Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Michael Wade]

Except this has nothing to do with FDR, but with his better relative, Theodore Roosevelt. The Russo-Japanese War occurred in 1905, 36 years before Pearl Harbor, and before the military faction seized power in Japan.

FDR put in massive sanctions against Japan for the invasion of China that basically forced them to attack, otherwise they would have run out of oil. While seemingly moral and understandable in the context of all the atrocity's we know about, America was completely unwilling to compromise on anything in the short term to mitigate war. You can argue Japan went headfirst into war and deserved it, but you can also conceivably argue that if there was a peace to be had we did not seriously pursue it. There's a potential reason for that in the fact that Japan was one of the few powers alongside Germany to not have a privately owned central banking system.

Putin did a great job but to put everything even more in perspective you have to read a bit of "The history of central banking" Long story short, when privately owned its a system that puts power in the hands of bankers and keeps everybody else down with debt and inflation. Nations that disregard this system for state run banks prosper immensely economically but always seem to get involved in wars that reinstate the privately owned central bank system for some reason or other (AKA there can be no competition)

The creation of communism can actually be linked back into this if we pay attention to who funded and instigated the revolution. JP morgan, Chase bank, Kuhn Loeb and company, and the Swedish bank Nya Banken, as detailed in 1981's "Wall Street and the Bolshevick Revolution" (Central banking book also points the finger at the rothchilds, there is much in history to support this given their actions. Also it is said they had a man in the soviet union named Maxim Litvinov who curiously was never directly purged by stalin even though he was a famously rude asshole to him.)

The argument made by the book was that economically Russia at the time of 1890 to 1914 had incredible industrial and Agricultural production. barely any taxation, no inflation and virtually no unemployment. That could not be allowed to stand so Communism was allowed to infect and compromise the nation of Russia and allow it to be plundered and controlled. Stalin played nice up until the 1930s and purged all their people. When he died in the 1950's Russia's fall was inevitable as the west economically invested itself in Russia via the aviation, computer, car and electric industry's and 50% of Russia's economy was in armaments as opposed to the citizenry.

When you think about it critically, Communism was essentially created as an intentionally terrible boogieman to reinforce that Private banks were the ONLY way to do things.

 

[StMaryPiper]

So the Putin interview was Yawn city. I honestly wish either Putin or Tucker went scorched earth but maybe that was a pipe dream

 

[Rubick]

He is disliked by a certain section of US military people because of his interference with "NATO tactics" during the 2023 counteroffensive. He is generally held responsible for the switch from so-called "combined arms" attacks during the counteroffensive to small unit tactics. Endless articles appear calling him a backward military thinker addicted to soviet meat grinder tactics. The US wargamers want a puppet who does as instructed. This guy isn't a puppet.

That's funny. Seeing as it was Americans that told Ukrainian's last year to do what the American idea was of Soviet reconnaissance-in-force. Not only was American understanding of Soviet reconnaissance-in-force. flawed. But an actual Soviet reconnaissance-in-force is not something Ukraine or even Russia even capable off.

That was pretty much the turning point and Ukrainians high command started to ignored the Americans and their tactical advises.

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

But I'm leaning towards the view that in terms of winning over Americans to a Russian viewpoint, Putin blew it. And it was a chance he will likely never get again.

I will echo the sentiments of the others in this thread and state I don't think putin gives a shit about convincing the average westerner and was basically giving a "sit down while I, the adult, tells you how its gonna be" disappointed dad lecture. I think at this point he's embraced the fundamental difference in cultures as you said and probably viewed conforming entertainment television as beneath him. Agreed it is not pragmatic if the goal is convincing western audiences but perhaps its just because I'm a history autist and appreciator of long-form content but just for me personally I preferred this style over a more entertainment centered interview.

