#tucker carlson sides with putin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 19 days

Text

Billboard project

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 6, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 07, 2024

One of the things that came to light on Wednesday, in the paperwork the Justice Department unveiled to explain its seizure of 32 internet domains being used by Russian agents in foreign malign influence campaigns, was that the six right-wing U.S. influencers mentioned in the indictments of the Russian operatives are only the tip of the iceberg.

Since at least 2022, three Russian companies working with the Kremlin have been trying to change foreign politics in a campaign they called “Doppelganger,” covertly spreading Russian government propaganda. “[F]irst and foremost,” notes from a meeting with Russian officials about targeting Germany read, “we need to discredit the USA, Great Britain, and NATO.” Through fake social media profiles, their operatives posed as Americans or other non-Russians, seeding public conversations with Russian propaganda.

In August 2023 they launched the “Good Old USA Project” to target swing-state residents, online gamers, American Jews, and “US citizens of Hispanic descent” to reelect Donald Trump. "They are afraid of losing the American way of life and the ‘American dream,’” one of the propagandists wrote. “It is these sentiments that should be exploited in the course of an information campaign in/for the United States.” Using targeted ads on Facebook, they could see how their material was landing and use bots and trolls to push their narrative in comment sections.

“In order for this work to be effective, you need to use a minimum of fake news and a maximum of realistic information,” the propagandists told their staff. “At the same time, you should continuously repeat that this is what is really happening, but the official media will never tell you about it or show it to you.”

According to the documents, one of the three companies, Social Design Agency (SDA), monitors and collects information about media organizations and social media influencers. It collected a list of 1,900 “anti-influencers,” whose accounts posted material SDA workers thought operated against Russian interests. About 26% of those accounts were based in the U.S.

SDA also identified as pro-Russian influencers more than 2,800 people in 81 countries operating on various social media platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram. Those influencers included “television and radio hosts, politicians, bloggers, journalists, businessmen, professors, think-tank analysts, veterans, professors, and comedians.” About 21% of those influencers were in the U.S.

YouTube took down the Tenet Media Channels associated with the Justice Department’s indictments, and last night, Tenet Media abruptly shut down. In The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last noted that the Tenet influencers maintain they were dupes, although they must have been aware that their paychecks were crazy high for the numbers of viewers they had. He asks if, knowing now that their gains are ill-gotten, they are going to give them to charity.

Earlier this week, former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson hosted Holocaust denier Darryl Cooper on his X show, where Cooper not only suggested that the death of more than six million Jews was an accidental result of poor planning, but also argued that British prime minister Winston Churchill, who stood firm against the expansion of fascist Germany in World War II, was the true villain of the war.

Cooper’s argument puts him squarely on the side of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who insist that democracy undermines society. During the recent summer Olympics, Cooper posted on social media an image of Hitler in Paris alongside another of drag queens representing Greek gods at the Olympic opening ceremonies, an image some on the right thought made fun of the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples. “This may be putting it too crudely for some,” Cooper wrote, “but the picture [of Hitler in Paris] was infinitely preferable in virtually every way than the one on the right.”

The idea that Churchill, not Hitler, is the villain of World War II means denying the fact of the Holocaust and defending the Nazis. It lands Carlson and Cooper in the same camp as those autocrats journalist Anne Applebaum notes are “making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom around the world.” Elon Musk promoted the interview, saying it was “very interesting,” and “worth watching,” before the backlash made him delete his post. The video has been viewed nearly 30 million times.

Carlson told Lauren Irwin of The Hill that the Biden administration is made up of “warmonger freaks” who have “used the Churchill myth to bring our country closer to nuclear war than at any moment in history.” Carlson is on a 16-day speaking tour, on which he will interview Trump allies, including Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr.

Trump today continued his effort to undermine the democratic American legal system in a “news conference” of more than 45 minutes, in which he took no questions. Although Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the election interference case in which a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts, decided today to delay sentencing until November 26 to avoid any appearance that the court was trying to affect the 2024 election, Trump nonetheless launched an attack on the U.S. legal system and suggested the lawsuits against him were election interference.

He spoke after he and his legal team were in court today to try to overturn a jury’s conclusion that he had sexually assaulted writer E. Jean Carroll, a decision that brought his judgments in the two cases she brought to around $90 million. He began with an attack on what he said was a new “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax, and promised he had not “spoken to anybody from Russia in years.”

Aaron Rupar of Public Notice recorded what amounted to close to an hour of attacks on the American Justice Department and the laws of the country, and also on American women (he not only attacked Carroll, he brought up others of the roughly two dozen women who have accused him of sexual assault). He attempted to retry the Carroll case in the media, refuting the evidence the jury considered and suggesting that the photo of him and Carroll together was generated by AI, although it was published in 2019.

Attacking women was an interesting decision in light of the fact that he will need the votes of suburban women if he is to make up the ground he has lost to Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and vice presidential nominee Tim Walz.

For her part, former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) appears to see this moment for what it is. Although a staunch Republican herself, she is urging conservative women to admit they’ve had enough. Referring to both Trump and Vance in a conversation sponsored by the Texas Tribune, she said: “This is my diplomatic way of saying it: They’re misogynistic pigs.” She assured listeners, quite accurately, that Trump “is not a conservative.” “Women around this country…we’ve had enough.” “These are not people that we can entrust with power again.”

Her father, former vice president Dick Cheney, agreed that Trump “can never be trusted with power again” and announced today that he will be voting for Harris. “As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution. That is why I will be casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris,” he said. Eighty-eight business leaders also endorsed Harris today, including James Murdoch, an heir to the Murdoch family media empire. Citing Harris’s “policies that support the rule of law, stability, and a sound business environment,” they said in a public letter, “the best way to support the continued strength, security, and reliability of our democracy and economy” is by electing Harris president.

Meanwhile, at his event with Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel yesterday, Trump embraced the key element of Project 2025 that calls for a dictatorial leader to take over the U.S. That document maintains that “personnel is policy” and that the way to achieve all that the Christian nationalists want is to fire the nonpartisan civil servants currently in place and put their own people into office. Trump has tried hard to distance himself from Project 2025, but last night he said the way to run the government is to “get the right people. You put the right person and the right group of people at the heads of these massive agencies, you’re going to have tremendous success, and I know now the people, and I know them better than anybody would know them.”

One of those people appears to be X owner Elon Musk, whom Trump has promised to put at the head of an “efficiency” commission to audit the U.S. government.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, then a candidate for the Senate, warned that the arguments against democracy and in favor of a few people dominating the rest were always the same. In his era, it was enslavers saying some people were better than others. But, he said, those were the same arguments “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.”

