Tucker’s interview with Putin only makes sense if you know Russian history

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin was a remarkable moment in history. Finally, the world has the opportunity to know why Putin might have a point regarding the West’s interference in Ukraine. But first, in this interview, the Russian president needed to explain the long-term patterns of his nation’s history. Regrettably, writes Orlando Figes, an award-winning author of numerous books on Russian history,

“Contemporary Russian politics are too often analysed without sufficient knowledge of Russian history. Yet, an understanding of the country’s past is essential to make sense of the development in Russia during the last thirty years”.

We can gather from Putin’s interview that his understanding of Russia is remarkably conservative. Not only does he firmly believe that Russia’s greatest strength lies in its traditional Orthodox values, but also that Russia’s isolation from the globalist agenda of Western oligarchs allows his country to preserve its Byzantine inheritance and old Slavonic culture and its Orthodox beliefs, untouched by the woke, postmodernist trends in Europe and North America. According to Putin, Mark Galeotti, a British historian and writer on Russian history, explains:

“Russia is not an Asiatic country, or yet – even though some use the term – a ‘Eurasian’ hybrid. It is European, but proper European. It was Russians who defended Europe time and again, sometimes from enemies without, such as the Golden Horde, at others those within, whether would-be conquerors such as Napoleon or Hitler, or forces of chaos and deviance. In other words, the line is that Russia holds to the true European values at a time when the nations to its West have abandoned them. Its Orthodox faith is the genuine form of Christianity, just as its social conservatism is simply a refusal to cater to degenerate fads and post-modern moral subjectivism”.

Although the Russian leader is an avowed supporter of traditional Orthodox values, at first, he was quite willing to be a partner with the “West”, assuming that so long as Russia backed the US-led “Global War on Terror”, then the Western leaders would treat Russia with more respect and not threaten its national borders. During his first years in the presidential office, writes Russian history professor Orlando Figes,

“Putin looked to further Russia’s integration with the West. In interviews he spelled out his vision of the country as ‘part of Western European culture’, and said that he was open to the possibility of Russian joining NATO and the European Union. Everything depended on how Western institutions would respond, on how NATO, in particular, would act in regions where the Russians had security concerns, historic links and sensitivities, which, if offended or ignored, might provoke an aggressive response from Moscow … Russia wanted to be part of Europe, to be treated with respect. But if it was rejected by the West’s leaders, of if they humiliated it, Russia would rebuild itself and arm itself against the West”.

Interestingly enough, much of Putin’s anger regarding the situation in Ukraine is not just aimed at the Western elites but also directed towards Lenin and Stalin. For him, those Communist dictators had little regard for Russian history and allowed historic Russian lands to be gained by what is now the independent nation of Ukraine. That being so, Putin appears to infer in his interview that Ukraine should have taken only what it had when it had joined the USSR in 1922. This is an argument made also by the most famous of the Soviet dissidents and an outspoken critic of Communism, the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a major influence on Putin’s thinking.

In this context, little significance has been attached by Western intelligentsia to the Soviet “gift” to Ukraine. In 1954, Crimea was handed to Ukraine as a gift by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was himself half-Ukrainian. This was so although Russia’s most important naval base was at Sevastopol in Crimea, a mainly Russian territory assigned to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Khrushchev, to mark the tercentenary of Russia’s union with Cossack hetmanate. Of course, there were no national boundaries between Russia and Ukraine in the former Soviet Union. But after 1991 the loss of Crimea was sorely felt by the Russians. A quarter of a million Russians died in the Crimean War, another war in defence of Christian Orthodoxy against the “West”. The region is also the symbolic home of the “Russian soul” since it is the birthplace of Russia’s Orthodox Christianity where Prince Vladimir had been baptised.

Vladimir the Great

Vladimir Sviatoslavich, also known as Vladimir the Great, was Grand Prince of Kiev and ruler of Kievan Rus from 980 to 1015. According to the Primary Chronicle, his conversion was a result of his search for the “True Faith”. “The previously cruel Vladimir … underwent a remarkable transformation, becoming filled with kindness and mercy towards his neighbours”. Grand Prince Vladimir is still venerated as a symbol of Russia’s sacred origins as a united family of Russians – the contemporary Russians, the Ukrainians and the Belarussians. They were all originally one nation and members of the same Slav family who historically share, in great part, the same language and the same Christian Orthodox faith.  

