Tucker-Putin interview; questions and answers we didn’t get

Nothing wrong with being concise; but Putin went for the long game. Very long.

He was the school master correcting the impatient student.

“No, I have to start with the 8th century and work my way forward and explain how Russia came to be for 20 minutes. Take notes, Tucker. The exam is tomorrow.”

I fully understand Putin’s mind is sharper than Biden’s, who is a poor old man with poor old memory who at times doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. But I didn’t need the Tucker-Putin interview to prove all that.

At one point, Putin said everybody knows the CIA blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. Tucker could have said: “In a court of law, could you prove that?”

Tucker could also have said, “Since no such court would hear the case, why don’t you just publish the proof for all the world to see? The detailed case against the CIA.”

Which would have made Putin angry and possibly ended the interview. Not sure. But I do know the whole conversation between the two men was one-sided. Putin was in charge. That’s the way it goes with a man in his position.

Tucker: Who blew up Nord Stream?

Vladimir Putin: You for sure.

Tucker: I was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream. Thank you though.

Vladimir Putin: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.

Tucker: Did you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I won't get into details, but people always say in such cases, look for someone who is interested. But in this case, we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities, because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected. Who is interested and who is capable of doing it?

Tucker: But I'm confused. I mean, that's the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it's the largest emission of CO2 in history. Okay, so if you had evidence and presumably given your security services or Intel services, you would that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn't you present it and win a propaganda victory?

Vladimir Putin: In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened then. Even American analysts talk about it directly. It's true.

Speaking of which, how about this for an exchange?

“Everybody knows you’re going to win the upcoming election. You always win.”

“So?”

“Are you the President or the absolute President?”

“I’m absolutely thinking of throwing you in jail. Ha-ha. Just kidding.”

“You’re the dictator. Isn’t that right?”

“Didn’t you listen to my opening history lesson, young man? Dictatorship is our tradition.”

“Then why hold an election?”

“For cosmetic purposes.”

“Who does that impress?”

“Nobody.”

Putin said peace negotiations are underway, sort of. The correct people are carrying on discussions in private.

“But sir, I don’t get it. Right here, right now, you could announce your conditions. The whole world would know the terms on which you’d accept an end to the slaughter.”

“You’re hopelessly naïve. That’s not the way it’s done.”

“I see. In other words, The People have to be kept in the dark.”

“Of course.”

“And those would be the people who are fighting and dying and paying for the war.”

“Take this idiot to jail. Ha-ha. Just kidding.”

Putin said the war would already be over if the US and other Western countries stopped sending money and weapons to the Ukraine.

How about this from Tucker: “Meaning you would have won. In which case, exactly what would you enforce on the Ukraine? Details, please.”

But no. Can’t demand that from a world leader.

If you think I’m for Zelensky and against Putin, you’re dead wrong. I do know, though, that one reasonably intelligent American and one Russian citizen and one Ukrainian civilian could sit in a diner off Route 66 and sign an agreement on a paper napkin that would end the fighting. Today.

I think that matters.

I would have liked to get this from Tucker: “I have to tell you, sir—and I’m sure you’re considering this—I believe Biden’s string pullers are stalling, because they’re planning a ‘major breakthrough in peace negotiations’ just before the 2024 elections, so they can trumpet that success and win four more years in the White House. Isn’t it true that your negotiators are telling you this? If so, and I’m sure it is, it would certainly help if the American people knew it. Here and now.”

“Tucker, again, this is not way peace discussions take place. Not in an interview.”

“Yeah, I know you said that. I just don’t agree. Since people on both sides of the war are being blown to pieces every day.”

“Welcome to prison, kid. At some point in the future, we’ll make a deal to release you. Until then, enjoy your cell. Ha-ha, just kidding again. Maybe.”

Putin’s position on why he invaded the Ukraine was already clear before the interview. NATO encroachment, US missile bases close to Russia, Western pressure and more pressure against Russia. We learned nothing new from the interview on that score.

So what DID we learn from the interview?

I’m thinking…still thinking.

Let me get back to you after I consult with my advisors who are holding secret discussions with other advisors…

(Meanwhile, let’s NOT kick the poor old man with poor old memory out of the Oval Office. Because you know what that means. You know WHO that means.)

PS: Putin claimed he couldn’t really get his messages justifying the war out to the world because the world media are controlled. That’s absurd. Yes, the media are controlled. But the President of Russia—if he really wanted to—could indeed broadcast his views to more than a billion people on any given day. And he could keep doing it, day after day. He could have made the case he made to Tucker—hopefully in a more cogent fashion—a hundred times by now.

Tucker: But I'm confused. I mean, that's the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it's the largest emission of CO2 in history. Okay, so if you had evidence and presumably given your security services or Intel services, you would that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn't you present it and win a propaganda victory?

Vladimir Putin: In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened then. Even American analysts talk about it directly. It's true.

But he doesn’t do things that way. Maybe he’s living in the past, clinging to his time working for the Soviet intelligence apparatus. Hush, hush, secrecy.

-- Jon Rappoport