🔴 RED PILL NEWS | TUCKER x PUTIN 🇵🇸

The fuck is up, everybody?

Excuse my vulgarity.

No, I'm just kidding.

Um.

We're not gonna be that clean.

What's going on, guys?

Long time now, see.

You know, I decided I think I'm gonna be streaming twice a week, not just once.

So we're gonna be streaming again Sunday.

EKS, what's going on?

Trail Setting, what's going on, guys?

Um, we're, I'm, I'm not gonna waste too much of your time.

We're kind of just gonna get right into the interview.

For those of you that waited for me to go live.

Some OG shit, you know what I mean?

Let's wait, let's wait, let's wait.

Get the official cult sanctioned broadcast of the Tucker interview so I can brainwash you while you watch it and stuff, right?

You know, um

But for those of you that waited, you know, your waiting is going to be rewarded.

I also want to tell you guys, this this whole stream is not just going to be about the Tucker interview.

I'm going to I have a lot of other things to talk about as well.

But, you know, this is what we're this is why I'm streaming earlier than usual, I suppose.

By the way, I have some good news.

Shodon, what's going on with the five?

Thank you, man.

I have some pretty good news.

W11, what's up?

I have some good news.

The good news is that um

Fixed my sleep schedule pretty much.

I don't want to jinx it, but I'm waking up pretty early now, you know, like 8 a.m.

kind of thing.

So, this is actually pretty late for me, believe it or not.

Um, yeah.

We have a lot to talk about, but I don't want to take up too much time because I'm just as eager as you to watch and see this interview.

We're going to be reacting to it together and watching it together.

And it's going to be I'm I'm already a little nervous because here's something I want to say before the interview starts.

I'm just a little bit worried.

That Tucker is gonna do the whole anti-communism shtick and like, am I being pessimistic?

And he's gonna be like, you know, I couldn't imagine what it would like to be in communism.

Hot take, what's up?

You know, he's gonna basically treat it like Orban in Hungary.

That's what I'm worried.

That's my extremely pessimistic.

Although it doesn't even matter anyway, right?

Because like, who gives a fuck?

These people don't even know what communism is.

So, like, what they're talking about doesn't even matter.

Psyop, what's up?

I'm talking about Tucker Carlson, of course.

Anyway, we're just gonna get right into this, guys.

I'm not gonna take up any more of your time.

We are just gonna get right into this interview and watch it.

This is a great position for me.

Uh, it's very mysterious, very Batman-like.

Anyway, guys, we're gonna watch this.

It's pretty long.

Two hours?

Yellowstone comedy, are we gonna watch all two hours of this?

It's kind of a lot.

We'll watch it.

Let's watch it.

All right.

Without any further ado, guys, let's go.

Let's get right into it.

The following is an interview with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, shot February 6, 2024, at about 7 p.m.

in the building behind us, which is, of course, the Kremlin.

The interview, as you will see if you watch it, is primarily about the war in progress, the war in Ukraine, how it started, what's happening, and most pressingly, how it might end.

One note before you watch.

At the beginning of the interview, we asked the most obvious question, which is, why did you do this?

Did you feel a threat, an imminent physical threat?

And that's your justification.

And the answer we got shocked us.

Putin went on for a very long time, probably half an hour, about the history of Russia going back to the eighth century.

And honestly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and found it annoying and interrupted him several times.

And he responded he was annoyed by the interruption.

But we concluded in the end for what it's worth that it was not a filibustering technique.

There was no time limit on the interview.

We ended it after more than two hours.

Instead, what you're about to see seemed to us sincere, whether you agree with it or not.

Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historic claim to parts of western Ukraine.

So our opinion would be to view it in that light as a sincere expression of what he thinks.

And with that, here it is.

Mr.

President, thank you.

On February 22nd, 2022, you addressed your country in a nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started.

And you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States, through NATO, might initiate a, quote, surprise attack on our country.

And to American ears, that sounds paranoid.

Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue.

How did you conclude that?

It's not that America, the United States, was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia.

I didn't say that.

Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?

Here's the quote: Mogged immediately.

Red Pill Dynamics.

So, if you don't mind, talkers come to data of this conversation, unfortunately.

To give you a short reference to history, for giving you a little historical background.

Let's look where our relationship with Ukraine started from.

Where did Ukraine come from?

The Russian state started gathering itself as a centralized statehood, and it is considered to be the year of the establishment of the Russian state in 862 when the townspeople of Novgorod invited a Vurangian prince, Rurik, from Scandinavia to reign.

In 1862, Russia celebrated the one thousandth anniversary of its statehood.

And in Novgorod, there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the country.

In 882, Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg, who was actually playing the role of Russia.

This is lore because Rurik had died by that time, came to the city.

It's like a medieval game and he's given lore.

It's like Skyrim.

He ousted two brothers who apparently had once been members of Rurik's squad.

So Russia began to develop a newspaper.

This is such a baller movement.

Such a baller movement was 988.

This was the baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity.

From this time, the centralized Russian state began to strengthen.

Why?

Because of the single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language, and, after the baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the prince.

The centralized Russian state began to take shape back in the Middle Ages.

But after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons.

The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines.

All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus' as a single state.

There was nothing special about it.

The same was happening then in Europe.

But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by King Ishan.

His successors, namely Batukhan, came to Rus, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities.

The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities simply lost independence.

Well, northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty.

They had to pay tribute to the horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty.

And then a unified Russian state began to take shape, with its center in Moscow.

The southern part of Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another magnet, the center that was emerging in Europe.

This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

It was even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy, because Russians were a significant part of this population.

They spoke the old Russian language and were Orthodox.

But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland.

A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere, some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope.

Thus, they were part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.

During decades, the Poles were engaged in the Polonization of this part of the population.

They introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe, they were Ukrainians.

Originally, the word Ukrainian meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, along the fringes, or was engaged in a border patrol service.

It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.

So the Poles were trying to in every possible way to polonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly.

All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights.

They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and people be commissioned here, including to Kiev.

I beg your pardon, can you tell us what period I'm losing track of where in history we are?

Sit down, boys, giving you a lesson.

It was in the 13th century.

Now I will tell you what happened later.

I love this and give the dates so that there is no confusion.

And in 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding that they send them to rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith.

When Warsaw did not answer them and, in fact, rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away.

So that you don't think that I'm inventing things.

I'll give you these documents.

Well, I brought a receipt.

You know what Putin reminds me of?

He literally reminds you of like my grandpa or something.

Here are the letters.

The man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian Russia being Tucker's grandpa.

He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld.

And after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow.

Asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar.

There are copies of these documents.

I will leave them for your good memory.

There is a translation into Russian.

You can translate it into English later.

Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with Poland would start.

Nevertheless, in 1654, the pan-Russian Assembly of top clergy and landowners headed by the Tsar, which was the representative body of the power of the old Russian state, decided to include a part of the old Russian lands into Moscow Kingdom.

As expected, the war with Poland began.

It lasted 13 years, and then in 1654, a truce was concluded.

And 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland, which they called Eternal Peace, was signed.

And these lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, went to Russia.

And the whole right bank of the Dnieper remained in Poland.

Under the rule of Katharina the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west.

This all lasted until the revolution.

Before World War I, Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization.

Actual facts, their motive was obvious.

Just before World War I, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favorable conditions in the border area.

So the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian General Staff.

As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared.

All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia.

They insisted on that.

After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood and the civil war began, including the hostilities with Poland.

In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed, and under that treaty, the right bank of the Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland.

In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler, she did collaborate with Hitler, you know, Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship, an alliance demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Kunigsberg.

After World War I, this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Dansk emerged.

Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused.

Of course, still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together.

This is true.

This is the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.

They actually ask you, you're making the case.

Can these fucking NAFO people still say, oh, the Molov-Ribbentrop Pact, shut the fuck up, your ancestors were little Nazis?

Has been for hundreds of years.

Why wouldn't you just take it when you became president 24 years ago?

You have nuclear weapons, they don't.

If it's actually your land, why did you wait so long?

I'll tell you.

I'm coming to that.

This briefing is coming to an end.

It might be boring, but it explains many things.

I just don't know how it's relevant.

No, at least I'm so gratified that you appreciate that.

Thank you.

That's so back-handed.

Before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler, and although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany and went too far pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them.

Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1st September 1939?

Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

By the way, the USSR behaved very honestly.

It asked Poland's permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia.

But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet plans flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland.

But that doesn't matter.

What matters is that the war began to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia is under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Part of the territory, including Western Ukraine,

Was to be given to Russia.

Thus, Russia, which was then named this USSR, regained its historical lands.

After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia to the USSR.

As for Poland, it received, apparently, in compensation, the lands which had originally been German.

The eastern parts of Germany, these are now western lands of Poland.

Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name.

So, this was how this situation developed.

In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

And that was a mistake in my view.

Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities.

For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR.

Again, for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine.

Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.

Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to the Russian Empire, that territory was the size of three to four regions of modern Europe.

If I was the leader of a solution, that was the same shit.

I'd be on.

Like, I'd be lecturing them like this.

You obviously have encyclopedic knowledge of this region, but why didn't you make this case?

Why do I feel like so that Ukraine wasn't a real country related to Putin in this situation?

Like, I've been in this situation before.

The Soviet Union was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region.

It's like when I'm debating destiny or something.

I'll get to the point.

At some point, when Russia received the outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called New Russia or Novorossiya.

But that does not matter.

What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, established Ukraine that way.

For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR.

And for unknown reasons, again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization.

It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine.

That's rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union.

Same things were done in other Soviet republics.

This is promoting national languages and national cultures.

It was the theory of the nation principle.

That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.

After the World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously been very briefly, the reason why they pursued that view is that according to the social democratic notion of the nation-state sorry, of the national question, the national reality, the ultimate national reality, was the nation-state, drawing from the French model of homogenization into nation-states after the French Revolution.

And they didn't appreciate the significance of how nations are integrated into this wider civilizational reality that's not reducible to one mode of production in particular.

So it was because of the Eurocentrism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

And then this is why I say that Stalin and Mao for them.

See, Stalin was more Leninist than Lenin.

And Mao was more Stalinist than Stalin, right?

Lenin was star Stalin was Lenin's student, and therefore L Stalin was able to acquire a perspective on this matter that Lenin wasn't.

Because remember, Lenin was the negation of social democracy.

And if it's just the negation, there's a lot of baggage he's carrying over from social democracy and even continuing into Stalin.

This is Mao is the one who kind of perfects the Leninist outlook, at least to a greater degree.

Let me continue this.

So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Soviet Ukraine.

And they still remain part of Ukraine.

So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will.

Do you believe Hungary has a right to take its land back from Ukraine and that other nations have a right to go back to their sixteen fifty four borders?

To be fair, these are not bad questions, I don't think.

Like, I you know, I think th this is a reasonable question from a Western audience.

This is what the Western mind wants to know.

I think Tucker is not being that unfair asking this.

I'm not sure whether they should go back to the sixteen fifty-four borders.

But given Stalin's time, so-called Stalin's regime, which as many claim saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states, one may say that they could claim back those lands of theirs while having no right to do that.

It is at least understandable.

It's kinda funny.

Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you.

I digress, it's a personal one.

Somewhere in the early eighties, I went on a road trip in a car from then Leningrad across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev and then went to western Ukraine.

I went to the town of Beregavoye and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in the language I did not understand in Hungarian, in Russian and in Hungarian, not in Ukrainian, in Russian and in Hungarian.

If you want my take and my answer to this difficult question, and yeah, guys, I'm gonna stop a little bit and give my commentary because I want you guys to be engaged and know what's going on.

My basic take on this is that.

Civilization states do not necessarily have to be exclusive territorial zones, which means there's a there's a possibility for a limited sense of joint sovereignty when you have friendly relations with another uh civilization state.

Good examples of this is the border that Russia

Shares with China and also through Mongolia and stuff in the Russian Far East.

There's a possibility that you can have a friendly relation with another civilization state, and there can be overlapping special zones where these civilizations, different civilizations, can kind of mix together and fuse and interact.

Sort of like how Alexander the Great envisioned this possibility of building cities between the East and the West to promote and cultivate a stronger shared sense of friendship and so on.

This is the logic of a polarity.

A polarity is not necessarily a definite.

form of territorial sovereignty or exclusive form of territorial sovereignty.

Of course, Russia and China insist upon their territorial sovereignty.

But if you have a friendly neighbor, then a bilateral negotiation can occur in which you come to an understanding about the fact that both of your people live here and this can be a kind of special zone where the way of life and the norms and the culture of one civilization are not necessarily going to be imposed on the other.

So that's actually my take on this when it comes to like, should parts of Ukraine go back to Hungary?

I mean, generally speaking, uh,

Different civilizations in Europe and Eastern Europe should be able to overlap with each other without the need for this to be antagonist.

It's antagonistic because of the deeper, the deeper kind of imperialistic interests of the Anglo-American Empire, right?

That's why there's this antagonism.

It doesn't necessarily have to be there.

Even World War I, this is an antagonism between the Germans and the British, right?

Without, it's not necessarily something that has to use.

And then before then, the pretext was, of course, religion.

But let me continue this.

I was driving through some kind of village, and there were men sitting next to the houses, and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats.

I asked, are they some kind of entertainers?

I was told, no, they were not entertainers.

They're Hungarians.

I said, what are they doing here?

What do you mean?

This is their land.

They live here.

This was during the Soviet time in the 1980s.

They preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes.

They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians.

And of course, when now there is an infringement.

And there's a lot of that, though.

I think.

See, Tucker interrupted there, but I'm going to explain why it's important.

