Are We The Baddies? My Putin-Tucker Revelations | The McFuture w/Steve Faktor
Summary
TLDRThe McFuture podcast episode dives deep into the complex geopolitical landscape, dissecting the nuanced dynamics between Tucker Carlson, Vladimir Putin, and broader international relations. Through a satirical lens, it explores Putin's formidable knowledge and martial arts prowess, critiques of corporate media's narrative manipulation, and the sobering reality of Ukraine's struggle. The script navigates through historical context, political machinations, and the stark realities of power, offering a critical perspective on the roles of the US, Russia, and Ukraine in shaping global politics. It provocatively questions the motives behind Western intervention and media portrayal, challenging listeners to rethink established narratives.
Takeaways
- 😀 The script discusses the complexities of international politics, particularly focusing on Russia's actions and perceptions in global affairs.
- 😅 It mentions the reported death of Alexei Navalny, using it to highlight the brutality of Putin's regime, yet it calls for a nuanced understanding of Russia's points amid criticisms.
- 😂 The script critiques both American media and political figures, suggesting they often fail to critically engage with important issues and are influenced by narratives rather than facts.
- 😇 A comparison is made between Vladimir Putin and past American leaders, suggesting Putin has a depth of knowledge and strategic insight that recent U.S. presidents lack.
- 😉 It addresses the economic implications of geopolitical tensions, noting Russia's enduring economic strength despite sanctions and its pivot away from reliance on the U.S. dollar.
- 😊 The script touches on the weaponization of narratives in media, questioning the integrity and independence of journalism in shaping public opinion.
- 🤔 There is a discussion on the moral complexities of international interventions, with a specific look at the U.S. and NATO's roles in Ukraine, suggesting a reevaluation of their strategies and goals.
- 🙃 It presents skepticism about the effectiveness and motives behind military aid to Ukraine, questioning long-term outcomes and ethical considerations.
- 😒 The narrative questions the sustainability of U.S. global dominance, pointing to shifting economic power balances and the potential consequences for American influence.
- 😏 The script concludes with a call for introspection and a more informed, nuanced approach to understanding global events, urging viewers to look beyond simplistic narratives.
Q & A
What was the main point Putin made about the history of Ukraine and Russia?
-Putin argued that Ukraine historically was not a distinct nation from Russia, but rather the word "Ukrainian" originally just denoted people living on the borderlands of Russia. He contested the legitimacy of Ukraine as an independent state.
How did Putin justify Russia's military action against Ukraine?
-Putin claimed Russia was fighting against the remnant neo-Nazi and nationalist forces in Ukraine. However, the true size and influence of such groups in Ukraine has been small.
What potential peace deal did Putin say the West persuaded Ukraine to reject?
-Putin said in April 2022 Ukraine and Russia reached a tentative interim peace agreement for Russia to withdraw to its pre-invasion positions in exchange for Ukraine not joining NATO and receiving security guarantees. But Putin claims Boris Johnson dissuaded Zelensky from signing it.
What threat did Putin highlight regarding hypersonic missiles?
-Putin boasted Russia leads the world in hypersonic missile technology, which can travel over 10 times the speed of sound and currently has no defenses in the West. This leaves countries like the U.S. vulnerable.
How did Putin characterize China's foreign policy philosophy?
-When asked if Russia was in danger of Chinese domination, Putin called that a "boogeyman story" and said China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive but rather seeks compromise.
What critique did Putin offer of how the U.S. is trying to maintain global dominance?
-Putin criticized the U.S. for using force, sanctions, pressure, and military action to try to maintain global dominance instead of wisely adapting to the objective rise of countries like China.
Who did Putin actually blame for consistent U.S. policies against Russia?
-More than any one leader, Putin blamed entrenched elite mindsets in the American establishment focused on global domination at any cost. He said leaders change, but the mindset remains the same.
How has the Ukraine conflict impacted moves away from the U.S. dollar?
-Putin noted that now 34% of Russia's trade is in rubles and 34% in yuan as they have been forced to de-dollarize. This reduces global dollar dominance.
What are the two main pillars Putin sees propping up the U.S. economy?
-Putin believes the two advantages propping up the U.S. economy are the U.S. dollar as global reserve currency and U.S. military power. But he believes recent U.S. actions have begun to jeopardize both.
What did Putin say is required for the U.S. to maintain global leadership?
-Putin believes for the U.S. to maintain global leadership, the American establishment needs to wisely adapt to the objective rise of other nations rather than rely on force or pressure.
Outlines
😕 Starting the podcast after news of Navalny's death
The podcast host Steve Faktor opens the show by acknowledging the sad news that Russian opposition leader Navalny has died in prison. He says it's important to separate Putin's brutality from some valid points that came up in Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. Faktor then welcomes listeners to the show, which will analyze the Carlson-Putin interview.
😴 Tucker Carlson not prepared to challenge Putin
Faktor says Carlson came off weak compared to Putin's depth of knowledge during the interview. He claims U.S. media personalities like Carlson are only capable of soundbites and are not prepared to challenge someone as smart as Putin. The translation also glossed over an insult Putin directed at Carlson.
🤔 Questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine
Putin went on a long diatribe during the interview delegitimizing Ukraine as a nation with a distinct cultural identity. Faktor notes Putin was selective with facts to serve his argument that Ukraine has only recently formed a cultural identity, largely in opposition to Russia. The truth is more complex.
😣 Russia failed to build strong economy
Faktor contrasts Russia's respect for academic knowledge with its failure to build an innovative economy, due to lack of rule of law. Putin stands out with his intellectual depth and political success. But most smart Russians flee or become hackers rather than build companies that get taken over by Putin and government.
😱 Did the West force Russia to become an enemy?