In our era, Indiana Jones said it best in The Last Crusade: “Nazis. I hate these guys.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Tenet Media channels #Letters From An american #Heather Cox Richardson #Indiana Jones #Abraham Lincoln #democracy #authoritarianism #Russian Propaganda #social media

12 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 1 year

Text

The thinking of tankies as well as Putinistas, bothsiderists, and Tucker Carlson fans is illustrated in that meme.

Those are the sort of people who would have sought "compromise" with Hitler.

Speaking of Schicklgruber, France and Britain attempted to compromise with Germany in 1938. The result was the infamous Munich Agreement of September 30th when Czechoslovakia was forced to give up the Sudetenland to Hitler's Germany.

Hitler observed his side of the agreement for just 166 days; on 15 March 1939 German troops occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia without warning. And 11 months and 1 day after Munich, Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began.

You can never sate an imperialist dictator's appetite for more land and power. Defeat of some sort is the only way to stop Putin once and for all.

124 notes · View notes

misfitwashere · 4 months

Text

Dr. Timothy Snyder - Thinking about...

Dear Friends, from time to time I will use this space to discuss a new book. My essay today serves as a foreword to Julia Davis's new book on Russian television propagandists, In Their Own Words, which I heartily recommend to you.

Russian propaganda is in the shadow of America. Whereas the America only covers Russia when there is something to cover, and usually not even then, Russian propaganda television starts every night from the premise that whatever has happened that day is America's doing and America's fault. This does not reflect reality -- or a typical American's experience of reality.

It does reflect the problem that Russian propaganda is meant to solve. Since Vladimir Putin is the boss of bosses in an oligarchical regime where domestic policy is impossible, the propagandists must direct attention to the world beyond Russia in a way that makes Russia's leadership seem righteous.

Russian propagandists do this in the confidence that no one beyond Russia is watching. But Julia Davis has been, to the great benefit of us all. Thanks to her new book, In Their Own Words, we can understand the propagandists' job description, but also the tensions they feel when the outside world causes them problems.

Their basic posture is that America is in a constant war with the Russian Federation. Because Russia cannot fight and cannot win any actual war of that description, the propagandists are most comfortable when America is turned against itself. They talk almost never about Russian domestic politics, but obsess over every piece of evidence of American domestic weakness.

Donald Trump is their favorite weapon against America. Trump is described as a friend and ally, "our Trumpushka" and "Donald Fredovych." Out of office, he is described as Russia's great hope. He is "sorely missed"; Russia is "ready to elect you again". Russia propagandists had no trouble predicting that Trump would try a coup when he lost in 2020, because that is a familiar sort of behavior to them. They rejoiced when he did , because they thought that this could lead to a civil war in the United States. Their coverage of Trump's coup attempt was at first highly positive. When it failed, a very awkward pivot was made to the position that it had all been some sort of provocation by the Democrats.

One of the things that Russian propagandists expect not to be noticed, but which is brought home in the book, is that they believe that Trump is an idiot. Of course, it's hard to see, from their perspective, how they can believe anything else (except, perhaps, that he is a traitor, as is also sometimes hinted). In their public worldview, destroying the United States is the main aim, and here is an American who follows their talking points.

The same goes for Tucker Carlson. He is celebrated on Russian television, of course, and his clips replayed. But Russian propagandists naturally think anyone beyond Russia who is on their side must not be very bright, and they cannot quite stop themselves from saying so. It is the one point on which they are completely sincere.

It is important to note, and Julia Davis gives us all the details, the hypocrisy of the anti-American pose. A leading Russian propagandist sent his girlfriend to America to give birth so that his child would have Russian citizenship. Propagandists are clearly personally hurt by sanctions that separate them from their property in the European Union or make it harder for them to travel abroad. They send their children to study and work in the West, They don't have any real animus towards the West. This is, I think, one more reason why they can't resist thinking of Americans on their side as idiots.

When Putin ordered a full-scale war on Ukraine, the propagandists suddenly had a problem. Before the attack, as we are reminded in this book, there was great confidence among Russian propagandists that Ukraine would fall to Russia in "two days" or even "ten minutes." But when Russia actually did undertake a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it set off a chain of events that the propagandists found hard to master.

For one thing, they had been cut out of the loop. The invasion was meant to be its own propaganda, a "special military operation" that overthrew the Ukrainian government in three days, followed by a victory parade and a warm welcome by the Ukrainian masses. This did not happen, and was based upon a worldview (Putin's) that was both obviously wrong and impossible to criticize. Russian propagandists switched immediately to the comfortable idea that the war was really against America, and that America had initiated. Rereading Julia Davis's essays, I was struck by how quickly this happened -- within a few days.

The Ukrainians themselves had to be dehumanized. This was a direct consequence of the senselessness of the war. Russians had to be made to feel that they were somehow superior, and that war had some kind of logic. Its premise, as Putin had made clear, was that there was not really a Ukrainian state or nation; this was all a conspiracy, and would collapse immediately. If, as it emerged, more Ukrainians defended themselves than expected, that did not mean that Ukraine was real; it just meant that logic of the special military operation, killing the elites, had to be extended ever further downward into the population.

As Julia Davis shows, Russian propagandists use openly genocidal language over and over again, urging the extermination of vermin, worms, demons, zombies, etc. Putin's grotesque "denazification" framing of the war is genocidal. If all Ukrainians are defined as Nazis by nature, then it is right to kill them all. The "Nazi" claim has never had anything to do with political reality (the actual fascists, the ones in Russia, are calling for genocide), and always had everything to do with justifying that murderous project. After the Hamas attack on Israel, there was split in the Russian media elite between Russia's non-Nazi fascists and the Nazi ones. This too is chronicled here.

A house bombed in Chernihiv region, Ukraine (photo TS, September 2022)

When reading Julia Davis's essays carefully, it becomes clear that America is not just needed as a propaganda target, but as a de facto ally, called in by the propagandists to correct the (unmentionable) mistakes made by their own (supposedly infallible) dictator. Russia needs Trump because it cannot manage on its own. Trump allows them to claim that everything is America's fault and that this is confirmed by America's own leadership. And then everything can go on in Russia as before.

