Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
It is the search for simplistic solutions in a baffling and confusing world. We want someone who can explain it to us in a way we can understand and which makes sense even if it doesn't actually work in practice.
The grim reality is leaders who, despite being of well above average intelligence and education, blunder from one failure to the next, like Sunak. Once you can accept that that is the way the world is and you have to make the best of it you are on the way to calling yourself a Stoic.
I feel like "Brexit Means Brexit" would have sounded much better had Julius Caesar said it.
Veni, vide, vici is an all time classic.
And he did it without the assistance of a PR company. Brilliant.
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
I paid 47p in the £ on most of my income at the end of last month. Some of that is because I get the privilege of living in Scotland but jeez, he must have had some serious pension contributions.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
My take is Carlson was surprised by the initial history lecture, but he thought on his feet, and he realised that allowing Putin to ramble on was the right move - make him feel comfortable, but also look a tad unhinged, if knowledgeable
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton Exclusive: Whistleblower exposes Home Office's asylum system:
"I work in the Home Office deciding whether to grant people asylum, and I am terrified that one day one of my cases will end up on the news.
There has been no internal communication about the recent acid attack case. Nothing. Not even an email telling us that they are looking into how it could have been allowed to happen.
Instead we are bombarded with emails that celebrate things like “World Hijab Day’’ at the same time as I deal with cases of women claiming they cannot go back to Iran otherwise they will be forced into wearing these items.
Asylum seekers will be coached, often by legal representatives or through friends and family (some of whom may have been granted asylum in the past), to concoct a reason they might be persecuted in their home country. They “convert” to Christianity, often coming with evidence of recent baptisms, or say they are gay and take pictures in gay nightclubs to prove it (some of these photos look as though they are very uncomfortable being there).
In one instance a male claimed that he was gay, only to drop the assertion halfway through his asylum interview because he felt so disgusted by the idea.
In one interview the claimant insisted that he was being persecuted in his home country due to his political beliefs. I asked him to name the leader of his nation’s opposition party and he couldn’t answer. He asked for a break and came back ten minutes later knowing everything about the political situation.
The Home Office is hostile to those who speak up internally, unless their complaint is about diversity or discrimination or some other civil service obsession.
Home Office directives and pressure to clear the backlog of asylum cases has caused caseworkers to cut corners. The default is now to err on the side of accepting people. For example, we have been told to cut down the time it takes to conduct asylum interviews, which has led to confusion and a lack of clarity over some cases.
Even as someone who is sceptical of many applications, internal targets and incentives mean that I feel under huge pressure to accept people. It takes less than half an hour to accept a case, while it takes around a day to write up a report to reject someone (this is because you have to lay out the evidence as to why you rejected it for legal reasons, which is a timely process).
The top brass have told us to be on the lookout for applications (even citing a string of recent cases), that use the same wording, or similar stories, and are often submitted by people using the same immigration lawyer. We know that many law firms tell applicants to submit the same hokum that has been proven to work previously but we have not been told to stop granting asylum in these cases." 5:10 PM · Feb 9, 2024"
As someone entrusted with handling vulnerable people's personal information, it's fairly fucking vile for this civil servant to be spreading confidential details like this about, is it not? And the journalist involved should know better than to be amplifying the privacy breach without redacting any of the key details.
Will the ICO be taking action against the Telegraph?
Your arse , these criminals should be exposed and we should deport the fecking civil servant managers/government tossers along with the cheating lying illegals. This guy should get a medal.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
24 hours later and we are all still talking about it on PB, some of you - laughably -are going on and on about what little impact it had. On and on and on and on and on, Look how unimportant it is! I'm going to talk about it for six hours!
This is the kind of policy that Labour should have in their manifesto. Progressive (poor people don't have access to cars), probably a revenue raiser due to increased uptake, makes up for HS2:
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
This is the kind of policy that Labour should have in their manifesto. Progressive (poor people don't have access to cars), probably a revenue raiser due to increased uptake, makes up for HS2:
It would be a good idea, but for it to have full effect on the railways you need more capacity outside London.
Which would need *checks notes* more tracks, such as er, building HS2.
The issue is not whether it gets built. The question is how, when and how to pay for it.
And the snag is the dither, tinkering and delay has already caused ballooning costs. The bloody thing should be running by now and have cost less in total than has been spent getting to Handsacre.
But will Labour be able to turn the mess around? Past form suggests it is unlikely.
Edit - one of the other problems in this country that this idea would address is the lack of discounts for bulk use of transport. To give one example, I was looking at reactivating my M6 Toll account, but it looks as though they've removed all the friendly discounts they used to have, so there's no advantage in doing so. Idiots.
From GB News: The 51-year-old, who is the girlfriend of 71-year-old Peter Bone, is being shunned by ministers due to her relationship with Wellingborough’s disgraced former MP and dire nationwide polling.
Rishi Sunak last month refused to endorse Harrison's candidacy, instead highlighting how candidates are selected locally.
GB News understands that at least one Tory minister who was previously scheduled to canvas in Wellingborough has since removed the visit from his diary.
A Conservative source said: “There’s no value in being seen with the mistress of a disgraced MP. People have their own elections to worry about.”
That they selected her at all demonstrates just how broken the party is. I assume they hoped to try and retain the seat with a greatly reduced majority, not implode their own campaign so that it is cancelled.
You see that rationale which tells Tories that selecting Bone's GF is a good idea? That is why they need to be demolished at the GE. They need to be taken a long way from power to rethink how the world works in 2024.
From GB News: The 51-year-old, who is the girlfriend of 71-year-old Peter Bone, is being shunned by ministers due to her relationship with Wellingborough’s disgraced former MP and dire nationwide polling.
Rishi Sunak last month refused to endorse Harrison's candidacy, instead highlighting how candidates are selected locally.
GB News understands that at least one Tory minister who was previously scheduled to canvas in Wellingborough has since removed the visit from his diary.
A Conservative source said: “There’s no value in being seen with the mistress of a disgraced MP. People have their own elections to worry about.”
That they selected her at all demonstrates just how broken the party is. I assume they hoped to try and retain the seat with a greatly reduced majority, not implode their own campaign so that it is cancelled.
You see that rationale which tells Tories that selecting Bone's GF is a good idea? That is why they need to be demolished at the GE. They need to be taken a long way from power to rethink how the world works in 2024.
The way I read the selection process was that everyone knew the Tories stood no chance so no candidate was willing to risk their future chances on this seat.
And the selection of the mistress means that when she loses the party can replace her at the next election and finally remove Bone and his legacy from the mix
This is the kind of policy that Labour should have in their manifesto. Progressive (poor people don't have access to cars), probably a revenue raiser due to increased uptake, makes up for HS2:
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
24 hours later and we are all still talking about it on PB, some of you - laughably -are going on and on about what little impact it had. On and on and on and on and on, Look how unimportant it is! I'm going to talk about it for six hours!
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
Yep, nobody is talking about it here, and only a passing mention in the news yesterday.
