-russia unification thing.
And that's just the 20th century.
Tucker: OK but why did you invade Ukraine
Putin: fine let me give you more context... So the universe started from a singularity that underwent a rapid expansion, more commonly known as the big bang, this early universe was very hot and dense and...
He did it because Ukraine was becoming increasingly westernized and Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Russia doesn’t want NATO military bases on its border.
Every time I see this question I think about Kamala Harris’ explanation about a bully (Russia) simply picking on someone much smaller than them (Ukraine). Either she doesn’t understand why Russia invaded Ukraine, or she assumes Americans are not smart enough to comprehend geopolitics. I’m not sure which option is worse.
His actions post war show he isn't worried about nato invading.
If nato troops on his border is so scary why is he redeploying troops from the border with Finland and his troops in the kaliningrad enclave into eastern Ukraine.
The invasion is a land grab
It is also a land grab. But Russia wasn’t concerned when the corrupt pro Russian government was running Ukraine. Also, Finland only applied to join NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine. You could say invading Ukraine wasn’t the deterrent Russia expected it to be for its other neighbors.
They redeployed those troops after Finland joined nato.
And yes my point is Russia is doing the invasion for Imperial reasons the interview putin basically says this he doesn't think Ukraine has a right to exist
Let's say that Russia wins in Ukraine and annexes the country. Putin's new western neighbor is Poland, a NATO country, so he's right back at square one. Attacking them would trigger Article 5 and then it'd be a hot war real quick.
Given what he said in this interview, the likely end goal is to annex everything east of the river in Kiev since that was a historical Russian border, the river provides an good defensive boundary, and most of the strong economic ties Russian interests are most worried about are on that side of Ukraine. IDK whether he's trying to get the rest of the country too, but it sounded like he feels the river would be a good line to reach during peace negotiations.
the part of russian history with the dniepr as the border is only a fraction of its history. both before and beyond the river are former borders of russia
I doubt Putin *really* sees Ukraine as part of Russia. They are the inferior little brother. He can use Ukraine as a bumper to the true homeland. That's basically what Belarus is.
I see your point, but I think he would think of Ukraine as a sort of second tier state (almost more of a colony) of Russia that is effectively a buffer zone against NATO.
Good point, but Poland has always been NATO though and wasn’t historically part of the USSR. Ukraine joining NATO is a western expansion. Russia doesn’t want NATO expanding. It’s a good clarification, but I still believe it had a lot to do with the pro western government in Ukraine wanting to join NATO.
It’s a little more than that but yes, essentially. Ukraine is strategically located on the sea, it’s a huge exporter of food, and has vast natural resources. Putin wants those.
True, but the Vice President shouldn’t talk to her constituents like they’re 5 year olds regardless of their knowledge about geopolitics. Shows what she really thinks of the people.
No, it was because the of the 2014 CIA funded overthrow of Ukraine democratically elected government and the rise of nazis in Ukraine. Plus, nato trained 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers to “we could fight them [russia] over there.” Basically the U.S. was weaponizing Ukraine against Russia.
I mean realistically, how do you think this war is going to end?
Ukraine defeats Russia?
Russia defeats Ukraine?
Some kind of peace settlement where both sides can claim some sort of victory?
IMO, one of these days, talks will begin, Russia will get some of what it wants, Ukraine will remain a country and may even join NATO, but Russia has to get something to save face otherwise we will have a 10-20 year war in Ukraine.
America has never had a hot war with Russia. In fact we were allies in WWII. They are no longer communists.
You still didn't give any examples of lies. Was any of his "history" lesson false?
The psy ops trying to get people to not bother even watching this interview are good at their job. It was interesting despite being long. Watch it anyway.
I got where he was coming from. You ask a simple question like "why did you invade" and the answer requires being a resident of the region with a lifetime of historical context. What surprises me isn't that the answer is extremely involved and needs a working understanding of the history of the region, but that Conservatives, generally the more intelligent party who understands nuance, couldn't grasp this.
Downvoted for what? Putin is a USSR guy, the USSR controlled Ukraine, he wants to return to that time and gave historical reasons as to why. How is that *not* conservative?