Russia needs America to bail it out of its war with Ukraine. When you read Julia Davis's summaries of Russian propaganda day after day, it is abundantly clear that the propagandists themselves (despite all of the bluster) are aware that the war did not go according to plan, and indeed is going very badly. Again and again they are put in impossible positions: when Ukraine takes territory; when Russia fails to take territory; when more Russians have to be mobilized; when Yevgeny Prigozhin tries and coup. They cannot criticize Putin, and they know that Putin cannot win unaided: and so they root for his allies abroad.

This itself is worth emphasizing, at a time when many Europeans and Americans seem to be asking how Ukraine can win. The answer is simple. Ukraine can win if Europeans and Americans believe it can, and continue to help. Ironically, that emerges quite clearly from these pages. Russia's propagandists know this. They are relying entirely on their own domain, that of discourse. The war is not going well for Russia on the actual battlefield. The Europeans and the Americans are bearing essentially no costs. But if they can somehow decide that they are weary, Russia can win.

Russia can't win its own war, is the propagandists' evident conclusion -- but America can win Russia's war for it. America is of course not all-powerful, as the Russian propagandists claim to believe, but on this point they are right. As we near the U.S. elections, their discussions of Ukraine, like their discussions of Russia and everything else, focus entirely on what is happening inside the United States. The regime they serve, and the senseless and genocidal war it began, can be bought some time, if and only if the United States fails to support Ukraine. And so the heroes of Russia's war, in Russia's own propaganda, become the Americans who support it.

TS 10 June 2024

#timothy snyder #in their own words #war in ukraine #russian invasion of ukraine #russian propaganda #Thinking about...

13 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 7 months

Note

seeing people I used to like reblog from a fucking twitter tankie freak (all tankies are antisemitic btw idgaf) just cuz of their pro-palestine posts is making me wanna hallucinate. I am begging chronically online losers not to boost tankies just cuz theyre pro-palestine, also being pro-palestine and pro-russia is oxymoron. I wanna fucking die

Yeah, I agree.

Netanyahu and Putin are authoritarians who have both remained in power far longer than any true democracy would have allowed, and they are both using their militaries to colonize peoples and take land.

And tankies?

Unfortunately tankies are so easily manipulated that all you have to do is say America supports something and they’re immediately against it on that alone, with no critical thought whatsoever.

Finally, while I absolutely positively do agree that the Venn diagram of antisemites and tankies is almost a perfect circle, I need to stress, especially now, that not every criticism of Israel is antisemitism. But unfortunately, many criticisms of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine dO come from antisemitic people who have been waiting for the right moment to unleash their inner racist. So yeah, always gotta be on the lookout there.

That all said, I think that the main thing with tankies is, they’re authoritarians at heart. They’re perfectly okay with colonialism and imperialism and even ethnic cleansing and war crimes -as long as their side is the one doing it. Perhaps THAT is the main difference here, iMho. ( x )

If you look at any of the main pro-putin tankie accounts here on tumblrdotcom, the two things that you should immediately notice are 1. Despite some of their URLs, they’re almost all self-proclaimed “radical” 🙄 white dudes (sorry, but I’m Black and my personal belief is that ANY revolution for positive change ain’t gonna be led by a white guy, especially not the cringy ones who are stuck on Lenin), and, 2. Their hot takes on Russia and Putin are practically indistinguishable from Republican talking points.

Practically everything Tucker Carlson said, tankies wholeheartedly agree with. I’m surprised tankies haven’t made Tucker Carlson their pfp. But I guess that would be a bit too on the nose, wouldn’t it? To be clear, this isn’t me saying that anyone who disagrees with me is a Republican or a Russian bot, but have you ever read through a tankie skreed? Really read through it? I hear many of their exact same bullshit talking points on Fox News and from conservative news outlets. It’s just revarnished bullshit, wrapped up in ☭ for tumblr.

</endRant>

#anon #ask #answered #benjamin netanyahu #vladimir putin #politics #tankies #ukraine #palestine #gaza #rafah #authoritarianism

17 notes · View notes

kickthecan-revolution · 7 months

Text

Random Monday morning thoughts

Anxiety dreams of a 2pm flight to China and it was ten past noon on my old fashioned wall clock - I still hadn’t called a Lyft and was running around trying to find a warm jacket to pack. I haven’t had one of those dreams in awhile.

Work wise, I feel like I’m at a party at the end of the evening and I’ve decided/told the host I’m leaving - now I’m just at the door, waiting for my friends I came with to say their goodbyes. The party is over and I’m calm because I know I’m leaving, I’m not there anymore.

I’m quieter in this election year - it’s mostly a deep interior re-wiring of my beliefs. The Palestinian genocide is not something I can speak of, horror that doesn’t have a language for me. You know something’s evil when they target kids. That the USA will not push for a ceasefire has left me upside down on who we are, what I align to politically and where I live. I’m reading a lot about the world stage, the macro-danger across Western Allies vs our stated enemies and see how close we are to a WW3. How the USA is a protector in so many ways I didn’t understand, the US Navy protecting the cargo ships moving across the world, etc. a protector of basic capitalism, I guess, but as we do that less due to withdrawal of military funding, pirates popped up 27x more in those areas. I saw it keenly in my international travel - the role we play on the world stage, seeing the US as a “protector” through other’s eyes. Those same people are terrified as we buddy up to Russia via Tucker Carlson, etc., only because of what it means for their basic safety. They don’t care that the US seems to be rotted at our core. I get it.

One perspective says we need a War to start over in the USA but war has never adjusted or dismantled underlying systems like capitalism, it’s just fueled it. Ultimately, the USA will use force in wartime, even on its own people. That will be a decision on what we want to die for. Another side says a war will cause the USA to do anything necessary to protect systems in place because we need them to win.

So what force will change the legal system? What catalyst? Is it organizing? That absolutely worked in the Civil Rights movement, but there had to be more catalysts than just that - what were they? What forced America to change? What kind of catalyst combinations are needed to change these foundational, old systems? 200 years isn’t old-old. Is it spiritual? My intuition is the visceral tribalism that human beings operate within for our identity and how we move through life and how that is expressed in American power systems - white, Zionist, Christian, Southern, Liberal, etc. is what we’ll need to let go of first, and that’s so much harder. Many of us are lost as human beings without those tribes, and letting go of that identity can be terrifying and destabilizing. And people will never do it unless they believe in the human experience we’ll have here when they do. Oddly, a World War were the only moments we set those aside temporarily because we had a common enemy greater than ourselves.

So how do we collectively/personally envision that outside of being in a war on our domestic land? Enough to let go of our current understanding of who they are? A world where Black people aren’t incarcerated at disproportional rates. Where kids in Gaza aren’t slaughtered. Where it’s national pride that every citizen has basic needs met, a universal income and living wage. How do we realign on the values of what makes a society truly great?