If you went by what people talk about on here then the most important news is most days things like whether you can call Charlie-boy Chaz.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
And yet the world is talking about it
BREAKING: Fox News has to shamefully credit the ‘Tucker Carlson Network’ after Carlson broke the internet interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is hard to blame anyone for skipping Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson. Watch closely, though, and it offers valuable insights, if probably not the kind either participant intended: https://econ.st/3SztGUX
🇬🇧BORIS JOHNSON REACTS TO TUCKER CARLSON'S INTERVIEW WITH PUTIN
"Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson, and we must not fall for this tissue of lies, above all for the notion that Putin somehow fated to… Show more
Mike Sington @MikeSington · 18h The White House warns Americans to not believe anything Vladimir Putin says during Tucker Carlson interview. (Video: C-SPAN)
Russians are angry:
Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure:
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say…
And so on and so forth. The interview is a huge coup for Carlson, arguing otherwise is farcical
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
My take is Carlson was surprised by the initial history lecture, but he thought on his feet, and he realised that allowing Putin to ramble on was the right move - make him feel comfortable, but also look a tad unhinged, if knowledgeable
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
From GB News: The 51-year-old, who is the girlfriend of 71-year-old Peter Bone, is being shunned by ministers due to her relationship with Wellingborough’s disgraced former MP and dire nationwide polling.
Rishi Sunak last month refused to endorse Harrison's candidacy, instead highlighting how candidates are selected locally.
GB News understands that at least one Tory minister who was previously scheduled to canvas in Wellingborough has since removed the visit from his diary.
A Conservative source said: “There’s no value in being seen with the mistress of a disgraced MP. People have their own elections to worry about.”
That they selected her at all demonstrates just how broken the party is. I assume they hoped to try and retain the seat with a greatly reduced majority, not implode their own campaign so that it is cancelled.
You see that rationale which tells Tories that selecting Bone's GF is a good idea? That is why they need to be demolished at the GE. They need to be taken a long way from power to rethink how the world works in 2024.
The way I read the selection process was that everyone knew the Tories stood no chance so no candidate was willing to risk their future chances on this seat.
And the selection of the mistress means that when she loses the party can replace her at the next election and finally remove Bone and his legacy from the mix
Typical of the Johnsonian Tories that they don't know how to withdraw a bone in time.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
My take is Carlson was surprised by the initial history lecture, but he thought on his feet, and he realised that allowing Putin to ramble on was the right move - make him feel comfortable, but also look a tad unhinged, if knowledgeable
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
It was a toe curling butt licking spectacle by a 3rd rate loser and that is without having seen 1 second of it, not hard to guess what shit it would be. I would not watch it if you were cutting my eyelids off.
Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton Exclusive: Whistleblower exposes Home Office's asylum system:
"I work in the Home Office deciding whether to grant people asylum, and I am terrified that one day one of my cases will end up on the news.
There has been no internal communication about the recent acid attack case. Nothing. Not even an email telling us that they are looking into how it could have been allowed to happen.
Instead we are bombarded with emails that celebrate things like “World Hijab Day’’ at the same time as I deal with cases of women claiming they cannot go back to Iran otherwise they will be forced into wearing these items.
Asylum seekers will be coached, often by legal representatives or through friends and family (some of whom may have been granted asylum in the past), to concoct a reason they might be persecuted in their home country. They “convert” to Christianity, often coming with evidence of recent baptisms, or say they are gay and take pictures in gay nightclubs to prove it (some of these photos look as though they are very uncomfortable being there).
In one instance a male claimed that he was gay, only to drop the assertion halfway through his asylum interview because he felt so disgusted by the idea.
In one interview the claimant insisted that he was being persecuted in his home country due to his political beliefs. I asked him to name the leader of his nation’s opposition party and he couldn’t answer. He asked for a break and came back ten minutes later knowing everything about the political situation.
The Home Office is hostile to those who speak up internally, unless their complaint is about diversity or discrimination or some other civil service obsession.
Home Office directives and pressure to clear the backlog of asylum cases has caused caseworkers to cut corners. The default is now to err on the side of accepting people. For example, we have been told to cut down the time it takes to conduct asylum interviews, which has led to confusion and a lack of clarity over some cases.
Even as someone who is sceptical of many applications, internal targets and incentives mean that I feel under huge pressure to accept people. It takes less than half an hour to accept a case, while it takes around a day to write up a report to reject someone (this is because you have to lay out the evidence as to why you rejected it for legal reasons, which is a timely process).
The top brass have told us to be on the lookout for applications (even citing a string of recent cases), that use the same wording, or similar stories, and are often submitted by people using the same immigration lawyer. We know that many law firms tell applicants to submit the same hokum that has been proven to work previously but we have not been told to stop granting asylum in these cases." 5:10 PM · Feb 9, 2024"
As someone entrusted with handling vulnerable people's personal information, it's fairly fucking vile for this civil servant to be spreading confidential details like this about, is it not? And the journalist involved should know better than to be amplifying the privacy breach without redacting any of the key details.
Will the ICO be taking action against the Telegraph?
Your arse , these criminals should be exposed and we should deport the fecking civil servant managers/government tossers along with the cheating lying illegals. This guy should get a medal.
Someone is not aware that if your first instinct is to shoot the messenger, many people take that as proof of the validity of the message,
As someone who is entrusted with confidential information, the above doesn’t have enough personal details to identify anyone.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
And yet the world is talking about it
BREAKING: Fox News has to shamefully credit the ‘Tucker Carlson Network’ after Carlson broke the internet interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is hard to blame anyone for skipping Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson. Watch closely, though, and it offers valuable insights, if probably not the kind either participant intended: https://econ.st/3SztGUX
🇬🇧BORIS JOHNSON REACTS TO TUCKER CARLSON'S INTERVIEW WITH PUTIN
"Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson, and we must not fall for this tissue of lies, above all for the notion that Putin somehow fated to… Show more
Mike Sington @MikeSington · 18h The White House warns Americans to not believe anything Vladimir Putin says during Tucker Carlson interview. (Video: C-SPAN)
Russians are angry:
Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure:
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say…
And so on and so forth. The interview is a huge coup for Carlson, arguing otherwise is farcical
Next up, Kim Jong Un on a four hour One Show special. It would get the headlines too.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
My take is Carlson was surprised by the initial history lecture, but he thought on his feet, and he realised that allowing Putin to ramble on was the right move - make him feel comfortable, but also look a tad unhinged, if knowledgeable
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
It was a toe curling butt licking spectacle by a 3rd rate loser and that is without having seen 1 second of it, not hard to guess what shit it would be. I would not watch it if you were cutting my eyelids off.