Putin argues that after collapse of USSR, the West continued outdated Cold War policies instead of embracing Russia as a partner. Several anecdotes suggest the U.S. spurned cooperation with Russia on missiles and NATO. Faktor wonders if Russia was forced into a defensive crouch by Western policies.
🤨 The West doesn't want peace in Ukraine
According to Putin, Ukraine was close to signing a peace deal with Russia in April 2022 when U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened and persuaded Ukraine to keep fighting with promises of Western support. A media report confirms this account. The West seems to prefer prolonging the war.
😧 Far-right nationalism is limited in Ukraine
On Putin's claim of 'denazifying' Ukraine, Faktor says far-right parties that emerged in Ukraine have little electoral support. The Azov Battalion likewise represents a small fighting force absorbed into Ukraine's military out of necessity to defend against Russia.
😫 The U.S. has put Ukraine in an unwinnable war
Faktor worries the open-ended Western military support allows Russia to grind down Ukraine to inevitable defeat. As tourists who can walk away, the U.S. has obliged Ukraine to keep fighting a war it cannot win on its own against an existential threat like Russia.
😲 The global economic landscape is changing
Putin argues the dominance of the West is waning as countries like China and Indonesia gain economic strength. He sees Western sanctions and military force as futile attempts to resist the rise of the rest. Faktor fears the U.S. lacks new ideas to extend its influence.
🤔 Can the U.S. adapt to a multipolar world?
The interview drove home for Faktor the hazards of U.S. reliance on military force and economic coercion to get its way. With Russia and China undeterred, he thinks America must adapt through persuasion and providing global public goods to maintain influence.
😞 American leaders all look the same to Putin
When asked to compare recent U.S. presidents, Putin dismissed the importance of individual leaders. Faktor interprets this as Putin viewing the entire U.S. political class as driven by the same ideology of domination, with no sign of positive change on the horizon.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ukraine
💡NATO expansion
💡Peace negotiations
💡Energy politics
💡Shift in global order
💡Dollar dominance
💡Military-industrial complex
💡Hypersonic missiles
💡US interventions
💡Manufacturing capacity
Highlights
Putin made fun of Tucker for being rejected by the CIA
Putin showed impressive depth of knowledge about history and geopolitics
The U.S. chose to continue treating Russia as an enemy after the Cold War
The West encouraged Ukraine not to accept a negotiated peace deal with Russia
The U.S. has repeatedly intervened and provoked Russia over the years
Putin's claims about denazification seem exaggerated and self-serving
The U.S. has put Ukraine in an unwinnable position
Despite sanctions, Russia has a strong economy and growing trade
The West needs to adapt to the inevitable rise of China and other powers
Weaponizing the dollar could accelerate de-dollarization
Hypersonic missiles have exposed U.S. vulnerability
The U.S. lacks manufacturing capacity compared to China
Putin dismissed the influence of U.S. leaders
The interview highlighted threats to dollar and military dominance
The West risks becoming isolated as countries shift away
Transcripts
We are peeing on Ukraine
and we don’t care, ultimately
Before we start the
episode
news came
through that Navalny,
the Russian opposition
leader, who has been in
prison now for years
on, completely made up
charges has died.
it's a really important
reminder of Putin's
brutality. But even so,
it's important to
separate Putin’s
brutality from some of
the valid points that
came up in this
interview. And I know
it's not easy, same
way, you can't take
away the genius of
thriller, even though
Michael Jackson turned
out to be a broken,
terrible vessel for
transporting that
genius. Did I just
compare Michael Jackson
to Putin? Nobody's
perfect. Let's start
the show.
Welcome to an all
new episode of the
McFuture podcast
challenging the beliefs
that run the world.
I'm Steve Faktor,
and today I want to
talk to you about
Tucker Carlson and
Vladimir Putin.
I don't
think in the history
of media, there's
ever been another
person who has made
it as far as Tucker
on a quizzical look,
they sent them to
rulers of Russian
origin and Orthodox
faith when Warsaw did
not answered them and
in fact rejected their
demands they turned
to Moscow so that
Moscow took them away
you definitely
got the sense.
He's finally in
the big leagues.
Vladimir Putin knows
karate
taekwondo
Krav Maga, and
he's a championship
ice skater.
In fact, I don't
think there's anything
he couldn't do.
Now that Lea Thomas has
opened the door, he's
very close to being
one of the top female
swimmers in the world.
A lot of people
in corporate media
are very upset
by the interview.
I get it, they think
Tucker is a bit of
a sympathizer and
he's gonna give
softball questions.
And the reason they
can't get interviews is
because they're going
to be tough on Putin.
I would give their
arguments more
credence if they
hadn't lied us into
multiple wars
or the fact that they
shepherded us from
one narrative to
another 'Ooooh, Russia
collusion', that proved
to be nothing, then
we're all wearing
pink pussy hats,
because we care so
much about the ladies.
And then all of a
sudden, oh, black
squares, everyone's got
to have one until we
don't because we bought
houses for the leaders
of this bogus movement.
everyone
is now trans.
Forget about
all that stuff.
We said about the
ladies now, anyone
who thinks there
lady, your lady, okay.
And you better
not question it.
And same thing with the
Ukraine., this country
that most people in
the United States can
find on a map is now
suddenly the single
most important issue
As said by Mitt Romney.
The vote we will
soon take to provide
military weapons for
Ukraine is the most
important vote we will
ever take as United
States Senators.
And then Israel
wherever you
sit on that.
I don't care if you're
pro or con any of
these things, but
we're not arriving at
our opinions through
critical thinking
or even facts.
We're
are being fed
narratives.
So this idea that
this moral, wonderful,
truth seeking media
is now upset at
Tucker Carlson,
give me a break.