A World War feels probable so the politics on the US Stage seem almost inconsequential until I heard Trump say he’d encourage Putin to go after an ally. That made my blood run cold. Ultimately I come back to my progressive roots, that the government should prioritize the vulnerable, and that’s not me - I’m white, I have retirement funds and I am not going to get pregnant. There’s comfort in a few of those ideals still showing up in the larger Democratic Party when nothing else about being a Democrat feels true anymore. Maybe it never was. It’s enough for me to vote on, at least right now, but it’s lacking any real change. I see that now, that this basic organization of political party is now identity, which makes it even uglier, less impactful and a vehicle for toxicity vs real change.

It’s like the party is over, and we’re all just waiting.

12 notes · View notes

crimsonxe · 7 months

Text

God the timing of Tucker Carlson sucking off Putin couldn't have been better considering how it fully shows the difference between a propaganda sellout vs. an actual newsman that is willing to talk about issues just in an acknowledging manner (Jon in episode 1 of TDS). No, Jon has never nor was ever going to be a propaganda stooge like Tucker and honestly no one should want that. It isn't "both sides-ism" or attacking Biden, its being willing to actually ask tough questions/bring up tough topics.

Legit a fire start of the week for TDS, but also going to be a Desi hosting week; so in other words its going to be such a good week.

#the daily show #jon stewart

10 notes · View notes

justinssportscorner · 4 months

Text

Sean Keeley at Awful Announcing:

“I think entitlement is a big part of our society that has been a cancer for us because people believe that their opinion is more important than somebody else’s opinion.” That’s a sentiment shared unironically by New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers in his recent sit-down interview with Tucker Carlson. The two bosom buddies (the interview is conducted at the table they ate dinner at the night before) got together for a wide-ranging discussion that included, what else, the COVID-19 vaccine, conspiracy theories, and RFK Jr’s offer to make Rodgers his vice-presidential running mate. As we are wont to do, we listened to the entire interview and culled some of the highlights below. And before we get started, we’ll just note that Rodgers used the word “canceled” or some derivation of it 18 times.

Compassion & Empathy

The interview begins with Rodgers offering up some circular and condescending thoughts about having “compassion” and empathy” for people on the other side of the COVID-19 vaccine discussion while also making it clear that they don’t really deserve it for the way the anti-vax crowd, the true victims, was treated. “I have a lot more compassion for them, actually, and empathy. I’ve been strong against the vax, against mandates, against lockdowns, against all of it,” said Rodgers. “I think the last few months, I’ve been looking at things a little bit differently, and I think it’s time for a lot us to maybe adjust some of the approach that we’re doing. I mean, it obviously hasn’t worked. We’ve been trying to wake people up, I think, with the studies that are out there now. All the time, with the articles, with the change in stances by everybody from Chris Cuomo on down who have either had vaccine injuries or side effects or just look at things differently.

“And it’s caused me to, I think, have a little bit more empathy and compassion for those people who had a ton of fear, thought they were doing the right thing for themselves, for their friends, for their families, and went through all the mass formation psychosis that we all did. It’s just full-court propaganda against us and are now going, ‘Oh, shit, maybe that wasn’t the best. Maybe they lied to us. Maybe they weren’t being truthful. Maybe this wasn’t safe.’ Even though they said from the beginning, 100% safe and effective. Everybody from Biden to the head of the FDA and on down, WHO. “I think it’s important for us to, if we want to make a difference, which I do, and I don’t necessarily want to be way a part of the conversation anymore, is, how do we call people forward with compassion and kindness that just come over to the side of being awake to what’s going on? Because I think we all need to come to the grips that this could happen again. “So how do we call these people forward in love and acceptance, not forgetting what happened, how we were treated, how we were canceled? Everybody from yourself to me, the Joe, the mutual friends that we have. But calling people forward to step into the truth, and that there isn’t shame and guilt on this side, which I think our side, justifiably at times, because the way we’re treated, feels It feels like we need to get some get back.

[...]

Domestic Enemies

Just like in his interview with conspiracy theorist Eddie Bravo, Rodgers shared a desire to see the United States military turn its focus on certain Americans. He also offered up a very specific definition of American patriotism. “I was at the Kentucky Derby this last weekend, and they were swearing in some new recruits to, I think, join the Army. And so they had them repeat after the sergeant or whatever who was swearing them in,” said Rodgers. “And I just was stuck with that one line that, ‘Protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ I said domestic out loud because I was like, are we forgetting that one? Because there’s a lot of domestic people in this country who actually don’t love America, who actually don’t want to see us thrive.

“I’m super patriotic. I think it’s because my grandpa fought in the Second World War, was a prisoner of war, believed in freedom and fought for it, and lost many friends. He was in the Air Force who were at Pearl Harbor, and flew many bombing missions over to try and liberate the French and Polish people there over in Europe, and almost lost his life for it, and lost a lot of friends, and believed in this country and the freedoms that he was willing to fight and die for. And so that’s where I grew up in, and I love this country, and I want to see it thrive. And I think there’s a lot of people that don’t give a shit about it.” Rodgers then tried to make a point by lumping together the war in Ukraine, the situation in Gaza, and…college campuses? “We’re spending billions of dollars Ukraine and billions of dollars to Israel, billions of dollars to these college campuses. There’s just a lot of issues right now that seem really un-American. And I think there’s a lot of red-blooded Americans. People are like, ‘How can Trump have such support?’ Well, people are fed up with it, and he speaks the rhetoric of taking back, making America great again, and stuff.

[...]

Vladimir Putin: Seems Like a Cool Dude

“You did one of the most controversial, somehow, not to me, most controversial interviews in the last, I don’t know how long, when you went to Russia and did Putin. How did it feel coming back? Because anybody who watched the interview was like, number one, it was fucking awesome. Number two, Putin came off as an interesting, thoughtful, smart individual. And if you’ve read 1984, the base game plan of government control is you have to have an enemy, and you have to slander that enemy regardless if you know anything about them. I think a lot of people are like, ‘Oh, Putin apologists are like, whitewashing all the stuff that he’s done to the different people.’ I was just like, no, I’d love to I’d love to see Joe Biden give an interview where he can speak on the history of the United States in the same way that Putin talked about the history of his country.” For the record, Carlson’s interview with Putin was widely criticized, and many of the things Putin said about Russia were deemed false or outright propaganda.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Not a Cool Dude

Even though Aaron Rodgers extolled the virtues of patriotism through the lens of the military and participation in war, he seemed downright offended by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s appearance in green military fatigues before the U.S. Congress. “[You’re] being canceled by the people who have just bowed down and given interviews from their knees to the Zalinskys of the world,” Rodgers told Carlson. “Gargling as they interview, yes,” responded Carlson. “It’s wild. As this guy comes over in fucking an outfit you’d wear to the store on a Sunday morning to ask Congress for another 100 billion dollars, is fucking wild.”