When Kiev was at its height, Moscow was scarcely a township. The first reference to Moscow appears only in 1147, when Yuri Dolgoruky, soon to be Grand Prince of Kiev, arranged a meeting there. Back in those days Kiev was the very heart and soul of the Rus. Prior to the Mongol invasion at the start of the thirteenth century, Kiev had a population of 50,000 people, more than London and not much less than Paris. But in 1236, the city was sacked with such murderous savagery that only 2,000 of its people survived. The Rus could not stand against the Mongol invaders. The Mongol conquest turned the Kievan Rus princes into vassals of the Golden Horde and an estimated two-thirds of the towns of the Kievan Rus were obliterated. “Their populations disappeared, killed or taken off as slaves, or fleeing to the forests where the Mongols did not go.”

A shared faith

What especially defines both the Russians and the Ukrainians is precisely their shared Orthodox faith. Kiev was destroyed and it would be Moscow that gradually became the major city of all the Rus. In 1325, the Metropolitan (archbishop) of “Kiev and All Rus”, Pyotr II, moved his seat from Kiev to Moscow, making it the new spiritual capital of all the Rus. Moscow’s standing with the Church was boosted by its military defeat of a large Tartar army in 1380 at the battle of Kulikovo, near the River Don. The victory in Kulikovo is still celebrated in Russia, and Putin has frequently referred to it as evidence that his country was already a great power – “the saviour of Europe from the Mongol threat – in the fourteenth century.”

On 16 January 1547, the grand prince of Moscow, Ivan IV, was crowned as the new “Roman emperor” by Macarius, the Head of the Orthodox Church. Crowning the grand prince of Moscow as a tsar was a gesture to promote Moscow as the last “true seat” of the Christian faith, a city to replace Byzantium following the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. Ivan IV then became the first “tsar”, a word that comes from the Roman imperial title Caesar, which is based on a claim put forth that Moscow had become the “third Rome” in succession to Constantinople and Rome itself.  After being anointed the new tsar with sacred oil, Macarius placed a sceptre in his hand and crowned him, giving also a powerful sermon on his sacred duties to protect Christianity by ‘ruling with the fear of God’. By means of this magnificent Orthodox ceremony, tsar Ivan and those who followed him could claim the right to rule the former lands of Kievan Rus that were under the spiritual authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople – including the territories of today’s Ukraine and Belarus.

How does this period of Kievan Rus history connect with the rest of Russian history? And is there any meaningful sense in which modern Russia can lay claim to it as the foundation of its nationhood? As Putin pointed out in his interview, Russians and the Ukrainians originally were the same people. The heart of the Rus homeland was actually in Ukraine, which then became a part of “Greater Russia” and had no statehood of its own. Indeed, as Figes also points out, “Ukraine would not appear in written sources until the end of the twelfth century – and then only in the sense of okraina, an old Slav word for ‘periphery’ or ‘borderland’.” Of course, Putin tried to explain this in the first half of his interview with Carlson. But, once again, Professor Figes provides a proper answer: 

“The lasting legacy of Kievan Rus was in religion and the cultural sphere, where Byzantium would permanently mark Russian civilisation. We should look at Kievan Rus as part of Russian ancient history – a period related to its later history in the same sense as Anglo Saxon Wessex is part of English history or Merovingian Gaul is linked to modern France – namely as a source of the country’s religion, its language and its artistic forms”.

Should Ukraine join NATO?

Henry Kissinger, who knew history and served as US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, acknowledged these historical roots and believed that Ukraine should never be allowed to join NATO. According to Kissinger,    

“The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began with Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries. The Russian Black Sea Fleet – Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean – is based in Sevastopol, Crimea (with Ukraine’s longtime agreement)”.

However, in December 2013, Senator John McCain, then a leading Republican voice on US foreign policy, told leaders of the then Ukrainian opposition camped on Kiev’s main square that “Ukraine's destiny lays in Europe”. When asked by CNN host Candy Crowley, on December 15, 2013, whether it was really a good idea to “take Russia on”, McCain candidly replied: 

“There's no doubt that Ukraine is of vital importance to Putin. I think it was Kissinger, I'm not sure, who said that Russia, without Ukraine it is an eastern power. This is the beginning of Russia, right here in Kiev. So Putin views it as most highly important and he has put pressure on Ukrainians … The word is very clear and he has made certain threats. Whether he would carry them through I don't know.”

