Author Topic: Russian and Chinese Leaders (Putin, Xi, Oligarchs, etc) other countries too  (Read 31920 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Putin with Tucker
« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2024, 09:15:00 AM »
 An extraordinary two hours

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Counterpoint
« Reply #151 on: February 10, 2024, 04:22:48 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tucker-carlson-s-putin-interview-was-even-worse-than-expected/ar-BB1i41rF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a9a884ba64384bea9ee84f6e285dc9ef&ei=18

Several of these points seem sound, but somehow the $1+B (number from Victoria Nuland in front of Congress btw) that America put into the Uke elections goes unmentioned.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
George Friedman on Tucker-Putin
« Reply #152 on: February 13, 2024, 07:34:16 AM »


February 13, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Putin’s Perspective on the Russia-Ukraine War
By: George Friedman

Russian President Vladimir Putin did something unprecedented last week: He held a two-hour press conference directed at the American public. It was not exactly a press conference, in the sense that Tucker Carlson, a talk show host perceived as sympathetic toward Russia, was the only reporter present. But neither was it, strictly speaking, an interview, as for most of the program, Putin held forth without the benefit of questions. In a sense, this made it more valuable because it allowed Putin to set out his views in an interesting and important way that might not have been possible had Carlson asked questions that were focused on an American perspective.

Instead, we got a genuine Russian perspective on the war in Ukraine, and Putin appeared to be a reasonable and thoughtful man. He made some very dubious claims, but every leader makes dubious claims while appearing statesmanlike, and Putin’s behavior drove home to an American audience that his position is not without some merit. He also made clear that he is a Russian patriot working for Russian interests, and it is in this spirit that we should take his claims. He did not want to appear like Stalin. He also seemed enormously knowledgeable, far beyond most politicians, though he did have the advantage of knowing what was to be said as well as a translator who always stood between him and his audience. But I believe this was Putin, helped by prepackaged questions, providing a sense of his broad knowledge. If this worked, then he showed that Russia was ruled by a sophisticated thinker. However, given the interview’s length and complexity, the American public may have given up early and not listened to the complete interview.

Still, the historical context, the targeting of an American audience, and the extraordinarily detailed description of Russia and Russian history seem to be setting the stage for negotiations. In defense of Russia’s attack, Putin charged the U.S. and NATO with dishonesty and duplicity in facing Russia, which was simply pursuing its historical imperative. This was no ordinary program, nor was it self-indulgent rambling; Putin’s emphasis on the failure of negotiations in Turkey early in the war makes this clear.

Putin’s central presentation concerned Russian history. He explained how Russia was formed many centuries ago and contrasted this with Eastern Europe’s formation. In this way he argued that Ukraine had always been part of Russia, physically and linguistically. Unstated but implicit in his argument, Ukraine is Russia, and the invasion of Ukraine simply represents the Russian world’s return to an older reality. This is why, according to Putin, Russia’s actions in Ukraine constitute a special military operation and not an act of war. He also spoke of Poland, hinting that Poland and Lithuania are renegades whose roots are inseparable from Russia. The discussion of Russian history was lengthy, but it was not merely academic. Putin’s argument was that history binds a place to its surroundings and its inhabitants and, in this case, gives Russia the right to make claims on foreign territory. I admired the way he slipped in his claims to the region in a way that might be dismissed or overlooked. He did, however, lay the foundation for Russian claims in Poland.

Some of what Putin said was confusing. For example, he asserted that the current Ukrainian government and its predecessors were Nazis and therefore were an enemy of Russia. He cited two men who had become Nazi collaborators before concluding that this made Ukraine a remnant of Nazi Germany and therefore hostile to Russia and other countries that had fought Hitler. This left me confused, as there is no country that was occupied by the Germans that didn’t have collaborators, from France to the Netherlands and so on. Some may have been ideologically Nazis, but all were seeking to survive or prosper. Putin made this argument from the beginning, but if followed logically it would compel Russia to invade most of Europe as a moral obligation. Putin showed himself to be highly sophisticated, so he must understand what he is saying and depend on the world to not understand his claims or take them seriously.

In another part, while expressing his readiness to negotiate, Putin said the United States was damaging itself by using the dollar to compel foreign powers to align with its worldview. He then claimed, in his most baffling remarks, that China’s economy dwarves America’s and that its economic future is bright. It is as if he has missed China’s reality in the two years since Ukraine was attacked. He said this in the context of claiming that a new economic order is emerging, and for that to happen, China must drive it. It is interesting that Putin’s seriously deep analysis of things, even if parts are debatable, concluded with obviously wrong assertions, but he was at it for a long time and was probably tired.

One other thing that struck me was his remarks about Russia’s intercontinental hypersonic missiles. The speed and maneuverability of hypersonics make defense against an attack – in the U.S. or elsewhere – very difficult. I advocated the development of intercontinental hypersonics in my book “The Future of War.” The U.S. has not yet fielded a hypersonic missile, nor do I have any evidence that it is developing an intercontinental version. If Russia’s intercontinental hypersonic missile is as capable as Putin suggested, then that may have been the most significant thing he said.

