Are We The Baddies? My Putin-Tucker Revelations | The McFuture w/Steve Faktor

Summary

The 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

00:00

😕 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.

05:01

😴 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.

10:02

🤔 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.

15:04

😣 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.

20:05

😱 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.

25:05

🤨 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.

30:07

😧 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.

35:09

😫 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.

40:10

😲 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.

45:11

🤔 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.

50:12

😞 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.

Keywords

💡Ukraine

Ukraine is the country at the center of the current Russia-Ukraine war. The video discusses the complex history of Ukraine, its relationship with Russia, and the West's intervention in the conflict. It looks at differing perspectives on Ukraine's status as an independent nation.

💡NATO expansion

The expansion of NATO into eastern European countries near Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union is discussed as a key factor leading to tension with Russia. The video references promises allegedly made to Russia that NATO would not expand eastward.

💡Peace negotiations

The video references tentative peace negotiations earlier in 2022 between Russia and Ukraine that did not come to fruition, allegedly due to dissuasion from UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to continue fighting.

💡Energy politics

The video looks at energy politics like the Nord Stream pipelines as part of the geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West over Ukraine. It also references attempts by the West to cut dependence on Russian oil and gas.

💡Shift in global order

The relative economic and political decline of the West compared to emerging powers like China and regional blocs like BRICS is discussed as an inevitable shift that Western leaders fail to recognize.

💡Dollar dominance

The status of the US dollar as the dominant global reserve currency is presented as potentially under threat from expanded use of alternatives like the Chinese yuan and Russian rubble.

💡Military-industrial complex

The video references a view that perpetuation of the Cold War-era military-industrial complex compelled leaders to continue treating Russia as an enemy against promises.

💡Hypersonic missiles

Russia's development of advanced hypersonic missiles against which the US has no defense, part of an action-reaction arms race set off by US withdrawal from missile defense treaties.

💡US interventions

The video is critical of a history of US military interventions and regime change operations around the world, questioning the narrative of the US as good guys promoting democracy.

💡Manufacturing capacity

The video warns that the US lacks the manufacturing capacity of countries like China, so would be unable to match them in an extended missile for missile conflict.

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.