The rationale for the creation by the US of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was that it would be a defensive alliance necessary to stop the former Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1980s, if its claims were entirely truthful, then this organisation would have been dismantled, its purported purpose now moot.

Instead, since the mid-1990s successive US administrations have regularly pushed for NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were granted NATO membership. Five years later, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia also joined the Alliance. Then, in an April 2008 summit in Bucharest, NATO considered admitting Georgia and Ukraine, which the Russians maintained would represent a “direct threat” to their national security.

The Russians saw this as a betrayal of a promise made by the US government on the collapse of the Berlin Wall that NATO would never advance “even one inch to the east”. And yet, the US government has over the years created justification for wars when the international law does not authorise them, as with the bombing of Serbia, Russia’s closest Balkan ally, in 1999. In February 1999, NATO issued an ultimatum to Belgrade, demanding total autonomy for Kosovo and the right for its troops to occupy the entire territory of former Yugoslavia. It was an absurd demand that was intended to force the Serbs to reject it, as they did on 23 March 1999, and three days later NATO bombing began. To justify that bombing, Western leaders then claimed that a “racial genocide” was happening in Kosovo. That claim was false because “the total death toll turned out to be about 500, not including the several hundred Serbian and Albanian civilians whom NATO had killed with its bombs”.




Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

The attack on Serbia

The post-war international system created after World War II was based on the “Nuremberg principles” of peaceful resolution of conflicts and equality of sovereign states. However, the invasion of Serbia by the US and its allies was intended to overthrow these principles of international law. According to John Laughland, an English political theorist, “just as millions had died for Bolshevism, many tens of thousands of lives were sacrificed to the West’s determination to see the post-modern and post-national constructivist project of Bosnian state-building succeed.” Opposed to the project of creating an independent Bosnia, “the Serbs represented an apparently reactionary and atavistic national force, and existential threat to the new European ideology”.

Perceiving a natural parallel between the situation in Ukraine and NATO’s intervention in Serbia, in 1999, at the end of February 2014, Russian military forces occupied the Crimea after the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, was unconstitutionally removed from office in February 2014 in an US-backed coup d’état. The next day, Putin complained about the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected leader. He rightly questioned the constitutionality of the process at his press conference on March 4, 2014:

“There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law [there are four ways mentioned in Article 108 of the Ukrainian constitution]: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada [the unicameral parliament of Ukraine]. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact”.

Russia’s occupation of Crimea

Arguably, the consequences of that US-backed coup in 2014 should be blamed, at least in part, for Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine. After the occupation of Crimea with the support of its population, NATO gave more than US$3 billion in military aid to the present Ukrainian regime, helping it to modernise its weaponry and train its troops in joint military exercises. When the US-backed coup succeeded in expelling Ukraine’s elected president, the Russians almost immediately retaliated by annexing the Crimea, in March 2014, but only after a popular referendum that was not recognized by the US and its Western allies. Crimeans, who mostly speak Russian, voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation in a referendum in which 97 per cent of the people voted for reunion with Russia. Writing for the American Conservative, foreign policy expert Dominick Sansone comments:

“The move into Crimea came as a response, to secure Russia’s key naval interests in the warm-water port at Sevastopol. The coinciding uprisings in the Donbas were additionally a response to the situation in Kiev … The official position of the Kremlin has subsequently been that these ethnically Russian citizens should not be forced to live under the rule of an illegitimate rebel group that illegally came to power by overthrowing the duly elected government”.

There are some parallels between the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and what happened in Serbia in the late 1990s. This present crisis in Ukraine is primarily the result of an attempt by the US government to pull another Eastern European country decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via NATO membership/partnership. Indeed, NATO reports to provide “unprecedented levels” of military support to the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, “sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment, including anti-tank and anti-air systems, howitzers and drones. To date, NATO member countries have provided billions of Euros’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine”.

Do Putin’s historical claims make sense?