The rest of Putin’s remarks consisted of complaints about NATO and the United States and his insistence that the uprising in Kyiv in 2014 was the real beginning of the war. He left unexplained how Russia could have ignored such a terrible threat for so long.

Putin is the president of a modern nation-state, so he must explain his policies to his people and try to influence other governments and foreign publics. The goal is not to be truthful but persuasive in order to put other governments under carefully shaped pressure. What can be said is that Russia has stepped fully into modernity with an excellent presentation of truth and myths while allowing Carlson a few rebuttals. Putin saw him as friendly but a wild card, so few cards were dealt to him.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Russian and Chinese Leaders (Putin, Xi, Oligarchs, etc) other countries too
« Reply #155 on: February 15, 2024, 09:58:59 AM »
"He sort of believed me, like 5%, 10%. That’s all you need. He never did it during my time. He didn’t do this during the last four years because he knew he couldn’t."

But does not this sound like he is telegraphing he was bluffing....

But for the most part I believe it.
That is why Xi probably would rather have Biden.

I was watching a C span recording from December few days ago when Ted Cruz and Mike Lee give FBI director Wray a giant grilling.
At one point earlier Richard Blumenthal said something about we know who Russia or China would rather have as President.  He did not say who but the hint I got was he meant Trump, as though this disparaged Trump.
I was thinking it is most certainly the opposite.  And not for a good reason for the US.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
VDH on the interview
« Reply #156 on: February 15, 2024, 03:35:44 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Friedman follow up on the interview
« Reply #157 on: February 16, 2024, 07:36:30 AM »
February 16, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Additional Thoughts on the Putin Interview
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
On Tuesday, we published an article I wrote on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. I believe the interview revealed a great deal about Putin, his view of Russia’s role in European history and his justification for the invasion of Ukraine. A number of readers challenged me by saying I appeared to admire Putin or that I felt his actions were justified. The truth is that my judgment here is irrelevant; hating him or viewing him as evil would not enhance either my knowledge of him or that of the country he leads. It would be little more than self-gratification.

Even so, perhaps the occasion warrants more explanation. I normally deal only with nations, but sometimes when a powerful individual speaks – especially when that individual is hostile to my country or is someone with whom I disagree – I use a different process. The first step in defeating an enemy, whether in politics, business or any other arena, is to understand how they think. You must begin with the likely fact that they do not see themselves as evil or stupid, and no matter how you feel, you cannot allow your feelings to obscure that fact. You can use brute force to defeat an adversary, but if brute force is not a choice then subversion is possible. For that, you must understand and respect your enemy’s view of themselves. You must always place yourself in their head. Premature hatred or contempt will lead to failure.

This is true in wider conflicts too. The Vietnam War, for example, began with precious little understanding of the Viet Cong. Many in the U.S. wrote them off as evil. Vietnamese revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh spoke publicly about what the war would look like, but we dismissed it as a lie. Our intellectual shallowness and our inability to understand what drove them cost 50,000 U.S. lives.

Putin said that NATO started the war and forced Russia to act. In the interview, he claimed that Poland and the Baltic states are, because of their shared history, ultimately part of Russia. This is untrue, of course; Putin is a politician, and politicians lie. But lies can reveal the truth when properly analyzed. And for that reason alone there is utility in watching interviews like this.

Thanks to all who read the article and those who wrote comments.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
RIP Alexei Navalny (Did Putin have him killed?)
« Reply #158 on: February 18, 2024, 07:49:56 AM »
See 4 minute documentary at the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/russian-activist-and-putin-critic-alexei-navalny-dies-in-prison


[Doug] Putin wants what's best for Russia (?) and he wants to stay in power the rest of his life.  Assuming those two things don't overlap perfectly, which one does he want more?  Obviously to stay in power at all costs.

Putin is an autocrat in a system that is not supposed to be autocratic.  He holds phony elections He stepped down temporarily for term limits?  Ended term limits?  Kills his opponents.  Rigs the results.  Steal from his country.  A Madura with a larger arsenal.

Besides condemning that there, what are we going to do when that happens here?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Medvedev
« Reply #160 on: February 19, 2024, 08:40:54 PM »
""Attempts to restore Russia's 1991 borders will lead only to one thing - a global war with Western countries with the use of our entire strategic (nuclear) arsenal against Kyiv, Berlin, London, and Washington. And against all other beautiful historic places that have long been included in the flight targets of our nuclear triad," Medvedev said"  a day ago in news reports.

Remember this :

"hot mic" moment in 2012, when Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev "after my election I have more flexibility.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/14/obamas-hot-mic-moment-russian-president-2012-was-u/

Perhaps this Medvedev nuc talk is a response to recent Trump's "boast" that he could bomb Moscow......

This is reminding me of how I felt after watching The Day After movie -> pits in my stomach.  Statements like these from either side is very disconcerting.  I don't recall anyone saying this even in the earlier Cold War.  Something about Nikita Krushev telling how he would "bury us" but not mentioning using nucs.

These are not the best of times,,,,,

We need strong leaders but also cool heads.  I dunno,,,,,

« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 09:16:54 PM by ccp »