RFK Jr. Would Beat Both Donald Trump & Joe Biden Head-to-Head, Apparently

In extolling the virtues of almost-running mate Robert Kennedy, Jr., Rodgers claims that internal polling shows that Bobby can beat Joe Biden or Donald Trump head-to-head. “Bobby recently came out and said, in the summer months, at some point, he wants to do a 50-state poll with like 20,000, I don’t know what the exact number is, votes in each of these states. And whoever polls lower between him and Joe Biden has to drop out of the race,” said Rodgers. “Because in his own analytics, he’s found out that if the three of them run, Trump is most likely to win. If he goes against Trump, he wins. If he goes against Biden, he wins. If Biden goes against Trump, Trump wins. “So in fact, he said, Hey, listen, I’ll drop out if you pull higher than me in these 50 states. But if I pull higher than you, you’re out.”

Appearing on the May 14th edition of Tucker Carlson Network’s The Tucker Carlson Show, Jets QB and conspiracy theorist tinfoil hatter Aaron Rodgers shared his admiration for scumbag Vladimir Putin and opposition to Volodymyr Zelensky, repeated more COVID quackery, and consideration to be RFK Jr.’s running mate.

From the 05.14.2024 edition of Tucker Carlson Network's The Tucker Carlson Show:

youtube

#Aaron Rodgers #Tucker Carlson #New York Jets #NFL #Tucker Carlson Network #The Tucker Carlson Show #Vladimir Putin #Conspiracy Theories #Anti Vaxxer Extremism #Coronavirus #Coronavirus Conspiracies #Volodymyr Zelensky

5 notes · View notes

darkmaga-retard · 16 days

Text

What happens when the West has been divided by fear and hatred of "the other", the world falls apart, and both sides are given a common scapegoat upon which to unleash their rage.

Karen Hunt aka KH Mezek

Sep 08, 2024

“When they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that, and they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there.” ~ Darryl Cooper during his interview with Tucker Carlson.

This sort of underhanded twisting of the truth reminds me of Ilhan Omar saying “Some people did something” referring to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The son of one of the victims called Omar out during the 9/11 memorial ceremony:

"Objectively speaking, we know who and what was done. There is no uncertainty about that. Why your confusion? On that day, 19 Islamic terrorists of Al-Qaeda killed more than 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic damage. Is that clear?"

History is not always clear. Yes, yes, it’s written by the victor, and we often have to dig deeper. But we all know certain truths, don’t we? We should be able to recognize evil when we see it. We should be able to trust our instincts about such things. But we are no longer supposed to do that. We now have powerful influencers to think for us. Objective truth has been replaced by subjective narratives disseminated by those at the top of societal hierarchy.

Since airing the Darryl Cooper interview, Tucker Carlson has appeared baffled by the “hysteria” it has created. People with provocative perspectives should have a right to share their views because, you know, free speech. Fair enough—Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin, and you can’t get more provocative than that. So why interview this obscure guy? Well, he makes it very clear why.

2 notes · View notes

tabileaks · 8 months

Text

As Exhaust Carlson prepares to meet with Vladimir Putin, the world anticipates the outcome of this encounter and its potential implications for international relations. While it remains to be seen how the meeting will unfold, one thing is certain: the dialogue between these two influential figures has the potential to shape perceptions, influence policy debates, and contribute to the evolving dynamics of global politics.

#tucker carlson #carlson tucker interviews vladimir putin #tucker carlson putin #carlson interviews putin #tucker carlson interview putin #tucker carlson putin interview #putin #tucker carlson interviews putin #tucker carlson vladimir putin interview #putin interview #tucker carlson russia #vladimir putin #tucker carlson sides with putin #tucker carlson in moscow #tucker carlson fox #trucker carlson #tucker carlson putin speech #vladimir putin tucker carlson

1 note · View note

trmpt · 7 months

Text

“Unless he [Putin] is stopped in Ukraine, Poland will be next. In his interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentioned Poland about 20 times. So Poland, Finland, the Baltic nations. That’s why he has to be stopped in Ukraine. And I’m surprised that people in Washington, D.C., at least on the Republican side in the U.S. Congress, don’t understand that.”

#alexei navalny #homicidal putin regime #russia #wake up

5 notes · View notes

taqato-alim · 8 months

Text

Analysis of: Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia (February 6th, 2024)

youtube

In the following text "document" refers to the subtitles of the video.

Summary of the evaluation:

Shows strong pro-Russian bias and lack of neutrality in its narrative framing

Relies on selective use of facts and anecdotal evidence that lacks context

Does not consider alternative perspectives in its analysis

Uses nationalist and emotionally charged rhetoric rather than impartial reasoning

Makes claims without providing clear evidence to support accusations

Downplays Russia's role in escalating tensions and conflicts

Fails to acknowledge the complexity of geopolitical issues and independence of other states

Does not present a clear or actionable plan for resolving conflicts

References history selectively to justify positions rather than provide nuanced analysis

Employs common propaganda techniques that aim to persuade rather than inform

As a result, the credibility and reliability of its claims are compromised and should be viewed skeptically without independent verification from other sources

In summary, the evaluation found the document exhibited strong biases, propaganda techniques, and lacked objective analysis, so its information cannot be reasonably accepted at face value.

Summary of the key points from the document

The interview was conducted with Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, on February 6, 2024 at around 7:00 pm in the Kremlin building.

The interview focused primarily on the ongoing war in Ukraine - how it started, what is happening currently, and how it might end.

Putin provided a lengthy historical context on Russia and Ukraine dating back to the 9th century to explain the intertwined relationship between the two countries and regions.

NATO's expansion eastward after the Cold War and promises made to not expand NATO were broken, which contributed to rising tensions.

The 2014 coup in Ukraine and takeover of Crimea by Russia were discussed. Putin viewed these actions as responses to threats emerging from Ukraine.

Ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014 in Donbas region escalated the situation further.

Putin blamed the West, especially the US, for interfering in Ukraine and backing nationalist forces there. This further complicated the relationship with Russia.