As can be seen from the interview with Carlson, although Putin holds strong nationalist feelings, at first, he explained, he was quite willing to be a partner with “the West”. As mentioned earlier, Putin assumed that so long as his nation backed the US-led “Global War on Terror’, then Russia would be respected by Western governments and its borders not threatened. Soon, however, the Russian leader started to realise that, instead of trying to bring Russia into new economic and military alliances, “the US and its North Atlantic allies acted as if the Cold War had been ‘won’ by them, and that Russia, the ‘defeated’ power, need not be consulted on the consequences of the Soviet collapse in regions where the Russians had historic interests”.

Clearly, the Russian leader has reached the limits of their willingness to tolerate NATO’s expansions and military actions, and he may actually have a very good historical reason for that. Whatever of one might think about Putin, “he deserves full credit for stabilising the country at home and restoring its role on the world stage”, writes Mark Galeotti. By the same token, Professor Galeotti continues: “Putin has come to see the greater threat coming from domestic weakness – possibly supported by hostile foreign powers – and thus … his regime is essentially conservative”.


To conclude, it is quite clear after this interview that Putin sincerely believes that Russia is engaged in a “just war” not so much against the Zelensky regime in Ukraine but, instead, for the end of Washington’s hegemony and the West’s “post-modernist morality”. In sum, Putin’s convictions and patriotic beliefs are why he rejects the woke West and does not want those beliefs in Russia. Above all, this interview with Tucker Carlson reveals important characteristics of his intriguing personality and worldview. We should all be very grateful to Carlson for this meaningful interview with Vladimir Putin. 

Augusto Zimmermann is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education. He is also a former Associate Law Dean (Research) at Murdoch University, a former Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Professor Zimmermann is the author/co-author of numerous books, including the co-author ofMerchants of Death: Global Oligarchs War on Humanity’ (USA Press, 2023).

Image: screenshot YouTube  




Showing 16 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Friend
    commented 2024-02-14 20:42:48 +1100
    Below: “Usher” the ‘gusher’, who plainly worships the Putin. That’s religion ……..

    Putin is a megalomaniac who sees himself as a latter-day Czar, restoring the ‘holy’ empire. Arguably “Russia” is not a country at all: https://christiancomment.org/2023/06/26/the-russian-idea/

    Putin and his ‘religious’ acolytes have started something they cannot escape from: https://christiancomment.org/2022/11/28/off-ramp-needed/
    “wars are easy to start, much harder to finish”
  • Maryse Usher
    commented 2024-02-14 18:38:25 +1100
    Mr Putin seems so intelligent, reasonable, personable and strong. He was very restrained when he could have easily shown justified contempt for the moral and economic bankruptcy of the United States, represented faithfully by its ghastly puppet president and vice-president. The expression of baffled horror on Carlson’s face throughout this historic interview provoked the thought that much of the chaos in the world has been deliberately and arrogantly caused by American interference and war-mongering.
    I was rivetted by this interview, by Putin’s forensic analysis. I believe him. His elegant explanation of Russia’s newfound Orthodoxy Christianity which has unified its people, evidently restoring its moral health and tolerates other faiths which hold the same adherence to the Natural Law.

    Carlson’s post-interview remarks that Moscow was a beautiful, clean and peaceful city – compared to the smoking garbage heaps of major American cities and elsewhere in the West – means his skills as a journalist now have valuable balance and have put a deserved dint 9in the American bloated ego as the world’s Big Daddy.

    Best of all, the hope that this indeed is the conversion of Russia in its infancy, but which will play a huge role in bringing the era of peace to the world promised by the Virgin Mary at Fatima. I look forward to detente in Ukraine brought about by Putin and Trump.
  • Jürgen Siemer
    commented 2024-02-14 17:42:24 +1100
    Bottom line: the CIA and Mrs Nuland have engineered this war. Started in 2014.
  • Steven Meyer
    commented 2024-02-14 08:37:35 +1100
    Jurgen Siemer

    I doubt Putin will attack Germany and he’s more interested in the Arctic than the Antarctic.

    On the other hand the Baltic Republics look vulnerable and the Poles are arming as fast as they can.

    Trust Putin?

    That would be foolish.