“It was a toe curling butt licking spectacle by a 3rd rate loser and that is without having seen 1 second of it, “
Superb. Bravo. That nearly summarises most of PB’s mental reaction to an interview they REALLY REALLY REALLY DON’T CARE ABOUT
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
And yet the world is talking about it
BREAKING: Fox News has to shamefully credit the ‘Tucker Carlson Network’ after Carlson broke the internet interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is hard to blame anyone for skipping Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson. Watch closely, though, and it offers valuable insights, if probably not the kind either participant intended: https://econ.st/3SztGUX
🇬🇧BORIS JOHNSON REACTS TO TUCKER CARLSON'S INTERVIEW WITH PUTIN
"Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson, and we must not fall for this tissue of lies, above all for the notion that Putin somehow fated to… Show more
Mike Sington @MikeSington · 18h The White House warns Americans to not believe anything Vladimir Putin says during Tucker Carlson interview. (Video: C-SPAN)
Russians are angry:
Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure:
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say…
And so on and so forth. The interview is a huge coup for Carlson, arguing otherwise is farcical
Next up, Kim Jong Un on a four hour One Show special. It would get the headlines too.
Particularly the bit where the specially reinforced couch collapsed.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
24 hours later and we are all still talking about it on PB, some of you - laughably -are going on and on about what little impact it had. On and on and on and on and on, Look how unimportant it is! I'm going to talk about it for six hours!
Only laughing is that you actually thought it was news and worthy of watching for even a second and are still ranting about the bullshit days later, despite everyone else in eth world saying what a load of bollocks it was, ramblings of two cretinous morons.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
24 hours later and we are all still talking about it on PB, some of you - laughably -are going on and on about what little impact it had. On and on and on and on and on, Look how unimportant it is! I'm going to talk about it for six hours!
Only laughing is that you actually thought it was news and worthy of watching for even a second and are still ranting about the bullshit days later, despite everyone else in eth world saying what a load of bollocks it was, ramblings of two cretinous morons.
You seem weirdly angry about it, given that it is so meaningless and you “haven't even watched 1 second of it “
Anyway I must depart, haircut , shops then taking Grandson to see Dune again in IMAX as precursor to part 2 coming out. I will toast pb's health over a pleasant lunch. Horses wise I like Nicholls horse in the last race at Newbury, plenty of scope to be able to win this.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
And yet the world is talking about it
BREAKING: Fox News has to shamefully credit the ‘Tucker Carlson Network’ after Carlson broke the internet interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is hard to blame anyone for skipping Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson. Watch closely, though, and it offers valuable insights, if probably not the kind either participant intended: https://econ.st/3SztGUX
🇬🇧BORIS JOHNSON REACTS TO TUCKER CARLSON'S INTERVIEW WITH PUTIN
"Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson, and we must not fall for this tissue of lies, above all for the notion that Putin somehow fated to… Show more
Mike Sington @MikeSington · 18h The White House warns Americans to not believe anything Vladimir Putin says during Tucker Carlson interview. (Video: C-SPAN)
Russians are angry:
Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure:
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say…
And so on and so forth. The interview is a huge coup for Carlson, arguing otherwise is farcical
Next up, Kim Jong Un on a four hour One Show special. It would get the headlines too.
THAT is a much coherent objection. Should any journalist interview a despot like Putin? Responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands?
My sense is Yes. And it seems most journalists agree - they now say they’ve all been trying to interview Putin
But there must be a line somewhere. Tyrants so awful they can’t be given any publicity
Not sure where that is tho. Western journalists regularly interviewed Mao, Mussolini etc
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I am not entirely sure I would grace this with the verb "think". Its irrational on so many levels.
@AlsoLei good to have friends with diverse political perspectives... I would say this is the effect of social media and the decline of grand narratives that existed until the mid 2010's. Who is to say that 'we' are right and they are wrong? In a democracy all views are given equal weight. What is 'irrationality' anyway? It seems to me like a disproven concept from another era. What is more 'irrational' than centrist politicians 'taking a break from social distancing' to join in with a mass 'anti-racism' protest, in the middle of a pandemic, where it is against the law to leave your house? What you have is a desperate search for order and meaning amongst chaos, it expresses itself in a variety of ways that seem (to our 1990's shaped minds) absurd.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
That's because Putin really isn't one of them and I don't think Carlson realised that going into the interview. Trump, Carlson and the MAGA lot are a self indulgent rabble. As a spy chief dictator Putin deep down despises them. He didn't adjust his narrative to the points Carlson was clearly trying to get him to make.
It must be very worrying for the Dem team at the moment. Whatever gaffe Trump comes out with is already on record somewhere and matters little to his electorate. But every second that Biden is off the leash is dangerous.
A TV debate is unthinkable, but when they try to dodge it, it will be obvious why. At best, Biden might say the same thing fifteen times in the first two minutes. He might even mistake Trump for a teapot.
Harris may be a place-person and exceedingly boring, but she's twenty years younger. And fortunately for them, the Republicans are wedded to Trump even though his vote ceiling might be below 50% - unlike Haley.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
Tiny bit OT, but hoping Dragon's Dogma 2 has a demo including the character creator, which apparently has 12 sliders. For the nose. Probably going to spend an hour or two just on that. well, twice, obviously (player character and main pawn).
Downloaded the FFVII Rebirth demo. File size? 48 GB... for the demo. Apparently the actual game (2 discs) has a file size of 145 GB.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
24 hours later and we are all still talking about it on PB, some of you - laughably -are going on and on about what little impact it had. On and on and on and on and on, Look how unimportant it is! I'm going to talk about it for six hours!
It must be very worrying for the Dem team at the moment. Whatever gaffe Trump comes out with is already on record somewhere and matters little to his electorate. But every second that Biden is off the leash is dangerous.
A TV debate is unthinkable, but when they try to dodge it, it will be obvious why. At best, Biden might say the same thing fifteen times in the first two minutes. He might even mistake Trump for a teapot.
Harris may be a place-person and exceedingly boring, but she's twenty years younger. And fortunately for them, the Republicans are wedded to Trump even though his vote ceiling might be below 50% - unlike Haley.
The voters currently think he's completely gaga because they only get the clips so the only way is up.
Harris may or may not do better; I'd say she'd do better if he stands down as president because she'd get a honeymoon and she can drive the agenda to wherever she needs it to be to fight the election. If she has to run for president as VP it's kind of awkward; She has to defend everything he's done and can't really stake out her own turf, and the opposition are free to define her however they like, so the right will think she wants to abolish the police while the left think she's a cop.
It must be very worrying for the Dem team at the moment. Whatever gaffe Trump comes out with is already on record somewhere and matters little to his electorate. But every second that Biden is off the leash is dangerous.
A TV debate is unthinkable, but when they try to dodge it, it will be obvious why. At best, Biden might say the same thing fifteen times in the first two minutes. He might even mistake Trump for a teapot.
Harris may be a place-person and exceedingly boring, but she's twenty years younger. And fortunately for them, the Republicans are wedded to Trump even though his vote ceiling might be below 50% - unlike Haley.
The report has certainly had the intended effect.
Personally, I *was" worried that Biden isn't really up to the campaign, but thought he would get through it.
This has shifted the goalposts; the middle-of-the-road media now has carte blanche to leap on every gaffe for clicks, and that will be very damaging
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Come away from GB News and it's made next to no impact at all.
24 hours later and we are all still talking about it on PB, some of you - laughably -are going on and on about what little impact it had. On and on and on and on and on, Look how unimportant it is! I'm going to talk about it for six hours!