In the Soviet times, when Hungary was in the Eastern Bloc, that was a great example of what I was talking about.

The Warsaw Pact, everyone says, oh, Russia was just occupying everyone.

That's not true.

Everyone's unique culture was allowed to flourish.

Hungary was a sovereign state.

There was an ability for overlap between the state of Hungary and the Soviet Union because these were friendly countries, right?

So that's what I'm talking about when it comes to negotiating these disputed territories.

Now, why Russia can't do this with Ukraine and have a friendly relationship?

Well, look at what happened with Maidan.

The West doesn't want, never wanted Ukraine to have a friendly relationship with Russia.

Therefore, the border between Russia and Ukraine is an antagonistic one, where Russia has the right to negotiate and insist upon its historical rights in an antagonistic way.

Many nations are upset about Transylvania as well, as you obviously know.

But many nations feel frustrated by the redrawn borders of the wars of the 20th century and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mentioned.

But the fact is that you didn't make this case in public until two years ago, February.

And in the case that you made, which I read today, you explained at great length that you felt a physical threat from the West in NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that's what got you to move.

Is that a fair characterization of what you said?

I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of the interview.

That is why I asked you at the beginning, are we going to have a serious talk or a show?

You said a serious talk.

So bear with me, please.

We're coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established.

Then in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed.

And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was dragged away by the latter.

I'm coming to a very important point of today's agenda.

Thank you.

After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership.

I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time.

But I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.

First, I think that then the Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were, in fact, a common language.

More than 90% of the population there spoke Russian.

Family ties.

Every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties, common culture, common history.

Briefly, guys, to give you an example of why that expectation might have been reasonable, look at Russia and Belarus today.

They're best friends.

There's no hostility there at all.

Belarus is a separate state, but it's pretty much.

seen as a continuity of the same civilization, and it operates that way.

Finally, common faith, coexistence with a single state for centuries, and deeply interconnected economies.

All of these were so fundamental.

All these elements together make our good relationships inevitable.

The second point is a very important one.

I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well.

The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to be a very important thing.

Kami, I don't know if that was you.

I appreciate the sub, but I didn't like that shit you're saying about Jackson, so you gotta cut that out.

To exist, and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines.

Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so-called civilized West as an invitation for cooperation and association.

That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.

There were smart people, including in Germany Egon Barr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union that a new security system should be established in Europe.

Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should be also established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries.

But NATO needs not to expand.

That's what he said.

If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders.

That's all.

He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him.

In fact, he got angry once.

If he said, you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow once again.

Everything happened just as he had said.

Well, of course it did come true, and you've mentioned this many times.

I think it's a fair point.

And many in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be fine with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, that the opposite happened.

But you've never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia, but we have a strong China the West does not seem very afraid of.

What about Russia do you think?

Convinced policymakers they had to take it down.

The West is afraid of strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people and China has 1.5 billion population and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds, or 5% a year.

It used to be even more.

But that's enough for China.

As Bismarck once put it, potentials are the most important.

China's potential is enormous.

It is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy.

It has already overtaken the United States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip.

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom.

Let's not reason in such terms.

And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this happened.

You tricked us.

I don't mean you personally when I say you.

Of course, I'm talking about the United States.

The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward.

But it happened five times.

There were five waves of expansion.

We tolerated all that.

We were trying to persuade them.

We were saying, please don't.

We are as bourgeois now as you are.

We are a market economy, and there's no Communist Party power.

Let's negotiate.

That's bad.

Moreover, I have also said this publicly before.

There was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us.

Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States.

Remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words.

God bless America.

Everything he said were signals.

Let us in.

Remember the developments in Yugoslavia?

Before the Yeltsin was lavished with praise?

As soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense.

I understand that there were complex processes on the way there.

I do.

But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation with orthodox culture and so on.

It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations.

Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support.

What did the United States do?

In violation of international law and the UN Charter, it started bombing Belgrade.

It was the United States that led the genie out of the bottle.

Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said, the UN Charter and international law have become obsolete.

Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything was outdated.

Everything had to be changed.

Indeed, some things need to be changed, as the balance of power has changed.

It's true, but not in this manner.

Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing.

He understood everything, I assure you.

Well, I became president in 2000.

I thought, okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations.

Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through.

And moreover, I said it publicly.

I can't reiterate.

At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him, Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?

Suddenly he said, you know, it's interesting.

I think so.

But in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said, you know, I've talked to my team.

No, no, it's not possible now.

You can ask him.

I think he will watch our interview.

He'll confirm it.

I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened.

Okay, it's impossible now.

Would you have joined NATO?

Look, I asked the question, is it possible or not?

And the answer I got was no.

If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was, would you have joined NATO?

If he had said yes, the process of reproachment would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the other side of our partners.

But it didn't happen.

Well, no means no.

Okay.

Why do you think that is?

Just to get to motive, I know you're clearly bitter about it.

I understand.

But why do you think you think the West rebuffed you then?

Why the hostility?

Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship?

What motivates this from your point of view?

You said I was bitter about the answer.

No, it's not bitterness.

It's just a statement of fact.

We're not bride and groom, bitterness, resentment.

It's not about those kind of matters in such circumstances.

Tucker doesn't understand the Russian mind.

He just doesn't.

He doesn't get it.

It's such a stupid thing to say.

Not even just the Russian mind in general.

Who says that?

Let's look for common ground elsewhere.

Why we received such a negative response?

You should ask your leaders.

I can only guess why.

Too big a country with its own opinion and so on.

And the United States.

I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.

I will give you another example now concerning Ukraine.

The U.S.

leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote.

Even if they do not like something, now I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it's being discussed.

I'm not going to open a secret to you, say anything new.

Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways.

For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner.

I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus.

But they continue to do it anyway.

And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus.

I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the United States.

He says, it's impossible.

Do you have proof?

I said yes.

I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof.

He looked at it, and you know what he said?

I apologize, but that's what happened.

I'll quote.

He says, well, I'm gonna kick their ass.

We waited and waited for some reply.

They don't even know what's going on in their own government.

Write to the CIA.

What is the result of the conversation with the president?

He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply.

We have the answer in the archive.

The CIA replied, We have been working with the opposition in Russia.

We believe that this is the right thing to do, and we will keep on doing it.

And the government as a whole doesn't even know about this?

Okay.

We realized that it was out of the question.

Forces in opposition to you.

So you're saying the CIA is trying to overthrow your government.

Of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus.

That's who they called the opposition.

This is the second point.

And why is that?

The third moment is very important.

Because Russia still had oil sovereignty.

Putin nationalized the oil later on, and that is we persuaded for a long time not to do it in the United States.

Moreover,

After I was invited by Bush Jr.'s father, Bush Sr., to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team.

I proposed that the United States, Russia, and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security, despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran.

That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system.

I suggested working together, Russia, the United States, and Europe.

They said it was very interesting.

They asked me, are you serious?

I said absolutely.

I don't remember.

It is easy to find out on the internet when I was in the USA at the invitation of a Bush senior.

It is even easier to learn from someone I'm going to tell you about.

I was told it was very interesting.

I said, just imagine if we could tackle such a global strategic security challenge together, the world will change.

We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.

He says yes, and asks, are you serious?

I said, of course.

We need to think about it.

I said, go ahead, please.

Then Secretary of Defense Gates, former Director of CIA and Secretary of State Rice, came in here, in this cabinet, right here at this table.

They sat on this table.

Me, the foreign minister, the Russian defense minister on that side, they said to me, Yes, we have thought about it.

We agree.

I said, thank God, great.

But with some exceptions.

So twice you've described US presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads.

That's fucking crazy.

So it sounds like you're describing a system that's not run by the people who are.

That's right.

In the end they just told us to get lost.

I'm not going to tell you the details because I think it's incorrect.

Wow, our government is literally our republic is non-existent, it's literally hijacked.

But then we will be forced to take countermeasures.

We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.

The answer was against you and you doing assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States.

I said, okay, very well.

That's the way it went.

And we created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them.

We are now ahead of everyone, the United States and the other countries, in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day.

But it wasn't us.

We proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back.

Now, about NATO's expansion to the east.

Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told.

And then what?

They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand.

So there were five waves of expansion: the Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on.

And now I come to the main thing.

They have come to Ukraine ultimately.

In 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open.

Now, about how decisions are made there.

Germany, France seemed to be against it, as well as some other European countries.

But then, as it turned out, later, President Bush, and he's such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, he exerted pressure on us and we had to agree.

It's ridiculous.

It's like kindergarten.

Where are the guarantees?

What kindergarten is this?

What kind of people are these who are making fun of stupid?

You see, they were pressed.

And then they say Ukraine won't be in the NATO.

I don't know.

He's like Trump but smart, you know?

Why won't you agree in the future?

Well, they pressed us then.

I say, why won't they press you tomorrow?

And you'll agree again.

Well, it's nonsensical.

Who's there to talk to?

I just don't understand.

We're ready to talk.

But with whom?

Where are the guarantees?

None.

So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine.

Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations there were with Russia.

Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia.

And during the elections, in already independent sovereignty.

And all this shit was because they wanted to balkanize Russia.

They were pissed off that Putin nationalized the oil.

They wanted to get rid of Russia's oil sovereignty.

So look how they methodically kept pushing and pushing and pushing and plotting to encircle Russia.

Russia was completely taken by surprise.

They had no idea why any of this was.

I mean, what what do you say, you know?

And Ukraine would gain its independence as a result of the declaration of the Soviet Union was gone.

They just wanted to be an independent sovereign state.

And all these fucking human rights NGOs, these pro-democracy things, the opposition the CIO is helping, whatever.

Oh, Putin's getting a little too authoritarian because he nationalized the oil.

'Cause you're authoritarian when you control your country's resources and you're not opening it up to who?

To monopoly capital.

They're all fucking prostitutes of the monopoly capital.

You can see it here.

All the US's offensive maneuvers and position against Russia, soft power or hard power for that matter, comes down to one thing.

These liberal pieces of shit, Bellingcat, Vice News, whatever the fuck they're all prostitutes of monopoly capital, nothing more.

And by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state and in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were opened to it.

Oh come on.

This is not how we agreed.

Now all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine relied on electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or the other.

This is the southeast of Ukraine.

This is a large number of people.

And it was very difficult to dissuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia.

Viktor Yanukovych came to power and how the first time he won after President Kuchma, they organized a third round, which is not provided for in the constitution of Ukraine.

This is a coup d'etat.

Just imagine someone in the United States wouldn't like the outcome.

Before that, this was the Orange Revolution Kuchma.

Viktor Yanukovych won the elections.

However, his opponents did not recognize that victory.

The US supported the opposition, and the third round was scheduled.

What is this?

This is a coup.

The US supported it, and the winner of the third round came to power.

Imagine if in the US something was not to someone's liking and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for, was organized.

Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine.

Okay, Viktor Yushchenko, who was what he's talking about was one of the first color, I don't know about one of the first, it was one of the major color revolutions of the 2000s.

Pretty sure that was the Orange Revolution that he's talking about.

I could be wrong about that.

It's just off the top of my head.

That was the color revolution where, you know, it's before Black Lives Matter in 2020, which is America's experience of that.

But basically, you had people go out onto the street and say, okay, the actual constitutional order is unjust and unfair.

I'm going to go into a lecture about this after this, and you should be excited for my lecture, actually, because this was the purpose of pan-leftism as it was deployed by the CIA, the raised fist pan-leftism, where people were brought out to protest and break the system.

They actually co-opted the aesthetics of the 20th century revolutionary left and the counterculture as a tool to basically wreak havoc and undermine sovereign states that are not aligned, or at least not sufficiently aligned, with this unaccountable dictatorship of international monopoly capital.

Consider the pro-Western politician came to power.

Fine, we have built relations with him as well.

He came to Moscow with visits.

We visited Kiev.

I visited Sioux.

We met in an informal setting.

If he's pro-Western, so be it.

It's fine.

Let people do their job.

The situation should have developed inside independent Ukraine itself.

As a result of Kuchma's leadership, things got worse, and Viktor Yanukovych came to power after all.

Maybe he wasn't the best president and politician.

I don't know.

I don't want to give assessments.

However, the issue of the association with the EU came up.

We have always been lenient to this.

Suit yourself.

But when we read through the Treaty of Association, it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had a free trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine, which, under this association, had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to the flooding of our markets.

We said, no, this is not going to work.

We shall close our borders with Ukraine then.

The customs borders, that is.

Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose, and said to his European partners, I need more time to think before signing.

The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps, which were supported by the West.

It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.

So he did more trade with Russia than with the EU.

Ukraine did.

Of course, it's not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is.

It is the matter of cooperation ties, which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on.

The cooperation ties between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union.

One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine, and vice versa.

They used to be very close ties.

A coup d'état was committed.

Although I shall not delve into details now, as I find doing it inappropriate, the US told us.

Calm Yanukovych down and we will calm the opposition.

Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement.

We said, all right, agreed.

Let's do it this way.

As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev.

What is that supposed to mean?

Who do you think you are?

I wanted to ask the then US leadership with the backing of whom?

With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand.

We should thank God they didn't let you.

Wait a minute, something wow.

Oh my god.

That is a crazy thing to drop.

If you guys don't know, Tucker's got some weird past connection to the CIA.

I don't know exactly what's going on there, but there's something in his past.

And Putin just fucking exposed Putin's like, I don't trust you.

I don't trust you, my friend.

That's so funny.

Oh, wow.

This is great, honestly.

Although, it is a serious organization.

I understand.

My former vis-à-vis in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.