    Bottom line: He did send his army to invade another country,
  • Friend
    commented 2024-02-13 21:04:29 +1100
    Tucker got his name/brand in the spotlight. A key objective, surely. And he dies his hair well, for a 55 year old ……
  • Мар'яна Чорна
    Mr. Zimmermann talks about history exclusively from the Russian point of view, ignoring the fact that imperial, Soviet, and modern Russian history is a set of “Great Russian” chauvinism.
    I understand that most Americans haven’t studied the history of Eastern Europe, but that doesn’t mean you should eat whatever the Russian dictator gives you.

    The definition of Ukraine as a “outskirts” is completely propagandistic (the term Ukraine was first used in 1187, not in the 20th century), as is the myth of “three brotherly nations of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.” Muscovy carried out mass extermination of Ukrainians throughout history, and the myth of “fraternal relations” is simply the history of periods when the Russians subdued Ukrainians by sheer force until the next uprising.
  • Jürgen Siemer
    commented 2024-02-13 04:55:23 +1100
    Steve, your points can be summarized very briefly: Putin is not to be trusted, he is a ruthless dictator, who, if not stopped, would probably order his soldiers to attack Poland, Germany, Australia and Antarctica.

    The problem is that many things Putin says are factually true. He has asked if Russia could join Nato and the EU, and it was Ukraine and it’s western allies, that destroyed the Minsk-agreements, a package of agreements that, if followed, should have stopped the civil war in Ukraine and kept the Donbass in Ukraine.

    And why should we trust the CIA or Mrs Nuland?
  • paolo giosuè gasparini
    commented 2024-02-13 01:51:41 +1100
    Putin made a statement in his interview: “Ukrainians are part of the single Russian people.” It’s as if he said, “That flock belongs to my personal possessions.”

    But what’s happening in India is also very important. Since this year, India has the largest population in the world, with immense weight in terms of economic, social, cultural, and geopolitical aspects. In India, something concerning has happened recently, representing a very worrying cultural turning point.

    India, the world’s largest democracy, had, until now, a leftist party represented by the Gandhi since 1948. Subsequently, a right-wing party came to power, led by the current president Modi, who has increasingly emphasized the Hindu character of Indian culture and political structures. Now, in view of the upcoming elections, the ruling party, led by Modi, has made a declarative statement regarding India’s identity. By visiting the Rama temple and making a declaration, Modi has transformed India into a Hindu nation, effectively ending multiculturalism.

    Hinduism is a cosmic religion, not a revealed religion like Christianity. It stems from the reflections of great Hindu sages and has given rise to many philosophies that do not exclude God but tend to identify Him with the universe. They do not have the concept of creation from nothing; instead, Brahman, the creator god, orders an eternal pre-existing matter. The world is permeated by God. This God has a triple component: He is a creator God, that is, the shaper of the universe, called Brahman.

    There is a God who orders and protects the universe, called Vishnu, and then there is a God who destroys the universe, bringing about continuous transformation, including death, called Shiva. This is the famous Indian Trimurti. The God who is the cosmic force, we can say, governs the world, has sent his Avatar, a manifestation of himself, which is not an incarnation but a manifestation.

    When we say the Word became flesh, we mean the Word assumed true human nature. Instead, the Avatar that would be sent by Vishnu, who protects the world, has sent his representative into the world called Rama, whose task is to protect and preserve the world and also to fight evil so that good reigns in the world.

    Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, went these days to the Hindu temple and made a speech sanctioning the transformation of India into a Hindu nation, that is, into a nation where everyone converges within this precise branch of Hinduism.

    Rama would be a kind of Hindu Christ who incarnates in India, incarnates in the Indian state, incarnates in the party that governs India, incarnates in the man who leads India, Modi. Thus, from Vishnu, we move to Rama, and from Rama to Modi as the manifestation of a God who protects and elevates India to its splendor.

    This is both interesting and worrying: a religion, or rather a philosophy, is identified with a race, ethnicity, and a specific nation. Hence, those not in tune with this in the nation are deemed outsiders. While religions born in India are tolerated, external ones such as Islam and Christianity are not. The identification of religion with Holy India, akin to Holy Russia, inaugurates a situation where religion merges with political power, resembling a sort of theocracy, which is highly dangerous.

    We have reached the concept of the Hindu nation as a Divine emanation, like a party that originates from a Divine emanation (in a Neoplatonic and Middle Platonic manner). Its leader is also an emanation of the Divine. This is the transformation of a parliamentary democracy into a theocracy, which is very dangerous.