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
Yes, but the fall of the USSR from 1989 sorta shows the opposite - and the parallels may become similar.
Incidentally. do any of you know much about Kamala? Is there more to her than Hilary Clinton with a sun-tan?
We saw plenty of her in the primaries. Key features:
- Doesn't gaffe - Good at delivering the lines they give her - Ambitious, she'll do whatever it takes - Not very charismatic - Picked a bad team, her sister was somehow involved
Before she was a senator she was this tough-sounding "smart on crime" DA. Then she ended up running for the Dem nomination where everybody thought (wrongly, it turned out) they needed to come at it from the left, so she jettisoned all that stuff and came over as more of a party-line liberal. Once she became VP she seems to have mostly adopted a policy of STFU since she doesn't know whether she needs to optimize for an imminent primary-free general election or the next Democratic primary.
I think there's a lot of room for her to define herself in the way that she'd need to win the election, but if and only if she was president (not just presidential candidate).
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As far as I can work out it is 5% of the total US military budget. So £48 billion of £877 billion ish. It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'. There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country. I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
Incidentally. do any of you know much about Kamala? Is there more to her than Hilary Clinton with a sun-tan?
She had the perfect resume as a Democrat politician of a decade ago. Hard charging prosecutor, lots of success, lots of schmoozing the rubber chicken dinner circuit. Steadily worked her way up the political ladder.
Her problem is that she has voter repeal. Not appeal. And that her prosecutorial record includes some pretty dodgy stuff. As is common in the American system, she was striving for 100% conviction rates, like a boxer’s fight record. This meant that quite a few innocent people went to jail.
Every prosecutor does the same. It’s just her bad luck that with the rise of BLM, the wheels came off that route into politics - her polling with the Black community is terrible.
So she has the CV. But hasn’t got the spark that makes a great politician. And has actively turned off a couple of major chunks of the Democrat coalition - Blacks and the Law & Order Liberals.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
On Taylor Swift, for me this live tv performance 10 or so years ago encapsulates the genius. Love story is a perfect pop song, but also she is a brilliant actress.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
Yes, but the fall of the USSR from 1989 sorta shows the opposite - and the parallels may become similar.
When the balloon of such systems pops, it leaves little behind. Apart from lots of people swearing they were really against it all the time.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Even here on PB it was only mentioned as a possible reason for Leon's absence - and we've spent more time on Leon's reaction to it than the interview itself. An interview even less important than why one sad old bitter non-entity spouts such a lot of crap!
'Letters sent every year by Teachers’ Pensions, which administers the scheme for the Department for Education (DfE), give spouses and civil partners of teachers who retired before January 2007 only 28 days to declare whether they remain single.
Those whose partners retired after that date remain entitled to the payments for life, regardless of their domestic circumstances. The system has left pensioners in their 80s and 90s at risk of losing their income unless they declare annually that they have not moved in with a new partner.'
And some have to prove annually they are still alive, even if *it's the same corpse that they have already been linked to.*
'Since then other retired teachers have reported that they have also been declared dead and cut off by the scheme, which is overseen by the DfE.
The DfE insists its vetting procedures are necessary to prevent fraud but according to legal experts, pursuing people over a disproved identity and withholding rightful payments may be in breach of data protection laws. [...]
It insisted that the system does not allow names to be decoupled once a potential match between a beneficiary and a death register entry has been identified, even if it has been disproved.'
Incidentally. do any of you know much about Kamala? Is there more to her than Hilary Clinton with a sun-tan?
We saw plenty of her in the primaries. Key features:
- Doesn't gaffe - Good at delivering the lines they give her - Ambitious, she'll do whatever it takes - Not very charismatic - Picked a bad team, her sister was somehow involved
Before she was a senator she was this tough-sounding "smart on crime" DA. Then she ended up running for the Dem nomination where everybody thought (wrongly, it turned out) they needed to come at it from the left, so she jettisoned all that stuff and came over as more of a party-line liberal. Once she became VP she seems to have mostly adopted a policy of STFU since she doesn't know whether she needs to optimize for an imminent primary-free general election or the next Democratic primary.
I think there's a lot of room for her to define herself in the way that she'd need to win the election, but if and only if she was president (not just presidential candidate).
I agree with all this, but she also needs to learn (or re-learn) how to speak more plainly.
Trump recently said of her “she speaks in rhyme” and like all Trump sayings there is a brutal piece of truth in it. She often goes off on word salad rambles, and she needs to lose that. She was very good in the Senate - I remember watching a couple of her speeches/performances when she was considered the rising star to watch - and there was none of that.
Incidentally. do any of you know much about Kamala? Is there more to her than Hilary Clinton with a sun-tan?
We saw plenty of her in the primaries. Key features:
- Doesn't gaffe - Good at delivering the lines they give her - Ambitious, she'll do whatever it takes - Not very charismatic - Picked a bad team, her sister was somehow involved
Before she was a senator she was this tough-sounding "smart on crime" DA. Then she ended up running for the Dem nomination where everybody thought (wrongly, it turned out) they needed to come at it from the left, so she jettisoned all that stuff and came over as more of a party-line liberal. Once she became VP she seems to have mostly adopted a policy of STFU since she doesn't know whether she needs to optimize for an imminent primary-free general election or the next Democratic primary.
I think there's a lot of room for her to define herself in the way that she'd need to win the election, but if and only if she was president (not just presidential candidate).
I agree with all this, but she also needs to learn (or re-learn) how to speak more plainly.
Trump recently said of her “she speaks in rhyme” and like all Trump sayings there is a brutal piece of truth in it. She often goes off on word salad rambles, and she needs to lose that. She was very good in the Senate - I remember watching a couple of her speeches/performances when she was considered the rising star to watch - and there was none of that.
Yes, she's definitely capable of speaking clearly. The problem is that like I say right now she doesn't know what electorate she needs to optimize for, so tactically she needs to obfuscate.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As far as I can work out it is 5% of the total US military budget. So £48 billion of £877 billion ish. It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'. There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country. I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
Forget the cash and the arms support, important though those are, the bottom line for me is the level of determination amongst the Ukraine population to resist, even into a period were it to happen where they are under the Russian control.
From the few Ukrainians I have met - admittedly refugees and a few promoting their cause on cultural tours - they seem vehemently determined. 'Britain in the Blitz' levels of determination. Afghan Taliban levels of determination.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
Yes, but the fall of the USSR from 1989 sorta shows the opposite - and the parallels may become similar.
The fall of the USSR (and the wider Moscow bloc) was driven by anti-imperialism in Eastern Europe (and the Baltic States / provinces - though they hadn't been part of the USSR pre-1941), and a mixture of fatigue and mismanagement in the Kremlin. It wasn't the Russian people who overthrew Gorbachev; it was Yeltsin. Sure, popular support mattered in his opposition to the coup in the summer of 1991 but that coup was mishandled and it was a rare opportunity where the public could see (or believed they could) the difference between the regimes on offer.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Even here on PB it was only mentioned as a possible reason for Leon's absence - and we've spent more time on Leon's reaction to it than the interview itself. An interview even less important than why one sad old bitter non-entity spouts such a lot of crap!