They have always been our opponents.

A job is a job.

Technically, they did everything right.

They achieved their goal of changing the government.

However, from a political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake.

Surely it was political leadership's miscalculation.

They should have seen what it would evolve into.

So in 2008 the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine.

In 2014 there was a coup.

They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup and it was indeed a coup.

They created a threat to Crimea which we had to take under our protection.

They launched a war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians.

This is when it all started.

There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above.

They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one.

When they failed, they started to prepare the next launch.

All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's doors.

How could we not express concern over what was happening?

From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence.

That's what it would have been.

It's just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself.

Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith, in fact, a part of Russian people in the face of this war machine.

Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict.

By the way, back then the representatives of three European countries, Germany, Poland, and France, arrived.

They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the opposition.

They signed it as guarantors.

Despite that, the opposition committed a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn't remember that they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement.

They just threw it in the stove right away, and nobody recalls that.

I don't know if the US knows anything about the agreement between the opposition and the authorities, and its three guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup, although it was meaningless, believe me.

Because President Yanukovych agreed to all conditions.

He was ready to hold an early election, which he had no chance of winning, frankly speaking.

Everyone knew that.

Then why the coup?

Why the victims?

Why threatening Crimea?

Why launching an operation in Donbass?

This I do not understand.

That is exactly what the miscalculation is.

The CIA did its job to complete the coup.

I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that it cost a large sum of money, almost $5 billion.

But the political mistake was colossal.

Why would they have to do that?

All this could have been done legally without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea.

We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan.

Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former Union's republics.

We agreed to that, but we never agreed to NATO's expansion, and moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO.

We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us.

For decades we kept asking, don't do this, don't do that.

And what triggered the latest events?

Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbass was set forth.

But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials, and then president himself said that they don't like anything about the Minsk agreements.

In other words, they were not going to implement it.

A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them.

They simply led us by the nose.

Was there anyone for you to talk to?

Did you call a US President, Secretary of State, and say if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is going to get

We talked about this all the time.

We addressed the United States and European countries' leadership to stop these developments immediately, to implement the Minsk agreements.

Frankly speaking, I didn't know how we were going to do this, but I was ready to implement them.

These agreements were complicated for Ukraine.

They included lots of elements of those Donbass territories' independence.

That's true.

However, I was absolutely confident, and I'm saying this to you now, I honestly believe that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbass and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then gradually the wounds would start to heal.

When this part of territory reintegrated itself into a common social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place.

Nobody wanted that.

Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only, but we could not let that happen.

And the situation got to the point when the Ukraine is internal pressure within Russia as well to basically act to defend the Donbass republics, which I think would have been the correct move.

But, you know, that is what it is.

Had they done that earlier, it would have been harder to persuade and convince Western audiences maybe, but.

It's it's not for them, you know?

Ukrainian side announced no, we will not do anything.

They also started preparing for military action.

It was they who started the war in 2014.

Our goal is to stop this war.

I mean, have you achieved your aims?

Uh no, we haven't achieved our aims yet, because one of them is the Nazification.

This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements.

This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early this year.

I'd like to give some perspective on this.

Ukraine has banned

Not only every pro-Russian Communist party, but even the anti-Russian Communist organizations self-proclaimed at least, they banned every single uh use of Communist symbolism.

There are no Socialist or Communist parties in Ukraine.

But they openly tolerate the neo-Nazis.

They knew not only do they tolerate them, they arm them.

You know, they're the ones fighting on the front line.

So I want everyone to understand if Putin's asking them to spend their civil democracy and ban certain forms of political expression, well, that they've already banned communists.

So clearly they don't care about that.

So why are they insisting on tolerating neo-Nazis?

Because we were told by the Europeans, in particular, that it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents.

My counterparts in France and Germany said, How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads?

The troops should be pulled back from Kiev.

I said, all right, we withdrew the troops from Kiev.

As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements, reached the Istanbul, into the bin and got prepared for a long-standing armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe.

That is how the situation has developed.

And that is how it looks now.

What is denazification?

What would that mean?

That is what I want to talk about right now.

It is a very important issue.

Denazification.

After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity.

And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler.

I have already said that in the early nineteenth century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia.

But due to the historical development, those territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally as well, as were subject to cruel behavior.

There were also attempts to destroy their identity.

All this remained in the memory of the people.

When World War II broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom.

The German troops, even the SS troops, made Hitler's collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population.

Hence, this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population, as well as the Russian population, too.

This was led by the persons who are well known, Bandera, Shukiewicz.

It was those people who were made national heroes.

That is the problem.

And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exist in other countries as well.

Yes, they are seedlings, but we approve them.

And other countries fight against them.

But Ukraine is not the case.

These people have been made into national heroes in Ukraine.

Monuments to those people have been erected.

They are displayed on flags.

Their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi Germany.

These were people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians.

It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept.

I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people.

They say no, we are a separate people.

Okay, fine.

If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.

Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?

I will finish answering the question.

You just asked a question about neo-Nazism and denazification.

Look, the President of Ukraine visited Canada.

The story is well known, but being silenced in the Western countries, the Canadian Parliament introduced a man who, as the Speaker of the Parliament said, fought against the Russians during World War II, who fought against the Russians during World War II.

Hitler and his accomplices.

It turned out that this man served in the SS troops.

He personally killed Russians, Poles, and Jews.

The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work.

The President of Ukraine stood up with the entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man.

How can this be imagined?

The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.

Really my question is what do you do about it?

I mean, Hitler's been dead for eighty years, Nazi Germany no longer exists.

And so w true.

And so y I think what you're saying is you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism, but how?

How do you do that?

Watching Tonki.

Listen to me, your question is very subtle and I can tell you what I think.

Do not take offence.

Of course.

This question appears to be subtle.

It is quite pesky.

You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, eighty years.

But his example lives on.

People who exterminated Jews, Russians and Poles are alive.

And the president, the current president of today's Ukraine, applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation.

Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today?

That is what the Nazification is our understanding.

We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it.

It's about historical integrity.

That is simple.

Right.

My question was a little more specific.

It was of course not a defense.

I have a lot of analysis about this.

Can we talk about it?

It was a practical question.

You don't control the entire country.

You don't control Kiev.

You don't seem like you want to.

So how do you eliminate a culture or an ideology or feelings or a view of history in a country that you don't control?

What do you do about that?

You know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations at Istanbul we did agree that we have it all in writing that neo Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level.

Mr Carlson, we agreed on that.

This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process.

And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized state.

Is any state allowed to promote Nazism?

It is not, is it?

That is it.

Will there be talks and why haven't there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine, peace talks?

They have been.

They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized.

But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries, and the United States.

States to fight Russia to the bitter end.

Moreover, the President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia.

He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia.

But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this?

We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement, but in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialogue.

Is that not right?

Well, but you wouldn't be speaking to the Ukrainian president.

You'd be speaking to the American president.

When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?

I cannot remember when I talked to him.

I do not remember.

We can look it up.

You don't remember?

No.

Why?

Do I have to remember everything?

I have my own things to do.

We have domestic political affairs.

Well, he's funding the war.

This should honestly be my response to every time I forget something or whatever.

Anytime I'm caught getting something wrong ever.

Honestly, that's the truth.

It's like, I just didn't remember, honestly.

That's literally so true.

So, so true.

Or that you're fighting.

So I would think that would be memorable.

No, the only thing that's not.

Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course.

And I said to him then, by the way, I will not go into details, I never do, but I said to him then, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there in Ukraine by pushing Russia away.

I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way.

I think that would be correct if I stop here.

Ask him, please.

It is easier for you.

You are a citizen of the United States.

Go and ask him.

It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.

No, we haven't spoken.

Certain contacts are being maintained though.

Speaking of which

Do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?

Yes.

You can ask all of them.

All of them are safe and sound, thank God.

The former president, Candaliza, is safe and sound.

And I think Mr.

Gates and the current director of the intelligence agency, Mr.

Burns, the then ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, are very successful ambassadors.

They were all witnesses to these conversations.

Ask them.

Same here.

If you are interested in what Mr.

President Biden responded to me, ask him.

At any rate, I talked to him about it.

I'm definitely interested, but from the outside, it seems like this could devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict and could initiate a nuclear launch.

And so why don't you just call Biden and say, let's work this out.

I think everyone knows the conflict's gonna happen.

We all know it.

World War III is going to happen.

We all know it.

There's no avoiding it.

What's there to work out?

It's very simple, I repeat.

We have contacts through various agencies.

I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership.

If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons.

It will be over within a few weeks.

That's it.

And then we can agree on some terms.

Before you do that, stop.

What's easier?

Why would I call him?

What should I talk to him about?

Or beg him for what?

You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine.

Oh, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid.

Please don't.

What is there to talk about?

Do you think NATO is worried about this becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?

At least that's what they're talking about.

And they're trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat.

This is an obvious fact.

And thinking people, not Philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people, understand perfectly well that this is a fake.

They're trying to fuel the Russian threat.

The threat I think you're referring to is a Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia, expansionist behavior.

Can you imagine a scenario where you sent Russian troops to Poland?

Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia, why?

Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else.

Why would we do that?

We simply don't have any interest.

It's just threatmongering.

Well the argument, I know you know this, is that well he invaded Ukraine, he has territorial aims across the continent, and you're saying unequivocally you don't.

It is absolutely out of the question.

You just don't have to be any kind of analyst.

It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war.

And a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction.

It's obvious.

There are certainly means of deterrence.

They have been scaring everyone with us all along.

Tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons.

Tomorrow Russia will use that.

No, the day after tomorrow.

So what?

In order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theater of war.

The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.

One of our senior United States senators from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or U.S.

soldier citizens could wind up fighting there.

How do you assess that?

This is a provocation and a cheap provocation at that.

I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine.

There are mercenaries from the United States there.

The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place, and mercenaries.

By the way, the mercenaries in question are abominations and freaks like Sarah Ashton Cirillio.

who Russia has just designated as a terrorist.

and who I hope they bring to justice eventually for being involved in the murder of Gonzalo Lira.

My honest take is if you're if you're a mercenary and you go fight in Ukraine for America, Russia can bomb the fuck out of you and there's nothing unjustified about that.

You wanna go fight a war, go get fucking killed, you know?

You wanna go fight Russia on their own turf?

I'm not gonna fucking mourn you.

Fuck you.

In third place.

Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very serious global conflict.

This is obvious.

Do the United States need this?

What for?

Thousands of miles away from your national territory.

Don't you have anything better to do?

You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than $33 trillion.

You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine.

Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia, make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end, and realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests, and look for certain solutions.

It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.

You for sure.

I was busy that day.

I did not pull up Nord Stream.

Thank you, though.

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

Do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?

You know, I won't get into details, but people always say in such cases look for someone who is interested.

But in this case, we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities.

Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion.

These two components should be connected.

Who is interested and who is capable of doing it?

But I'm confused.

I mean, that's the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it's the largest emission of CO two in in history.

Okay, so if you had evidence, and presumably given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn't you present it and win a propaganda victory?

In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all

That's the one war uh nobody can beat the US in, is is is uh being a fucking

The woman's game of spreading rumors and being a liar.

Even we have difficulties with this, I'm not going to deny it.

This

Lying, you know, propaganda.

We're just not dishonest enough.

But that's okay because it doesn't affect us negatively.

Just gets people interested to figure it out for themselves.

The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions.

Ev every single one of our haters just does free advertising for us.

People check us out themselves and they realize, Wow, this guy's a fucking liar Infrared's actually based.

That is if we want them, you know.

There's some people we just don't want.

Don't you know that?

So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak.

We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results.

It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly.

It's true.

Yes, I but here's a question you may be able to answer.

You worked in Germany famously.

The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this.

But they and it damaged their economy greatly.

It may never recover.

Why are they being silent about it?

That's very confusing to me.

Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it?

This also confuses me.

But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests.

Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction.

After all, it is not only about Nord Stream One, which was blown up and the Nord Stream Two was damaged.

But one pipe is safe and sound and gas can be supplied to Europe through it.

But Germany does not open it.

We are ready, please.

There is another route through Poland called Yamal Europe which also allows for large flow.

Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand, it receives money from the pan-European funds and Germany is the main donor of Spanish money.

That's a roast.

Germany feeds Poland to the certain extent and they closed their route to Germany.

Why?

I don't understand.

Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money.

Germany is the second sponsor of the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine.

There are two gas routes through Ukraine.

They simply closed one route.

The Ukrainians open the second route and please get gas from Russia.

They do not open it.

Why don't the Germans say?

Look, guys, we give you money and weapons.

Open up the valve.

Please let the gas from Russia pass through for us.

We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness and economy in general down to zero.

Do you want us to give you money?

Let us have the decent existence, make money for our economy, because this is where the money we give you comes from.

They refuse to do so.

Why?

Ask them.

That is what is like in their heads.

Those are highly incompetent people.

Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres, one with cheap energy, the other without.

And I want to ask you that.

If we're now a multipolar world, obviously we are.

Can you describe the blocks of alliances?

Who is in each side, do you think?

Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres.

A human brain is divided into two hemispheres.

One is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on.

But it is still one and the same head.

The world should be a single whole.

Security should be shared rather than a meant for the golden billion.

That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable.

Until then, while the head is split in two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition.

It is a period of severe disease that the world is going through now.

But I think that thanks to honest journalism, this work is akin to work of the doctors.

This could somehow be remedied.

Well, let's just give one example.

The the US dollar, which has kind of united the world in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours.

Is that going away as the reserve currency, the common the universally accepted currency?

