What’s America’s view on this Tucker Carlson?

  • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Sooner or later this will end in agreement,” was Putin’s message, arguing that Nato was coming to realise that defeating Russia on the battlefield would be impossible.

    Does Putin realize that NATO is effectively fighting Russia with both arms tied behind it’s back right now? We’re funding Ukraine (who are doing a phenomenal job, fwiw), but we’re not even giving them the top of the line hardware. If the US actually got involved, Russia would pretty much instantly lose any glimmer of air superiority they have, and Ukraine could advance all the way to Moscow under NATO air cover. Like, the only reason Russia still exists is because NATO hasn’t even tried to fight Russia on the battlefield yet.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      1 year ago

      My guess is is does, but he wants the US to lose interest and move on so coloring this as an exercise in futility helps further that goal.

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And it’s great propaganda! Unless you are a smart Russian and realize he’ll sacrifice as many Russian citizens as necessary to keep up the hoax.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah right, NATO commands far more nuclear warheads than Russia! They’d definitely loose in a thermonuclear exchange!

    • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after

      • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.

        The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.

  • AirDevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know when you’re at a park, see a dog, feel something squish under your foot, and then pick up your fooh to look at it? Yeah, exactly like that but in human form

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tucker is our most famous right-winger. That’s basically it. He can say whatever the hell he wants, due to our first amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This includes a freedom to willfully lie, unfortunately, unless one has been placed under oath.

    • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it shouldn’t allow him to call what he does “news” or “journalism”. Him, and others like him, should have bumpers before and after every segment that says “the views expressed are purely the opinion of the host and do not necessarily reflect reality or facts” and not at the breakneck speed they used to do those car dealer and drug commercial disclaimers.

  • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My view as an American is that Tucker Carlson is a traitor, white supremacist, and known propagandist, fuck that guy, in the ass, with a cactus.

  • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The part where he claims to have asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join NATO was hilarious, whether he ever asked Clinton or not. Other than that most of the interview was “We’re just reclaiming Russian land from over a century ago” and “China is the real enemy”.

    • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Well are we going to have a serious conversation? Because firstly I need to tell you about the 1647 agreement between the ethnic Russians located in the western Donbas who sent a letter signed gestures off screen to aide here see these letters, completely legitimate. Completely. They say that Ukraine belongs to Russia for ever and ever and they are Nazis because in 1806 the countries border was changed in the Crimean-Polish revolutionary conflict led by the Tsar of Russia.”

  • sleepmode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cucker Tarlson bringing us the “real” story. Putin is worried about slanted journalists not agreeing with his narrative, gets the biggest softball pitcher ever and can’t even talk around his ego. Mad cringe.

    • ralphio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I watched, but it truly is a bunch of rambling.

      Putin pushed the CIA sniper incitement conspiracy theory, but didn’t present evidence.

      On the Nazi thing, he seems to be pivoting to he invaded because Ukraine doesn’t have strong enough laws to prevent Nazi speech. Again not very compelling.

      He again brings up the conflict pre-invasion in east UA, but fails to mention that Russia was backing the insurgents.

      He brings up that the change of power in 2014 wasn’t done to the letter of the UA constitution, but fails to mention that the current government clearly has a popular mandate.

      He rehashes all the arguments that the West has been the aggressor since the fall of the USSR with NATO expansion.

      Other than that it was pretty off topic. Tucker doesn’t press him much at all, and when he does Putin deflects and Tucker gives up.

      Overall nothing you wouldn’t expect.

      ETA: just remembered, this was kind of strange. The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn’t want to talk evidence. It’s kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn’t want to set a precedent that evidence is required.

  • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This line of critique is wrongheaded and empowers Tucker. Putin already commands a platform far above Tucker’s, a media figure cannot provide a bigger platform for Putin than the one he already has. Many liberal journalists have interviewed Putin without facing this critique, it’s applied here because Tucker is a reactionary shithead.

    The better critique is that you have for-profit entertainment companies capitalizing on this, and how that affects the content.