It's like I've got a permanent Airbnb rental in your brain, it's kinda flattering
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Ditto. In fact I don't think most people even knew it happened. Just asked my wife. Nope, not a clue.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Ditto. In fact I don't think most people even knew it happened. Just asked my wife. Nope, not a clue.
Another one to add to the list. Not only have "Tres" and "Kamski" declared their indifference to this interview so has "KJH's wife"
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I am not entirely sure I would grace this with the verb "think". Its irrational on so many levels.
@AlsoLei good to have friends with diverse political perspectives... I would say this is the effect of social media and the decline of grand narratives that existed until the mid 2010's. Who is to say that 'we' are right and they are wrong? In a democracy all views are given equal weight. What is 'irrationality' anyway? It seems to me like a disproven concept from another era. What is more 'irrational' than centrist politicians 'taking a break from social distancing' to join in with a mass 'anti-racism' protest, in the middle of a pandemic, where it is against the law to leave your house? What you have is a desperate search for order and meaning amongst chaos, it expresses itself in a variety of ways that seem (to our 1990's shaped minds) absurd.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
The Ukrainian objective is to make the cost of the Russian occupation greater than Russia is prepared to pay so it chooses to leave, not to defeat the regime in Russia.
I would say they have a reasonable chance of doing that, but they need to be supported.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As far as I can work out it is 5% of the total US military budget. So £48 billion of £877 billion ish. It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'. There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country. I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
The modernisation of the Russia military includes -
- Elimination of nearly all modern tanks. “New” tanks are dominated by the rebuilds of 1970-1980s tanks. - Similar for SPGs - In fact they are using even more ancient tanks as impromptu SPGs - The loss rate for the Black Sea Navy has handily exceeded the construction rate of naval vessels for Russia. - The loss rate of the Russian Airforce is way above production rates. - Foreign orders for Russian weapons have collapsed. This money was being used to fund modernisation. Apparently buyers are not keen on the performance of Russians weapons. - etc
Mr. Malmesbury, not disagreeing with that, but worth noting that Russia is learning a lot about drone warfare from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As far as I can work out it is 5% of the total US military budget. So £48 billion of £877 billion ish. It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'. There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country. I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
Forget the cash and the arms support, important though those are, the bottom line for me is the level of determination amongst the Ukraine population to resist, even into a period were it to happen where they are under the Russian control.
From the few Ukrainians I have met - admittedly refugees and a few promoting their cause on cultural tours - they seem vehemently determined. 'Britain in the Blitz' levels of determination. Afghan Taliban levels of determination.
Fair enough, I don't disagree. But my point about the weakeness of this discussion on PB, is that I am interested in the strategy for how the war in Ukraine gets resolved, and then the strategy for the long war with Russia, how it is won or avoided. With some exceptions, all I am hearing back is propoganda and wishful thinking; and then attempts to close down the discussion by defining any views that depart from the 'consensus' as 'pro Putin' or 'appeasement', which just gets tiring.
There is a truly extraordinary moment in the interview at about 1:20 or maybe later
I don't think anyone noticed it. I did
Tucker Carlsonovich (o should that be CarlSon-of-a-b*tch?) got his tongue so far up Putin's backside that it showed in his eyes?
It's a really mad moment, and I may have misconstrued it. I need to watch it again and ensure I am not speaking lunatic nonsense!
Coz that would be bad, I hate that
IF I am right it could furnish a Gazette article
Maybe the Gazette could send you to Moscow to do your own "exclusive"?
I'd love to go and I am actively considering it. Get the Russian perspective for a couple of Knapper's Gazette articles
Slightly risky tho. He does arrest western journos. Insurance would be impossible
There are literally thousands of (more important) foreign journalists in Moscow, you'll be fine. You won't even be on the FSB's list. They'll pull all of your mobile phone data off the network but that'll be it.
There is a truly extraordinary moment in the interview at about 1:20 or maybe later
I don't think anyone noticed it. I did
Tucker Carlsonovich (o should that be CarlSon-of-a-b*tch?) got his tongue so far up Putin's backside that it showed in his eyes?
It's a really mad moment, and I may have misconstrued it. I need to watch it again and ensure I am not speaking lunatic nonsense!
Coz that would be bad, I hate that
IF I am right it could furnish a Gazette article
Maybe the Gazette could send you to Moscow to do your own "exclusive"?
I'd love to go and I am actively considering it. Get the Russian perspective for a couple of Knapper's Gazette articles
Slightly risky tho. He does arrest western journos. Insurance would be impossible
There are literally thousands of (more important) foreign journalists in Moscow, you'll be fine. You won't even be on the FSB's list. They'll pull all of your mobile phone data off the network but that'll be it.
I'm not saying that, I am saying the Gazette won't send me if they feel they can't insure me, and it might be prohibitively expensive - I have discussed this with them already
Mr. Malmesbury, not disagreeing with that, but worth noting that Russia is learning a lot about drone warfare from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
They seem to have become very experienced at turning what's left of their military hardware into drone targets.
But they seem incapable of learning any lessons from that.
Perhaps reminiscent at how the Japanese kept their best units in the front line until they were destroyed instead of withdrawing them and then having them pass on what they had learnt.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report on my own observations.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Even here on PB it was only mentioned as a possible reason for Leon's absence - and we've spent more time on Leon's reaction to it than the interview itself. An interview even less important than why one sad old bitter non-entity spouts such a lot of crap!
It's like I've got a permanent Airbnb rental in your brain, it's kinda flattering
Do you ever wonder WHY you obsess about me?
You're an interesting case. It seems to be so important to your self-image that you lead an interesting and enviable life, but you seem to spend most of your free time arguing about politics with boring idiots that you despise on an internet forum. Not sure how you cope with the cognitive dissonance but lots of alcohol might help.
The Ragin' Cajun: "The potential Democratic field is better...Josh Shapiro is such a skilled politician...Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Raphael Warnock, Gina Raimondo, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris. My point is, don’t worry. There’s plenty of people to pick up the ball."
You can pick some of these up on BF for prices like 600 and 700.
I am taking a nibble at these prices. This could blow wide open if Biden can't contain the current 'he's too old' row sufficiently.
David Allen Green here tells you all you need to know, in forensic detail, about a future border poll in NI. Very informative and useful now that SF are on the march and the next government won't be Tory.
There is a truly extraordinary moment in the interview at about 1:20 or maybe later
I don't think anyone noticed it. I did
Tucker Carlsonovich (o should that be CarlSon-of-a-b*tch?) got his tongue so far up Putin's backside that it showed in his eyes?
It's a really mad moment, and I may have misconstrued it. I need to watch it again and ensure I am not speaking lunatic nonsense!
Coz that would be bad, I hate that
IF I am right it could furnish a Gazette article
Maybe the Gazette could send you to Moscow to do your own "exclusive"?
