Exclusive: Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Pu.tin
//Summary//
1.
Putin on the Ukraine conflict and historical claims
Historical context: Putin discusses at length the historical context of Russia's relationship with Ukraine, dating back to the Middle Ages. He claims that Russia has a historical claim to parts of Ukraine and frames the current conflict as part of a long historical continuum.
Justification of the war: The Russian president justifies the invasion of Ukraine by citing security threats from NATO expansion and the need to protect the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine. He rejects accusations of aggression and positions Russia as acting defensively.
2.
Putin's views on NATO and the West
NATO enlargement: Putin reiterates his long-standing complaint that NATO's eastward expansion violates promises made to Russia after the Cold War. He portrays the Alliance's growth as a direct threat to Russian security.
Western sanctions: The impact of Western sanctions on Russia is discussed, with Putin claiming they have failed to weaken the Russian economy. He criticises the use of the dollar as a political tool, suggesting that it undermines the global stability of the currency.
3.
On negotiations and future relations
Willingness to negotiate: Putin expresses a desire to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict in Ukraine, blaming the West and the Ukrainian leadership for a lack of mutual openness to dialogue.
Cultural and religious ties: Putin emphasises the deep cultural and spiritual relations between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, suggesting that these ties will eventually lead to reconciliation despite the current hostilities.
4.
Global security, AI and Russia's place in the world
Global security concerns: The Russian leader discusses broader security concerns, including nuclear deterrence and the potential threats posed by advances in AI and genetics, and argues for international regulation.
Russia's Global Vision: Putin offers his perspective on Russia's place in a changing world, criticising Western dominance and advocating a multipolar world order that respects national sovereignty and cultural identities.
This summary encapsulates President Vladimir Putin's wide-ranging interview, providing insights into his justification for the war in Ukraine, grievances with NATO and the West, openness to negotiation, and broader views on global security and Russia's future role on the world stage.
00:00 - 33:00
1)
The following is an interview with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, recorded on 6 February 2024 at about 7 pm. In the building behind us, which is, of course, the Kremlin, the interview, as you will see when you watch it, is mainly about the ongoing war, the war in Ukraine, how it started, what is happening, and most importantly, how it might end, a note before you watch the interview, at the beginning of the discussion we asked the most obvious question, which is why did you do this, did you feel a threat, an imminent physical threat, and that is your justification.
2)
And the answer we got shocked us. Putin went on for a very long time, probably half an hour, about the history of Russia going back to the 8th century. Frankly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and found it annoying, and interrupted him several times. He replied that he was going on about the history of Russia going back to the 8th century. We thought it was a filibustering technique, and we found it annoying. We interrupted him several times, and he replied that he was annoyed by the interruption.
3)
But we concluded in the end, for what it's worth, that it was not a filibustering technique, there was no time limit on the interview, and we ended it after more than two hours instead. What you are about to see seems sincere; whether you agree or not, Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historical claim to parts of western Ukraine, so we think you should take it in that light as a sincere expression of his feelings.
4)
And so here it is, Mr President, thank you very much.
On 22 February 2022, you addressed your country nationwide when the Ukraine conflict began. You said that you were acting because you had concluded that the United States, through NATO, might launch a, quote, surprise attack on our country, and to the American ear, that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you think the United States might attack Russia immediately; how did you conclude that it's not that America, the United States, would launch a surprise attack on Russia?
5)
I didn't say that. Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation? Here's the quote: thank you, it's an impressive series. So, if you don't mind, I'll take 30 seconds or a minute to give you a brief historical reference to give you a bit of historical background; please, let's look at where our relationship would start and where Ukraine came from.
6)
The Russian state began to gather itself as a centralised statehood. It is considered the year of the establishment of the Russian state in 862 when the people of the city of No invited a Varangian prince Rurick from Scandinavia to rule; in 1862, Russia celebrated the 1,000th anniversary of its statehood; in 882, Rurik's successor, Prince OLG, who was playing the role of regent to Rurik's young son, came to Kia because Rurik had died by that time, he asked the two brothers, who had once been members of Rurik's squad.
7)
Thus, Russia began to develop with two centres of power, Kev and Novaro. The next significant date in the history of Russia was 988; this was the baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Ruri, baptised Russia and adopted Orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity.