I think your post is pretty insightful and you're definitely right on a lot of what you read, or at least that's how I read a lot of it too. The dispassionate element though I don't think its something unique to putin or something he was even trying to do intentionally but it fits with what I've known of the russian psyche in general which trend towards fatalism and dispassionate stoicism. One thing I hear from russians a lot (though to be fair you hear it from non americans in general I guess) is how weirded out they are when they come to america and see everyone wear their heart on their sleeve.

overall I think this interview was incredibly fascinating and will be appreciated and autistically studied by anyone who is capable of a thought more than "putin is like voldemort and hitler combined !!!"

 

[The Ugly One]

You can argue Japan went headfirst into war and deserved it, but you can also conceivably argue that if there was a peace to be had we did not seriously pursue it.

There was no peace to be had after the Japanese invaded French Indochina to stop US exports from reaching China. The Japanese wanted exclusive access to US oil and steel without having to negotiate for it or even begin to give a shit what we thought about their conduct of the war. After Matthew Perry's saber-rattling shook them up, they made the mistake of thinking that strength is the only thing that matters when dealing with the West. After the rape of Nanking, it was pretty much inevitable that the US would tell them to go find their own oil.

Contrast this with Russia's conduct of the Ukrainian war. It's still war, and war is hell, but they're being relatively careful about how they handle civilian populations, which is extremely important for ensuring trading partners in Asia and Latin America don't get pissed off and join the sanctions. A major reason the US has been impotent to isolate Russia is that Putin has been acting like anything but a cartoon villain during this war.

 

[Stasi]

If you have ever seen Putin give interviews or participate in these open discussions you shouldn't be surprised. Just last year at one of the economic conferences (Valdai IIRC) after the speeches they had like 30 minutes for Q&A and Putin ended up speaking for almost 3 hours fielding questions from the audience.

Will also echo what others have said, this wasn't to convince anyone in the west. He even said at one point there is no sense getting muddled up in the western media propaganda machine and also point blank asked at the beginning if Tucker wanted a serious discussion or a show. If you think he "failed" because your average mutt is too dumb to digest the information presented I don't know what to say to you.

 

[geckogoy]

It would be nice if they were evil geniuses like that, because Israel's existence depends on the material wealth and political stability of the USA.

While true, I am wondering if in their own moronic conceit they have actually been huffing their own farts and truly believe this whole 'the US needs israel, she doesn't need anyone' thing you hear them occasionally spout off about whenever the ammo stockpiles are not low

 

[CaptainAutism69]

That BBC cunt who was kicked out of Russia in 2021 is seething on the BBC about this interview. She's grumpy that Tucker didn't press him on the Bucha deaths or why he is a big mean poopyhead. She's also said that Putin banned 'the truth' about the war from being reported on. Gosh she's mad and thrown away any possible BBC neutrality.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

More Ukraine military shakeups. This time they promoted the guy who thought hiring a deranged troon to be "Spokewoman" was a great idea to win Western support.

https://twitter.com/snekotron/status/1755959826046152830

 

[Betonhaus]

Remember when we did?

Globalists hate history because it reveals the evils they have done and will do again. They rather everyone lives in a state of "now" that forgets when life used to be better and ignores that things will get worse.

Putin's only crime was doing nothing wrong. Tucker's only crime was listening and hearing him out.

As a result, trannies and glowies are doing their best to damage control this thing into a memory hole.

It's taking declaring the president mentally unfit to memory hole this.

I think at this point he's embraced the fundamental difference in cultures as you said and probably viewed conforming entertainment television as beneath him. Agreed it is not pragmatic if the goal is convincing western audiences but perhaps its just because I'm a history autist and appreciator of long-form content but just for me personally I preferred this style over a more entertainment centered interview

I think it's a part of how politics function in Russia compared to Americas. He's placing much higher value on being factually correct and demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic. He's not trying to appeal to American hearts because he doesn't see the need to - his country is thriving without American influence and has no reason to be afraid of American military or economic power anymore

 

[Romeo]

Just finished watching the interview, and I've already heard of the majority of the points (some points already mentioned by users in this thread) that Putin brings up as well as the most likely answer to most of Tucker's questions. I am aware that Tucker and Putin is steering the interview for those who do not understand America's foreign policy and NATO and how they provoked Russia, which from the YouTube comment section, seemed to achieve its goal.