I'd love to go and I am actively considering it. Get the Russian perspective for a couple of Knapper's Gazette articles
Slightly risky tho. He does arrest western journos. Insurance would be impossible
There are literally thousands of (more important) foreign journalists in Moscow, you'll be fine. You won't even be on the FSB's list. They'll pull all of your mobile phone data off the network but that'll be it.
I'm not saying that, I am saying the Gazette won't send me if they feel they can't insure me, and it might be prohibitively expensive - I have discussed this with them already
What about Belarus? A bit less obvious, easier to get in annd out, cheaper, and well on the way to becoming a bit of a North Korea to Russia’s China.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
The Ukrainian objective is to make the cost of the Russian occupation greater than Russia is prepared to pay so it chooses to leave, not to defeat the regime in Russia.
I would say they have a reasonable chance of doing that, but they need to be supported.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
The Ukrainian objective is to make the cost of the Russian occupation greater than Russia is prepared to pay so it chooses to leave, not to defeat the regime in Russia.
I would say they have a reasonable chance of doing that, but they need to be supported.
On this analysis I would think the Russians have a better chance of prevailing. They won't retreat, have built up a war economy, have vast natural resources and willing buyers for their goods to support an indefinete conflict which also serves domestic political purposes. Whereas in Ukraine, the state is being underwritten entirely by the west against a backdrop of mounting political opposition within its main backer (the US)
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report from my own observations.
Well it's fallen flat to the extent he's got world leaders ranting about it - Trudeau to Boris- and it's got 172 million "views" on Twitter - and that's on his own channel, there will be tens of millions of other views second hand, as it percolates through the media. Yes yes of course only a tiny percentage will ever watch the whole boring thing (tho it gets less boring in the 2nd half); tens and maybe hundreds of millions will see snippets
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
Fair enough, I don't disagree. But my point about the weakeness of this discussion on PB, is that I am interested in the strategy for how the war in Ukraine gets resolved, and then the strategy for the long war with Russia, how it is won or avoided. With some exceptions, all I am hearing back is propoganda and wishful thinking; and then attempts to close down the discussion by defining any views that depart from the 'consensus' as 'pro Putin' or 'appeasement', which just gets tiring.
There no strategy ever articulated for Western involvement in the SMO beyond some platitude about "as long as it takes". The US doesn't want a decisive Ukrainian victory because they have not created the conditions for one. Evidence outweighs testimony. What they actually do want other than a Forever War is hard to gauge.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
In the real world more brits would probably think Tucker Carlson was the kid from Grange Hill than a US news storyteller.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Even here on PB it was only mentioned as a possible reason for Leon's absence - and we've spent more time on Leon's reaction to it than the interview itself. An interview even less important than why one sad old bitter non-entity spouts such a lot of crap!
It's like I've got a permanent Airbnb rental in your brain, it's kinda flattering
Do you ever wonder WHY you obsess about me?
You're an interesting case. It seems to be so important to your self-image that you lead an interesting and enviable life, but you seem to spend most of your free time arguing about politics with boring idiots that you despise on an internet forum. Not sure how you cope with the cognitive dissonance but lots of alcohol might help.
You actually started this debate about Carlson this morning - by mentioning me. I wasn't even here, you weren't responding to any remark of mine, yet you mention me angrily. It's.... weird
FWIW I certainly do not lead an interesting life at the moment, it is fucking dull. I wake up, work, work, work, sit in the sun, work, faff about on here, maybe have a drink (or not) down Bassac Lane, watch TV, sleep, repeat
As I've said, it is a quasi monastic regime I have imposed on myself for the sake of the creative work (so I can't whine, tho I do), and it succeeds on its own terms, the work is good. But I'll be bloody glad when it is over. End Feb or mid March, God willing
The Ragin' Cajun: "The potential Democratic field is better...Josh Shapiro is such a skilled politician...Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Raphael Warnock, Gina Raimondo, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris. My point is, don’t worry. There’s plenty of people to pick up the ball."
You can pick some of these up on BF for prices like 600 and 700.
I am taking a nibble at these prices. This could blow wide open if Biden can't contain the current 'he's too old' row sufficiently.
A governor would be best for the anti-Washington mood.
Shapiro (PA) and Whitmer (MI) would help in swing states and Beshear (KY) would help for moderates and those who want bipartisanship.
Mr. Malmesbury, not disagreeing with that, but worth noting that Russia is learning a lot about drone warfare from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
They seem to have become very experienced at turning what's left of their military hardware into drone targets.
But they seem incapable of learning any lessons from that.
Perhaps reminiscent at how the Japanese kept their best units in the front line until they were destroyed instead of withdrawing them and then having them pass on what they had learnt.
Russia used to have three military assets
- a huge pile of slightly rusty stuff from the USSR days - Oil and gas to pay for wars - A large reservist population to call on
They are steadily getting rid of the first one. Mostly gone in a number of categories. The last is massively depleted as well.
They can manage a bit in the consumer-drone-with-mortar-bomb space, but don’t have the technology base for much more.
Note, for example, that they haven’t been able to disable the satellite links the Ukrainians use to guide their sea borne drones.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I am not entirely sure I would grace this with the verb "think". Its irrational on so many levels.
@AlsoLei good to have friends with diverse political perspectives... I would say this is the effect of social media and the decline of grand narratives that existed until the mid 2010's. Who is to say that 'we' are right and they are wrong? In a democracy all views are given equal weight. What is 'irrationality' anyway? It seems to me like a disproven concept from another era. What is more 'irrational' than centrist politicians 'taking a break from social distancing' to join in with a mass 'anti-racism' protest, in the middle of a pandemic, where it is against the law to leave your house? What you have is a desperate search for order and meaning amongst chaos, it expresses itself in a variety of ways that seem (to our 1990's shaped minds) absurd.
What's a 1990s shaped mind?
Various legacies: progress, rationality, empiricism etc.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
Boris is trending on TwiX, all with the same clip. If they weren't blue-ticked, I'd say it was a Kremlin-linked bot farm. Apparently the big Carlson/Putin revelation was that Boris and/or Britain sabotaged a peace deal that would end the SMO and save millions of lives.
There is a truly extraordinary moment in the interview at about 1:20 or maybe later
I don't think anyone noticed it. I did
Tucker Carlsonovich (o should that be CarlSon-of-a-b*tch?) got his tongue so far up Putin's backside that it showed in his eyes?
It's a really mad moment, and I may have misconstrued it. I need to watch it again and ensure I am not speaking lunatic nonsense!
Coz that would be bad, I hate that
IF I am right it could furnish a Gazette article
Maybe the Gazette could send you to Moscow to do your own "exclusive"?
I'd love to go and I am actively considering it. Get the Russian perspective for a couple of Knapper's Gazette articles
Slightly risky tho. He does arrest western journos. Insurance would be impossible
There are literally thousands of (more important) foreign journalists in Moscow, you'll be fine. You won't even be on the FSB's list. They'll pull all of your mobile phone data off the network but that'll be it.
I'm not saying that, I am saying the Gazette won't send me if they feel they can't insure me, and it might be prohibitively expensive - I have discussed this with them already
What about Belarus? A bit less obvious, easier to get in annd out, cheaper, and well on the way to becoming a bit of a North Korea to Russia’s China.
