British run Moscow Times take;
https://www.themoscowtimes.com...tin-interview-a83999

It is all a sad commentary on what educated people used to understand about how “journalism” is supposed to woek. You are supposed to be presented with all sigdes of a subject so you can form your own EDUCATED opinion on the subject matter at hand.

Well by golly, if the Ukrainians don't like him.

EU Lawmakers Want To Sanction Tucker Carlson Over Putin Interview

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...over-putin-interview

In 1941, American journalist Pierre Huss interviewed German dictator Adolph Hitler in German-occupied Russia as part of a reporting staff orchestrated by CBS News' Edward R. Murrow. He won the George Polk award in 1951 for war time reporting, and was honored by the NY Times in a 1966 obituary.



Nearly 80 years later, EU lawmakers want to sanction Tucker Carlson for his upcoming interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian Prime Minister and current member of the European Parliament who has called for the EU to impose a "travel ban" on the former Fox News host, told Newsweek that Carlson is nothing more than a "mouthpiece" for former President Donald Trump and Putin.

"As Putin is a war criminal and the EU sanctions all who assist him in that effort, it seems logical that the External Action Service examine his case as well," he said.

Former MEP Luis Gariocano told Newsweek that he agrees with Verhofstadt.

"He is no longer a newsman, but a propagandist for the most heinous regime on European soil and the one which is most dangerous to our peace and security," he said of Carlson.

MEP Urmas Paet, who was previously Estonia's foreign minister, told the outlet: "First of all, it should be remembered that Putin is not just a president of an aggressor country, but he is wanted by the International Criminal Court and accused of genocide and war crimes," adding "Carlson wants to give a platform to someone accused of crimes of genocide—this is wrong. If Putin has something to say he needs to say it in front of the ICC. At the same time Carlson is not being a real journalist since he has clearly expressed his sympathy for the Russian regime and Putin and has constantly disparaged Ukraine, the victim of Russian aggression."

"So, for such propaganda for a criminal regime, you can end up on the list of sanctions. This concerns primarily travel ban to EU countries."

Carlson explained on Tuesday that he's interviewing Putin because "Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now," adding "We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin....We are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin may say in this interview, but we are urging you to watch it. You should know as much as you can."

According to a Telegram channel believed to be run by Kremlin reporters, Tucker's interview may be released Thursday in the late afternoon, EST.

https://www.breitbart.com/euro...tm_campaign=20240207

Russia Says Tucker Carlson Interview of Vladimir Putin Has Taken Place

The interview with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin announced by Tucker Carlson has been confirmed to have taken place by the Kremlin.

Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian President had spoken in person to American journalist Tucker Carlson. Per Russian state media, Peskov said “Yes, I can confirm this” and “as soon as it… is ready, it will be released”.

Explaining why Russia had agreed to give Carlson an interview when it had turned down other Western journalists, Peskov said while he didn’t consider Carlson pro-Russian, he wasn’t pro-Ukrainian either, merely pro-American, and consequently “He has a position that differs from the rest [of Western media]… at least it is contrastingly different from the position of traditional Anglo-Saxon media”.
Anglo-Saxon is a common Russian dog whistle referring to what they perceive as a negative impact on global politics by white northern Europeans as represented by Washington D.C., London, and Brussels.

It was revealed that Tucker Carlson had arrived in Moscow over the weekend, and he confirmed his own presence, and his intention to interview the Russian President, in a social media statement on Tuesday evening. Carlson said interviewing Putin was important — although dangerous — because, in his view, one-sided reporting from the establishment media has left many Americans ignorant of much of what was happening with Russia.

The journalist called some reporting of the Ukraine war, which he said blindly parroted Ukraine government information, “government propaganda”.

cont...

From Newsweek: I watched the Putin interview by NBC and then read the comments. Also noted in this opinion piece: "Can anyone imagine Joe Biden sitting for an interview with Russian journalists for any length of time at all, even before relations dived post-invasion? He barely does interviews in the United States!"


Of Course Journalists Should Interview Vladimir Putin | Opinion

https://www.newsweek.com/cours...utin-opinion-1867522

While I was in Moscow last December, people who had just been to the ghastly front-lines in Ukraine recounted stories of how members of the same family were often seen fighting against one another from dueling trenches: blood relatives of the same Slavic clan speaking the same language—Russian—hurling explosives in opposite directions over the same desolate no-man's-land.

How anyone could look at this situation and come away with triumphalist notions of war grandeur, rather than a deep sense of avoidable tragedy, seemed like a cruel farce. So that was exactly the sentiment I conveyed to the Russian hosts of the meeting I attended, some of whom did harbor such triumphalist notions (those present included a senior-ranking Kremlin official).

"Chatham House" rules were stipulated for the gathering, precluding me from making any public disclosure of the attendees' identities or what anyone else specifically said. But I can certainly reveal what I said: that the war in Ukraine was an obvious disaster for all involved. The brutish, World War I-style trench warfare that had become the war's grisly signature cannot possibly warrant any other conclusion. That was a message I was happy to deliver in Moscow, just as I'd be happy to do in Kyiv, and had previously done in Washington, D.C.