Now, Tucker doesn't
get off easy either.
In this interview, he
came off like a child
sitting with an adult.
There were several
times when Putin
actively made fun
of Tucker, there was
one time where he
goofed on him being
a reject to the CIA,
because apparently,
he applied to the
CIA at some point and
then didn't get in.
with the backing of
CIA of course the
organization you wanted
to join back in the
day as I understand
we should thank God
they didn't let you
in although it is a
serious organization
I understand my former
vis a vis in the sense
that I served in the
first main directorate
Soviet Union's
intelligence service
they have always
been our opponents
a job is a job
And what's funny
about that is, Putin
did more research
on Tucker, then
Tucker did on Russia
and Ukraine going
into the interview.
And that's an
embarrassment.
You just kind of see
what level the kind
of person who's good
at sound bites and
American media is,
versus someone who
really has depth that
needs to be challenged.
But there was no one
there to challenge
and don't think
for a second Rachel
Maddow or any of
these other people.
Anderson Cooper
would make any
difference whatsoever.
These are sound
bite people who take
a lot of orders.
They're still
stenographers for
the government.
This is not a media
establishment that is
capable of challenging
someone who has a
depth of knowledge
that they don't even
reach and and it was
very evident throughout
the interview.
And the other thing
I noticed is, I'm
not sure we can trust
this translation.
There was one in a
moment in particular,
where the Russian
bled through, and I
can hear exactly what
Putin said, the two
words he used were
extremely insulting
to Tucker, Here,
listen for yourself.
I mean Hitler's been
dead for 80 years
Nazi Germany no longer
exists and so true and
so I think what you're
saying is you want
to extinguish or at
least control Ukrainian
nationalism but how how
do you do that watch
listen to me your
question is very subtle
and I can tell you
what I think do not
take offense of courSe
he called his question
thin and disgusting.
And the translation
said, subtle and pesky.
And just a few
impressions of
Putin, what are
you talking about?
No, that's not
the impression
I'm talking about.
First, Tucker kept
interrupting him.
And you can tell this
is a guy who hasn't
been interrupted
in 24 years.
Last guy who
interrupted him is
now a nightlight.
He's so full of
polonium, he every
time he farts, He
illuminates his house.
I understand that my
long speeches probably
fall outside of the
genre of the interview
that is why I asked
you at the beginning
are we going to have
a serious talk or a
show you said a serious
talk so bear with me
There is a depth
of understanding
of history.
Now, you may not
agree with his reading
of history, or his
conclusion, or his
selective use of
facts, but you cannot
deny his mastery
of the information.
The guy was reeling
stuff off the top of
his head, one fact
after the other, and
again, no one was
there to challenge
a Tucker was utterly
unfit for this task.
And you can disagree
with a lot of things
Putin has done.
But you can kind of see
why his people for a
very long time, maybe
not now that they can
be drafted and killed
in the military, but
for a very long time.
They loved him,
they love this guy.
And you can tell
because there's a depth
there that I would
say the last American
leader who had that
kind of encyclopedic
knowledge, maybe Thomas
Jefferson, who had to
be someone who drafted
the Constitution
or Declaration of
Independence, it was
not Trump or George W.
Bush, or, or, or
Biden, or any of these
losers that we've had.
And Clinton might
know something we
probably knows more
about cigars than he
does about history.
He's charming in a way
that Patrick Bateman,
or Gavin Newsom is
charming, where there's
a lot of dismembered
bodies somewhere, but
he still knows a lot
about Phil Collins.
It almost doesn't
matter if Putin's
perceptions of history
are correct, both
recent history in terms
of his administration's
as well as russian
history and Ukrainian
history, because that
is ultimately what
guides his decisions,
either what he's gonna
say outwardly, or what
he truly believes.
And you know, it's hard
to draw the lines, we
wouldn't be able to do
that as interviewers
or Tucker wouldn't.
And a goal of
a journalist.
And again, Tucker,
I think, mostly
accomplish it, is to
at least understand
where this other
person the subject
of the interview
is coming from.
And I think
we got that.
A real journalist
might have been able to
challenge him more, but
we'll never know what
that world looks like.
Now, in terms of his
history lesson, the
gist of this first,
I don't know 30 or
40 minutes that he
went on this huge
diatribe was to
delegitimize Ukraine.
originally the word
Ukrainian meant that
the person was living
on the outskirts of the
state along the fringes
or was engaged in a
border patrol service
it didn't mean any
particular ethnic group
And look, there are
different points
that you can start
history and decide
what is legitimate
and what isn't as a
nation or a people.
For example, there
are people who are
against Israel, and
they always start
their history in 1948.
And then there are
people who are pro
Israel, who will
start their history
back, you know, 2000
years before Christ.
So, the facts
serve the argument.
They're extremely
selective, but the
facts were there,
there were a lot of
very interesting ones.
And there are
people who talked
about Ukraine can
be , traced back as
far as 1000 years.
It may be true, but
there's what it is
historically, and then
what it is in practice.
And as someone who grew
up there, especially
during Soviet
times, culturally,
there was not much
of a difference.
I knew so many people
from Moscow from Kiev
from Lviv from all
these other countries
and former Soviet
republics and there
was not a lot of
difference culturally,
we all spoke Russian
and I would even
make the argument that
Ukrainian cultural identity
didn't fully
form until this war.
It was Putin who
ironically created this
identity, because it
brought the people of
the Ukrainian nation
closer together.
And, and there have
been leaders like
Poroshenko, I think it
was who tried to make
Ukrainian the official
language, because
in the cities, they
still spoke Russian.
There have been
nationalist movements,
but culturally
very similar.
And that brings me to
the question of why
we are intervening
in what appears to be
a domestic dispute?