Belarus has many of the problems of going to Russia without the actual excitement of GOING TO RUSSIA. So it would be hard to sell stories
I have actually been to Belarus. Went to Minsk, travelled about, went to the Belarusian side of Chernobyl - deeply creepy
Minsk has insanely beautiful hookers, they are everywhere. I was on assignment with a photographer friend and we decided to indulge. We were in a sort of hotel disco full of these stunning women and we approached the first, asking how much, and she casually told us "No, I'm not a prostitute, I'm the daughter of the Italian ambassador"
Fair enough, I don't disagree. But my point about the weakeness of this discussion on PB, is that I am interested in the strategy for how the war in Ukraine gets resolved, and then the strategy for the long war with Russia, how it is won or avoided. With some exceptions, all I am hearing back is propoganda and wishful thinking; and then attempts to close down the discussion by defining any views that depart from the 'consensus' as 'pro Putin' or 'appeasement', which just gets tiring.
There no strategy ever articulated for Western involvement in the SMO beyond some platitude about "as long as it takes". The US doesn't want a decisive Ukrainian victory because they have not created the conditions for one. Evidence outweighs testimony. What they actually do want other than a Forever War is hard to gauge.
This is where there's a meaningful difference between Trump and A.N. Other generic candidate in 2024.
Trump has a bias towards the decisive "whatever it takes" over the indecisive "as long as it takes". That's probably why the world was more stable when he was in the White House. He made it much harder for would-be enemies of the US to predict what would happen if they crossed a line.
The Ragin' Cajun: "The potential Democratic field is better...Josh Shapiro is such a skilled politician...Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Raphael Warnock, Gina Raimondo, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris. My point is, don’t worry. There’s plenty of people to pick up the ball."
You can pick some of these up on BF for prices like 600 and 700.
I am taking a nibble at these prices. This could blow wide open if Biden can't contain the current 'he's too old' row sufficiently.
I think there’s a great chance he won’t contain it, the problem is the mechanics of how he exits and how a successor steps in, now primary season has started in earnest. The fact it is such a radical move means there is a good chance he is kept in place simply by timing and circumstance, and the votes will fall as they may.
The neatest path forward seems to be to be a handover to Harris (either as candidate or as President). That’s what I would be suggesting as by far the most plausible outcome if he cannot continue. The path to any of the others is very difficult to see.
You can get around 12/1 for Harris being the Democratic candidate. That feels to me an astute bet.
Comments
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
This guy should get a medal.
It is still the second main story on the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/international/
https://x.com/GermanEmbassy/status/1755952719087509804?s=20
Which would need *checks notes* more tracks, such as er, building HS2.
The issue is not whether it gets built. The question is how, when and how to pay for it.
And the snag is the dither, tinkering and delay has already caused ballooning costs. The bloody thing should be running by now and have cost less in total than has been spent getting to Handsacre.
No wonder @Casino_Royale is furious.
But will Labour be able to turn the mess around? Past form suggests it is unlikely.
Edit - one of the other problems in this country that this idea would address is the lack of discounts for bulk use of transport. To give one example, I was looking at reactivating my M6 Toll account, but it looks as though they've removed all the friendly discounts they used to have, so there's no advantage in doing so. Idiots.
You see that rationale which tells Tories that selecting Bone's GF is a good idea? That is why they need to be demolished at the GE. They need to be taken a long way from power to rethink how the world works in 2024.
And the selection of the mistress means that when she loses the party can replace her at the next election and finally remove Bone and his legacy from the mix
In a lot of places, and at key times, we don't. And the mutilation of HS2 makes it harder-to-impossible to do anything about that.
If you went by what people talk about on here then the most important news is most days things like whether you can call Charlie-boy Chaz.
BREAKING: Fox News has to shamefully credit the ‘Tucker Carlson Network’ after Carlson broke the internet interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1756150572086861933?s=20
It is hard to blame anyone for skipping Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson. Watch closely, though, and it offers valuable insights, if probably not the kind either participant intended: https://econ.st/3SztGUX
Illustration: KAL
https://x.com/TheEconomist/status/1756097550816297217?s=20
Boris Johnson is MAD about it
🇬🇧BORIS JOHNSON REACTS TO TUCKER CARLSON'S INTERVIEW WITH PUTIN
"Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson, and we must not fall for this tissue of lies, above all for the notion that Putin somehow fated to…
Show more
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1756148104678486488?s=20
The White House wades in
Mike Sington
@MikeSington
·
18h
The White House warns Americans to not believe anything Vladimir Putin says during Tucker Carlson interview. (Video: C-SPAN)
Russians are angry:
Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure:
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say…
And so on and so forth. The interview is a huge coup for Carlson, arguing otherwise is farcical
As someone who is entrusted with confidential information, the above doesn’t have enough personal details to identify anyone.
Superb. Bravo. That nearly summarises most of PB’s mental reaction to an interview they REALLY REALLY REALLY DON’T CARE ABOUT
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Horses wise I like Nicholls horse in the last race at Newbury, plenty of scope to be able to win this.
My sense is Yes. And it seems most journalists agree - they now say they’ve all been trying to interview Putin
But there must be a line somewhere. Tyrants so awful they can’t be given any publicity
Not sure where that is tho. Western journalists regularly interviewed Mao, Mussolini etc
I would say this is the effect of social media and the decline of grand narratives that existed until the mid 2010's.
Who is to say that 'we' are right and they are wrong? In a democracy all views are given equal weight.
What is 'irrationality' anyway? It seems to me like a disproven concept from another era. What is more 'irrational' than centrist politicians 'taking a break from social distancing' to join in with a mass 'anti-racism' protest, in the middle of a pandemic, where it is against the law to leave your house?
What you have is a desperate search for order and meaning amongst chaos, it expresses itself in a variety of ways that seem (to our 1990's shaped minds) absurd.
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I don't think anyone noticed it. I did
Coz that would be bad, I hate that
IF I am right it could furnish a Gazette article
A TV debate is unthinkable, but when they try to dodge it, it will be obvious why. At best, Biden might say the same thing fifteen times in the first two minutes. He might even mistake Trump for a teapot.
Harris may be a place-person and exceedingly boring, but she's twenty years younger. And fortunately for them, the Republicans are wedded to Trump even though his vote ceiling might be below 50% - unlike Haley.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
Downloaded the FFVII Rebirth demo. File size? 48 GB... for the demo. Apparently the actual game (2 discs) has a file size of 145 GB.
Whether she or Putin will have a greater influence on the outcome of the presidential election is an interesting question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSckeFQ3zsA&t=770s
The voters currently think he's completely gaga because they only get the clips so the only way is up.
Harris may or may not do better; I'd say she'd do better if he stands down as president because she'd get a honeymoon and she can drive the agenda to wherever she needs it to be to fight the election. If she has to run for president as VP it's kind of awkward; She has to defend everything he's done and can't really stake out her own turf, and the opposition are free to define her however they like, so the right will think she wants to abolish the police while the left think she's a cop.