    Modi’s call for the Indian nation to rally around Rama is considered a “new era.” The “new era” also marks the beginning of Russian imperialism seeking to reclaim its empire and the Western shift away from Christianity towards post-humanism, devoid of God.

    To enter the realm of post-humanism without God. These are the “new eras”. Here are all three of them!

    We are well acquainted with the Western one, called the “New Age”, in which the terminology “Before Christ” and “After Christ” evidently needs to be removed. From now on, we must distinguish between the old era that has passed and the new era, that of man without God. In Russia, there is the “new era” in which Holy Russia will reclaim its empire. In India, there is the “new era”, precisely the one in which God manifests in the current political power dominating India.
    In China, however, there is no such thing; there is instead a profession of faith in the Marxist conception of the beginning of history, and its leader, who is the guardian and realizer of this project of a new world without God, according to Chinese custom.

    The identification of religion with political power, the throne-altar alliance, Caesar-papist, Carl Schmitt’s political theology, greatly challenges Christianity and wherever it goes, it is considered a foreign religion, thus leading to a persecutor attitude towards the Christian faith, which is now present everywhere. The map of persecuted Christians in the world reaches several hundred million. This is the current configuration in today’s world, namely national religions, their deification, as if they were a divine nation. Man in place of God, and thus the conditions are set to persecute Christianity as a foreign religion.

    Precisely Christianity, which is unique, universal, concrete, in Christ, the God-Man (God; Man; God-Man: creation, redemption, return to God, anything but emanation!) So in this context – where only the living and true God through Christ through Mary saves the world – many ideologies and ethnic religions built to fuel the power of nations should fall. It’s a complex of false gods that must fall: a perspective in a sense grandiose.

    On a personal level, the most serious thing that can happen to a person today is to lose faith, Christian faith, faith in Christ, faith in the salvation that Christ offers us, I would also say faith in the role that Mary has in the work of salvation, because there is no doubt that it is through her, through the triumph of her Immaculate Heart, that this crisis will be overcome.

    For me, there is no “Holy Italy” like there is “Holy Russia” and “Holy India”. No, for me, there is the Holy Catholic Church.
  • Steven Meyer
    commented 2024-02-12 15:53:10 +1100
    “Not only does he [Putin} firmly believe…”


    I think it safe to say that:

    Stalin “firmly believed” taking Ukraine’s food to feed ethnic Russians was the right thing to do even though it killed 6 million Ukrainians. (Google Holodomor. The Ukrainian Holocaust) Hitler “firmly believed” he was doing the world a favour by getting rid of Jews.

    Mao “firmly believed” that unleashing the cultural revolution on the Chinese people would do them good.

    Spare me from people and their “firm” beliefs.

    Hitler also had his defenders when, not stopping at the Sudetenland, he marched into Prague. “You need to understand Germany’s legitimate interests,” they said.

    Many saw Hitler as a Bulwark against the Bolsheviks just as some misguided people today see Putin as a bulwark against the (non-existent) Great Drag Queen menace or the (equally non-existent) Woke Monster. At least the Bolsheviks actually existed.

    Putin’s word is worth about as much as the words of Hitler, Mao and Stalin. He is not to be trusted. If he says he’ll stop at Ukraine do you believe him?

    So this is not simply about Ukraine.

    It’s about whether the Western democracies have the will to resist the dictator of a great power when he sends his army marching into another European country. So far the auguries are not good. The Republicans,, it seems, want to go down in history as a group of latter day Neville Chamberlains.

    Xi is watching and taking notes. That’s when he can control his mirth at the gullibility of Western publics.

    Taiwan here we come?

    Poland, here we come?

    Will the Republicans go down in history as latter day Neville Chamberlains?