So there are a
few options here.
Is it the first option
that we're being told
that we are so noble,
so righteous, and so
good, that we must
help these people
defend their nation?
Is it just that?
Or is it a little bit
more self interest?
Where it's like,
hey, we know you're
in a domestic
battery situation.
So we'll help you
beat up the husband?
As long as
you marry us.
So is it that do
we want something
from Ukraine and we
want them to be our
spouse for lack of
a better analogy?
Or do we just like
the sound of beating
the abusive husband?
Or did we buy a bunch
of new bats and just
wanted to hear how
different one sound?
Oh, this one's
aluminum, this one
is titanium, and then
wanted to beat the crap
out of the husband,
because maybe if
we break enough bats
they'll buy more.
There is this spectrum
from truly noble, to
truly cynical, and I
honestly don't know
exactly where we lie.
And I know that Putin
believes very clearly
that we're at this
end of the spectrum.
And there was a time
when I believe we were
at the other end of the
spectrum where we did
noble things, I think
the truth probably is
somewhere in between.
The other thing that
Putin talked a lot
about, he talked about
Poland, and he you
know, because they're
really the number
one helper bordering
Ukraine, that has been
funneling so much NATO
weaponry into Ukraine.
So they came
out with 10 lies
that Putin told.
And again, it almost
doesn't matter
because he is acting
on his perceptions.
He's not acting
on truth.
In fact, I would
argue that almost
all of us are acting
on perceptions and
almost never truth.
More broadly, this
interview really
highlighted the
difference between
capitalism and
socialism or socialist
oligarchy, whatever
it is that that
Russia is today.
Tucker, is very much
symbolic of capitalism.
An capitism you
gather just enough
information to make
a decision or to do
the job and move on.
Whereas Putin's
knowledge is
very academic.
He goes deep.
I mean, this guy was
reciting all kinds
of historical events.
Academic knowledge
is endless.
It is infinity, there's
always some nuance,
some other argument,
some other reading of
history, new details
start to surface and
you don't ultimately
do anything with it.
Russia is filled with
people like that.
People who have
so much knowledge,
so much potential,
and they get almost
none of it to the
rear wheels to power
this thing forward.
There's virtually no
innovation when was
the last time you use
the Russian product
unless you're fighting
in Afghanistan with
AKs or some some
other Keshawn cars
your cars on the cops
could show in the car,
something like that.
The Russian rifles,
you haven't used the
Russian product ever.
And the reason for
that is there's very
little rule of law.
So they have this
weird dichotomy
where they have this
incredible respect
for academic knowledge
and education.
But then they just take
companies from people,
the guy who founded
VK, which is their
Russian social network,
just had confiscated
by the government.
And there countless
stories, media
companies, all kinds
of companies, they
were just taken by
Putin because they
got too powerful, they
pissed them off, or he
wanted that control.
Great programmers are
not going to sit there
and build a company
and invest all of
their time only to
have it be taken away.
So they end up as
bottom feeders as
hackers, because that
way, the government
can't really take
anything from them.
Or they end up as
academics or working
for some foreign
company that will
pay them really good
money, and nothing
ever gets built.
Russia never
becomes great.
Putin, ironically,
is the only exception
to this rule.
He made it farther
on pure academic
knowledge than anyone
in his country can.
And Tucker is very much
an American product.
He has just enough
information, to ask
the questions to get
a video out to get
us all worked up, but
really not the depth
to challenge someone
who has that kind of
academic knowledge.
Tucker was a monster
truck, and Putin
was a Bentley.
And yeah, if you were
to crush it, great
. But if you're looking
at the capabilities
and the artistry of
the two vehicles,
the stark difference
was remarkable,
at least to me.
Another point Putin
talked about, and I
think we have never
as a country, really
discussed it, nor
we even educated or
informed enough to
have this conversation.
But it really
is important
because now it's
affecting all of us.
We're sending lots of
money , into this war.
So we better start
getting smart on this.
Is it possible
that we created the
enemy we feared?
The former Russian
leadership assumed that
the Soviet Union had
ceased to exist and
therefore there were no
longer any ideological
dividing lines Russia
even agreed voluntarily
and proactively to the
collapse of the Soviet
Union and believed
that this would be
understood by the
socalled Civilized
West as an invitation
for cooperation
and Association
after the Soviet
Union collapsed?
Putin talked about how
Yeltsin was promised
that we would not
encroach into the
Russian republics
and close to Russia's
borders with weapons.
And that's exactly
what NATO became, NATO
became an encroachment.
Well, we were promised
no NATO to the east not
an inch to the east as
we were told and then
what they said well
it's not enshrined on
paper so we'll expand
so essentially, we
continued our policies
from the Soviet
era, even though the
Soviet Union was no
longer in existence.
So we made a choice
to continue treating
Russia as the
enemy, not an ally.
And there were
two anecdotes he
talked about that
I thought were
really interesting.
One was when he met
with George Bush
senior, and he said
to him, Hey, why don't
we jointly build this
missile defense system
that the United States
was talking about?
Bush and his Secretary
of State, Jim Baker,
both said, Okay,
that's interesting,
let us think about it.
And they got
back to him and
said, No, sorry.
And then he had a
similar conversation
with Clinton,
about joining NATO.
And Clinton initially
said, Oh, that's
interesting.
Let me get back to
you got back to him.
Sorry, but no, no
dice, where we're
going with this NATO
thing Do or die.
And in both cases,
we chose to continue
being enemies.
And Tucker asked an
interesting question.
so twice you've
described US presidents
making decisions and
then being undercut
by their agency heads
so it sounds like
you're describing a
system that's not run
by the people who are
elected in your telling
that's right
that's right
He said, Well, if
these guys can't
tell you, yes or no,
by themselves, and
they have to go back
for permission, and
then came back with
a no, who exactly is
running this thing.