I explained to my hosts that when the opportunity to come to Russia arose, I accepted without hesitation, because bilateral relations between the world's leading nuclear superpowers had perilously deteriorated since the invasion of Ukraine. The grand cosmological treatises articulated by some of the meeting's participants, about how Russia was waging a godly war of civilizational purification, were both wildly over-aggrandized and beside the point, I argued: A giant, man-made calamity was unfolding in real time, and it could always get exponentially worse given the ever-present risks of escalation.

Obviously Russia, as the invading power, bore a major share of the culpability for this disaster. But sadly for those who crave comforting moral simplicity, the Russia/Ukraine war is not the first in world history with a single cause or a sole culprit.

Even getting to Russia in the first place required making a special trek to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., where I received a "humanitarian" visa with strict limitations for the duration of my stay. Though it would be pompous to claim I was embarked on anything like a "humanitarian" mission—I had no plans to deliver medical supplies to the Donbas, for instance—there did strike me to be a kind of humanitarian value in doing whatever small part I could to maintain some semblance of interpersonal exchange between the two countries, which, lest anyone forget, maintain the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. (The last remaining mutual arms control mechanism was ominously suspended in 2023.) A top Russian official remarked that relations with the United States were at a lower point than any time since the founding of the Soviet Union; even basic diplomatic communications between the two governments had become negligible to non-existent.

Yet these obstacles to normal U.S.-Russia engagement only heighten the obligation for any respectable journalist, if presented with the opportunity, to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin without a second thought. It's worth recalling that Putin was relatively accessible to American media before the Ukraine war broke out. Take this 82-minute interview in 2021 with NBC News, or this similar-length 2019 interview with the Financial Times.

Can anyone imagine Joe Biden sitting for an interview with Russian journalists for any length of time at all, even before relations dived post-invasion? He barely does interviews in the United States!

But it's tediously, unbearably stupid for anyone to suggest that Carlson, simply by virtue of going to Russia with the intent of interviewing Putin, should therefore be assumed guilty of treason—probably the most overused smear in the present American political lexicon.

Anyone who blurts out that tired charge has probably not had an original thought since at least the Steele Dossier, and is clearly just interested in monomaniacal villainization of the world leader they love to revile—not ascertaining information to improve public understanding of critical world affairs.

As we speak, Congress is lurching toward eventual passage of the largest disbursement of U.S. military "aid" since the beginning of the war, justified by the endlessly recycled premise that if Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he's sure to rampage through the rest of Europe, fulfilling his destiny as the latter-day incarnation of Hitler.

Isn't it about time someone journalistically scrutinizes that proposition by going directly to the source?

Over the past two years, the U.S. media has overflowed with cheap war punditry purporting to divine what's going on inside Putin's head, or what he really "wants." Now, ironically, many of those same pundits will throb with fury that a journalist has finally done something other than uselessly speculate.

NBC Interview:



Financial Times interview can be viewed here:

https://www.ft.com/video/d62ed...18-86ff-4b8120125583


More at link

Looking to see if the US President has spoken out about the Ukraine putting out a hit on an American Citizen . . . *checks notes*

Not a word.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
Looking to see if the US President has spoken out about the Ukraine putting out a hit on an American Citizen . . . *checks notes*

Not a word.

Biden: "So, I says to Zelensky, 'if you want those weapons and billions of dollars in aid, you better put a hit out on Tucker Carlson.' Sonofabitch, the next day, a hit has been put on Carlson!"

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
funny thing

I trust Putin more than I trust Biden

Putin does what he says he's going to do, and you already know he's the enemy

can't say the same thing about Bidet

I hear you, but I know bidet is the enemy, and it doesn’t matter what he says, because he has no clue what he’s going to do. Heck, half the time he doesn’t even know what he’s saying.

This will get more views than all the cat videos on the Internet combined.

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
This will get more views than all the cat videos on the Internet combined.

Which is the reason for all the uproar about it.

The 'Pregame Show', if you will, for tonight's interview w/ Vladimir Putin

The interview is on now here:

https://tuckercarlson.com/the-...mir-putin-interview/

30 minutes in and very interesting.

Thanks for posting!

I'm watching it now and the 30 min. history lesson/filibuster is annoying.

I skipped past that part. Rather interesting. One thing I can say for certain is that Putin does not respond like most American leaders, who are full of shit. Putin seems to be trying to point out how things played out, leading up to the current conflict. Of course it's all from his perspective, but I get the sense he's not trying to bullshit us.

The West is a disappointment to him, and somewhat amusing. He feels that we promise things which do not come to fruition. Too many chefs, and the See-Eye-Ayy is a spoiler of all it touches.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I'm watching it now and the 30 min. history lesson/filibuster is annoying.

Not for me. History is a powerful lens to view the current events of the world through, and one very few people in this country have been looking through. We toss around frothy tidbits like “Ukraine is a sovereign nation,” and generally have no further-reaching context than anything beyond the fall of the USSR. Numerous times I’ve cited in threads here some of the very things he’s saying.

I know most of the history he's talking about, though I had never heard the claim that Hitler had tried to negotiate with Poland before invading them. That was a new one for me. And I don't believe it.

All I know is that the Russian mindset is ironclad and very predictable. There's no point in trying to change it. Yet the West always acts surprised when the Russkies do what they were always going to do, at least with regard to reacting to the West's actions.