    Will Augusto Zimmermann and Tucker Carlson be seen as enablers of a ruthless, murderous dictator?
  • David Page
    commented 2024-02-12 10:57:00 +1100
    The Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a dictatorship. There really isn’t much else to talk about.
  • paolo giosuè gasparini
    commented 2024-02-10 21:29:01 +1100
    I’ll say right away, to discourage hasty readers or exclusively ‘lay’ ones, and thus not waste their precious time, that in this intervention I will not take a political, strategic, or communicative point of view, for which I have no authority, but an original, religious, or more precisely Catholic, and even more particularly, a Marian one.
    (A perspective for which my authority is even lower!)
    So, the two scenes are not equivalent but travel in parallel.
    Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson but de facto diplomat, wove the plot of the negotiation for the interview by establishing the rules of the game and precisely defining the interests of the (many) interlocutors in the field, both explicit and hidden.
    Vladimir Putin’s theoretical and rhetorical arsenal remained unchanged even in these two-plus hours of interview, except for the subtle sarcasm reserved for the 46th US President, Joe Biden.
    Regarding actual news, in over two hours of monologues and history lessons to the accommodating interviewer, only one piece is found: the possible release of Evan Gershkovich.
    Such an interview evidently does not have, as its sole bargaining chip, the release of Gershkovich. But the Tsar’s aim, just over a month away from the presidential elections that will hand him power for another six years, is another: to accredit himself to both domestic and international public opinion as the sole point of stability in a much larger political-religious scenario.
    Russia has a coherent history, which since its origins has been the custodian of the Christian and Roman empire in its eastern part, Constantinople.
    The Orthodox Church and political authority were distinct until communism came. Communism freed itself from Tsarism, replaced Tsarism with itself, persecuted the Orthodox Church, and spread its religion, that of militant atheism, throughout the world and beyond.
    In fact, at the end of the Second World War, Russia had established the largest empire in the world.
    Putin came to power and after a few years of political uncertainty because he did not know whether to align with Europe or Asia, he ultimately opted for the restoration of the Great Rus.
    The great novelty of the last 20 years is the fact that Russia does not accept the collapse of 1991 and wants to regain its empire. It has formed the known binomial, the patriarchy and the Kremlin, the throne and the altar, a total identification, so the invasion of Ukraine is only the first bite, aimed at reoccupying all the countries that once were part of the Russian Empire, and possibly even reaching Rome, including Italy.
    (If there is one thing Russians and Muslims agree on, it’s that they must occupy Rome. Then we’ll see who gets there first.)
    Many, not only outside of Europe, fail to understand the approach to this war, which is a religious war.
    In Europe, a war of invasion by Russia is being prepared, with religious aims. (‘ruling with the fear of God.’)
    Europe has denied the Faith, has changed the Faith, and has secularized itself, embracing modernism, embracing gender, with the last two revolutions (the sexual and the digital or transhumanism), which, prepared by Descartes, have definitively separated the body from the soul, the mind from reality, turning sexuality into mere entertainment and intelligence into pure abstraction (computer).
    The gnostic angelism of the hybrid man-machine (typical of the elites, of the lobbies that I do not name out of modesty), initiated with the Italian Renaissance of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, has joined the evolutionist and materialist animalism, hedonism, and libertinism, suitable for the common people.
    So the mission is to save these Western souls by bringing them back to the heart of the Faith, which would be the Orthodox one.
    Hence a Christianity, associated with political power, is a radical distortion of the Gospel.
    The church becomes an instrument of human power, an unacceptable and unacceptable thing, for which Russia will repent.
    Putin has dedicated all these 20 years to this and has already achieved many successes, especially by regaining part of the greatness of the Soviet empire in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
    Now he is trying to do it in Europe.
    It is clear that we are facing a falsification of Christianity, a political theology typical of Theodosius, concluded in any case in Europe with the Second Vatican Council.
    Russian leaders are very interested in seeing how the Catholic Church is doing.
    From this religious point of view, the West is one thing, the Catholic Church is another.
    This is beyond question: while outside the West the church is growing, in the West the church is disappearing. It is simplistic to identify, as Dugin does, Western Christianity with the West!
    As if the European church had become modernist!
    In fact, in Europe there is a very strong religious minority, which is predominantly Marian and mainly refers to the apparitions of Fatima and Medjugorje.
    Russia’s interest in the revelation of Fatima and the revelations of Medjugorje is inevitable.
    What are the words of the Madonna that make them tremble? “In the end, Russia will convert.”
    Russia will lose this war in Europe. From their point of view, this is an interpretation they cannot tolerate.
    In Medjugorje, the Madonna said that the Russian people will be the people who will honor God above all.
    This means that Russia will enter the Catholic Church, of course, because for the Madonna there is no conversion if it is not in perspective of entering the Catholic Church.
    So from the misleading perspective of Caesar-papism, the sacred empire of the Third Rome, Moscow, that is, the union of political and religious power, a neo-Imperial war begins for the triumph of Orthodoxy.
    While the West, as a reality that rejects God, is the modernist West, even religiously.
    So in the end, neither Putin nor Washington will win, it will be Rome.
    It will be Rome, with its Via Crucis, which it will do with the decimation that is foreseen by the secret of Fatima.
    In the time of secrets, those who will fight will be the fighters here in Europe: Russians, perhaps there will also be Muslim troops because there is a tactical alliance.
    We know that Muslims are against the West because it is corrupt.
    And there are also the Marian ones, because it is mainly the Elites who are anti-Christian, but the simple people still have many elements of simple Christian faith, devotional.
    That is, no one can destroy the Church of Christ, and therefore the church is indestructible, so it is pointless for Putin to do the math; he will never succeed, not even if he had 10,000 atomic bombs.
    So defeat is certain, Russia will convert.
    But we must take into account that the unsurpassed expertise of the Russians in disinformation and diversion may also concern Marian apparitions, especially those of Medjugorje, not just Western media.
  • Kenneth Ndehi
    commented 2024-02-10 21:00:43 +1100
    Many thanks to Tucker Carlson for helping bring out the other side of the story. Truth is the first casualty of war hence the importance for people hearing both sides of the story.