And Putin, I think,
said CIA or something,
but alluding to the
fact that once you
build a machine, that
machine will fight
to survive, it will
crush everything in
its sight to survive,
whether it's a human
being, whether it's
a row behind, whether
it's a department in a
corporation, or whether
it's the military
industrial complex.
Why in my opinion
after the collapse of
the Soviet Union such
an erroneous crude
completely unjustified
policy of pressure was
pursued against Russia
after all this is a
policy of pressure
NATO expansion support
for the separatists in
caucuses creation of a
missile defense system
these are all elements
of pressure pressure
pressure pressure
then dragging Ukraine
into NATO is all about
pressure pressure
pressure why I think
among other things
because excessive
production capacities
were created during the
confrontation with the
Soviet Union there were
many centers created
and specialist on the
Soviet Union who could
not do anything else
they convinced the
political leadership
that it is necessary
to continue chisling
Russia to try to
break it up to create
on this territory
several quasi State
entities and to subdue
them in UND divided
form to use their
combined potential for
the future struggle
with China this is a
mistake including the
excessive potential
of those who worked
for the confrontation
with the Soviet Union
it is necessary to
get rid of this there
should be new fresh
forces people who look
into the future and
understand what is
happening in the world
the military industrial
complex, was built
for enemies, and
we needed enemies,
and we got them.
And Russia had to be an
enemy, because that's
how missiles were sold.
That's how war
planes were sold.
That is what this
giant Cold War
Machine that we had
built, was built for.
And we deferred
to people who
were determined
to have enemies.
And the question
came up, should
security be shared?
The world should be a
single whole security
should be shared rather
than a meant for the
golden billion that
is the only scenario
where the world could
be stable sustainable
and predictable until
then while the head is
split in two parts it
is an illness a serious
adverse condition
it is a period of
severe disease that
the world is going
through now but I think
that thanks to honest
journalism this work
is a who work of the
doctors this could
somehow be remedied
Also, he made
a sarcastic
comment there.
He said, thanks to
the work of honest
journalism, this can
somehow be remedied.
Clearly, this is not
a man who believes
in journalists unless
they're asking very
friendly questions,
or just float up in a
river once in a while.
But it is interesting
to wonder what the
world might look like
if we had a unilateral
missile defense
treaty essentially,
disarming the world.
If no one could
attack anyone, because
everyone had this
base of defense,
then imagine what
we could have done
Imagine the trillions
of dollars, the United
States wouldn't have
to spend on war, and
could have spent it on
civilian innovation.
Maybe this could
have triggered a
global Renaissance.
But we'll never
know, because we
were determined
to have enemies.
And Russia, as Putin
said, was determined to
take countermeasures,
they were forced to
take countermeasures.
Our proposal was
decline that's a fact
it was right then when
I said look but then
we will be forced to
take counter measures
we will create such
strike systems that
will certainly overcome
missile defense systems
And one of those
countermeasures is
developing hypersonic
missiles, which we
have no defense for
. We are now ahead of
everyone the United
States and the other
countries in terms
of the development
of hypersonic strike
systems and we are
improving them every
day but it wasn't
we proposed to go
the other way and
we were pushed back
These things travel,
I think it's like
up to 10 times the
speed of sound.
And our fastest
missiles go like three,
three and a half times
the speed of sound.
So we're in deep
trouble if they wanted
to attack and China
has the same thing.
So we're in a very
tough spot right now.
It's worth thinking
about what this world
would have looked like.
You have a tough time
doing this, obviously,
because resources
are not distributed
equally across
all these nations.
It's sort of like, if
you told everyone in
America, you're all
now managers at IBM.
Well, some of
them are toddlers.
Some of them are old.
Some of them are
busy thinking.
Helmut Kohl is
still alive.
So we have a lot
of variability in
the world in terms
of intellectual
capacity in terms of
innovativeness in terms
of cultural orientation
in terms of natural
resources, there's just
so much of a difference
that if you were to
impose military equity,
I'm not sure we would
end up with a utopia.
I certainly think the
potential is there
for us to have spent
money differently.
And maybe that money
would have, I hate
to say trickle down,
but certainly reached
all of these other
countries and elevated
them to a higher status
and help the world,
then that's me singing
Kumbaya, but I do
think it's something
worth considering.
And would Putin be
a different guy?
In those circumstances?
he still is a brutal
tyrant dictator.
But would he have
acted differently?
Maybe it's a world
we'll never know.
And one thing
is for sure.
When you are determined
to treat Russia as an
enemy, you are going to
f*** with them a lot.
And that's exactly
what we've done
with the caucuses.
We've supported
unrest there.
We said in 2008, the
door is potentially
open for Ukraine
joining NATO, which is
something we promised
we wouldn't do.
in 2008 at The Summit
in Bucharest they
declared that the
doors for Ukraine and
Georgia to join NATO
were open now about
how decisions are made
there Germany France
seemed to be against it
as well as some other
European countries but
then as it turned out
later President Bush
and he's such a tough
guy a tough politician
as I was told later
he exert pressure on
us and we had to agree
it's ridiculous it's
like kindergarten where
are the guarantees
This is nothing new.
, we've had people here
for 3540 years talking
about exactly that.
I pulled up a quote
from 1999, from
Pat Buchanan, who
was a conservative
commentator.
This is what he wrote
in, I think it was
National Review.
He said, quote, by
moving NATO onto
mother Russia's front
porch, we are driving
Russia into the arms of
Beijing, and creating
the hostile alliances,
it is in our vital
interest to prevent
that was 25 years ago.