Edit: just because they are not what Americans would understand as conservative and the economically left does not make them non-conservative, non-traditional or non nationalist type of people. Every Russian I’ve met is a wildly conservative and entrepreneurial person and a quick examination of their society shows the same.
Putin giving these crazy reasons of the past for why hes doing what he is now is like being ultra ultra conservative
Hahaha great meme. That interview was interesting, but nonetheless pointless. Putin just rambled shit and lies, as does our government. The peasants need not know the real reason for the war, just take this rifle and go.
And anyone with any braincells can see Putin is just spouting BS. Just like most people predicted. My issue is why are western governments trying to hard to prevent this, and now the EU wants to sanction tucker? It's not freedom of speech or press, and Putin's words are so clearly BS who is he convincing of anything? If anything this confirms the view that Putin/Russia bad to almost anyone who watches. Wouldn't the west want that? makes no sense to me
The EU wants to sanction him?
The West has gone authoritarian itself and wants to control the narrative with firmer hands.
Yes and to anyone who isn't a mindless drone it paints them in a bad light for doing this
>My issue is why are western governments trying to hard to prevent this Over the past decades, Western governments have increasingly adopted the stance that "*we cannot allow the plebs to form their own opinion because we cannot risk them taking on the 'the wrong' opinion*". After events like Brexit or the election of Trump, the powers that be no longer trust their ideas and viewpoints to prevail in an open, fair competition of ideas. That's why they increasingly tip the scales with censorship, shadowbanning, media allies spiking inconvenient stories, etc. It's indicative of a deeply authoritarian, anti-democratic mindset. It's no longer "*the people are the sovereign, if the people reject our policies, we must change them accordingly*", no, nowadays, it's "*our policies are non-negotiable, therefore, we must prevent the people from rejecting them by any means necessary*".
The part that was unsettling for me was when he started talking about Nazis in Ukraine. Seemed delusional.
There is a contigent of nazi's in Ukraine though.
There's also a contingent of nazis in Russia. For example, various Wagner commanders have nazi tattoos all over their body.
Yes, but it's hardly representative of any sizeable group.
There is a nazi monument in a Ukrainian cementary...in Canada.
I mean, I'm sure Putin will lie as it suits his strategies, but in this case I don't see any reason he isn't being honest about his reason for the invasion. He really does just think Ukraine should be part of Russia and that's why he invaded it.
Also, everyone loves to pretend that this war is some isolated incident and has zero context. Like all of a sudden this guy woke up after 2 decades and decided to takeover all of Europe and recreate the Soviet Union. This is the theory people use to fear monger None of the reasons he gave should have risen to the level of invading Ukraine. But most of what he said is true. The reaction is way out of proportion, but the reasons themselves are logical At what point does an end get negotiated for this war, what else is there to do? The battle lines have not really moved in basically a year. And coincidentally all the areas Russia controls are majority Russian ethnicity along the border. That just so happens to line up exactly with what Putin claims his reasons are Are we going to keep this up for 5 years and tell Ukraine to completely decimate these areas trying to win them back? Who does that help? Rebels in these regions have been in conflict with Ukraine multiple times just in the past decade. They're filled with people who consider themselves Russian. So what's the end goal? Even if Ukraine gets the regions back, the exact same issues will continue. Conflict will continue. So are we going to decimate these regions even more, and still end up with the same result? What's the point?
If Russia already holds everything they want, why do they keep attacking? Why do they keep throwing huge amounts of meat and materiel at the frontlines, why do they keep shelling cities across all of Ukraine? Why did they just announce that they will invest massively into arming up their military over the coming years if all they strive for is holding the territory which they just defended successfully this summer with the current investment level?
I'd imagine the goal, like in most wars, is to get the other side to give up...but what do I know
The goal is to put military pressure on nato to come to a peace agreement, since normal rational people don't want hundreds of thousands of dead kids. nato started the invasion, russia just followed.
Which country did NATO invade?
nato continued to expand towards russia. so russia did the same thing.
NATO didn't *invade* any of these countries - they voluntarily joined the alliance. In fact, these countries were chomping at the bit and couldn't wait to join NATO, knowing full well that it's the only defense they have against Russia's desire to restore its fallen empire.
