Thank You Tucker Carlson!

By Rich Kozlovich

George Friedman owns Geopolitical Futures, a paid site to which I subscribe.  He occasionally publishes free articles that I can link.   This is one of them, Putin’s Perspective on the Russia-Ukraine War.  Understand, a negotiated peace under Putin's terms is for Ukraine to capitulate, so let's start with that foundational truth.  

George's article discusses Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin, which the left and their myrmidons in the media railed against, some calling it treason and some in the EU even wanted to charge him with a crime. Imagine that.

Ya just gotta hand it to leftists, they really are into freedom of speech and the press, provided you don't say anything they don't like or approve of. Then they want to either censor you, have you fired, or put you in jail.  Can anyone tell me how that makes them any different than what Putin does in Russia or Xi does in China?  At any rate George went on to say: 

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.

For the most part, I agree, but George painted a bit kinder of a picture of Putin than I would have discussing at length Russian history, to which he really is quite expert, but the basis for virtually everything he said was to justify his illegal war against a nation that in no way was a threat to Russia.

Putin has, at least in my mind, clearly memorized and practiced these arguments to convince himself of the "sacredness" of his "mission", and make no mistake, if Trump had been President this would not have occurred.  Also, if he'd swept Ukraine, the Baltic States would have been next, in spite of the fact they're part of NATO, which destroys his so-called "fear" of NATO expansion argument, which I will come back to. 

This was all about revanche !!!!! All that history Putin orated about was misdirection, diversion, smoke and mirrors. Get over it.

George in the past has been an aficionado of Putin's "depth of defense" excuse for Russia attacking Ukraine.  NATO was too close, therefore Russia had to conquer Ukraine to defend against aggression, which I addressed in these two articles, Russia Was Scared, So They Had to Attack Ukraine! Part I and Russia Was Scared So They Had to Attack Ukraine, Part II.

So that bodes well the question: Aggression against Russia by who?   No one says!  In the entire history of Russia, it's never been safer or more secure from foreign invasion.  George goes on to note what's really behind Putin's arguments, and I think rightly so:

[Putin] 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........[this] gives Russia the right to make claims on foreign territory..........He did, however, lay the foundation for Russian claims in Poland.

So, now we know this had nothing to do with "depth of defense", it was all about revanche after all. His goal in his attack was to restore lost territories to Russian control, and that's a story that went back and forth for centuries involving Kievan Rus history, the Mongols, Tatars, Teutonic Knights, and The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.  

Russia is considered a "hordesland" nation, meaning it has few natural defensive barriers like mountain ranges, and "hordes" swept over Russia in times past, so the need to conquer barrier nations was a logical strategy in order to give Russia time to form armies to defend the nation.  Those days are are long gone, and the need for such a strategy is a myth.

His love of Russia, and his depth of knowledge regarding Russian history has been known for some time, so that shouldn't be a surprise, nor should it be an indication of the quality of his intelligence.  

I do think George's article was insightful, especially Putin's claims America's not dealing fairly with China economically.  According to Putin what America really needs to do is to surrender to China's world economic order to continue to exist, because China's future is the bright and shining way, and by implication, America is doomed without China. It would also end trade restrictions that prevent nations from supported Russia's military expansionism, and that was what he really wants.

I would have loved to have had Carlson ask why Russia's trying to work a deal to have a naval base on the African west coast?  How is that protecting Russia?  The interview was a was a mixture of truth, myth, irrational, illogical, and twisted history!  

He then goes on to threaten America with his claims of Russia's possession of hypersonic missiles, which reminds me of Khrushchev's claim in the late 50's they were turning out missiles like sausages.  Which everyone except Eisenhower believed, and Eisenhower was right.   Is this in reality what the Russians call maskirovka?  

Yes and no in my opinion.  

I have no doubt he has such missiles, but I also wonder about the quality of those missiles, and their ability to produce them quickly, or in mass since they can't even build their own drones having to buy them from Iran, and they have to purchase military equipment from N. Korea.  They're even tying their economics to N. Korea.  Imagine that!  N. Korea, how telling is that?

This wasn't an interview as we understand interviews in America.  Carlson didn't challenge him the way he would be challenged in America, and let's not lose sight of the fact, it's most likely he wasn't allowed, and the topics and questions were predetermined.   This was more of a lecture than in interview, and actually, I think that was very beneficial.  It's clear Putin loves the sound of his own voice, and thinks he can con everyone if given enough time.  It's been said he would have liked for it to have gone on longer, and it's been said he later regretted it went on that long as it exposed Putin's psychological and intellectual weaknesses, and I think it did.  

Having said that, it's clear the Ukraine government is corrupt beyond redemption, their population is dwindling via mortality or migration, and Ukrainians are upset at the tyranny imposed on them by their own government, even ending elections.  The funding bill introduced in the Senate has poison pills in it to prevent Trump from stopping the flow of that money, which is being stolen as fast as they can, and it's been reported that arms delivered to Ukraine has ended up in the hands of Mexican cartels.  That's not setting well with America.

Here's what I think is reality.  Ukraine is toast, and ultimately Russia is going to suffer economically over the long term, and their demographics problems just got a lot worse.  Russia as we know it is doomed. Ten years ago it was predicted ethnic Russians will be a minority in their own nation by 2040, and now after losing over 300,000 young Russian men, that time frame has been reduced.