8)
From this time, the centralised Russian state began to strengthen; why because of the single territory? The centralised Russian state started to take shape as early as the Middle Ages. Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to the throne, but it became complicated for various reasons after his death.
9)
The throne did not pass directly from father to eldest son but from the deceased prince to his brother, then to his sons in different lines, all leading to the fragmentation and the end of Russia as a single state. There was nothing special about this.
The same thing happened in Europe at that time, but the fragmented Russian state became easy prey for the empire that had been created earlier by King Izan and his successors, namely Batuhan.
10)
Batuhan came to Russia, plundered and ruined almost all the cities; the southern part, including Kyiv and some other towns, lost their independence, while the northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty; they had to pay tribute to the Horde, but they managed to preserve some of their power, and then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its centre.
11)
In Moscow, the southern part of the Russian lands, including Kyiv, gradually began to gravitate towards another magnet, the centre that was emerging in Europe; this was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; it was even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy because Russians were a significant part of this population, they spoke the old Russian language and were Orthodox, but then there was a unification.
12)
The union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another partnership was signed, but this time, some Orthodox priests were subordinated to the Pope in the religious sphere. Hence, these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state. Their language tried to establish the idea that these people were not Russians and that they were Ukrainians because they lived on the French border.
Initially, the word Ukrainian meant that the person lived on the edge of the state, on the fringes, or was a border guard; it didn't mean a particular ethnic group.
13)
So the authorities tried in every possible way to oppress this part of the Russian lands and treated them rather harshly, not to say cruelly, all of which led to this part of the Russian lands beginning to fight for their rights, writing letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be respected and that people be sent here, including to Kev, I beg your pardon.
14)
Can you tell us what period? I'm losing track; where in history are we, the Polish oppression in the UK?
It was in the 13th century; now, I'll tell you what happened later and give the date so there's no confusion. In 1654, even a little earlier, the people in control of the authority over this part of the Russian lands addressed Waro, demanding they send them to the rulers.
15)
When Warsaw did not answer and rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow, so Moscow took them away. So that you don't think I'm making things up, I'm going to give you these documents; it doesn't sound like you're making it up; I don't know why it's relevant to what happened two years ago.
16)
But still, these are documents from the archives, copies of the letters written by Bdan Mki, the man who controlled the power in that part of the Russian lands now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw asking for their rights to be respected, and when he was refused, he started writing letters to Moscow asking for them to be taken under the strong hand of the Moscow SAR; there are copies of these documents.
17)
There are copies of these documents; I will leave them on your excellent recollection; there is a translation in Russian, which you can translate into English later.
Russia would not agree to admit them immediately, thinking that the war with Poland would start; nevertheless, in 1654, the Pun Russian assembly of the top clergy and landowners had been decided by the SAR, which was the representative body of the power of the old Russian state.
18)
As expected, the war with Poland started; it lasted for 13 years, and then in 1654, a truce was made, and 32 years later, I think a piece of the treaty with Poland was signed, which they called Eternal Peace and these lands, the whole left bank of the Neer including Kyiv went to Russia and the entire right bank of the Neer remained in the hands of the Russians.
19)
The whole right bank of the Neer remained in Poland under the rule of Catherine, and Great Russia reclaimed all its historical lands, including in the south and the west. This all lasted until the revolution before the First World War; the Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianisation and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and Ukrainisation; their motive was apparent.
20)
Just before the First World War, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure favourable conditions in the border area, so the idea arose in Poland that the people living in this area were not Russians but rather belonged to a particular ethnic group, the Ukrainians, which was propagated by the Austrian General Staff as early as the 19th century.
21)
With Russ,ia they insisted that after the 1917 revolution, the Biks tried to restore statehood, and the civil war began, including hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace was proclaimed with Poland. Under this treaty, the right bank of the Nipper River was returned to Poland in 1939. After Poland collaborated with Hitler it collaborated with Hitler, Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship, an alliance, demanding in return that Poland return to Germany the so-called Dancing Cardor.