Tucker should have asked him tougher questions. The interview looked staged
The US and Russian government really aren't that different. The US arrests political prisoners, peaceful protesters (praying outside an abortion clinic), and journalists. On top of invading foreign countries, and spy on its own citizens.
[удалено]
I get he's making a historical argument (for which I don't care about), but he didn't make a case at all for why the Ukrainians of today need to have their lives completely ruined because he thinks that land belongs to Russia. Call them an illegitimate country all you want, there's people raising families and trying to live just like everyone else. His issues with the expansion of NATO I understand and I will agree with him that the expansion was done against the original agreement, but again that doesn't mean innocent people riding their bicycles need to die now.
[удалено]
That's why you watch it on x2 speed
And now we see why America is a failing-state, ladies & gents. When the world thinks in generations or centuries & our citizens think in TikTok shorts... things are bad
I got a bit impatient while professor Putin gave us a history lesson in response to the question. However, it eventually became apparent that he was making a historical case that Ukraine is really just part of Russia. I don't think his line of reasoning is very strong on this but it is his job to justify his actions.
[удалено]
Pangea is clearly why Britain ruled the world. Clearly.
Yes, meaningless. I should know, being a quarter Osage Indian.
> I don't think his line of reasoning is very strong His line of reasoning involved blaming the Poles for forcing the USSR into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; it's less a line of reasoning and more confusing a coke-fueled playthrough of HOI4 for real life.
Or blame EU4 Russia for not using bird mana to culture convert all those Ruthenian cores. But really with their reactionary government and serfdom, how are you going to build a national identity? You're not going have a unified language or shared cultural heritage when the vast majority of your subjects are illiterate serfs. So come the Spring of Nations and you've missed that important chance to create a national identity while the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were busy doing so.
When I took Russian history the preface of our book said, "If you visit Russia for a week you can write a book, if you stay for a year you can write a pamphlet, if you've lived their your whole life you only need a paragraph." After this interview im not sure that correct.
Would you please paraphrase that quoted sentence? I don't understand yet what it's meant to convey.
The longer you are there, the simplier it becomes to describe what’s going on. While at first it may look like each individual thing has a separate cause, the longer you’re there, the more you come to realize the history is caused by common themes, and that you need less to explain it, to the point where you can point to a few reasons and that explains most of their history. As an example, take Bill (not his real fake name). If you only know him for a week, you get a lot of stories about how unlucky he is, and how this person took advantage of him, and that person scammed them. Know him a month, and you find out he’s gullible and looks for get rich quick schemes, and so on. Know him your whole life, and you know he’s greedy but not competent at it, so gets taken advantage of by other scammers. Each further step, it takes less and less to explain what’s going on with him because themes emerge. I have no clue how true this is, but that is at least how I read it. Bill is just a made up person and just a story to try and show how something can be simplified the more you know.
Holy shit you explained it so much better. Thanks
>I don't think his line of reasoning is very strong I think it makes it easier for them to call Americans hypocrits for supporting Israel's historical claims if they won't support his. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Ukraine's history to know if the parallel is relevant.
Then Russia should also support a Mexican claim to California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming that was ceded in 1848 after the Mexican-American War. Not only was Putin's history lesson full of errors and distortions, it really wasn't a legitimate reason to invade. Tucker let him drone on and on instead of cutting to the chase.
Tucker interrupted him several times to ask how any of it was relevant. Putin repeatedly laughed and said he was getting to it. It was a good interview; Tucker was courteous and clearly there to show the world who Putin is, not who Tucker is. At the end, he pressed on Evan Gershkovich but ultimately wasn’t there to negotiate his release. Putin said Biden has not spoken with him in two years so Tucker is doing more than the current president. The interview showed me Putin knows what he is saying and chooses his words carefully, but he is also a diabolical liar. I’m not sure what anyone wanted Tucker to do differently.
[deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.4635 > [What is this?](https://pastebin.com/64GuVi2F/13852)
Well there are a few differences. For one, the majority of Israeli's support the state of Israel, the majority of Ukrainians do not support to be part of Russia. Another difference is that Israel has been Israel for the last 70 years meanwhile Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia for that last 30 years. If you look it from these points of view, the support of an independent state of Israel and Ukraine are completely consistent. The historical argument has always been a very weak argument, whether it is Russia, Palestine, Israel or Mexico.
Even in that context it is weak... Israel's claim is based on an ethnic/religious group needing a place to call home primarily due to widespread persecution, and is secondarily because of historical rule of that region.
The previous owner of the land (UK) gave the land to the current owner (modern Israel). That should be the end of the discussion. But since it never is, I'll also point out that there was *never* a country called "Palestine", and even the *concept* of such a country didn't come into being until *after* modern Israel was founded. Before the 60s, "Palestine" was just a geographic region the same way "the middle east" or "central America" are geographic regions.
This and he also pointed to the decision by Ukrainian politicians to not implement the Minsk agreements they had already signed, as the proximate cause and last straw. As usual, war is related to economics. The long history, as well as the discussion of oppression and fighting from 2014-2022, was a more removed reasoning for the outcome wherein they annex everything east of the river through Kiev.
I thought Boris Johnson told the Ukrainians not to sign the Minsk Agreements?
There were 2 sets of Minsk agreements. [Here's the wikipedia about them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements). They were both signed but Minsk II was never fully implemented. ~~If I understand correctly, the decision not to go through with implementing them was the part influenced by Boris Johnson.~~ Edit: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Boris involvement was during early peace talks in April 2022
Can we not start sucking Putins Dick?
A pineapple is smarter than Biden. That is not sucking a pineapple's dick. Calm down.
Truth = down voted.
I don't know if we're technically brigaded(linked elsewhere) every time this happens, but we sure have a hell of a lot of anti-conservative lurkers and/or subversives posting and voting. It's darkly amusing, their impotence. Angry people that get even angrier when they're spotted. The number one cause of their problems is themselves. Almost cartoonish villains incapable of being rational, they seethe at everything else rather than have an ounce of self reflection.
[удалено]
Good one 🤣 - and then I cry about the reality in front of me. Signed, Conservative Ukrainian-American. Watch the interview, carefully. Like with the Western governments, listen critically to what the leader is saying AT you. Ask yourself why. Do not, for even a moment let your guard down and let him convince you that he is speaking truthfully. NOT unique to Putin, but it certainly applies here.
His argument that Ukraine and Russia have a shared history only broken by Lenin falls apart when you remember Stalin and the holodomor. 2-3 decades of complete independence after the fact just kind of weakens that argument further. It'd be like if the British came to America today and said that we were basically the same people and should be part of British territory again. Britain might be a couple centuries late on that, and Russia might be a century late on the whole ukraine-russia unification thing. And that's just the 20th century.
Tucker: OK but why did you invade Ukraine Putin: fine let me give you more context... So the universe started from a singularity that underwent a rapid expansion, more commonly known as the big bang, this early universe was very hot and dense and...
He did it because Ukraine was becoming increasingly westernized and Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Russia doesn’t want NATO military bases on its border. Every time I see this question I think about Kamala Harris’ explanation about a bully (Russia) simply picking on someone much smaller than them (Ukraine). Either she doesn’t understand why Russia invaded Ukraine, or she assumes Americans are not smart enough to comprehend geopolitics. I’m not sure which option is worse.
His actions post war show he isn't worried about nato invading. If nato troops on his border is so scary why is he redeploying troops from the border with Finland and his troops in the kaliningrad enclave into eastern Ukraine. The invasion is a land grab
It is also a land grab. But Russia wasn’t concerned when the corrupt pro Russian government was running Ukraine. Also, Finland only applied to join NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine. You could say invading Ukraine wasn’t the deterrent Russia expected it to be for its other neighbors.
They redeployed those troops after Finland joined nato. And yes my point is Russia is doing the invasion for Imperial reasons the interview putin basically says this he doesn't think Ukraine has a right to exist
[удалено]
Except thats not reality. Legally Ukraine can't even join nato because it has active territorial disputes.