And then we went on,
we staged the coup
in 2014, overthrowing
a leader who wanted
to move closer to
Putin, and instead
of accepting that,
we said, Ah, no.
And this war,
there was an off
ramp, and there
was a negotiation.
We negotiated with
Ukraine in Istanbul we
agreed he was aware
of this moreover the
negotiation group
leader Mr Arakhamia
his last name I believe
still has the faction
of the ruling Party The
Party of the president
in the Rada he still
hads the presidential
faction in the the
country's Parliament
he still sits there
he even put his
preliminary signature
on the document I am
telling you about but
then he publicly stated
to the whole world we
were ready to sign this
document but Mr Johnson
then the Prime Minister
of Great Britain came
and dissuaded us from
doing this saying it
was better to fight
Russia they would
give everything needed
for us to return what
was lost during the
clashes with Russia
and we agreed with
this proposal look
his statement has
been published he said
it publicly can they
return to this or not
the question is do
they want it or not
further on President
of Ukraine issued a
decree prohibiting
negotiations with us
let him cancel that
decree and that's
it we have never
refused negotiations
the US sent Boris
Johnson to meet
with Zelensky.
And tell him not
to accept the Peace
Agreement that
was negotiated.
titled the world putin
wants the foreign
affairs article
dropped a bombshell
according to
multiple former senior
u.s officials we
spoke with in april
2022 russian and
ukrainian negotiators
appeared to have
tentatively agreed
on the outlines of a
negotiated interim
settlement according
to the tentative peace
plan russia would
withdraw to its
position on february
23rd when it
controlled part of the
dunbas region and
all of crimea and in
exchange ukraine
would promise not to
seek nato membership
and instead receive
security guarantees
from a number of
countries
now why did this
plan turn dead on
arrival according
to ukrainian
publication ukraine
following the arrival
of british prime
minister boris johnson
in cave in april
a possible meeting
between ukrainian
president vladimir
zelinsky and russian
president vladimir
putin was put off
according to the
publication which has
sources close to
zielinski boris johnson
carried to ukraine
two messages from the
west
first putin is a
war criminal and he
should be pressured
not negotiated with
second and most
importantly even if
ukraine is ready to
sign some agreements
on guarantees with
putin they as in the
west are not so why
does the west not
want peace in ukraine
Boris
johnson is believed
to have told
zelinski and his
government in ukraine
that the west
believes putin was not
really as powerful
as they had
previously imagined
and that there was a
chance to quote
unquote press him
The conflict in
ukraine coming
to an end would
mean western defense
manufacturers would
not be able to mint
the kind of money
they are currently
making furthermore
peace between russia
and ukraine would
severely unsettle the
west's campaign of
isolationism against
moscow and vladimir
putin eventually the
world's trade with
russia would return
to normal
and the fact that
they obeyed the demand
or persuasion of Mr
Johnson the former
Prime Minister of
Great Britain seems
ridiculous and very
sad to me because as
Mr arakia put it we
could have stopped
those hostilities with
war a year and a half
ago already but the
British persuaded us
and we refused this
where is Mr Johnson now
and the war continues
that's a good question
where do you think he
is and why did he do
that hell knows I don't
understand it myself
there was a general
starting point for some
reason everyone had the
illusion that Russia
could be defeated on
the battlefield because
of arrogance because
of a pure heart but not
because of a great mind
And then we
destroyed Nord
Stream, they talked
about that as well.
it's not only your
motive to do something,
but do you have the
technical ability
to go down that
deep and to strap
dynamite underwater
at those pressures?
There's only like
two countries
other than the US
that could do it.
And we're the ones
with the motive.
You know, they released
later in the New York
Times, it was someone
sympathetic to Ukraine.
Yeah.
Who could it be?
And even now,
Victoria Nuland, who
works in the Biden
administration,
now, she was the
one who orchestrated
the coup in 2014.
In Ukraine.
She is not happy that
Zelinsky is letting
go of Zaluzhny
who's one of his
military officers,
because apparently
he was a friendly to
the United states,
we have not stopped
f***ing with Russia.
And you can see that
our entire orientation
is to poke, prod.
And now weaken
Russia, but not
using our own forces.
We're using Ukrainians.
The other thing that
came up, which I think
is total BS is Putin
was like, it's really
important for us to
do de nazification
in Ukraine.
And I think this is a
good example of some
of the half truths
that he uses in order
to advance his agenda.
So I'll get into
it a little bit.
First of all, this is
a narrative he tells
Russia and he's like,
we're fighting Nazis.
That's essentially,
you know, the story.
He tells his people
finding some of
them see through it.
And then the question
is, well, are there
Nazis in Ukraine, ? How
Nazi field is Ukraine?
Well, it's complicated
as most things
are historically.
So going back to
World War Two,
the Ukrainians,
particularly in
Donbas, and the
Baltics were so
poorly treated by
the Soviets, that
they actually saw the
Germans as liberators.
So they became
Nazis by proxy,
because they weren't
treated like crap.
I'll just give
you one example.
On March 25 1941, the
Soviet started using
forced deportations
against people from
the Baltic states,
more than 90,000 Balts
were sent to Siberia,
in rail cattle cars,
many never returned
home, just in 1949, the
Soviets deported more
than 10% of the male
Estonian workforce.
It is a very
complicated history.
Now, in terms of how it
manifested in Ukraine,
there was a party
called the Svoboda
Party, which is,
which means freedom.
And it's a far
right party that
started in Ukraine.
But then I looked
at their elections,
Ukraine, at its peak
before the war had
44 million people.
In 2019, which was
the last election,
this party had
307,000 votes 1.62%.
So that just gives you
a sense of how tiny
this party is in this
party has also tried to
become more mainstream.
