Prerequisite: you must have watched it.
You must log in or register to comment.
If you want to see two propagandists talk for two hours, why not?
If you want to learn Putin’s take on Russian history you’re better off reading some of his speeches, the wikipedia entry on Putin, or perhaps a bit about Aleksandr Dugin. Then remember that Putin is a man who has previously defended the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Stalin, and has the charisma of a walnut.
The interview with Tucker Carlson is hours long, Putin’s clearly in full propaganda dictatorsplain mode, and it’s boring. Putin’s famous 2007 Munich Speech is only half an hour long, more honest and more interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44
If you want to understand modern Russia watch something like Adam Curtis’ Russia 1985-1999 TraumaZone. It’s genuinely interesting, fascinating, and you’ll actually understand the Russians’ perspective more. If you want to learn about Russian history, there are podcasts which will give you a far more entertaining and accurate overview.
Turd vs shithead.
Not interested personally but I can see how others can find it fascinating. Specially that Putin gets away with murders without any problems.
One of the better lectures on medieval Russian history I’ve seen.
Also you get to see Tucker called a glowie to his face.
Hearing about Russian history from Putin? How legit could that be, he totally distorts current events back to at least the fall of the Sovjet Union.
He’s previously defended the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, so yeah.
To be fair, it’s hard to tell what the man believes anymore.
You should if you want to form your opinion.
I have read your comment history and formed an opinion on it. I don’t think people should take your advice.
Opinion of what? Who’s worse?
I think Putin/Tucker would be a great presidential ticket for the states.
Putin/Tucker
Pucker
Tuckerin?
Tuckin’
Tutin
chef’s kiss
He’d be the only one running capable of having a cognisant conversation for two hours…
I think we have different definitions of cognisant.
- Aware; fully informed; having understanding of a fact.
- Sapient; self-aware.
But you’re saying that Trump and Biden don’t fit this definition?
Yes. It’s called to “both-sides” the argument. And like arguing with a pig, it only possibly benefits one side.
It’s not an argument it’s a statement of simple fact. Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden can give a speech without mangling individual words, grammar, and general coherence of the point. They ramble, they confuse words, they mash thoughts together and jump around at random.
This isn’t “both sides”, this is “both of those Presidents”, and it’s a simple fact.
Don’t watch it but can factually say- NO.
I think that pretty much sums things up
Any US Media is taken by US propaganda bots. Watch my comment go into negative territory.
Freedom of speech means go listen to the other side and form your opinion.
1 billion people did it across the globe.
Yes. If you wanna hear incoherent ramblings of a madman and a whole bunch of fascist hot takes.