22)
After the First World War, this territory was transferred to Pol; instead of Danzig, a city of Danzig was created. Hitler asked them to give it up, but they refused. Of course, they still collaborated with Hitler, and together, they were involved in the partition of Czechoslovakia. I might ask you if you're making the case that Ukraine, indeed, is part of Ukraine; eastern Ukraine has been Russia for centuries.
23)
Russia has been for hundreds of years; why wouldn't you take it when you became president 24 years ago? You have nuclear weapons, but they don't; if it's your country, why did you wait so long?
I'm telling you, I'm coming to the end of this briefing. It may be boring, but it explains many things; I don't know how relevant it is. Good, good. I'm so glad you appreciate that. Thank you so much. Before the Second World War, Poland collaborated with Hitler, and although it didn't lead to a war, it was a war of aggression.
24)
Before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler. Although it did not give in to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the partition of CH Czechoslovakia along with Hitler as the elections had not given the down corridor to Germany and had gone too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them why was it Poland against whom the war began on 1st September 1939 Poland turned out to be uncompromising, Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland through the USSR.
25)
The way the USSR I have read some archived documents behaved very honestly. It asked Poland's permission to Transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia, but the then Pol Foreign Minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be shot down, over the territory of Poland but that didn't matter; what matters is that the war began and Poland fell prey to the policy it had pursued against Czechoslovakia is under the well known Moloto ribbon trop PCT.
26)
PCT: part of the territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia so that Russia, which was then called the USSR, regained its historical lands after victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call the Second World War, and all these territories were finally enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR, as for Poland, it received, apparently as compensation, the lands that were originally German, the eastern parts of Germany, which are now the western lands of Poland.
27)
Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea and Danzig, which was restored to its Polish name, so this is how the situation developed. In 1922, when the USSR was founded, the Biks started to build the USSR and created the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed. Before Stalin, for some inexplicable reason, insisted that these republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they had the right to withdraw from the USSR.
28)
And again, for some unknown reason, he transferred some of the lands and those who lived there to this newly created Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Although these lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet they were made part of this Soviet Republic of Ukraine, these lands included the Black Sea region, which had been received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection whatsoever with Great Britain, even if we go back to 1654 when these lands were returned to the Russian Empire, this territory was the size of three to four regions of what is now Ukraine.
29)
If you go back to 1654, when these lands were returned to the Russian Empire, that territory was the size of three to four regions of what is now Ukraine, not including the Black Sea region, which was entirely out of the question in 1654.
Well, I'm just saying you have a comprehensive knowledge of this region, but why didn't you make the case for the first 22 years that Ukraine was not a real country, that the Soviet Union was given a lot of territory that it never had? Including the Black Sea region.
30)
At some point when Russia got it as a result of the Russo-Turkish wars, it was called New Russia or Navaria, but it doesn't matter; what matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, established Ukraine in that way, and for decades the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR. For some unknown reason, the Bolsheviks were again involved in Ukrainian nationalisation.
31)
The Bolsheviks were involved in Ukrainianisation, not only because the Soviet leadership was primarily made up of Ukrainians but also because of the general policy of the Soviet Union towards Ukrainianisation - the same thing was done in other Soviet republics: national languages and national cultures were promoted, which is not a bad thing in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine came into being after the Second World War,
32)
We have every reason to say that Ukraine is an artificial state created by Stalin. Do you think that Hungary has the right to take back its land from Ukraine and that other nations have the right to go back to their 1654 borders? I'm not sure that they should go back to the 1654 board. S. Still, given the time of Stalin's regime, which many people say saw numerous violations of human rights and the rights of other states, it's at least understandable that they could claim back these lands without having the right to do so.
33)
Stalin's regime, which, as many claim, saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states, one could say that they could claim back these lands of theirs, although they have no right to do so, it is at least understandable. Have you told Victor Orban that he can have part of Ukraine? They have said that we have not even talked about it, but I know that the Hungarians who live there want to return to their historical lands.
34)
Also, I would like to tell you a fascinating story; I digress. I'm digressing; it's a personal story; somewhere in the early eight, I went on a road trip in a car from what was then Leningrad across the Soviet Union, through Kyiv, stopped in Kyiv and then went to western Ukraine. I went to the town of Bavo, and all the names of the cities and villages there were in Russian and in the language I didn't understand, in Hungarian, in Russian and in Hungarian, not in Ukrainian, in Russian and Hungarian.