So they're not like
hardcore Nazis,
they've , realized
that in order to play
the political game,
they can’t be walking
around with Hitler or
a little mustaches.
And the military
component of this is
the Azov battalion,
which is a started
out as a right wing
paramilitary group,
but it was the only one
willing to fight in the
Donbas region where
Russia was fighting
Ukraine since 2014.
And Ukraine pretty
much had no choice
but to absorb it into
its own military.
But the actual
battalion has
shrunk in 2017.
It was about
2500 members.
And then by
2022, it was 900.
So again, it is true
ish, what he's talking
about, but this cannot
possibly be his goal.
War makes a lot of
strange bedfellows.
Sometimes you have
to ally yourself with
people who are just
enemies of your enemy.
They become your
your friends or
allies, at least.
And that's
the case here.
It's sort of like if
Texas, we disagreed
with them on so many
issues, but because
Mexico was constantly
attacking us, we needed
the military might
have Texas so we keep
them in the union.
have to look that far
and have a theoretical
conversation, Joe
Biden went to Iran
to get a deal on gas,
because the prices
started to go up.
And it looked bad for
the administration and
inflation was rising.
So we unlocked their
funds, freeing them
to support Hamas and
Hezbollah and all these
other guys, because
we wanted cheaper oil.
Again, there are
no free rides here,
every decision is
going to have tons
of consequences.
And as every ally
or every enemy that
we choose, will
create consequences
for US financial,
military or otherwise.
What really bothers
me is we have
put Ukraine in an
unwinnable position.
And the reason for that
is, we are tourists.
Putin lives there
when I say they're
the region.
When our priorities
change, our whims
change, we can cut
off funding at any
time, and then poof,
no Ukraine, because
they'll have no way
to defend themselves.
The average age of
their soldier now is
something like 43.
All these young men
have died or fled the
country or whatever.
It is truly a
humanitarian
disaster, and one
that I think could
have been prevented.
But because of all
of our interventions,
because of us talking
them out of signing
this deal, because
we've provided
weaponry thus far.
We're in this, if you
break it, you buy it
type of situation,
morally, that doesn't
mean that people
are going to want
to keep supporting
it indefinitely.
And Putin knows that.
Wouldn't it be
better to negotiate
with Russia make an
agreement already
understanding the
situation that is
developing today
realizing that Russia
will fight for its
interests to the end.
Russia will fight
for its interest
till the end.
We are tourists.
We're like that couple
that goes to a hotel
in Paris and says,
Hey, let's pee on each
other is something
that they would never
do in their house.
But because it's in a
hotel that they don't
have to clean, they're
experimenting, that
mattress is a disaster,
and they don't care.
That is exactly us.
We are peeing
on Ukraine.
And we don't care
ultimately, that's the
sad, unfortunate thing.
And I think
we're morally
obligated to help.
But I honestly
don't know what
help means anymore.
Do we keep supplying
weapons and have
them die for the
inevitable loss anyway?
Because Russia is
never giving up?
And we're eventually
going to stop
supporting them?
Or do we force
concessions and try
to get them to the
table for a ceasefire
and disarmament and
some sort of treaty?
I don't know, I
don't even have
the information.
None of us have
the information.
This is privileged
military data.
And I honestly wish
them the best, but
I don't see how long
term Ukraine has a
chance of winning
unless something
drastic and awful
happens that might
entangle other people,
including ourselves.
The other part that
I think is really
important to discuss
is Putin talked
about the changing
economic landscape.
And his point is
completely backed
up by facts.
All of the numbers
he cited are true.
Despite the
sanctions, Russia
is still the biggest
economy in Europe.
And now that we've
weaponized the US
dollar by pulling all
these accounts from
Russia, freezing them,
they were forced to
do business in rubles.
So now 34% of their
business in rubles, 34%
in yuan, and the rest
in dollars, and they
have now 230 billion
in trade with China.
And according
to Putin, it's
completely balanced.
And Tucker asked him
the question is what
comes next and maybe
you trade one colonial
power for another
much less sentimental
forgiving colonial
power I mean are is the
the BRICs for example
in danger of being
completely dominated
by the Chinese the
Chinese economy uh in
a way that's not good
for their sovereignty
And Putin I would
say, gave wise answer.
we have heard those
Boogyman stories before
it is a Boogyman story
we're neighbors with
China you cannot choose
neighbors just as you
cannot choose close
relatives we share
a border of thousand
kilom with them this
is number one second we
have a centuries long
history of coexistence
we're used to it
third China's foreign
policy philosophy is
not aggressive its
idea is to always
look for compromise
and we can see that
and then you compare
it to all of the
wars that we have
been involved in and
really initiated.
We're not neighbors
with Korea, we went
to war, there were no
neighbors with Vietnam,
we went to war there.
Same thing with
Afghanistan, and Iraq,
and Syria, and all
these other nations.
So the question is,
are we the good guys?
Or are we the
militaristic threat
that we've been warning
others Russia is, and
I would never have
made that statement
ever, ever in my life,
the way I grew up.
I was so patriotic
for America.
In fact, my wife has
been disgusted with
me about how patriotic
I am, and how I get
tearful at cartoons
that feature some sort
of patriotic, it could
be a Simpsons cartoon,
and I'm gonna be
welling up with tears.
And so this idea that
I would even question,
it just goes to show
how much we've been
covering up for people,
how our perception is
changing in the world.
And we better get
a grip on this.
And statistics that
Putin rattled off
the g7 was 47%.
And now it's down
to 30% of the
global economy.
The bricks are
now bigger.
Indonesia, is a
huge world leading
economy, the biggest
Muslim country.