    A wise old man once pointed out to me that so long as western weapons are made by private companies that need to keep growing profits, there will never be any peace. Weapons are durable but highly destructive goods. There is, therefore, every incentive to avoid using them on a large scale, i.e. war, by engaging in diplomacy. This however, would put private military industrial complexes (MIC) in a situation where they have an upstream without downstream. A clearance sale, war, is therefore needed to clear existing stock of weapons so that they can be replaced with more expensive ones.

    Trump dodged the bullet of invading Iran delaying a much needed clearance sale. By forcing Russia to invade Ukraine to avoid the latter, which contains Russian lands in the East and South, from joining NATO,, the western MIC got a super sales promotion. Not only were existing stocks of weapons cleared but there are big orders of costly equipment like the F35. Furthermore, if they succeed in selling Russia as a bogeyman, they can get Cold War 2.0. The beauty of a cold war from a private MIC perspective, is the arms race narrative that drives arms sales without the shedding of blood.

    While the above may sound like a conspiracy theory, kindly google the 50 year stock price charts of MIC companies such as Lockhead Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon. How can such steady rises in stock value be compatible with peace?

  • John Joseph
    commented 2024-02-10 16:37:10 +1100
    There are quite a few videos available on the internet in which Putin laments the moral and social decay evident in the West. The scare campaign of collusion between Trump and Russia was, in my opinion, a manifestation of the fact that the West has lost its moral compass.
  • Jürgen Siemer
    commented 2024-02-10 05:04:32 +1100
    History is important.

    Nevertheless, Putin was willing to respect Ukrainian sovereignty before 2022, but under 2 conditions: a) that Ukraine does not join Nato, so there would be no NATO missiles stationed so close to Moscow, that there would be not enough time to call Washington and check if the dot on the radar screen was really a missile. A very reasonable request from a security point of view. And b) that the Ukrainian government would stop killing ethnic Russians in the Donbass and provide them with constitutional protections. These two principles were key principles built into the 2 Minsk agreements.

    It is a fact that these 2 agreements would have forced the Donbass-Russians to remain in an independent Ukraine. Many critics called Putin a traitor to the Donbass-Russians during these years between 2014 and 2021.

    Austria and Switzerland are not in NATO, Austria had to promise that to Stalin, when the Soviet troops left Vienna. The Austrians are happy, now.

    Question to you:
    Who killed the Minsk-agreement?
    My Help: Not Putin!

    Of course, the Russians probably also made mistakes.

    But in my opinion Putin can indeed explain, why this war is a just war for Russia.
  • Friend
    commented 2024-02-10 02:36:53 +1100
    Question # 1 – is ‘Russia’ truly a nation at all?

    Question # 2 – can/should any county’s future be determined by of held hostage to the paranoia of a neighbour?
  • Augusto Zimmermann
    published this page in The Latest 2024-02-09 21:51:00 +1100