Putin expressed openness to negotiations but said the Ukrainian government under Western control had refused and prohibited any talks with Russia.

The goal of "denazification" in Ukraine, or dismantling nationalist elements, was discussed as one aim of Russia's military operation.

No clear path or timeline was outlined for how and when the conflict might end, as it depends on negotiations between the sides.

Key stakeholders

Vladimir Putin/Russian government: Intended to justify Russia's perspective and actions to international audiences. Provides an opportunity for Putin to shape the narrative.

Ukrainian government: The content directly challenges their claims and narrative around the origins of the conflict. May feel allegations need to be addressed.

Pro-Russia/separatist forces in Ukraine: Could view the content as validation of their cause and rhetoric used.

United States/NATO: Strong criticisms made of past policies and interventions. May feel need to rebut claims that their actions precipitated the conflict.

European allies: Also implicated in some of Russia's grievances. May impact their own strategic perspectives and policies towards Russia/Ukraine.

International media/viewers: Provides insights but heavily one-sided content requires verification and consideration of other viewpoints. Could influence their own views depending on their existing leaning.

Domestic Russian audience: Helps rally domestic support by sharing Putin's contextual justification behind military action in friendly terms. Validates government position.

Overall, key stakeholders that may be negatively impacted include those opposing Russia's position, while stakeholders aligning with Russia's stance may view it positively, though full verification of claims is not possible. International audiences would need to consider the content skeptically given its propagandistic intent.

Historical claims

Selective evidence: Only references history that supports its narrative, omitting inconvenient facts.

Lacks nuance: Presents a simplistic view that history demonstrates one dominant narrative of cultural/political unity, neglecting complexity.

Contextual flaws: Fails to situate events within full political/economic contexts of the time that challenge its interpretation.

Linear perspective: Implies a singular linear heritage despite periods where territories had different administrations and fluid national identities.

Unverifiable anecdotes: Uses individual stories but without caveats about anecdotes not being representative historical facts.

Propagandistic tone: Emphasis seems to use history more to legitimize current policies than foster informed, impartial understanding.

Overall, while some facts are referenced, the strategic cherry-picking, lack of qualifying context and propagandistic framing undermine the claims as a reliable, well-rounded historical analysis. Independent verification of dubious assertions and consideration of alternative interpretations would strengthen the analysis. A more impartial accounting of complexities, rather than selectively mining the past, is needed for reconciliation.

The ongoing war in Ukraine

One-sided: Provides only the Russian justification/reasoning for military action without acknowledging complexity or opposing views.

Propagandistic: Frames events and policy decisions selectively to shape public opinion in Russia's favor rather than objective analysis.

Downplays escalation: Minimizes Russia's role in ratcheting up tensions/fomenting conflict while emphasizing others' culpability.

Questions remain: Many assertions regarding intent/motivations cannot be independently verified and require third party corroboration.

Context needed: Standalone soundbites may mislead without considering broader geopolitical/historical factors at play on all sides.

Resolution details lacking: Fails to outline realistic measures to de-escalate/resolve actual combat and humanitarian situation for political settlement.

Biased perspective: Heavily subjective lens through Russian interests means data should not be accepted at face value without scrutiny/balancing with other sources.

In conclusion, while containing some factual data points, the propagandistic and strategically framed nature of much of the content means it provides limited reliable insight for objectively understanding complex realities on the ground or paths toward resolution when considered alone without verification and counterbalancing with alternate perspectives. Independent corroboration of claims would strengthen its informational value in relation to ongoing events. A more constructive approach balancing practical solutions with grand rhetoric appealing to past grievances could aid progress toward peace.

The intertwined relationship between Russia and Ukraine/related regions

Emphasizes shared history: Highlights linguistic, cultural, religious and economic ties developed over centuries to argue close bonds that persist.

Underscores complex interdependence: Acknowledges populations with mixed identity and that separation of interests cannot be simplistically reduced.

Risks essentializing identity: Framing cultural commonality primarily in ethnic/national terms risks overlooking internal diversity and fluidity of individual/group affinities over time.

Downplays compromising of sovereignty: Minimizes periods where territories shifted control between states in ways contradicting narrative of singular linear heritage.

Strategically wields interdependence: Selectively highlights interdependence for justification of policies while diminishing valid aspirations of populations within states for self-determination.

Risks inciting division: Hyper-nationalist rhetoric appealing to historical/ethnic affinities can encourage split loyalties counter to long-term reconciliation and cooperation.

Overall, while cognizant of factual interconnectedness, the subjective lens and selective contextualization undermine ability to constructively address autonomy/security interests of all populations in the region through cooperation instead of competition based on dated notions of control. A less politicized approach could strengthen prosperity for all.

NATO's expansion eastward

Emphasizes perceived promises broken: Puts focus on claims made to Russian leadership prior to expansion that seem to have fueled greater strategic mistrust over time.

Risks oversimplifying negotiations: Complex multilateral talks around expansion involved many trade-offs and perspectives beyond a single broken Russian pledge.

Associates expansion with provocation: Portrays expansions primarily as aggressive instead of considering them part of shifting countries’ autonomous security calculations and democratic processes over time.

Fails to address Russia's declining relative power: Does not acknowledge NATO expansion also coincided with Russia’s diminished standing amid NATO’s new economic successes—a reality challenging original diplomatic assumptions.

Inflames nationalist narratives: Rhetoric emphasizing broken trust and provocations serves more to stoke domestic support than understanding geopolitical contexts beyond a single state view.

Undermines joint security solutions: Recriminations over past actions hinder cooperation needed to mutually resolve tensions that expansion exacerbated between nuclear powers.

Ultimately a more impartial analysis recognizing multiple perspectives and Russia’s own declining economy could strengthen viability of modernized frameworks ensuring stability for all states in the region. But inflamed rhetoric risks further destabilization.

2014 coup in Ukraine

One-sided depiction: Entirely portrays the Maidan protests/change of government as a "coup" backed by the West without acknowledging internal Ukrainian political dynamics.

Simplifies complex situation: Reduces multi-faceted events to a simplistic narrative of foreign interference while minimizing domestic unrest with the existing government.

Undermines Ukrainian agency: Fails to acknowledge Ukrainian citizens exercised their own autonomous will through valid democratic processes, however imperfect.

Inflammatory language: Terms like "coup" aim more to provoke than objective understanding, fueling greater tensions versus reconciliation.

Interferes with impartial analysis: Biased framing complicates independent scholarly assessment by presupposing conclusions counter to realities on the ground.