And this is inevitable
this will keep
happening it is like
the rise of the sun you
cannot prevent the Sun
from rising you have
to adapt to it how do
the United States adapt
with the help of force
sanctions pressure
bombings and use of
armed forces this is
about self-conceit
your political
establishment does
not understand that
the world is changing
under objective
circumstances and in
order to preserve your
level even if someone
aspires pardon me to
the level of dominance
you have to make the
right decisions in a
competent and timely
manner such brutal
actions including with
regard to Russia and
say other countries
are counterproductive
We're not going to
be able to resist
the inevitable.
Our ability to be
this military power
that gets our way
through force is over.
We need to do it
through persuasion,
through goodness
through trade through
our brain power, and
not our military power.
Unfortunately,
we've built a lot
of institutions that
are built for force.
And we've also created
a reputation that needs
fixing, and no one is
even on the horizon.
That could fix it.
Maybe RFK has a
positive message
in that regard.
Certainly not Biden,
where two wars
spawned under him.
Certainly not Trump,
who says all kinds of
crazy stuff every day.
The other thing I
thought was interesting
when Tucker asked
Putin, what do
you think of the
American leaders?
What do you think
of Biden, what do
you think of Trump?
Who do you prefer as
a partner to Russia?
And he said, it
doesn't matter.
I had a very good
relationship with say
Bush I know that in
the United States he
was portrayed as some
kind of a country boy
who does not understand
much I assure you that
this is not the case
He was no worse than
any other American or
Russian or european
politician I assure
you he understood what
he was doing as well
as others I had such
personal relationship
with Trump as well
the way he said it
was very dismissive.
He's like, it
doesn't matter who
your leader is,
they're all the same.
They're all fine.
But that's not a
great commentary on
who we're sending out
there in the world
to represent us.
it is not about the
personality of the
leader it is about the
Elite's mindset if the
idea of domination at
any cost based also
on forceful actions
dominates the American
society nothing will
change it will only
get worse but if in
the end one comes to
the awareness that the
world has been changing
to to the objective
circumstances and that
one should be able
to adapt them in time
using the advantages
that the US still has
today then perhaps
something may change
I saw this from Maxime
Bernier, he's the head
of the People's Party,
it's a conservative
party in Canada.
And he tweeted, we push
the Russians in the
arms of the Chinese,
we gave a new impetus
to the BRICS, which is
Brazil, Russia, India,
China, we encouraged
them to D dollarized.
And create a
parallel trade and
financial system.
And we push dozens
of emergent countries
to side with them.
It's the West that's
becoming isolated in
the world today, not
Russia, we should
never have taken part
in the war in Ukraine,
but rather called
for a ceasefire and
peace negotiations.
It's very hard to
argue with that.
I really do think
we're entering a new
era, that's going to
require a level of
global cooperation
and an approach that
we are not used to.
And quite honestly,
I'm concerned, because
they're really two
things that are holding
up the US economy, the
dollar as the reserve
currency, and our
military and this war
with Russia in Ukraine,
we have jeopardized
at least the dollar
component, because we
showed that we would
be willing to weaponize
our reserve currency.
And that's not to say
other countries haven’t
been trying to get
off dollars they have
China's been doing
it, a lot of countries
have been doing it.
But it takes a while.
We're expediting
it, because of some
of our actions.
And I don't know
that any of us are
ready to live in an
America that has to
make balanced budgets,
like every other
country in the world,
countries that can't
print unlimited money.
That is truly a
scary prospect.
And the fact
that we have the
military is great.
But as we've seen
with these hypersonic
missiles, we're not
as safe as we think.
And if we were to go
to war, we don't even
have the manufacturing
capacity to keep up
with with an enemy like
China, because China,
even if they didn't
have the best missiles,
their missiles cost
maybe 200 grand apiece,
they can send 1000s
and 1000s because they
can manufacture and
infinity with their
production capacity.
Even if our
missiles are 100
times better, they
cost a million bucks
apiece, or a million
and a half apiece.
So yeah, we'll knock
out their first few.
What are we gonna do
with the next 100?
So again, we're not
as safe as we were.
And we're not as
smart as we were.
And financially,
we need to really
rethink this thing.
And the Putin interview
highlighted a lot
of these issues
and they’re truths.
Whether or not the
underlying character
is a good person
doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter if
his recounting of
history was accurate.
What is accurate is
we are in a different
place, and our lack of
recognition of it is
very much concerning.
Anyway, hope
you enjoyed this
shared with others.
Tell a friend support
the show on Patreon
if you can, and I
will see you next
time on The McFuture
we still have people
running around with
cloth masks . those
have been proven
to be ineffective
I just went to an
event at a friend's
house three people
wearing cloth masks,
like they're about
to die, all pretty
healthy, but healthy
physically, mentally.
They're gone.
I think their
brains are broken.
And the media
break brains and
fix elections.
How many unlubed
narratives will they
have to shove in our
bungholes, before we
start asking questions?
When is the skepticism
going to show up?
Hey, maybe what they're
telling us is BS,
maybe they're telling
us what the government
wants us to know.
So I don't know
when that happens.
But I would like
it to be sooner
rather than later.
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Как Такер Карлсон слушал лекцию профессора Путина
Түрмөдөгүлөр Баш бербей тополоң Чыгарып ушундай болду! Путин Сөгүнгүм келет деп...
ANÁLISE: O QUE ESTÁ ACONTECENDO NA VENEZUELA? | Gustavo Gaiofato
ЮРИЙ ШВЕЦ // КРАТКИЕ ОТВЕТЫ // ЦЕЛИКОМ
Saudi Arabia's Threat: Europe in Shock | India Gain's Billion Dollars from Russia-Ukraine War!!!
"This is NOT The Way To Defeat Hamas" Piers Morgan vs Mehdi Hasan
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)