Thus, I really don't think this interview is not for people who knew about NATO or knew how Prime Minister of the U.K. Boris Johnson went to Istanbul to tell Ukraine not to sign that treaty with Russia. If you have a general understanding of the conflict and Russia's side, this interview will be pretty boring to watch, as not a lot new was really said. I also really did not like how Tucker handled the interview such as him quickly changing to a non-related question after Putin's answer. For example, Putin was talking about the Roman Empire and then Tucker straight up follows it up with "wHaT do yoU ThiNk aBouT the A.I. eMpIRe?" Makes the interview feel very disjoint.

Although Putin made a good closing speech that connected the historical details with the 800 AD to 1600 AD in the beginning of the interview, it's too bad that the questions and answers in the middle were just stale and the ending did not have that much of an impact due to this.

---

The points that I thought were interesting

1. Putin on why he is not keeping American "journalist" Evan Gershkovich imprisoned was that he took confidential material and that he was caught, and that both Russian and American investigation agencies are working together to secure an agreement that gets Gershkovich out.

The only points that could have potential:

1. Tucker approaching Putin on the topic of religion. Putin declaring Russia to be a "Christian state" is interesting because Russia is somehow became or was always in maybe Putin's mind a "Christian state" when Russia went through a period where the Soviet Union was state atheistic and not to mention that Russia is composed of several republics which are devoted to certain religions of their ethnicities like Buddhism (Buryatia) and most significantly Islam (Chechnya, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan). Tucker however decided not to expand on this area was such a missed opportunity and the fact that he decided to go for "Putin, have you met God before" was bewildering.
2. Another missed opportunity was Tucker glossing over the question on A.I. to Putin. There are a lot of potential dangers and misuses of A.I., like how Jersh mentioned how a girl was bullied to suicide because people were making A.I. art of her being naked and sharing it around the Internet. It would have been interesting to see how a world leader responds to the growing expansion of A.I., and that there are some powerful people who are okay with it like Chinese businessman Jack Ma of Alibaba Group. The A.I. segment was retarded because Putin basically answered "you should talk to Elon Musk about it" and Tucker was like "okay, onto to the next segment."
3. The last segment I want to bring up was the Bolsheviks' role in creating the modern state of Ukraine creates a massive paradox that feels very inconsistent to how modern Russians and Ukrainians feel today.
   1. If Lenin and the Bolsheviks were responsible for creating the Ukrainian state, then should Ukrainians be worshipping the Soviet Union, communism, and Lenin (I can understand remaining hostile towards Stalin for the Holodomor), because they created and legitimized Ukraine, while Russians citizens and those living in the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic (DPR & LPR) should despise him and not re-erect statues of Lenin even though the was the source of their suffering?
   2. Did the Bolsheviks not rename cities after foreigners such as Tolyatti, Kingisepp, and Engels, just because they were communists and as such, attempted to wipe out the cities' Russian identity? Perhaps it was the nostalgia of the Soviet Union that blinds them?
   3. Tucker should have commented on the Putin's lecture on history because I wanted to know Putin's beliefs that contemporary Russia's identity is built on a paradox of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union which were are opposites of each other.

---

If I could give an interview to Putin, I would have asked:

1. In your presidency, it seemed that most of your actions are done to spite Lenin and the USSR's legacy.
   1. You brought up Lenin to be the creator of Ukraine, and thus, as a result, responsible for dividing the Russian people as the German Empire and Austria-Hungary had planned and that became the casus belli of Russian launching their "special military operation" into Ukraine.
   2. Not only that, Lenin created individual ethnic republics within Russia of which resulted in separatist headaches in the 1990s, of which you responded by centralizing the federal government in Moscow and diminishing the power of these republics to decrease the chance of separatism.
   3. I would presume you were not big of a fan of Khrushchev giving Crimea, a land mostly composed of Russians, to Ukraine, nor would you be a fan of Stalin solidifying Ukrainian identity by causing the Holodomor that divided Ukrainians from the Russian people and hence a reason why they collaborated with the Nazis.
   4. Lenin also based the Soviet Union on the conception of state atheism, and did much to their power to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, and yet you did your best to resurrect the Church's power in contemporary Russia.
   5. Despite this, people of the DPR and LPR, as well as Russia, have a sense of honoring the legacy of communism and Lenin despite them being responsible for dividing the Russian people. Are Russians blinded by the nostalgia of the Soviet Union and that they should be taught to stay away from this nostalgia and instead go for a more unifying identity like say, the Russian Empire and the Tsardom?
2. Regarding the previous question, the Empire/monarchy and the Soviet Union are two identities which clash over and that the Russian Federation is built on these two identities. We see that there is want to restore the Russian monarchy from the Russian Orthodox Church and prominent Russian politicians, of there are several from the ruling United Russia party, while there is also a pro-Soviet faction, which is composed of Russia's older generations, the country's communist party, and DPR and LPR citizens. Can contemporary Russia sustain being based on, say a synthesis (Empire) and an anti-synthesis (USSR) in accordance to Hegelian dialetics (thanks Caesar) or would one identity must triumph over the other as they are joint opposites?
3. You proclaim Russia to be a "Christian nation" and yet your country hosts many ethnic republics like Chechnya and Buryatia dedicated to different religions such as Islam and Buddhism. Do you think that such a proclamation may isolate these believers that they are not considered "Russian" if they don't follow the ways of Christ? An example is that Malaysia for a time did not considered a Malay to be an ethnic Malay unless he was Muslim.
4. During Russia's special military operation of Ukraine, many Russian military bloggers and Russian soldiers applauded the return of war and to be done with peace as latter was nothing but an illusion to weaken Russia's glory. This sentiment may arise in other nations and countries where peacetime is either viewed as how a nation decays and weakens and that it represents most of all subservience to a foreign nation. Do you believe that in the future of international affairs, the motive to use military action and peer-to-peer war will rise to accomplish a nation's goals? Will you let it rise, or will you stop it?

The fact that Western MSM journos did not ask these questions and instead went for "poOtiN, diD you rIg thE 2016 eLectiOn", "poOtin, wHy aRe yOu So sCareD of OpPositiOn" or "PoOtiN, did yOu aNd DrUmpf haD bUtT seX in tHe kRemLin" in their gatcha interviews makes me bitter at such wasted opportunities for good questions instead of copy and pasted lingo from the U.S. Department of State. Well, all but one journo.

---

In 2019, the British-based MSM outlet The Financial Times for one instance decided not to be those type of journos to make a gatcha interview with Putin. I can tell that the FT head interviewer, Lionel Barber, was extremely excited in making his interview of Putin and have a crafted a wide range of questions for Putin to answer.

This is honestly the greatest interview between a Western journalist and Putin, even better than Tucker's interview. Tucker's interview was obviously better than some interviews with Western journos, but obviously that's a very low bar to pass. FT's interview on the other hand has Barber not only letting Putin speak and not interrupting him as much, but bringing all the questions in an organized and concise matter and describes better of who Putin is as President of Russia. This interview also made me learn new things, than repeating the same points all over again.

The best topics were:

• Putin conceptualizing the rise of illiberalism in the world due to the liberal world order trying to change or destroy things such as the Roman Catholic Church.
• The risks of Russia putting all their eggs in one basket, that basket being China.
• Russia's relationship with OPEC and Saudi Arabia and the competition in regards to the petroleum industry
• Russia's rationale in backing Maduro of Venezuela over backing Guaido to preserve their oil interests with reasons of not seeing regime change from outside as well as the Libya and Iraq debacle.
• How Russia treats traitors, and how that applies to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, UK, and the resulting low-point of Anglo-Russian affairs.
• Russia's economy, of why it raised more than 460 billion in reserves and the issue of Russian families' incomes are decreasing.