Adds to conflict escalation cycle: Provocative rhetoric serves to justify intensified Russian policies of control rather than diplomacy to stabilize the situation cooperatively.

Overall, the inflammatory and conspiratorial framing reflects strategic propangandizing over impartial truth-seeking and risks entrenching conflict more than understanding it for remedies acceptable to all affected populations in the region.

Conflict in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region since 2014

Downplays Russian role: Minimizes Moscow's provision of arms, funding and other support to separatist militants escalating unrest into full conflict.

Portrays as internal Ukrainian issue: Depicts matter largely as a spontaneous reaction within Ukraine rather than proxy dimension involving regional powers.

Ignores ceasefire violations: Fails to address separatist shelling of Ukrainian military positions undermining negotiated end to hostilities.

Presents biased causality: Blames Ukrainian nationalism for conflict escalation rather than entanglement of external geopolitical machinations.

Hinders diplomacy efforts: Propaganda-tinged framing entrenches inflexible positions complicating efforts at durable political solution among adversaries.

Polarizes communities: Risks cementing deep societal divides within Ukraine through scapegoating rhetoric versus reconciling mutual interests.

Ultimately a more impartial diplomatic approach acknowledging shared responsibilities of all sides for adhering to negotiated accords could stabilize situation, whereas bellicose narratives risk making resolution ever more elusive.

Western interference and support for nationalist forces in Ukraine

Lacks substantive evidence: Makes strong accusations but provides no hard proof beyond conjecture to substantiate claims of deliberate interference or backing.

Over-simplifies complex dynamics: Reduces multifaceted political events and social forces to a single narrative of foreign provocation for strategic objectives.

Ignores Agency of Ukrainians: Fails to acknowledge Ukrainians have their own aspirations and agency, reducing their actions entirely to external manipulation.

Propagandistic framing: Using such loaded terms as "interference" aims more to assign blame than impartial analysis, fueling further geopolitical divide.

Undermines diplomacy: Inflexible stances based on unverified claims rather than cooperation poison relations needed to resolve tensions.

Risks entrenching conflict: Inflammatory rhetoric serves political agendas more than reconciliation by polarizing communities and cementing "us vs them" mentalities.

For an accurate understanding, verifiable evidence rather than speculation would be needed to substantiate such grave accusations. Overall, more constructive bilateral diplomacy based on mutual respect seems needed to reduce tensions versus contested nationalist histories.

Openness to negotiations

One-sided portrayal of negotiations: Implicitly frames Russia as open and others as refusing, without acknowledging Russia's own preconditions or role in escalating conflict.

Overlooks legitimacy concerns: Fails to acknowledge Russia's military intervention compromised Ukraine's ability to freely determine its negotiating partners and priorities.

Ignores sovereignty issues: Downplays how negotiations involving annexation of territory damage Ukraine's sovereignty and constrain its autonomy.

Reduces complexity: Simplifies challenges as unilateral refusal rather than recognition of good-faith differences in priorities and pressures each side faces.

Propagandistic language: Terms like "Western control" aim more to assign blame than impartial understanding of domestic political realities in Ukraine.

Risks hindering diplomacy: Inflexible stances based on contested claims likely poison the trust needed to make progress via cooperation.

Overall a more balanced and less accusatory perspective acknowledging the multifaceted challenges for all sides could better support constructing diplomatic solutions than divisive rhetoric that risks further entrenching conflicting positions.

Claims about "denazification" in Ukraine

Lacks evidence: No proof is provided that Ukraine's government is actually controlled by neo-Nazis rather than populists.

Reductive argument: Labeling opponents as Nazis downplays Ukraine's own complex nationalist narratives and marginalizes non-extremist concerns.

Echoes propaganda tropes: Uncritically uses terms common in Russian propaganda narratives meant to de-legitimize Ukrainian sovereignty claims.

Ignores nuance: Fails to acknowledge nationalist sentiments exist across many post-Soviet states and do not equate support for extremism.

Potential pretext for control: Could serve to justify open-ended Russian interference by setting impossible standards of "purity" no society fulfills.

Exacerbates tensions: Provocative and stigmatizing discourse damages reconciliation by casting political opponents as ultimate enemies.

Overall, applying explosive labels without evidence risks ratcheting up conflict more than resolution. Diplomacy requires acknowledging diversity of perspectives across interconnected societies in an even-handed manner respectful of all.

The document does not provide a clear path or timeline for how and when the conflict might end.

Some key evaluations:

Lacks specifics: No concrete diplomatic proposals, ceasefire terms, peacekeeping arrangements, political settlement details are outlined.

Vague on resolution: Goals of "de-Nazification" and protecting Russian speakers are nebulous with no roadmap for verifiably implementing and concluding them.

Unilateral focus: Emphasis remains on justifying Russian positions rather than outlining mutually agreeable compromises all sides could accept.

Omits compromise: Fails to acknowledge peaceful resolution requires good faith concessions rather than unilateral enforcement of preferred outcomes.

Propaganda over pragmatism: Rhetoric prioritizes blame over practical cooperation needed to stabilize violence and uplift humanitarian crisis.

Risks prolonging conflict: Absence of a negotiated ‘end state’ vision sustains ambiguity fueling continued escalation by attrition over years.

Overall, the document provides a justification for conflict rather than the inclusive diplomacy essential for its verifiable resolution. Specific proposals balancing interests of all affected communities would better support a durable political settlement and lasting peace.

Quality of reason

Logical Consistency: While some points are logically put, selective evidence and logical fallacies undermine internal consistency.

Use of Evidence: Some facts are cited but heavily skewed interpretation. Questionable anecdotes presented without qualification undermine evidential quality.

Impartiality: Highly partial framing fails tests of neutral principle and omits consideration of counter perspectives.

Objectivity: Subjective lens is not balanced with acknowledging room for alternate views in analyzing multifaceted problems.

Avoidance of Prejudice: Nationalist rhetoric & victim-blaming falls short of impartiality needed for sound understanding across cultural divides.

Clarity: At times difficult to separate statements of fact from interpretations without independent verification due to blending.

Proportion: Overemphasis of some details distorts overall perspective; disproportionate time spent on pet issues vs balanced treatment.

Overall, while containing sporadic well-reasoned points, the pervasive biases, fallacious arguments, skewed use of evidence and lack of impartiality compromise a prudent, well-reasoned analysis. Claims require verification and should not be accepted at face value due to departures from standards of sound rational judgment in evaluating complex, multifaceted problems. Alternative viewpoints would aid critical examination.