Personally, I *was" worried that Biden isn't really up to the campaign, but thought he would get through it.
This has shifted the goalposts; the middle-of-the-road media now has carte blanche to leap on every gaffe for clicks, and that will be very damaging
You all missed two of her very best songs tho:
Red
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlot0i3Zykw
and
22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgFeZr5ptV8
She writes really cracking country-pop songs with a hard rock edge, at their best they are joyous
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
- Doesn't gaffe
- Good at delivering the lines they give her
- Ambitious, she'll do whatever it takes
- Not very charismatic
- Picked a bad team, her sister was somehow involved
Before she was a senator she was this tough-sounding "smart on crime" DA. Then she ended up running for the Dem nomination where everybody thought (wrongly, it turned out) they needed to come at it from the left, so she jettisoned all that stuff and came over as more of a party-line liberal. Once she became VP she seems to have mostly adopted a policy of STFU since she doesn't know whether she needs to optimize for an imminent primary-free general election or the next Democratic primary.
I think there's a lot of room for her to define herself in the way that she'd need to win the election, but if and only if she was president (not just presidential candidate).
It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'.
There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country.
I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
Anyway. Off to Twickenham for England - Wales this afternoon. Could go either way I think, hoping for an open game.
Her problem is that she has voter repeal. Not appeal. And that her prosecutorial record includes some pretty dodgy stuff. As is common in the American system, she was striving for 100% conviction rates, like a boxer’s fight record. This meant that quite a few innocent people went to jail.
Every prosecutor does the same. It’s just her bad luck that with the rise of BLM, the wheels came off that route into politics - her polling with the Black community is terrible.
So she has the CV. But hasn’t got the spark that makes a great politician. And has actively turned off a couple of major chunks of the Democrat coalition - Blacks and the Law & Order Liberals.
Love story is a perfect pop song, but also she is a brilliant actress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfWgXcrNQIw
Specially for @ydoethur ...
'Letters sent every year by Teachers’ Pensions, which administers the scheme for the Department for Education (DfE), give spouses and civil partners of teachers who retired before January 2007 only 28 days to declare whether they remain single.
Those whose partners retired after that date remain entitled to the payments for life, regardless of their domestic circumstances. The system has left pensioners in their 80s and 90s at risk of losing their income unless they declare annually that they have not moved in with a new partner.'
And some have to prove annually they are still alive, even if *it's the same corpse that they have already been linked to.*
'Since then other retired teachers have reported that they have also been declared dead and cut off by the scheme, which is overseen by the DfE.
The DfE insists its vetting procedures are necessary to prevent fraud but according to legal experts, pursuing people over a disproved identity and withholding rightful payments may be in breach of data protection laws. [...]
It insisted that the system does not allow names to be decoupled once a potential match between a beneficiary and a death register entry has been identified, even if it has been disproved.'
Trump recently said of her “she speaks in rhyme” and like all Trump sayings there is a brutal piece of truth in it. She often goes off on word salad rambles, and she needs to lose that. She was very good in the Senate - I remember watching a couple of her speeches/performances when she was considered the rising star to watch - and there was none of that.
From the few Ukrainians I have met - admittedly refugees and a few promoting their cause on cultural tours - they seem vehemently determined. 'Britain in the Blitz' levels of determination. Afghan Taliban levels of determination.
Do you ever wonder WHY you obsess about me?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
https://x.com/vicktop55/status/1756217129928458392?s=20
Here is the present prime minister of Canada slightly ranting about it -
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1756039127399563294?s=20
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
A stunning blow to the Musk-Putin Axis
Slightly risky tho. He does arrest western journos. Insurance would be impossible
I would say they have a reasonable chance of doing that, but they need to be supported.
- Elimination of nearly all modern tanks. “New” tanks are dominated by the rebuilds of 1970-1980s tanks.
- Similar for SPGs
- In fact they are using even more ancient tanks as impromptu SPGs
- The loss rate for the Black Sea Navy has handily exceeded the construction rate of naval vessels for Russia.
- The loss rate of the Russian Airforce is way above production rates.
- Foreign orders for Russian weapons have collapsed. This money was being used to fund modernisation. Apparently buyers are not keen on the performance of Russians weapons.
- etc
Russia is fighting a “broken back” war.
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
But they seem incapable of learning any lessons from that.
Perhaps reminiscent at how the Japanese kept their best units in the front line until they were destroyed instead of withdrawing them and then having them pass on what they had learnt.
'Fallen flat'
phrase
Definition of fallen flat
Past participle of fall flat
1. As in failed
To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report on my own observations.
You can pick some of these up on BF for prices like 600 and 700.
I am taking a nibble at these prices. This could blow wide open if Biden can't contain the current 'he's too old' row sufficiently.
https://davidallengreen.com/2024/02/a-close-look-at-the-law-and-policy-of-holding-a-northern-ireland-border-poll-and-how-the-law-may-shape-what-will-be-an-essentially-political-decision/
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/business/media/tucker-carlson-putin-interview.html
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
FWIW I certainly do not lead an interesting life at the moment, it is fucking dull. I wake up, work, work, work, sit in the sun, work, faff about on here, maybe have a drink (or not) down Bassac Lane, watch TV, sleep, repeat
As I've said, it is a quasi monastic regime I have imposed on myself for the sake of the creative work (so I can't whine, tho I do), and it succeeds on its own terms, the work is good. But I'll be bloody glad when it is over. End Feb or mid March, God willing
Shapiro (PA) and Whitmer (MI) would help in swing states and Beshear (KY) would help for moderates and those who want bipartisanship.
- a huge pile of slightly rusty stuff from the USSR days
- Oil and gas to pay for wars
- A large reservist population to call on
They are steadily getting rid of the first one. Mostly gone in a number of categories. The last is massively depleted as well.
They can manage a bit in the consumer-drone-with-mortar-bomb space, but don’t have the technology base for much more.
Note, for example, that they haven’t been able to disable the satellite links the Ukrainians use to guide their sea borne drones.
@BidenHQ
9h
Trump: If I wasn’t here I’d be having a nice Saturday afternoon
(It is Friday night)
https://twitter.com/davidfrum
I have actually been to Belarus. Went to Minsk, travelled about, went to the Belarusian side of Chernobyl - deeply creepy
Minsk has insanely beautiful hookers, they are everywhere. I was on assignment with a photographer friend and we decided to indulge. We were in a sort of hotel disco full of these stunning women and we approached the first, asking how much, and she casually told us "No, I'm not a prostitute, I'm the daughter of the Italian ambassador"
Awkward
Trump has a bias towards the decisive "whatever it takes" over the indecisive "as long as it takes". That's probably why the world was more stable when he was in the White House. He made it much harder for would-be enemies of the US to predict what would happen if they crossed a line.
The neatest path forward seems to be to be a handover to Harris (either as candidate or as President). That’s what I would be suggesting as by far the most plausible outcome if he cannot continue. The path to any of the others is very difficult to see.
You can get around 12/1 for Harris being the Democratic candidate. That feels to me an astute bet.