How have sanctions, do you think, changed the dollar's place in the world?

You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership.

The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States power.

I think everyone understands very well that no matter how many dollars are printed, they are quickly dispersed all over the world.

Three percent of the territory would uh nah.

What what the fuck was that subtitle subtitle?

Where did that come from?

Inflation in the United States is minimal.

It's about three or three point four percent, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US.

But they won't stop printing.

What does the debt of $33 trillion tell us about?

It is about the emission.

Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world.

As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power.

I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake.

Look at what is going on in the world.

Even the United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves.

Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves.

But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etc., causes great concern and sends a signal to the whole world.

What did we have here?

Until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and Euros.

US dollars accounted for approximately fifty percent of our transactions with third countries.

Well currently it is down to thirteen percent.

It wasn't us who banned the use of the US dollar.

You know I I this is a profound context for Tucker's like Hitler has been dead for thirty years and he's like well the the premise of Hitlerism in many ways was to protect the old colonial order, the world order, and now we have a neo-colonial world order which is disintegrating with bricks, so this is fertile ground for a new Hitlerism, which we're already seeing in Ukraine, but that that will cr quickly spread.

uh to Western Europe and United States, and that that's going to give true meaning to the anti-fascism, not this Antifa nonsense, but real antifascism.

I should have done it.

We had no such intention.

It was decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars.

I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interests of the United States itself and its taxpayers, as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world.

By the way, our transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3%.

Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles and about as much, a little over 34% in Yuan.

Why did the United States do this?

My only guess is self-conceit.

They probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed.

Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in Yuan.

Do you even realize what is going on or not?

Does anyone in the United States realize this?

What are you doing?

You're cutting yourself off.

All experts say this.

Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US.

You're killing it with your own hands.

I think that's a fair I I think that's a fair assessment.

The question is what comes next, and maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power.

I mean, are d is the the the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese, the Chinese economy?

I really hope Putin yanks that nonsense right out of Tucker's mouth.

Uh because I know Tucker is a China hawk.

But I think Putin is smarter than to let this slide

But yeah, this is the leftist talk.

Ironically enough, it's the leftist talking point of so-called Chinese imperialism.

But let's hear it.

In a way that's not good for their sovereignty.

Do you worry about that?

We have heard those boogeymen stories before.

It is a boogeyman story.

We're neighbors with China.

You cannot choose neighbors just as you cannot choose close relatives.

We share a border of a thousand kilometers with them.

This is number one.

Second, we have a centuries-long history of coexistence.

We're used to it.

Third, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive.

Its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.

The next point is as follows.

We are always told the same boogeyman story, and here it goes again through an euphemistic form, but it is still the same boogeyman's story.

The cooperation with China keeps increasing.

The pace at which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation.

Ask Europeans, aren't they afraid?

They might be, I don't know.

But they are still trying to access China's market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems.

Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market.

Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States?

Yes, the political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China.

It is to your own detriment, Mr.

Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China.

You are hurting yourself.

I love that Putin did this.

He got up, looked at him closely.

Oh my God.

So fucking based.

This is such a W.

I'm going to tell you why this is such a W because it's like he is looking at Tucker, and Tucker represents in a lot of ways the kind of NatCon populists, the National Conservatives, whatever.

He's like,

China's not your enemy.

He's not just telling Tucker that.

He's telling the whole MAGA audience.

He's telling the conservative audiences.

And that's really who you want to reach.

Who cares about these?

Pronoun leftist, they're not important for the future.

These rabble.

Lumpin, you know, you don't need them.

You need the people who are already sympathetic to Russia, but for some reason they're hostile to China, and Putin is shutting that down, and it's very nice that he's doing that.

It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.

So, before introducing any illegitimate sanctions, illegitimate in terms of the Charter of the United Nations, one should think very carefully for decision makers, this appears to be a problem.

So you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it weren't broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally.

One of the reasons you don't have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you.

Do you think if there were a new administration after Joe Biden that you would be able to reestablish communication with the U.S.

government?

Or does it not matter who the President is?

I will tell you, but let me finish the previous thought.

We, together with my colleague and friend President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach $200 billion of mutual trade with China this year.

We have exceeded this level.

According to our figures, he said, wait a minute, Tucker, I'm going to talk about my friend Xi Jinping.

Black Pack, thank you so much.

I appreciate you.

This is really great.

Our bilateral trade with China totals already $230 billion, and the Chinese statistics say it is $240 billion.

One more important thing.

Our trade is well balanced, mutually complementary in high tech, energy, scientific research and development.

It is very balanced.

As for BRICS, where Russia took over the Presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly.

Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992 the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47%, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30%.

The G7 countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7.

It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine.

This is due to the trends of global development and world economy as I mentioned just now.

And this is inevitable.

This will keep happening.

It is like the rise of the sun.

You cannot prevent the sun from rising.

You have to adapt.

The the red sun in the sky how do the United States adapt with the help of force, sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces?

This is about self-conceit.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

It's like, you know, it's like Putin's view of the world, in some ways, not in all ways, but specifically on current events.

It's like the same as mine, same brain as me.

Took the words out of my mouth.

Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing under objective circumstances.

And in order to preserve your level,

So, for those of you familiar with Marxism, what Putin is saying is the US is reactionary.

It's reactionary in regards to the because there's a lot of stupid left comms that are like, oh, you guys are against big capital and you support the outdated petty proprietors.

And it's like, no.

Western monopoly capital are the ones who are outdated.

The incipient processes of the global economy, the most cutting edge and the most advanced forces of history, are not in monopoly capital any longer.

They're in this kind of sovereign civilizational state.

based economic polarities.

So you are the reactionary ones, not us, you know.

Even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance, you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner.

Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive.

This is an obvious fact.

It has already become evident.

You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something.

It is not about the leader.

It is not about the personality of a particular person.

I had a very good relationship with, say, Bush.

I know that in the United States he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much.

I assure you that this is not the case.

I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia too.

I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO's doors for Ukraine and so on.

That happened during his presidency.

He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans.

But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him.

He was no worse than any other American or Russian or European politician.

I assure you, he understood what he was doing as well as others.

I had such a personal relationship with Trump as well.

It is not about the personality of the leader, it is about the elite's mindset.

If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change.

It will only get worse.

But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to the objective circumstances and that one should be able to adapt to them in time using the advantages that the US still has today, then perhaps something may change.

Look, China's economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity.

In terms of volume, it overtook the US a long time ago.

The USA comes second, then India, one and a half billion people, and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place.

Russia was the first economy in Europe last year despite all the sanctions and restrictions.

Is it normal from your point of view?

Sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars being cut off from swift services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere.

The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied are applied against Russia.

And we have become Europe's first economy during this time.

The tools that the US uses don't work.

Well, one has to think about what to do.

If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person.

Then maybe something will change.

But you're you're describing two different systems.

You say the the leader acts in the interest of the voters, but you also say these decisions are not made by the leader, they're made by the ruling classes.

You've run this country for so long, you've known all these American presidents.

What are those power centers in the United States, do you think?

Like who actually makes the decisions?

I don't know.

America is a complex country, conservative on one hand, rapidly changing on the other.

It's not easy for us to sort it all out.

Who makes decisions in the elections?

Is it possible to understand this when each state has its own legislation?

Each state regulates itself.

Someone can be excluded from elections at the state level.

It is a two-stage electoral system.

It is very difficult for us to understand it.

Certainly there are two parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats, and within this party system the centers that make decisions, that prepare decisions.

Then, look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia?

After all, this is a policy of pressure.

NATO expansion, support for the separatists in Caucasus, creation of a missile defense system, these are all elements of pressure.

Pressure, pressure, pressure.

Then, dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure.

Why?

I think, among other things, because excessive production capacities were created.

During the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union who could not do anything else.

They convinced the political leadership that it is necessary to continue chiseling Russia, to try to break it up, to create on this territory several quasi-state entities and to subdue them in a divided form to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China.

This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union.

So to to break down what he's saying, at first I thought he was gonna be like, is he talking about like some Marxist

Crisis of overproduction, but no, what he means is that there is this huge Cold War bureaucracy.

that was cultivated

uh during the Cold War.

I mean I know it's redundant.

And then after nineteen ninety one they just there's too many of them.

It's there's an overproduction of these kind of deep state bureaucracy and so on and so on.

And these people had nothing nothing better to do, you know?

They maintained their offensive uh posture because the contrary would result in them being out of a job.

It is necessary to get rid of this.

There should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world.

Look at how Indonesia is developing.

600 million people.

Where can we get away from that?

Nowhere.

We just have to assume that Indonesia will enter, it is already in, the club of the world's leading economies, no matter who likes it or dislikes it.

Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems,

The situation is still normal with the economy growing decently.

The GDP is growing by 2.5% if I'm not mistaken.

But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing.

As I already said, the world would nevertheless change, regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end.

The world is changing.

In the United States themselves, experts are writing that the United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world.

It is your experts who write that.

I just read them.

The only question is how this would happen, painfully and quickly, or gently and gradually.

And this is written by people who are not anti-American.

They simply follow global development trends.

That's it.

And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyze and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.

I just have to ask, you've said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990.

Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?

I repeat once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after 2014, coup d'état, through peaceful means, but no one listened to us.

And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under complete US control suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements.

They disliked everything there and continued military activity in that territory.

And in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centers.

They essentially began to create bases there.

That's all.

Ukraine announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality while passing the laws that limit the rights of non-titular nationalities in Ukraine.

Ukraine, having received all the southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality in that territory.

Is that normal?

All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.

Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to negotiate a settlement to this conflict?

I don't know the details.

Of course, it's difficult for me to judge.

But I believe he has, in any case, he used to have.

His father fought against the fascists, Nazis, during World War II.

I once talked to him about this.

I said, Volodya, what are you doing?

Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, while your father fought against fascism?

He was a frontline soldier.

I will not tell you what he answered.

This is a separate topic, and I think it's incorrect for me to do so.

But as to the freedom of choice, why not?

He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace.

He talked about this.

It was thanks to this that he won the elections overwhelmingly.

But then when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things.

Firstly, it is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists because they are aggressive and very active.

You can expect anything from them.

And secondly, the US-led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia.

It is beneficial and safe.

So he took the relevant position despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine.

He deceived his voters.

But do you think at this point, as of February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or your government directly about putting an end to this, which clearly isn't helping his country or the world?

Can he do that, do you think?

Why not?

He considers himself head of state.

He won the elections.

Although we believe in Russia that the coup d'état is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014, and in this sense, even today the government is flawed.

But he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe, and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity.

Why not?

We negotiated with Ukraine and Istanbul.

We agreed.

He was aware of this.

Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr.

Arahamiya, is his last name, I believe, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the president in the Rada.

He still heads the presidential faction in the Rada, the country's parliament.

He still sits there.

He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about.

But then he publicly stated to the whole world we were ready to sign this document, but Mr.

Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia.

Ah, the British.

Gotta love 'em.

Everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia.

And we agreed with this proposal.

Look, his statement has been published.

He said it publicly.

Can they return to this or not?

The question is: do they want it or not?

Further on, President Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us.

Let him cancel that decree and that's it.

We have never refused negotiations indeed.

We hear all the time: is Russia ready?

Yes, we have not refused.

It was them who publicly refused.

Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations.

We have never refused.

And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of Mr.

Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me because, as Mr.

Arakamiya put it, we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half ago already.

But the British persuaded us and we refused this.

Where is Mr.

Johnson now?

And the war continues.

That's a good question.

Where do you think he is and why did he do that?

Hell no.

I don't understand it myself.

There was a general starting point.

For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield.

I I think I know why.

I think that uh mister Johnson

Was watching a little too much of Destiny and Dylan Burns.

I think that's why.

Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.

You've described the connection between Russia and Ukraine.

You've described Russia itself a couple of times as Orthodox.

That's central to your understanding of Russia.

You've said you're Orthodox.

What does that mean for you?

You're a Christian leader.

by your own description.

So what effect does that have on you?

You know, as I already mentioned in 988, Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga.

Then he baptized his squad, and then gradually over the course of several years, he baptized all the Rus.

It was a lengthy process, from pagans to Christians.

It took many years.

But in the end, this orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people.

When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, Russia has a Stalinist take.

This is a Stalin.

He's still the same KGB Putin.

And the fact is that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same in all world religions I've just mentioned, which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation.

By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those people who came into the Russian Empire.

This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood.

All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their motherhood.

You say people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America, an even clearer and more understandable example.

People come but yet they have come to you or to European countries from the historical homeland.

And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their motherland.

They have no other motherland.

We are together.

This is one big family.

And our traditional values are very similar.

I've just mentioned one.

Stalin is the father of that family.

One big family, but everyone has his or her own family.

And this is the basis of our society.

And if we say that the motherland and the family are specifically connected with each other.

It is indeed the case, since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the motherland.

That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.

The one way in which the religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion.

Jesus says, turn the other cheek, don't kill.

How can a leader who has to kill of any country, how can a leader be a Christian?

How do you reckon?

Stalin, Beria, Gulag, wow!

Wow with the twenty wow

Self evident in the name.

Stalin Beria Gulag.

gonna be funding these gulags or as we call summer cam winter camp in Alaska.

For all of our biggest fans who really are passionate about disliking infrared, concile that to yourself.

It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one's family, one's homeland.

We won't attack anyone.

When did the developments in Ukraine start?

Since the coup d'etat and the hostilities in Donbass began, that's when they started.

And we're protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland, and our future.

As for religion in general, you know, it's not about external manifestations.

It's not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor.

It is in the heart.

