Putin Interview

The interview was mostly a history lecture delivered by Vladimir Putin.  His promised minute of background soon expanded to an hour of Russian history going back to the 9th century and the founding of Kiev (Kyiv) by the Rus.  The Rus were Vikings who raided east and are the titular source for Russia.  He explained how this early Russian state had the two poles of Novgorod and Kiev.  Through the centuries, what is now Ukraine was considered part of Russia, most especially that part east of the Dnieper River.  He blames Stalin for having allocated that region to the administrative authority of Ukraine, not really a country so much as a governmental district.  With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the mostly ethnically Russian eastern Ukraine and Crimea were stuck with the mixed ethnicities of western Ukraine.  That was not so bad.  The West promised not to advance NATO.  However, NATO did advance in waves and, in 2008, said the door was open for Ukraine.  He labeled the 2014 revolution in Ukraine to have been a coup d'etat engineered by the West.  From his perspective, the ethnically Russian east was being attacked by Western-backed neo-Nazis.  How could it be wrong for him to fight Nazis?  He brought up the instance of a former Nazi addressing the Canadian parliament and getting an ovation.  Sadly, that's a true story.

It was interesting but not particularly engaging.  Putin was very repetitive and Tucker mostly just sat listening.  This was not a back and forth conversation since they do not speak a common language.  Tucker did have some good questions.  Who blew up Nord Stream pipeline?  Putin said, "You."  Obviously, he meant the United States but Tucker responded by saying he had an alibi for that day.  Silliness.  Clarifying, Putin pointed the finger at the CIA, saying it required certain abilities to blow up a pipeline that far beneath the surface and that most countries didn't have the capacity.  Later, he asked why Putin didn't just deal with the US - as Ukraine is nothing but an American proxy - in order to secure a peace deal.  Putin stated that America could easily have Zelinsky agree to a peace if America wanted peace.  He announced a willingness to come to an agreement.  Tucker asked if he might invade Poland.  Certainly not.  Such would only happen if Poland attacked Russia.

Part of Putin's argument for annexing those parts of Ukraine that are east of the Dnieper River sounded a lot like Hitler's reasons for taking the Sudetenland in 1938.  Hitler said the region was populated by ethnic Germans, which was true.  However, it was also a natural barrier against German invasion.  Is this a case of history repeating?

Putin frequently accused the West of dealing in bad faith.  The advance of NATO and the long history of meddling in Ukraine was mentioned several times.  He suggested that US presidents weren't really in charge of foreign policy.  In a conversation with President Clinton, he asked if Russia could join NATO.  Clinton didn't give an answer at the time but later said not.  Putin viewed this as Clinton being told by the true powers that be what the answer should be.  He mentioned that he had good relations with George W. Bush and Donald Trump.  One supposes that means he didn't have good relations with Obama and Biden.

Clearly, if Putin ever leaves office, he has a bright future as a guest lecturer or even a professor of Russian History.  I took Russian History in college and he sounded spot on from my recollection.  However, the interview is slow and monotonous, only occasionally interesting.  Accusing the West is what you expect him to say, so little of it was a surprise.  The reaction from other media sources is the most surprising thing.  Jealousy that Carlson got the scoop?  Disappointment that Russia's side of the story has an outlet?  If you read to this point, you can skip watching the interview.

Insurrection Hoax?

Recently, House Speaker McCarthy provided access to the thousands of hours of video recording on January 6, 2021.  For the past couple of nights, Tucker Carlson has aired snippets.  Though he started out with the riotous stuff that we have already seen ad nauseam, he then transitioned to some videos that had not been shown.  For example, the Q-Anon Shaman, the fellow who became the face of January 6th, was escorted through the Capitol by the police.  No, not in handcuffs so he could go directly to jail.  The police appear to be giving him a tour of the building and even open a door for him.  Huh.  That's peculiar.  When the shaman finally got to the chamber where plenty of video has been shown, he thanked the police for their participation.  That seems weird.  Of course, it fits with story of Matthew Martin.  Martin was acquitted of all charges for his participation on J6, which included entering the Capitol, because two officers flanking the door made no effort to stop him.  Didn't anyone tell these two officers to close the doors or at least attempt to turn away protesters?  Then there was Ray Epps.  In testimony, he claimed to have left the Capitol but the timestamped video shows him still onsite.  Of note, Epps was on the FBI most wanted list for 1 day.  He still hasn't been arrested or charged.  For a guy that is on tape insisting that protesters must 'go into the Capitol,' it seems odd that he hasn't been charged.  Then we have the man who actively dragged protesters into the Capitol building.  Officer Sitnick, who was beaten to death by protesters, is shown walking about in the Capitol a half hour after his supposed beating.  Huh.  How come none of this was addressed by the J6 Select Committee?    It's almost as if that was a show trial that only wanted to paint a particular narrative, not find the truth of what happened.

Much of this footage was kept hidden for the last 26 months because it contradicts the established narrative.  None of this excuses those who clearly rioted that day.  However, the idea that a bunch of unarmed protesters came close to overthrowing the government is ludicrous.  CNN reported the far deadlier and more destructive events in Minneapolis as a 'mostly peaceful protest.'

Lose-Lose Situation

Tucker Carlson recently blasted President Trump's lack of action against the widespread unrest throughout the country.  He announced that President Obama would never have allowed things to get this bad.  The National Guard or even the 101st Airborne would have long since retaken the CHAZ and stamped out the riots in various cities.  I generally like that plan.  I'm all for peaceful protests but when they transform into lawless bands of looters and vandals, it's time to read the riot act.  But let's take it to the next step.

Suppose the national guard or the military is deployed to end the riots and stamp out the autonomous zone.  How will that be reported in the media?  Will the president get praise for returning law & order to the cities and protecting the property of private citizens?  Unlikely.  Will the president be denounced as an authoritarian who stomped on the rights of black Americans to protest police brutality?  Oh yeah!  Big time!  If Trump does nothing, he is a weakling in a time of crisis but if he does something, he provides the evidence for the old claims that he is a fascist.  That is how it will be reported.  It is lose-lose.

What to do?  Trump's initial efforts have been to demand that the mayors and governors of these various cities and states take action.  Governor Jay Inslee has the authority to call up the national guard and deploy it to reassert control of CHAZ.  He has declined to do so despite Trump's emphatic prompting.  By pointing out that the local authorities (all Democrats) who have the authority to put down the riots are doing nothing, the president is blame-shifting.  Is it blame-shifting?  Shouldn't the first group to respond to a local riot be the local police?  If that isn't enough, request state assistance.  If that still isn't enough, call upon the federal government.  Yes, that would be federalism.  Trump has further offered to help, if requested.  No requests.  The locals will neither put down the riots themselves nor will they accept some responsibility by requesting federal aid.  Hmm.  This sounds like a setup.

The people of Seattle voted for the government that is more or less cheerleading for the CHAZ/CHOP.  Elections have consequences.  Minneapolis has a Democrat mayor, a Democrat city counsel, all Democrat Congressional Representatives (Ilhan Omar among them), 2 Democrat senators, a Democrat Attorney General, and a Democrat Governor.  Obviously, the Republican President is the problem.

Sadly, this is all about an election year.  How will a crackdown impact the November election?  More importantly, how will a crackdown be reported?  Trump thinks that he is better off letting blue cities and states burn.  Further, he hopes that blue politicians suffer in the polls and he's going to run ads putting the blame on them.  By contrast, it will be hard for those blue politicians to blame Trump for not taking actions that they refused to take themselves.

Whichever side you are on, we have the worst political class in my life.  Political maneuvering is more important that doing their jobs.  Tragic.