35)
I was driving through some village, and men were sitting by the houses, wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I said, what are they doing here? What do you mean? This is their country; they live here; this was in the 1980s.
They have preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian names and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and feel themselves to be Hungarians.
36)
They are Hungarians, and they feel themselves to be Hungarians, and, of course, if there is a violation now, well, that's the. There's a lot of that, although I think many nations are upset about Transylvania, as you know. Still, many countries feel frustrated by the redrawn borders of the wars of the 20th century and the wars that go back a thousand years, the ones you mentioned, but the fact is that you didn't make this case public until last year.
37)
But the fact is that you didn't make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I just read today, you explain at great length that you felt a physical threat from the West in NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that's what made you move, is that a fair characterisation of what you said, I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside the genre of the interview, that's why I asked you at the end of the interview if you had a few minutes to explain what you meant.
38)
That is why I asked you at the beginning if we were going to have a serious talk or a show, and you said a serious discussion, so please bear with me; we are coming to the point where Soviet Ukraine was established, then in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and the boy took away everything that Russia had generously given to Ukraine, I am coming to a critical point on today's agenda, thank you, after all the collapse of the Soviet Union was initiated by the Russian leadership.
39)
I don't understand what the Russian leadership was led by then, but I suspect there were several reasons why they thought everything would be fine. I do not know what the Russian leadership was guided by then, but I guess there were several reasons for assuming everything would be fine. Firstly, I suppose that the Russian leadership at the time believed that the basis of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was a standard,n language.
40)
One in three people there had some family or friendship ties, a common culture, a shared history, a common faith, centuries of coexistence under a single state, and deeply intertwined economies; these elements were so fundamental that they made our good relationship inevitable.
The second point is critical, and I want you, as an American citizen and your viewers, to hear this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, and therefore, there were no longer any ideological dividing lines.
41)
Russia even voluntarily and proactively agreed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, believing that the so-called civilised West would understand this as an invitation to cooperation and association, which is what Russia expected from the United States and the collective West as a whole.
There were wise people in the so-called collective West as a whole, including in Germany a critical politician from the Social Democratic Party who, in his conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, insisted that a new security system should be established in Europe, that should be given to unifying Germany.
42)
But that a new system should also be established to include the United States, Canada, Russia and other Central European countries, yes, but NATO must not expand; that's what he said; if NATO expanded, everything would be the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders, that's all he said. He was a wise older man, but nobody listened to him; he got angry once when he said, you don't listen to me; I'm never going to set foot in Moscow again.
43)
Everything happened just as he said it would, well, of course, it came true, and I, and you've mentioned this many times, I think it's a fair point, and many in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be OK with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, that the opposite happened,
44)
But we have an assertive China, and the West doesn't seem to be very afraid of, uh, what about Russia? Do you think that convinced the politicians that they had to bring it down? The West is more fearful of an assertive China than an assertive Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has 1. It used to be even more, but that's enough for China.
45)
As Bismarck once said, the potential is the most important thing. China's potential is enormous; it's the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and size of the economy. Let's not talk about who's afraid of whom, let's not argue in those terms, and talk about the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected to be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilised nations, nothing happened.
46)
Trick this: I don't mean you personally when I say you; of course, I'm talking about the United States. The promise was that NATO would not expand eastwards, but it happened five times; there were five waves of expansion, we tolerated it all, we tried to persuade them, we said, please don't, we are as big now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party.
47)
There was a moment when there was a particular gap between us before that when Yilson came to the United States; remember he spoke in Congress and said the excellent words, God Bless America; everything he said was a signal, let's go in, remember.
As soon as the developments in Yugoslavia began, he raised his voice in support of the Serbs, and we couldn't help but raise our voice for the Serbs in their defence. I understand that complex processes were going on there, I do, but Russia couldn't help but raise its voice in support of the Serbs.
48)
In support of the Serbs, because the Serbs are also a unique and close nation to us, with Orthodox culture and so on, it's a nation that has suffered so much for generations; well, regardless, what's essential is that Yelton expressed his support, what did the United States do in violation of international law and the UN Charter, it started bombing Belgrade.