And our culture is so human-oriented.

What if I told you guys this is like

The unofficial Marxist Leninist view of religion, the one that I share, the one that's mine, that's self evident and intuitive to me,

Um

What he just said reflects the Stalinist view.

It's the true Stalinist spirit.

And I'm gonna explain that after the uh I'm gonna explain this along with my other thoughts after this interview, of course.

I have other stuff to talk about, but

You know, like I say the same thing Putin does, and people are like, oh, you're a fake, you're a well, look what he's saying, the same thing that I've always said, right?

Kinda crazy.

Oriented.

Dostoevsky, who was very well known in the West and the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.

After all, Western society is more pragmatic.

Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values.

I don't know, maybe you won't agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all.

I'm not saying this is bad.

It makes it possible for today's golden billion to achieve good success in production, even in science and so on.

There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm just saying that we kind of look the same with our own.

So do you see the supernatural at work as you

Look out across what's happening in the world.

Somet I you know, I I I don't hate Tucker, I just think he's very naive and sometimes he asks very silly questions.

It's like what do you let's let's listen to I want to hear Putin's response.

World now, do you see God at work?

Do you ever think to yourself, these are forces that are not human?

No, to be honest.

I don't think so.

My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with the inherent laws.

And those laws are what they are.

lit literally the Marxist Leninist Stalinist view.

I mean, he he may not profess it ideologically at the official level, but but it's very clear how deeply ingrained in his subconscious

The Marxist-Leninist outlook is.

And if you don't understand what I'm saying, you haven't read.

Uh the classics.

It's always been this way in the history of mankind.

Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage, losing the status they had accustomed to.

There is probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with the King Ishan and Horde Conquerors, the Golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire.

It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind.

Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew, as did their population.

In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and begun to develop economically, as we would say today.

Pretty much the Soviet-era Marxist-Leninist education.

r roughly, roughly speaking, this is his perspective.

Eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime.

People are people are so impressed by Putin's uh level of education, but understand where he got it from.

I mean, the guy was in the K G B.

You don't get accepted into the K G B unless you're a true believer.

uh one way or another and it's very clear the

the legacy of the Soviet education.

Thank you, Amagi.

It's very clear posed by the Romans.

However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart.

The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at a much faster pace than in Roman times.

So when does the AI empire start, do you think?

I mean, Tucker's just kind of like spitballing, you know?

Someone, yeah.

Well yeah, so

You're asking increasingly more complicated questions.

To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data, and AI.

Mankind is currently facing many threats due to the genetic researches.

It is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being, a genetically engineered athlete.

Alright, cringe.

Putin, you gotta stop.

Stop this nonsense.

This is clearly Khrushchevite-era revisionism on display.

There are reports that Elon Musk had already had a chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.

What do you think of that?

Well, I think there's no stopping Elon Musk.

He will do as he sees fit.

Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him, search for ways to persuade him.

I think he's a smart person, I truly believe he is.

So you need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules.

Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest development in genetics or in AI.

One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen.

Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized the negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.

It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day.

I think people need to understand Putin's strengths and his weaknesses.

I don't think he has a.

a very and he admits this, he doesn't have a very sophisticated understanding of t contemporary technology or science.

If he did, he wouldn't be talking about genetics as a big thing going on 'cause it's really not

I could tell you it's not.

But his strong suit is is really the Soviet era education, uh world class that he received, which makes his outlook very rich.

And uh

Substantive.

But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI or genetics or any other field, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.

I I appreciate all the time you've given us.

I just got to ask you one last question, and that's about someone who's very famous in the United States, probably not here, Evan Gershkowitz, who's the Wall Street Journal reporter.

He's 32 and he's been in prison for almost a year.

This is a huge story in the United States.

And I just want to ask you directly, without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if as a sign of your decency you would be willing to release him to us and we'll bring him back.

You know, I don't hate Tucker Carlson, don't get me wrong, but his his

His uh

I don't know what to call it actually.

I mean, I wouldn't say it's people skills.

I'd say it's skills when it comes to knowing what's appropriate to.

Basically, I don't think he's aware, like what he's saying is very rude and he's basically saying, as a sign of your decency, will you do what I say?

And it's like, oh, so if I don't do it, I'm not decent.

It's like.

I d I don't know if it's a cultural thing or not, but it's maybe it's just 'cause of the way I was raised.

From Middle Eastern background, you don't talk you don't speak this way to to people, especially not people of uh authority, you know, it's just

I don't know.

He's not very good at understanding.

This is not a good way of phrasing that at all.

Back to the United States.

Uh

We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them.

We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner.

However, in theory we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps.

When I talk about the partners, I first of all refer to special services.

Special services are in contact with one another, they are talking about the matter in question.

There is no taboo to settle this issue.

We are willing to solve it.

But there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels.

I believe an agreement can be reached.

So typically, I mean, this stuff has happened for obviously centuries.

One country catches another spy within its borders.

It trades it for one of its own Intel guys in another country.

I think what makes, and it's not my business, but what makes this difference is the guy's obviously not a spy.

He's a kid.

And maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy.

And everybody knows that.

And he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true.

With respect, it's true.

And everyone knows it's true.

So maybe he's in a different category.

You see, this is just not a very.

I don't know what his intentions are, but like this is just not a it's not an appropriate thing to say.

It's like, okay, come on.

We both know it's like, no, that's that's not how you.

It's just not how you talk to people.

In a civilized way, you say, you know, you you have to leave.

I mean, he's he's like, oh, we all know.

It's like, listen, this thing about like, we all know the truth.

This is supposed to be communicated indirectly.

It's always supposed to be communicated with subtlety, with.

I I don't know what to call it really.

It's like you don't you're not supposed to just blurt everything that comes to your mind out loud.

Thank you so much, Paperworn.

You're not supposed to blurt everything that comes to your mind out loud when you're talking to someone in a civilized way that

Where there's a degree of distance between.

I mean, Putin's not your friend.

This isn't being done off-camera.

This is an interview that.

Has he um

uh global per perhaps global consequences in a lot of ways as far as Western perception of Russia.

So it's just it's just I d I I it kinda bothers me.

I don't know.

It's just this thing.

I guess it's American culture.

We have this thing.

American culture is great, but it's just we're so bad at communicating with foreigners, you know?

Really bad at that.

Category.

Maybe it's not fair to ask for somebody else in exchange for letting him out.

Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.

You know, you can give different interpretations to what constitutes a spy, but there are certain things provided by law.

If a person gets secret information and does that in a conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage.

And that is exactly what he was doing.

He was receiving classified confidential information and he did it covertly.

Maybe he did that out of carelessness or his own initiative.

Considering the sheer fact this is qualified as espionage, the fact has been proven as he was caught red-handed when he was receiving this information.

If it had been some far-fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been a different story then.

But he was caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information.

What is it then?

But are you suggesting that he was working for the U.S.

government or NATO, or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn't supposed to have?

Those seem like very different very different things.

I don't know who he was working for.

But I would like to know what's going on.

But to explain it to you, for example, in the United States,

We we are just as formalistic, if not more formalistic.

What constitutes a Russian spy in the United States?

What what constitutes a Russian agent in the United States?

Sharing a meme on Facebook.

you know, look at what happened with Russia Gate and

As far as Russia's concerned, they have protocols which determine what constitutes a spy.

They have rules.

If you break those rules, guess what?

You're in a different line.

I mean, it's even when I traveled abroad, I understand why Americans have this delusion.

I don't know what it is, but it's like we tend to think that, like.

That everywhere is America somehow, right?

And it's just like, it's really not, you know?

I mean, yeah, there's buildings here, there's cars here.

In a lot of ways, these foreign places are very similar to America.

But, like, guess what?

There's a whole different.

world here in terms of rules and culture and things like that.

And I just Americans are very oblivious to that, you know?

It's one of the things we should be self-critical about, I think.

To reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage.

And I don't think it's 'cause Americans are chalvinistic, actually.

I think it's because Americans

Are not used to having a deeper connection to this sovereignty or to the culture than what's just on the surface.

So when we go out in public.

You know, we have a very superficial sense of what law is.

And we tend to just associate that with uh an indiscriminate sense of public life.

There's no unconscious dimension to it.

You know, there's no deeper texture of civilization.

At least not one that's very uh

Developed.

And he was working for the US Special Services, some other agencies.

I don't think he was working for Monaco, as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information.

It is up to Special Services to come to an agreement.

Some groundwork has been laid.

There are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services.

Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the US.

That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals during the events in the Caucasus.

Do you know what he was doing?

I don't want to say that, but I will do it anyway.

He was laying our soldiers taken prisoner on the road and then drove his car over their heads.

What kind of person is that?

Can he even be called human?

But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals.

Whether he did it of his own volition or not, that is a different question.

He committed something different.

He is not just a journalist, I reiterate, he is a journalist who was secretly giving confidential information.

Yes, it is different, but still, I'm talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the US authorities, wherever they are serving a sentence.

There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services.

This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible, and professional manner.

They are keeping in touch, so let them do their work.

I do not rule out that the person you refer to, Mr.

Gershkovitz, may return to his motherland.

By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia.

We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing.

We are ready to talk.

Moreover, the talks are underway.

And there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success.

Probably this is going to be crowned with success as well.

But we have to come to an agreement.

I hope you let him out.

Mr.

President, thank you.

I also want him to return to his homeland at last.

I'm absolutely sincere.

But let me say once again, the dialogue continues.

The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them.

Everything has to be done in a calm manner.

I wonder if that's true with the war, though, also.

I mean, I just want to I guess I want to ask one more question, which is.

And maybe you don't want to say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what's happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible?

And how motivated are you just to call the US government and say, let's come to terms?

It's just kind of an ignorant question.

I mean, because it's like I mean, Russia has been trying to come to a settlement, you know, it's

You're talking to the wrong person here, honestly.

The p the the position and the interests of Russia are very transparent to the leadership of uh the whole Western world.

It's not a secret.

It's also not a secret to anyone who so deigns to inquire.

I already said that we did not refuse to talk.

We are willing to negotiate.

It is the Western side and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US.

It is evident.

I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.

The financial support, seventy-two billion US dollars was provided.

Germany ranks second, then other European countries come.

Dozens of billions of US dollars are going to Ukraine.

There's a huge influx of weapons.

In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to the negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree.

We did not refuse.

Sure, but you already said it.

I didn't think you meant it as an insult, because you already said correctly, it's been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Biden administration.

So of course there are a satellite.

Big countries control small countries.

That's not new.

And that's why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not President Zelensky of Ukraine.

Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the instruction from Washington.

If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it.

Let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted.

Let it come up with a way out.

It was not us who made this decision, it was them.

So let them go back on it.

That is it.

However, they made the wrong decision and now we have to look for a way out of this situation to correct their mistakes.

They did it, so let them correct it themselves.

We support this.

So I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying.

I don't think Tereim.

I think you're saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine.

And we made it.

We prepared the huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation.

He affixed his signature to some of the provisions, not to all of it.

He put his signature and then he himself said we were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago.

However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it, and we missed that chance.

Well, you missed it, you made a mistake.

Let them get back to that, that is all.

Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else's mistakes?

I know one can say it is our mistake.

It was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbass.

As I have already said, by means of weapons, let me get back to furthering history.

I already told you this.

We were just discussing.

Let us go back to 1991, when we were promised that NATO would not expand to 2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine, declaring Ukraine a neutral state.

Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine, creating threats to us.

Let us go back to coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.

It is pointless though, isn't it?

We may go back and forth endlessly, but they stopped negotiations.

Is it a mistake?

Yes.

Correct it.

We are ready.

What else is needed?

Do you think it's too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?

I said let them think how to do it with dignity.

There are options if there is a will.

Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield.

Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all.

In my opinion, it is impossible by definition.

It is never going to happen.

It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well.

If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next.

We are ready for this dialogue.

Would you be willing to say, congratulations, NATO, you won, and just keep the situation where it is now?

It's it's so strange, like uh

There's something about the Western mind that's very focused on explicit replacing the unconscious.

Like,

We want to be the winners, not the losers.

We want to have the optics victory, right?

Instead of letting uh things play out

in such a way that it communicates by itself the outcome.

As far as the discursive or cultural or optical battle, they just want explicit, like Yeah, we're the winners It's just uh interesting, you know.

Discursive victory instead of

Material one, you know?

You know, it is a subject matter for the negotiations.

No one is willing to conduct, or to put it more accurately, they are willing but do not know how to do it.

I know they want it.

It is not just I see it, but I know they do want it.

But they are struggling to understand how to do it.

They have driven the situation to the point where we are at.

It is not us who have done that, it is our partners, opponents who have done that.

Well, now let them think how to reverse the situation.

We're not against it.

It would be funny if it were not so sad.

This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems, sooner or later it will result in agreement.

You know, this probably sounds strange given the current situation.

But the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway.

Uh

It will take a lot of time, but they will heal.

I'll give you very unusual examples.

There is a combat encounter on the battlefield.

Here's a specific example.

Ukrainian soldiers got encircled.

This is an example from real life.

Our soldiers were shouting to them, There is no chance, surrender yourselves, come out and you will be alive.

Suddenly the Ukrainian soldiers were screaming from there in Russian, perfect Russian, saying Russians do not surrender and all of them perished.

they still identify themselves as Russian.

What is happening is to a certain extent an element of a civil war.

Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever.

No, they will be reunited.

The unity is still there.

Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?

Because it brings together not only the territory, it brings together our souls.

No one will be able to separate the soul.

I think if they ended here, it'd be the most beautiful thing ever.

But they're not gonna end it there.

But that's just.