I honestly highly recommend people to watch this interview between the FT and Putin. You may learn a thing or two, even with those familiar with Russia and their relationship with NATO.

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

If you have ever seen Putin give interviews or participate in these open discussions you shouldn't be surprised. Just last year at one of the economic conferences (Valdai IIRC) after the speeches they had like 30 minutes for Q&A and Putin ended up speaking for almost 3 hours fielding questions from the audience.

Will also echo what others have said, this wasn't to convince anyone in the west. He even said at one point there is no sense getting muddled up in the western media propaganda machine and also point blank asked at the beginning if Tucker wanted a serious discussion or a show. If you think he "failed" because your average mutt is too dumb to digest the information presented I don't know what to say to you.

I will say this: he proved there was way more reason Russia committed to this conflict than ‘lol empire!!!’ Like the narrative claims. Reddit once and again btfo.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

this interview will be pretty boring to watch, as not a lot new was really said.

Normies won't watch the full 2-hour sit-down and were never going to. However they will watch one or more of the dozens of soundbite clips that will be spread throughout social media in the coming days/weeks. That's the real value.

 

[geckogoy]

he proved there was way more reason Russia committed to this conflict than ‘lol empire!!!’

Its actually pretty easy for them to just say who gives a shit what happened hundreds of years ago and call it a day

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Putin's beliefs that contemporary Russia's identity is built on a paradox of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union which were are opposites of each other.

the Empire/monarchy and the Soviet Union are two identities which clash over and that the Russian Federation is built on these two identities.

When your nation is over a thousand years old Tsarist and Soviet Russia are not a paradox, they are blips in the ocarina of time.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Its actually pretty easy for them to just say who gives a shit what happened hundreds of years ago and call it a day

That's going to be difficult when the various grievance industries that exist in the US have staked their entire reason for being on centuries-old "injustices" like slavery that literally no one alive today had anything to do with.

 

[There Is Light At The End]

nor would you be a fan of Stalin solidifying Ukrainian identity by causing the Holodomor that divided Ukrainians from the Russian people and hence a reason why they collaborated with the Nazis.

golodomor wasn't exclusively Ukrainian plight. Though, it was Stalin's agricultural administration fuck up, that hunger was from Ukraine to Kazakhstan. Entire Povolzhie was affected. What you describing is something called in certain parts of RuNet as hoholdomor. Slav version of 6 gorrilions.
will repeat this as many times as needed. Truth needs to be heard

 

[Kankichi Ryotsu]

Its actually pretty easy for them to just say who gives a shit what happened hundreds of years ago and call it a day

This is true. Putin is basically Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump combined into a single man according to western media, so people won't care. They'll say he's lying or will wait for the fact checkers to deboonk some minor claim he did and call it a day, it's pointless trying to appease them.

 

[The Ugly One]

That's going to be difficult when the various grievance industries that exist in the US have staked their entire reason for being on centuries-old "injustices" like slavery that literally no one alive today had anything to do with.

idpol exists side-by-side with a belief that no political arrangement older than 1945 is relevant. Putin's introductory lecture on Russian history - whatever biases there are in it - serves to provide the listener a frame of reference for why the 1954 border of Ukraine is not of paramount importance to him in the grand scheme of things.

From the standpoint of the Old World, borders are transitory. The map has been redrawn over and over as empires rise and fall. It's a very different experience than in the United States, a country which has not once, ever, in its entire history, ceded home territory to another government. It's also a country which has recently tried to erase the entire concept of a national identity beyond "people who happen to live in this boundary."

On the US side, we have people chimping out about "Ukraine's sovereign territory." Our people have the mindset that whatever skullduggery you might otherwise engage in (coups, revolutions, whatever), the UN-drawn map is the one rule that can't be violated. It's not at all unique to Putin to not see things that way. In the Old World, time horizons are much longer, with grudges, alliances, and identities that have spanned centuries and countless map reorgs.

 

[IamnottheNSA]

What you describing is something called in certain parts of RuNet as hoholdomor.

"Hohlocaust" is better IMO.