49)
Belgrade, the United States, let the genie out of the bottle. When Russia protested and expressed displeasure, it was said that the UN Charter and international law had become obsolete, and now everyone was using international law. Still, they started saying everything was obsolete; everything had to be changed.
50)
Some things have to be changed because the balance of power has changed, it's true, but not in this way; Elon was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of not understanding anything, of not knowing anything; he understood everything, I assure you, well, I became president in 2000,
51)
I thought, OK, the Yugoslavia issue is over, but let's try to rebuild relations, let's reopen the door that Russia tried to walk through, and I said it publicly, I can repeat it, at a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room.
I talked to him, I asked him, Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen suddenly, he said, you know, it's interesting, I guess so. Still, when we had dinner in the evening, he said, I've talked to my team; no, you can ask him now. I think he'll see our interview, and he'll confirm it. I guess he will see our discussion; he'll confirm it.
52)
I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened. OK, were you sincere? It would be impossible. Now, would you have joined NATO? Look, I asked the question, is it possible or not, and the answer I got was no, if I was sincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was, but if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO, if he had said yes, the process would have begun.
53)
If he had said yes, the process of blaming me would have started, and eventually, it might have happened if we had seen a sincere desire on the other side from our partners, but it didn't happen, well, no, no, no, OK, OK, think that's to get to the motive, I know you're bitter about it.
54)
I understand, but why do you think the West rejected you? Why the hostility? Why didn't the end of the Cold War fix the relationship? What's the motive from your point of view? You said I'm bitter about it, and the answer is no, it's not bitterness; it's just that I don't feel like it. It's not bitterness; it's just a statement of fact; we're not a bride and groom, anger, resentment, it's not that kind of thing; in those circumstances, we just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all right, fine.
But let's build relationships differently and work for common ground elsewhere; why are we getting such a negative response? It would be best if you asked your leaders.
Exclusive: Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Pu.tin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCWBhuDdDo&t=665s
Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/9/24 | Tucker Carlson February 9, 2024
Colonel Douglas Macgregor tells us why the Ukraine war must end now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6qHWxnNiDY&t=737s
Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/10/24 | Tucker Carlson February 10, 2024
RFK Jr explains Ukraine, bio-labs, and who ki.lled his uncle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQTMn2_ncUg&t=440s
Add info)
[Part 1] Tucker x Pu Ching Interview 2024.02.09.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDbelcptxaA
The interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, conducted on February 6, 2024, primarily discussed the ongoing war in Ukraine, its origins, current status, and potential resolutions. Initially, Putin justified the war by examining Russia's extensive history, claiming a historical claim to parts of Western Ukraine. He traced back to the 8th century, detailing the formation of the Russian state and its territorial evolution over centuries, including periods of fragmentation, unification, and conflicts with neighbouring states like Poland and the Mongol Empire.
Putin emphasized the historical ties between Russia and Ukraine, including shared culture, language, and religion, arguing that these factors substantiate Russia's claim to certain Ukrainian territories. He also recounted the Soviet Union's formation and its later dissolution, which he believes led to the unjust loss of historically Russian lands to Ukraine. Putin criticized NATO's eastward expansion, viewing it as a breach of promises made to Russia, contributing to the current tensions.
Throughout the interview, Putin expressed a sense of historical grievance and a perception of betrayal by the West, particularly regarding NATO's expansion and the lack of a welcoming attitude towards Russia's post-Soviet Union dissolution. He argued that these actions disregarded Russia's security concerns and historical connections to neighbouring territories. The interview underscores Putin's long-standing narrative that frames the conflict in Ukraine within a broader historical and geopolitical context, highlighting perceived injustices and strategic encroachments by Western powers.
[Part 2] Tucker Carlson x President Putin: The truth about denazification and the Maidan revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVVqsO_i59c
[Part 3] Tucker Carlson x President Putin: Does America change depending on its leaders? About multi-polarization 2024.02.10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evbZzU3v3Bs
[Part 4] Tucker Carlson x President Putin What got in the way of peace negotiations and the path to peace negotiations 2024.02.10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52zUKKnk4nQ&t=19s