That is the essence of I'll explain to you why uh indivisibility of the soul.

Um it's actually so beautiful and and thematic and appropriate for the the topic in question.

Shall we end here or is there anything else?

Yeah, he knows where to end.

What a way to end.

No, I think that's great.

I assume.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Okay, so I'm gonna I'm not gonna take too long.

I'm gonna um talk about some things for maybe ten or twenty minutes.

And then Jackson, I believe, is coming on.

Let's uh fix this a little maybe.

So I wanted to talk about um in case people aren't familiar with why Putin is talking so much about history.

And how this relates to the legacy of Soviet Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism in general.

The first thing I want to say is that.

To sum up what Marxism-Leninism is.

uh communism with a capital C and I'm s I'm not talking and I'm gonna get into this I'm not talking about any vague uh leftism or any vague communism talking very specifically about what was synthesized by Stalin is an outlook and a view which i if you wanted to summarize it

Is based on first insight into the laws guiding historical development.

That's what is on paper, right?

But in practice, in content, what this actually amounts to is a role that is designated with the task of defending the integrity of history.

The outlook towards history that's based on looking at the historical being of your civilization or your country or the world for that matter as one.

Uh to I don't know, totality is um

Too strong of a word because it implies it's closed.

But really, one entirety, you know, one whole, if you will.

So this means looking at history not in a one-sided way where you're neglecting certain elements, but you're looking at it from a more holistic perspective, basically, right?

You're not leaving everything out.

Now, how could that be related to Marxism?

Well, if you boil down Marxism's in just a very vulgar sense of what it's known as, at least, the outlook of Marxism with regard to contemporary modern society, or just maybe modern society of the 19th century.

And the class analysis, a perspective which accords society recognition, not on the basis of a one-sided perspective, but on the basis of the recognition of class antagonisms.

And on the one hand, you could say Marxism looks at society in a way where society is divided, but the recognition of that division actually amounts to a view of society according to which society is one.

thing, it's one whole, it's one entirety, it's one totality.

You're not, for example, looking at it in a one-sided way where you lack affordance for the consideration of an antagonism, a contrasting interest, for example.

So you should understand Marxism is not, and obviously fast forward a long time after the 19th century, when Marxists are at the heads of a state.

uh specifically the Russian state, which has a unique relationship to all of this, I would say.

But that same logic is then applied to history, because the class struggle is not just now, it's a historical phenomena.

There's also contradictions in history.

And these contradictions need to be given recognition by recognizing the integrity of history, the integration of all history.

I mean, you have to understand how fundamental this is to Marxism, Leninism.

We have an outlook and a world view.

Well, was that world view shared?

By people 2,000 years ago, it wasn't.

So, who's right and who's wrong?

Are we just going to be relativists?

Well, the Marxist or the minimally Hegelian position is that.

The continuous transformation and development of history constitutes one integral reality.

One integral reality.

And you say, well, how can that integral reality also have contradictions?

And then I say, the recognition of those contradictions is the content of that integral reality.

That's what gives it content.

So when we say we we understand society as one thing, one uh integral existence or one integral reality, we should say, they say well aren't there contradictions in this society that contradict the consistency of that whole?

And I'm I'm I'm writing about this in my book.

It's a

I can't get too much into it philosophically and stuff, but

It's the recognition of the contradiction between the form, form of the integral totality and the content.

That that actually is the integrity of history and society and reality.

That is what gives it integrity.

Um

It's one concrete totality.

So Putin's perspective is going to be historical because it's a historical but when I say historical, I mean it's a historically informed perspective and it's a historically focused perspective precisely because that outlook was given according to the education he received

Um

in the Soviet era.

I mean, he may he may not even be aware

Of how profoundly that shaped his outlook, but it alas it has.

His perspective with regard to religion is is likewise Marxist-Leninist.

Because what's the first thing he said of why is Russia Orthodox Christian?

What did he say?

Did you hear it?

Did you catch it?

He said historically, he he gave a historical perspective.

And and and this is what this is the same as Stalin's perspective.

When Stalin talked to Enverhoxia, the leader of Albania, communist leader of Albania at the time.

Hoxha was doing a massive crackdown on Islam.

And Stalin talked to Hoxha and he said.

You know, Islam has been ingrained in the hearts and the minds and the consciousness of the people for hundreds of years.

You think you're going to eliminate that?

The religious feelings of the people should not be offended.

That's the direct quote from Stalin.

He wasn't giving a perspective that's religiously partisan, where he's saying in a fanatical sense, like this religion is correct or this one is incorrect.

He's understanding religion in the sense of an objective reality, you know?

He's understanding religion in terms of this is objectively a part of history, this is objectively a part of society.

You may have your opinion on it, I may have my opinion, but you should respect that reality.

And that holds true not just for the Marxist-Leninist perspective of religion, but for all history.

And and Logo said something I I find it very prescient, and I'm going to rephrase some of the things he was saying in his tweets.

But

You know, the number one enemy of of communism was historical nihilism.

The recent Chinese documentary on historical nihilism actually claims that uh

The historical nihilism of the late Soviet era was a fundamental contributing factor to the dissolution of the USSR, which is a strange thing.

To hear from a Marxist perspective, because it seems like it's an immaterial factor, like what historical nihilism, just people's view of history is somehow material.

But I mean, it's not only material, it constitutes the material content of the proletarian dictatorship, taken from a broad civilizational and historical perspective, safeguarding the integrity of history, is a material reality.

Remembering history is a material reality because all it means is that.

You have a specific insight into your society, into your civilization, which accounts for not only its various potentialities, but for how it has been shaped.

That's an indispensable factor to be able to recognize the law not only the laws governing historical development, but the material reality of your country.

Chinese communists have to know about ancient Chinese history in order to govern China today.

Not because they're crudely applying some facts of Chinese history thousands of years ago to the present, but because they have a continuous living insight into

how the current reality they govern China today is exists.

How did this come to be?

And how it came to be is an indispensable fact as far as what it is.

How something came to be is fundamental to what something is.

And the Western perspective doesn't have an integral view of history.

Now, as far as

Russia's place in Western history.

Russia is the integration of European history, right?

Russia looks at European history in its totality, not just in a one-sided way.

I mean, j it's geographically evident.

Europe is this splintered and balkanized mess.

And here you have Russia, this continuous.

unified territory, and it's just kind of exemplifies the relationship not only between Russia and Europe, but also Russia to European history itself.

Russia has always seen itself as a messianic force which represents the true unity of the West and of Europe.

And

Paradoxically speaking, this is exactly what makes it Easter.

So I want you to keep in mind what I'm saying about historical nihilism.

It's always been a fundamental enemy of Marxism-Leninism for the reasons I just gave you, because the Marxist view is based on what?

The recognition of contradictions, material contradictions within society and within history.

Simultaneously, the ability to recognize those contradictions gives you a more holistic perspective rather than a one-sided perspective.

Of course, I think

That doesn't mean you're above the contradictions.

It's precisely the proletarian perspective

That represents the universal one.

But that universalist perspective doesn't only apply.

To your own sorry, doesn't only apply to today's society, but also the past.

And Boris Groys talks about this in the Total Art of Stalinism.

So, this is something you should understand about Putin.

Now, regarding my thoughts on the interview, I thought Tucker was.

I'll talk about this with Jackson actually.

I just want to talk about the thing I wanted to get to.

Now he said something interesting about Russia and China for that matter, as you can apply to China, maybe, stance on the emergence of American unipolarity.

And I think a lot of this is a kind of tragedy

Which led to the events of Maidan and the whole phenomena of color revolutions, because we may say that color revolutions

only happen because of the CIA.

There's truth to that.

They wouldn't be able to happen without the CIA.

But at the same time, there's something about color revolutions

which is obviously persuasive to the young people that participate in them.

As though they understand and recognize how the globalist American empire is intervening in their societies, but see this rise of globalism precisely itself as a kind of

Lucrative, new, unavoidable, cutting-edge reality that they want to have a part of.

It's like the color revolutionaries, so so-called revolutionaries, they know the CIA is doing all this shit.

That's precisely what makes it appealing to them because they want to escape the confines of their, yes, corrupt, parochial, backward societies and join the future and enter the future.

And for them, globalism, American globalism, represents the future.

But I want I want to draw your attention to something I find profoundly ironic about, for example, the Maidan.

Europe represents the future.

Ukraine under Yanukovych.

represents backwardness, represents the parochial, corrupt, oligarchical society.

But in reality, it was the oligarchs who supported Maidan.

Why?

Because Putin was centralizing and integrating the Russian economy to such an extent, also politically, that is undercutting the power, political power at least, of the oligarchs.

So the profound tragedy of the Ukraine situation is that all of the dreams of the Maidan protesters about this European, universalistic, open global society, that's the f it's the opposite.

It's Russia.

This is what far-right people say as well, but it's in a sense it's true.

Russia is the true global society.

Russia, the polarity, the pole of Russia, is not just some backward, parochial, and corrupt nation-state.

Russia represents a universal cutting-edge and global vision.

It's a form of globality.

It's a particular form of globality.

And I don't mean globality in the sense of wanting to conquer the world, but in the sense of having.

A perspective worldly of our objectively more integrated, diverse, et cetera, et cetera, world.

Russia is not a petty nationalistic state.

It's actually the real content of the dreams of those people who thought they can escape the parochial corruption of Ukraine by looking toward the West.

The irony is that, this is the irony of almost every revolution in history, in a sense.

The irony is that, for example, the French Revolution, in many ways it was a bourgeois revolution.

But who really carried out the bourgeois revolution?

It wasn't the French Republic, it was Mitternac and uh the British and the Restorationists who solidified the power of the bourgeoisie, right?

So in in some vaguely similar sense,

My Don inadvertently

participated in in Russia as a global civilization taking form.

This notion of the Russian world finally acquires a more substantive reality after Maidan.

And simultaneously,

The the corruption and and the anti-oligarchical sentiment

That some claim is vaguely there in Maidan.

Well, that actually really acquires content.

In Russia under Putin.

And among the the consciousness of the Russian people, the lack of dependency on the West, the more integration with China, is cre making Russia more of a cutting edge

forward thinking and so on.

Mm I I don't want to say cosmopolitan, but it's just a more I don't want to say open and cosmopolitan because we understand the connotations, but it's not like a backward petty nationalist parochial shithole.

It's the opposite of that.

You know, it it represents everything the West

BRICS, China, Russia, they represent everything the West claims to be.

The West says, we are so open and we're so cutting edge and futuristic, but.

It's it's it's the multipolar world taking form.

Russia, China and these other countries which actually do rep I mean, this is a lot of the impetus of infrared.

I mean, typically tankies were associated with like some petty parochialism.

you know, which sees the US unipolarity as this

Dystopian future, and we must go back to the past.

But our whole shtick was like actually the avant-garde, the cutting edge of the future, is represented in like bricks in Russia, China, and so on.

And it's NATO and America which are increasingly parochial and backward and out of date with the times.

They haven't caught up with the times.

And I very much appreciate that Putin gave expression to that perspective when he explained the increasingly aggressive posture of the United States is because they haven't caught up with the winds, sorry, the development of history.

They're trying to resist it.

And I would add, this is creating a very dangerous scenario as far as the revival of destructive.

ideologies and realities like fascism.

Real reaction.

Now, everything seems backwards, and then the question is: like, what?

Because coming back to the order of business as far as infrared is concerned, the far right on Twitter, a lot of them are starting to get banned and censored.

So I see guerrillas.

Are not really um

waging war on the right as much as they're defending ag and and also attacking leftists trying to lay claim to the legacy of Marxism and Marxism Leninism.

And you have to ask the question, it's like, we've been here a million times, but why is

Marxism-Leninism, why is it aesthetically so co-opted by leftists?

And I hope my perspective that I give you will.

Make you less worried about these leftists and more focused on building the positive hegemony of Marxism-Leninism in the positive sense.

So, what is leftism?

Um it's the ideology behind these color revolutions that Putin talked about, the orange revolution and

Ev pretty much every color revolution that's occurred in the late 20th and early 21st century.

But how did this come to be?

Well,

I've talked about the distinction between leftism and left wing a lot, but when we're talking about leftism, what we're really talking about is something I would call panleftism.

Now, when I when I say it's when I call it panleftism, I hope that it starts to make sense to you why that's different from a left-wing position in general.

Now, let's say we're living in the era of the French Revolution or the October Revolution.

There is a broad left tendency.

For example, there's the left socialist revolutionaries and there's the Bolsheviks.

Both of them are on the left, represent a broad left tendency.

That's a concrete historical situation which gives content to that tendency.

You know, there's this situation we're in as a country, let's say it's Russia during or after World War I, and we are broadly aligned together in the same position.

Sure, but but how can there be this

Transhistorical, this historical leftism that everyone seems to talk about.

Pan leftism is not just a broad left-wing position in a specific concrete historical scenario, it's a retrospective integration of every what it's perceived to be the essence of the left across all history.

It's pan-leftism.

And, you know, you notice among infrared's biggest haters, it seems like they're red liberals.

It seems like that, right?

But like you look at the people that they're joining forces with, they're retweeting, they're in the comments, they're in the quote tweets, agreeing with them, they're in their likes.

And it's never just the red liberals.

It's always like anarchists are joining with them.

Self-proclaimed Social Democrats are joining with them.

Trotskyists are joining with them.

Left comms are joining with them.

And it's like they're all united in this broad tendency of like, yeah, we're all on the left.

Hey, I'm a leftist.

You're a leftist, right?

But what are they talking about when they say leftist?

Because it doesn't seem like they're talking about a concrete historical scenario.