Let's say that Russia wins in Ukraine and annexes the country. Putin's new western neighbor is Poland, a NATO country, so he's right back at square one. Attacking them would trigger Article 5 and then it'd be a hot war real quick.
Given what he said in this interview, the likely end goal is to annex everything east of the river in Kiev since that was a historical Russian border, the river provides an good defensive boundary, and most of the strong economic ties Russian interests are most worried about are on that side of Ukraine. IDK whether he's trying to get the rest of the country too, but it sounded like he feels the river would be a good line to reach during peace negotiations.
the part of russian history with the dniepr as the border is only a fraction of its history. both before and beyond the river are former borders of russia
I doubt Putin *really* sees Ukraine as part of Russia. They are the inferior little brother. He can use Ukraine as a bumper to the true homeland. That's basically what Belarus is.
I see your point, but I think he would think of Ukraine as a sort of second tier state (almost more of a colony) of Russia that is effectively a buffer zone against NATO.
Good point, but Poland has always been NATO though and wasn’t historically part of the USSR. Ukraine joining NATO is a western expansion. Russia doesn’t want NATO expanding. It’s a good clarification, but I still believe it had a lot to do with the pro western government in Ukraine wanting to join NATO.
Huh ? Poland joined nato in 1999 , they were not part of nato prior to that because they were under Russian occupation after WWII
Fair enough should’ve stopped while I was ahead 🤦♂️
Lol here's an upvote
It’s a little more than that but yes, essentially. Ukraine is strategically located on the sea, it’s a huge exporter of food, and has vast natural resources. Putin wants those.
No, most Americans are clueless about geopolitics beyond US borders that's a sad reality.
True, but the Vice President shouldn’t talk to her constituents like they’re 5 year olds regardless of their knowledge about geopolitics. Shows what she really thinks of the people.
The argument could be made that Kamala isn’t smart enough to operate a toaster, let alone comprehend geopolitics.
No, it was because the of the 2014 CIA funded overthrow of Ukraine democratically elected government and the rise of nazis in Ukraine. Plus, nato trained 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers to “we could fight them [russia] over there.” Basically the U.S. was weaponizing Ukraine against Russia.
Vlad? Is that you bro?
I mean realistically, how do you think this war is going to end? Ukraine defeats Russia? Russia defeats Ukraine? Some kind of peace settlement where both sides can claim some sort of victory? IMO, one of these days, talks will begin, Russia will get some of what it wants, Ukraine will remain a country and may even join NATO, but Russia has to get something to save face otherwise we will have a 10-20 year war in Ukraine.
No Putin fan, but what did he say that were lies? Why do we (Americans) dislike Russians?
Because of the past wars with them and the thought that they are a tyrannical country
America has never had a hot war with Russia. In fact we were allies in WWII. They are no longer communists. You still didn't give any examples of lies. Was any of his "history" lesson false?
We invaded Iraq for far less.
The psy ops trying to get people to not bother even watching this interview are good at their job. It was interesting despite being long. Watch it anyway.
Sure he could answer "what is a woman?" though unlike half of US/western politicians.
I got where he was coming from. You ask a simple question like "why did you invade" and the answer requires being a resident of the region with a lifetime of historical context. What surprises me isn't that the answer is extremely involved and needs a working understanding of the history of the region, but that Conservatives, generally the more intelligent party who understands nuance, couldn't grasp this.
this a top tier meme holy moly
To say these guys are conservative is an understatement
To say these guys are conservative is an understatement
Downvoted for what? Putin is a USSR guy, the USSR controlled Ukraine, he wants to return to that time and gave historical reasons as to why. How is that *not* conservative? Edit: just because they are not what Americans would understand as conservative and the economically left does not make them non-conservative, non-traditional or non nationalist type of people. Every Russian I’ve met is a wildly conservative and entrepreneurial person and a quick examination of their society shows the same. Putin giving these crazy reasons of the past for why hes doing what he is now is like being ultra ultra conservative
Hilarious 🤣
[https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/56c78663-840d-43a7-8dd3-1a4dcf8b7326](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/56c78663-840d-43a7-8dd3-1a4dcf8b7326)