Logical fallacies

Cherry picking/selective evidence - Only presents evidence that supports Russia's narrative while omitting alternative perspectives and facts that do not fit its position.

Appeal to history/tradition - Justifies Russia's claims by presenting selective usage of long history between Russia and Ukraine while glossing over periods counter to its stance.

Strawman - At times implies opponents believe certain extreme claims like inevitability of conflict when actual positions are likely more nuanced.

Blaming the victim - Presents Ukraine's actions after 2014 coup as provocative while minimizing Russia's own role in escalating tensions.

Whataboutism - Deflects from discussion of its own positions by pointing fingers at flaws of other countries instead of addressing the issue directly.

Conspiracy theory - Implies US/NATO desire for conflict is due to entrenched interests rather than geopolitical disagreements, without substantive evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Supports some claims with unverifiable stories presented as factual rather than illustrative.

Overall, while containing factual information, the document undermines its own credibility through the extensive use of biased reasoning, selective framing of history and deflection tactics - suggesting the overall narrative is propagandistic rather than a good faith analysis of complex geopolitical issues. Independent verification of questionable claims would be needed.

Bias

Strong Pro-Russian Government Bias: The narrative and framing of issues is constructed entirely from Putin's perspective without acknowledging alternative views.

Lack of Neutrality: No attempt is made to present a balanced, objective analysis. The explicit aim appears to justify Russia's actions rather than explore complex geopolitical issues impartially.

Selective Omission of Facts: Important context like the full history of Russian-Ukrainian relations and Russia's role in previous escalations are omitted or downplayed.

Exclusive Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Unverifiable stories are presented without caveats alongside real facts/events, obscuring what's factual.

Appeals to Emotion: Nationalist rhetoric, victim-blaming other parties aims to elicit emotional agreement with Russia's view rather than reasoned analysis.

Propaganda Techniques: Common tactics like misrepresentation, distractions and cultivated confusion compromise the credibility and verifiability of claims.

Lack of Transparency: Readers are not actively informed of the high level of bias shaping the content and prevented from considering alternative perspectives.

In conclusion, the heavy ideological leaning and propagandistic approach mean the document cannot reasonably be considered an objective analysis and should be treated skeptically rather than taken at face value due to the pervasive biases compromising its reliability and Trustworthiness as a factual account. Independent verification of claims would be needed.

Based on the content and tone of the document, Putin's position comes across as more autocratic than democratic:

Unilateralism: Decisions around Ukraine are portrayed as responses to threats rather than through consultation/compromise.

Top-down narratives: Public understanding is shaped through one-sided messaging rather than open debate of diverse views.

Propaganda techniques: Appeals to emotion, misdirection and confusion undermine standards of transparency/informed consent.

Deflection of responsibility: Focus is on others' actions rather than constructive solutions or acknowledgment of all sides' contributions.

Power centralized: No acknowledgement of other Russian political voices or dissenting domestic public opinion on policies.

Ideological direction: Strategic aims framed by inflexible notions of sovereignty/tradition rather than mutual understanding.

Limited accountability: Public positions subject to little oversight/correction from independent institutions or population.

Victimized identity: Depiction of Russia as acting in defense rather than partnership suggests diminished civil norms.

While democratic values like open debate/transparency are paid lip service, the substance, framing and control of public discourse suggest more autocratic tendencies in how policy issues are addressed and public perspectives are shaped on the international stage.

Rhetorical propaganda devices

Whataboutism: Deflects criticisms of Russia by accusing others of similar or worse actions.

Selective omission: Leaves out important historical/contextual details that undermine Russia's narrative.

Loaded language: Uses emotionally charged terms like "coup" and "nationalism" rather than neutral terms.

Slogans over substance: Employs simple talking points rather than engaging opposing viewpoints.

Appeals to emotion: Invokes nationalist pride and victimization to elicit agreement rather than reason.

Black-and-white thinking: Presents a Manichean view dividing everything into opponents and allies of Russia.

Scapegoating: Blames outside forces rather than address Russia's own role in tensions and conflict.

Confusion techniques: Provides rapid fire claims that are difficult to fact check, cultivating doubt.

The heavy reliance on these common propaganda devices aims more to persuade through emotional manipulation rather than inform readers or have an honest debate. It casts doubt on the document's credibility and objectivity.

Putin's personality

Confident: He speaks authoritatively about Russian perspectives and is unwavering in his views.

Nationalistic: He takes pride in Russian history and values cultural/political independence from the West.

Calculated: He provides nuanced perspectives but ultimate goals seem aimed more at justification than impartial problem-solving.

Frustrated: Past broken promises and perceived Western interference are sources of lingering grievances.

Defensive: He portrays Russia as reacting to external threats rather than examining Russia's own escalatory actions.

Selectively empathetic: He shows care for ethnic Russians affected by the conflict but disregards non-Russian Ukrainian suffering.

Conspiratorial: Tendency to see Western aims in geopolitical dynamics in calculated or intentionally provocative ways without evidence.

Pragmatic: Ready to negotiate but only from position of current Russian control in Ukraine gained via military operation.

Experienced: Has observed global events for decades but solutions still embroiled in outdated notions of great power politics.

Overall, while articulating nuanced perspectives, Putin comes across as ideologically hardened in defending Russian stances, erring more on the side of propaganda than impartial examination of conflicts' inherently complex nature.

Common evaluation criteria

Purpose/Goals: To present Putin's perspective on the conflict in Ukraine and his motivations/justifications for Russia's actions. He is able to fully explain his viewpoint.

Tone: Remains generally respectful and informative as expected in an interview format, though Putin appears firm in his views.

Balance: Both sides of issues are discussed but focus is on Putin providing context for Russia's actions. Interviewer occasionally challenges some assertions.

Factual Accuracy: Varies - some historical contexts and quotes check out but some claims around motivations of others involved are difficult to independently verify.

Perspective/Bias: Content is strongly from Putin's point of view without alternative perspectives included. Not surprising given the format but does not present a balanced analysis.

Flow/Organization: Answers are generally well-explained and on topic in response to questions. Occasional tangents into historical minutiae but overall coherent narrative.

Tone & Delivery: Putin comes across as confident and in control of the dialogue. Frustrations with past actions of others also come through at points.

Overall based on these criteria, the document accomplishes its goal of presenting Putin's perspective on the conflict in Ukraine through an in-depth interview format. However, the heavy focus on his point of view and lack of challenges to some claims mean the content cannot be considered a neutral or fully fact-checked analysis.

3 notes · View notes