Because I mean, what does that mean in the United States?

We used, granted, we had the Bernie movement.

I would agree that, vaguely speaking, that was a left-wing movement.

We had the Bernie movement.

It's gone now.

There doesn't there's no real political movement in the US we could characterize as left-wing in a concrete sense.

Uh, which is very strange historically, of course, but it's the truth, and but it's not only in the United States, it's in you have these people in Denmark, and it's an international.

Pan leftism, which includes, and basically the pan leftists.

It's kind of like, it almost reminds me of like Engels when he's describing Morgan's description of the Iroke's, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, Confederacy.

It's like Confederacy of tribes of the Indigenous Americans.

Like, we all have this broad consensus and we have to balance it.

Like, okay, I'm an ML, but I'm not going to go too far into being an ML because then I would be cut off and ostracized from the white.

Now, if you notice this about leftism, anyone who insists too much on the particularity of their specific tendency leaves the consensus that's called leftism.

Thank you so much, Lionel.

For example,

when anarchists so much insist upon their anarchist tendency, they cease to be compatible with the broader leftism and they start to kind of go in a more right wing direction.

Um and this holds true for Trotskyists and obviously Infra Red uh is is insisting upon Marxism-Leninism, nothing else.

Like, we don't share anything in common with someone who's calling themself uh Trotskyite or s

We're not well we're part of some broad pan-leftist tendency.

No, we're m we're very we're something very specific, and because we have insisted upon the specificity.

Of a specific theoretical outlook at the expense of all others, we are basically outside of this kind of pan-leftist consensus, which everyone who's in it kind of implicitly agrees.

Listen, I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but at least we're all together in this broad pan-leftist camp together, right?

And what is the content of the pan-leftism?

And it's what it is, is going back full circle, it's historical nihilism.

Because when you distill the essence of political change for change's sake, you no longer recognize concrete and objective historical formations as objective realities.

You come to regard all of them as these kinds of

reactionary vestiges which need to be annihilated wholesale.

So pan leftism is the ideology of historical nihilism.

And that's why for so long it has been the ideology of

The American deep state and the cultivation of color revolutions around the world.

And it's almost a mockery of the historical left.

I mean, it is a mockery.

What what the CIA and the ruling class has basically done is is something very similar to what the Nazis did to the label of socialism.

If you read reports about how the Nazis regarded their self-identification as socialists,

More or less they thought it was a m form of

Rebellious mockery, like, oh, yeah, we're going to call ourselves socialists to kind of get back, and as a form of revenge and mockery, like they were trolling basically, the real socialists, they were just trolling them.

That's what their identity of socialism was.

So it's similar when it comes to pan leftism.

Notice notice something, guys.

I want you to notice something.

Isn't pan leftism always at an at least semi ironic distance with the patriarchal authorities that they

vaguely uh identify with.

Like, do pan leftists really take Marx seriously?

Do they really take Engels seriously?

Do they really take Lenin and Stalin seriously?

They don't.

They see them as memes, as ironical

Kind of incarnations of what the ruling class viewed as these destructive.

Anti-historical tendencies.

They have their own meta-narrative about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and so on, which is not integral with them themselves.

None of them are really Leninists.

None of them are really Marxists.

They are people who have a type of conceit about what Marx and Lenin really represented, which they which is at an ironic distance from those authors.

Like, basically, I've seen so many of these tweets, like, oh, Marx didn't know that he was actually gay.

And they like make a gay Marx or a transgender Marx meme.

And they're like, he didn't know this.

Ha ha.

And it's almost like they're mocking Marx, which reminds me, if you're familiar with it, it reminds me of.

The mockery of socialism that the Nazis engaged in, right?

And they say, Haas, what are you saying?

I'm just saying, look at the memes by these pan leftists about these figures.

I mean, the only thing we could be charged as guilty of doing that with is probably Paul Pott.

I'm gonna be honest.

But that's also because we're pretty nuanced about Paul Pott.

We don't really

We we we do have a meta narrative about what happened in Cambodia, which obviously is critical and is not like saying like, oh yeah, we want to exactly replicate this.

So it's like it's kind of similar to what we do with Paul Potter.

It's just this kind of ironic distance we have

Which is not one and the same with it.

But that's not the pan-leftist view of

And also, we have that a similar relationship with LaRouche in a lot of ways.

Of course, we have an ironic distance.

I mean, we're not actually LaRoucheites.

We like LaRouche because he is this avatar that represents the anti-British meme and also the Landbridge thing.

And there's some ideas we vaguely think are interesting there, but obviously we're not actually fully identifying with it.

So it's similar with pan-leftists when it comes to these figures they claim to.

I mean, look, i if you you don't know this because you weren't around in the

Even as a small child, like I could see the pan-leftist culture was the raised fist, was this notion of the integration of all the leftist tendencies of history?

It's this postmodern view, which basically said, Okay, Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Marx, Lenin, Engels, Trotsky, all these people.

I mean, go on marxist.org and look at the front page.

It's got these Che Guevara with Trotsky, and it's like Che Guevara, Castro, Trotsky, Emma Goldman, Bakunin.

It's all one thing.

But it's not a thing they identify with, it's a thing they have an ironic distance toward.

And what it what's the content of that distance?

It's basically like: this is a post-mortem.

The slogan of Platypus, who just put out a writing, uh uh an interview I had with them two years two two years ago, something like that, summer of twenty-two.

Anyway, um, Platypus' slogan is the left is dead.

I mean, I don't agree with Platypus on pretty much anything, but I think they might be onto something when they say the left is dead.

There's some some degree I don't agree with it necessarily, but they kind of obscure it a little bit.

But

Pan leftism is a post-mortem.

On the left, the historical left.

It's a post-morum, it's an epilogue, it's a credit scene.

Nobody thinks Lenin is living, no one thinks Marx is living.

For those of you that are autistic, I mean living in the sense of their ideas really do have a directly contemporary, prescient, and immediate significance.

Nobody thinks that.

They think that this is an outdated thing, ha la la la la, it's a meme, lol lol, it's a meme from the past.

But we're going to use these figures, these memes.

to justify our post historical

Uh

You know, like, I don't know what you call it, globalistic, cosmopolitan, uh.

Liberal position

It's like they they it's it's pretty much like this.

It's like uh

As we in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution start breaking shops and rebelling or whatever, the ghost of Marx is in an ironic way smiling upon us because

The avatars of destruction, pure forces of destruction, historical destruction, now are being adopted by the ruling class, the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie has appropriated

Uh

tendencies associated with the historical left,

Which correspond in their view to historical destructiveness.

Now, the Marxist-Leninist view would say this isn't historical destruction.

These are revolutionary events which participate in a deeper integration of the totality of history.

So, for example, Stalin would say the October Revolution, you could say, was destructive.

It was a gap in the development of history in the sense that it was this leap.

It was this qualitative leap.

But then Stalin says, but then we reintegrate it into the whole corpus of Russian history.

We reintegrate it and assimilate it into this deeper.

historical integrity, right?

Uh so but the pan leftist view is the opposite.

It's the pure negation for negation's own sake, which has been appropriated by the bourgeoisie or its descendants, its mutated descendants, I should say,

And basically that's what pan leftism is.

It's a it's a ironic

Uh postmortem on the historical left.

which is at a distance toward it, right?

And and um

You know, it's got all these different subcultures.

Some of them call themselves MLs, some of them call themselves Maoists, some of them call themselves Trotskyists.

But this is no different than any kind of f subculture in general.

It follows sociologically the same patterns of punk rock subcultures or Harry Potter sub subcultures.

I'm in Slytherin, you're in Gryffindor, Star Wars.

I mean, maybe that's a different category.

But it's just this kind of subcultures, you know?

And I want you guys to understand that we are not there.

So we are trying to give content to.

Marxism-Leninism in the 21st century, and that's a positive project.

And the majority of that can't be spent on bickering with.

Pan-leftists, because what are we bickering about?

We're not even like, like, no, we're actually Marxist-Leninists.

We actually do believe in this.

It's not an ironic thing.

Like, we do think Marxism-Leninism is true.

And if you don't think it's true, we at the very least think it provides an important historical foundation to build off of.

And we're serious about building off of that foundation.

We're very serious about.

being Marxist-Leninist.

And I think that's why a lot of people don't take us seriously.

It's not because of the silly things that I've done in the past.

I've done plenty of silly things, sure.

But that's not why people don't take us seriously.

Because even before I did those silly things, I was receiving the same degree of mockery and hate.

It's really because, I mean, we actually do believe in this.

Like, we actually do believe in communism and Marxism-Leninism, which is a is, you know, we were supposed to be dinosaurs who were extinct, rendered into the garbage bin of history to be ironically mocked in a post-mortem of this kind of post-modern.

You know, um

Retrospect on Lenin and Marx.

I mean, Klaus Schwab has a small

Bust of Lenin that's wearing a businessman's suit, and it's an ironic kind of thing.

He is like, Yeah, of course, the era of Lenin is gone, but this is kind of a funny irony, you know.

Maybe Lenin would be a capitalist today, or something, or the irony of how Lenin's revolution actually ended up being the opposite of what it was supposed to.

As if that's not already.

anticipated by the science of Marxism and Marxism Leninism in particular itself.

The bourgeoisie regards it as an irony.

We regard it as the science of history.

Of course, contradictions are something we recognize, not something we dwell upon and contemplate from a position of conceit as ironic.

So, uh

People you need to understand when we're talking about cultivating interest in the study of Marxism-Leninism, we're not doing this to signal some kind of position within the broader pan-leftist consensus.

By the way, that doesn't mean we're right-wing either.

We are trying to build a left-wing politics in the United States, but a concretely left-wing politics, a left-wing politics defined by a particular character.

And a particular content based on a specific concrete historical situation.

Not this pan-leftism, Emma Goldman and Che Guevara, and all they're all dancing together.

No, that's, I'm sorry, like, that's not where we're coming from.

And because we're not coming from there, people mistakenly view us as right wing.

But I think there's a lot of people who even identify as right wing, who probably wouldn't identify as that if they actually knew.

You know, um

That just because they're not pan-leftist doesn't mean they're right-wing.

There's plenty of people who are like, Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, I do believe in nationalizing, you know, industry.

I do believe in.

You know, uh

Racial, you know, solidarity.

No, sorry, not racial solidarity.

Cross racial solidarity.

Like, I do believe in black people and white people are equal.

I'm against racism, but I'm just not with these pan leftists.

So they think that they're right wing and they go down this stupid rabbit hole and they go down these stupid pipelines where eventually

They're pro-Hitler and they're pro-fascism and all this stuff.

And it's really a tragedy because people don't understand.

We're not faced with a ch do you guys, it's it's like the young young people are so stratified politically.

And I think it's mainly a kind of sexuality or gender thing because straight men are solidly right wing who are young, solidly in the right wing camp, you know.

But are they really right wing or are they just not part of this pan leftist subculture?

And there's a lot of independent thinkers who, and it's like people like, well, Haz, they're not just categorized as that, they actually become that.

And I agree, and I think it's a tragedy.

Because I think when people start getting labeled as right-wingers, they internalize it, they adopt it, and then they go down these stupid rabbit holes, adopting positions they otherwise wouldn't have.

You know?

So.

Is it pan-leftism to defend the people's democracies?

Look, I I think you're confused, all right?

Pan leftism is not.

I think you're talking about how in the people's democracies, the social democrats.

and communists collaborated.

And what you're talking about is the Popular Front.

No, I'll directly address that.

The Popular Front was not pan leftist.

The Popular Front was concretely left wing.

It was an amalgamation

Of left-wing, patriotic, pro-people, anti-monopolistic forces, and that was not based on ideology.

It was based on a concrete historical position.

So, for example, the social democratic parties.

that were part of the Popular Front had a historical basis in the working class, in the working class movement.

I mean, they weren't just like random guys saying, I'm a socknam, I'm socialism done left, I'm a this, I'm no, that was an actual, like, real

working class movement, which was

For a long time, it was disputing and it was fighting with the communists, vying for influence over that movement, right?

So, the popular front is not pan-leftist.

You need to make this distinction.

Just because there, again, I don't want to repeat myself, but I said this before.

There have been historical situations where there has been a broad cross-ideological left.

I gave the example of the left SRs and the Bolsheviks, but that's defined by a concrete situation, not by this kind of post-historical post-mortem on this.

you know, universal leftism

Uh but in any case uh

Of course, there's a great degree of confusion because we are communists.

We call ourselves that, and so do these pan-leftists.

So they see that and they're like, Well, you're not one of us, so you must be trying to co-opt our identity.

And it's like, no, I just think you're very confused.

Like, we are actually believing it.

You know, we're not just saying we're this because we're trying to co-opt your subculture.

We actually do believe in Marxism-Leninism.

Like, we do believe it's true.

You know, it's just like how would I say about, yeah, what I say about genes and Lysenko is pretty inflammatory.

But when push comes to shove, genes don't exist.

And you know what?

I actually do believe that while Lysenko may have gotten some things wrong, maybe he definitely was unfairly maligned.

And that's something I actually do believe.

And, you know, a lot of people are confused about to what extent am I trolling and to what extent am I serious?

And I'm telling you, I'm not trolling because they don't know this because they're like, it's so crazy that someone actually believes in Marxism, Leninism, and communism.

Like, that's actually crazy.

So when I'm actually trolling about separate things or

trolling in a to be funny, they're like, Okay, are you trolling about this too?

And I just want to go full disclosure in a moment of real sincerity.

Like, I'm not trolling about Marxism, Leninism, or communism.

Like, I actually am that.

I've dedicated

My entire life today.

If you read my platypus interview, I'll tell you, since twelve years old, you know, around twelve years old, I was identifying with this and I was seriously taking it very seriously.

And I'm twenty seven now, going on twenty-eight later this year.

It's been a long time in my life.

You know, I wasn't born this way.

I wasn't raised a communist.

But.

Yeah, it's pretty much been my whole life, the majority of my life.

So of course I do believe in this, you know, it's not a troll.

I'm trolling because um

I think, you know, sometimes irony does communicate truths, but my actual position is based in a form of sincerity.

It's based in a sincere position, not an ironic one.

And it's all on the surface.

I'm directly transparent about it, and I always have been.

I always have been.

I've never lied about where I'm coming from.

If I've trolled,

Uh it's pretty clear when I'm trolling and when I'm not trolling, and this is one of the I mean, it's self-evident to almost everyone, right?

Debate Matt Criti.

I mean, I'll debate anyone, right?

I've always been willing to debate everyone.

But I just want people to understand, like,

Another reason I'm telling you this is because

I think we're entering a new stage.

I think that the era of pan-leftism and this kind of post-historical post-mortem on the historical left.

was very much cultivated by uh

The Intelligence Department of the United States and the Open Society Network of

global institutions and NGOs.

backed ultimately by the interests of monopoly capital.

Finance capital is what we're talking about.

Because monopoly industrial capital ceased to be a power since uh the forties at least.

But anyway, um

I think we're entering a new stage, and this is why I'm kind of saying, you know, we don't really the pan-leftists, we've fought with them for so many years, and I want to inform you why we need to pivot to confronting the right is because you see some of this with the rise of Millay in Argentina, but we also saw it with the neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

And I think we're entering a critical stage.

where panleftism is no longer just a disguise for Nazism, it's really going to be a kind of Nazism.

And I'll I'll justify that without being hysterical.

So originally, the the strategy of color revolution

was like this youthful insurrection and rebellion and breaking things and smashing things and going out into the street and, you know, fucking shit up, whatever.

You know, uh it's so nice and

fashionable and but I think there's a qualitatively new stage of

The American hegemony or the imperialist hegemony.

I think that qualitatively new stage is obscient in a sense.

It's like, okay, we're not just going to be the revolutionaries anymore.

We're going to be the ones who have power.

We're going to exercise power.

In other words, we're not just going to be the protesters throwing Moltov cocktails in the Maidan.

We're going to be the Azov militias with guns going out and massacring people.

So it's a qualitatively new stage of.

Um

Of NATO, or whatever you want to call this, the ruling class.

Their strategy, as far as what kind of ideologies they're cultivating in the youth, are the ones that are preparing them to enforce agendas, not just destroy them.

So, I repeat that.

The era of color revolutions was just about destroying sovereign states.

But now, we're entering a new qualitative stage where it's about enforcing the dictatorship of

Of monopoly capital, of financial capital.

It's about inf literal Hitlerism, enforcing the dictatorship at gunpoint.

And that's the new stage it's entering into.

So, the pan-leftist stuff is.

I think we've seen a marked rise of interest in.

authoritarian leftism, Maoism and stuff among the pan leftists.

Because of this transition that's going on, you know, they don't maybe they don't know that that's just like the Azov pipeline, but that's what they've they've kind of used Stalinism, for example, as a caricature of the fascist authoritarianism which the bourgeoisie now wants to unleash upon the world.

Uh, the left comms, the ones who are a little more well-read than the kind of transgender Maoists, openly almost are on the verge of like directly saying like the pipeline from Bordega to Mussolini is like they meme about it.

It's really there.

So, left comms, in terms of their pretensions, are more they're being more honest about their the fascist orientation that the pan-leftists are going into, right?

It's a pan-leftism.

It began with this kind of anarchistic tendency.

It's going into the fascist direction now because of the role it's being used for.

It's no longer color revolution and just

you know, fucking shit up for Russia, China, Iran, or something.

Now it's enforcing terroristic dictatorship specifically on Western populations that are non-compliant

With the extra constitutional and extra sovereign agenda of the ruling class.

And I've talked about this many, many times.

The eye on the prize and the thing you have to focus on is that the ruling cl and Putin alluded to this a little bit too, the deep state, the there's there's a center of power that's emerged in the West.

That is in contradiction to the form of bourgeois, whatever you want to call it, constitutional order.

So, this is the transition from liberalism to fascism that we saw in the 1930s that we are now experiencing.

So, pan-leftism is also going to go into that direction.

The Azov pipeline, basically.

And I've talked about this for many years.

Of course, for now, there are open Azovites within the pan-leftist tendency that went too early, like Dylan Burns.

Dylan Burns, I think it's fair to say he is still condemned within the pan-left, if you want to call it that, right?

But he just shows them an image of their own future.

He is condemned because he insisted too much on the specificity of a specific tendency.

But when push comes to shove and material reality takes hold, however they aestheticize themselves, it's going to be a fascism in practice.

And I think what will probably happen is that the pan-leftist consensus will disappear on its own as an outmoded kind of plaything of the bourgeoisie from the 2000s, from the 90s, from the 2010s under Obama.

And it's just kind of going to break apart.

And there might be a guy being here, hey, there's anyone here a real leftist anymore.

And it's like, that guy.

will be alone, right?

It's everyone's gonna go to the Dylan Burns style, left comm, whatever you want to call it, fascist Azovite tendency.

So here's what I'm saying.

We should fight the fascist ideology

uh first.

Because that i i if you think leftists are the main enemy, well, let's just fight the fascist ideology and the Hitlerite ideology because that's what they're all gonna transition into pretty shortly.

I'd give it maybe five years minimum.

Sorry, five years maximum.

Um

Max five years they are going to transition into the openly fascistic tendency.

Uh so yeah, I mean um this is what I wanted to tell you.

Uh let me see if Jackson

And also, a lot of the people who kind of distinguish themselves from the pan-leftists are mentally disabled.

I don't know.

I don't want to slander Kayla, but I think when you're a black sheep in that tendency, it's probably because you have a personal eccentricity of some kind that makes it incompatible for you to smoothly integrate into this kind of social network.

There are some people where it's kind of funny where, like, they have their own eccentric projects which get no success and no engagement, but they kind of attract some attention from the broader pan-left and interface with them solely in attempting to fuck with us and bullshit about us and spread nonsense about us.

Meanwhile, their own pet pet projects are dry and dead, and nobody gives a fuck about them.

But they still interface with that pan-left.

Specifically in their um

I mean, you know, no ma no need to make a fuss out of it.

There's a market for it.

It's gonna be there.

Someone will fulfill it.

But obviously pan leftists have not forgotten about us.

Black Red Guard, you know, he's still probably

Seething about us a lot.

uh for and and and maybe we you know, put a worm of doubt in the back of their head.

I I don't know.

They very desperately want to tell themselves that we're not what we say we are.

But the truth is, we are what we say we are.

And so they're living with this kind of very sad cognitive dissonance.

Which is leading many to the down the path of insanity.

But alas, I mean, history will go as it goes.

All right.

Jackson can't come because he's.

I took too long.

He's going out of the show.

But, um,.

Yeah, like Jason Unruh was could you call him a pan leftist?

Well,

Maybe he became that and I don't know, but he wasn't that original.

That's why he was so eccentric, you know?

Uh and you know, there are some true believer MLs.

There are some.

I would say like

Uh the the the Communist Party of Greece affiliated people.

Do they believe in what they do specifically in their own dogmatic interpretation?

And the only reason they join forces with pan-leftists is because it's like they're attacking us, so they want to join in.

There's plenty of people who join forces with the po with the pan-leftists who attack us.

Who are not themselves within the pan left.

Like you have Saddam Dick Riders.

Uh, who do that?

Do you have like ISIS people?

You have the literal neo-Nazis joining in with them.

uh actual Naslibs and they all kind of work with each other.

And which I mean, because they're not really different when it comes to push comes to shove.

Regarding the people from the Communist Party of Greece, they're just opportunists.

Like, they don't care that I'm bigoted.

They don't care that supposedly I'm bigoted.

They don't care that infrared has these problematic, bigoted views.

They're mad that we have a different interpretation of Stalin's economic problems of the USSR, Chapter 3.

Like a very, very specific theoretical problem they have with us.

It's just this sectarianism where they say, you're not real MLs.

So they opportunistically take advantage of the fact that we are cancelled to kind of reinforce their sectarian uh dislike for our position, but it's no matter, you know.

But I wanna I want to tell you guys why it's important to focus on uh

Confronting the right wing, because that's what that's where everyone is gonna be ending up, except us.

You know I mean, not except us, but like everyone that you think matters that you wanna confront, I mean, there are all of our enemies are gonna be fascists in five years, all right?

So we should get ahead of the curve.

Um

So yeah, that's uh something I wanted to say.

I think we had a nice stream, guys.

I think we had a substantive stream.

Uh and I don't think there's anything else I wanted to cover.

I think I'm going to be going live Sunday.

as well, so you can look forward to that and uh you know I'll make it bi-weekly.

I hope you were informed.

Maybe there's some more things Putin was saying that I wanted to mention or talk about.

Um.

I think that was most mostly it.

Some moron is in show cue.

No, there's no one in Shokyu, I don't know what you're talking about.

Thank you so much, bass Super Struggle.

Let's see what this is.

Hello.

Hello, go ahead and mute yourself.

Be quick.

Because I'm hungry.

I want to eat.

Go ahead.

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Okay, don't do this to me again.

Lara, put me on cam, put me on cam, put me on cam.

Do it.

Yeah, I'm not.

I'm not gonna.

What do you want?

You know who this is, don't you?

No.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, sure, you don't remember me.

Hold on, let me look at this.

You don't remember me, do you?

Say you don't remember me.

Say it.

So there's a guy with a beanie and it's covering his eyes and he's trying to make it seem like I should remember him.

Who are you?

Lord, look, it's funny.

It's funny, Haz.

You want to look at my eyes?

There.

You want to look at my eyebrows?

What, you wanna come up, bubble two-vise?

Alright, is there anything else?

I don't know who you what.

I just wanna say hi to all my gorillas.

Salute, salute, salute, salute.

Wait, this is a gorilla?

Yeah, it's Cardi.

Oh, Cardi, why didn't you say so?

Holy shit.

I can't say nothing, nigga.

Why not?

Oh, 'cause you're banned?

Yes, I got banned.

Well, what did you get banned for?

I ran I ran a red light.

Huh?

I ran a red light, I was I ran a red light.

What do you mean you ran a red light?

Uh the rules of the road.

Last time I checked, I only had to follow the laws.

What are you t what are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

All right, let's let's get back to our original debate about the mode of production.

'Cause I remember that and you you were so um you were so rude during that debate.

I was trying to be my best and uh you just you didn't even recognize me.

So let's debate right now.

Let's do it, Mr.

Red Eyes.

I am I'm a little confused, but we can you can give it a go if you want.

Alright, I'm not confused.

I'm sitting I'm sitting, I'm grounded.

Alright, are you ready?

Okay.

You get the first word 'cause I'm a gentleman.

I don't know what this is about.

It's about the mode of production.

What do you think it means?

Let's go.

Okay, good question.

Um

So, I think a mode of production, it's actually a good question.

I think it always implies a I don't know the right word, a subject of some kind.

Like, what implies both, sorry for interrupting, but it implies both a subject and an object.

I agree, but I'm trying to simplify.

Yeah, let me let you finish.

Let me let you finish.

Do you do you want me to answer or no?

Yeah, that's why I'm covering up my eyebrows.

Go ahead.

All right, well, I'm gonna mute you because I don't

Alright, uh let me mute him.

Okay, so uh it's a no, it's an interesting question.

A mode of production always implies uh uh the the production of a certain thing, of something, right?

And what that something is

Uh you know, Marxists would say it's a concrete totality of social relations that's being reproduced in a mode of production, right?

A general uh

a general form of the relations of production.

But I think this is a kind of maybe limitation of uh classical Marxism because the concrete totality has never been able to be uh given any specificity or particularity.

So in fact, while we can refer to modes of production as, for example, the predominant uh totality of the relations of production of a given historical epoch or era uh or so on and so on, it's still too ambiguous because we're not referring to a concrete um

object or existence.

And when we try to refer to one, it kind of seems circular.

So I would say um

You know, like obviously, the scholastic definition would be that a mode of production is a kind of totality of relations and forces of production, but.

We have to ask ourselves the question like how does that integrate into a concrete whole and acquire a specific determination?

So that would be my uh uh question for you.

How does a mode of production acquire the specificity of a determination?

Uh what do you mean by determination?

Like, for example, it becomes a tangible and definite thing.

Like, like, for example, at what point do does capitalism as a mode of production become definitely distinct from the feudal kind?

And by the way, this question helps us answer the basic question of like, how does socialism as a definite mode of production become uh different from the capitalist kind, right?

So it's related to that.

Okay, um do you want to keep going?

Because I know you're probably eating right now.

No, you can go ahead.

Okay, well I wanna switch to a different subject if that's okay.

Okay, let's keep it a little quick though.

Alright, the subject is gonna be what's the difference between left and right hand path?

Go.

Ah, you can't Yeah, what's the difference between the left and right hand path?

Go.

Uh the left hand path is I I basically the left hand path is uh malic evil somehow, and the right hand path is uh used for good.

That's my vague all right, sir.

Alright, for sure.

That's it?

Uh always, you know what I mean?

Forever.

Hey yo, we walk in the middle path, you know what I mean?

I mean we should walk in no none of the paths because magic I think is Alright, he's time.

Okay.

Alright, see you later man.

Take care.

Yeah, I don't know what's going on.

Um

No idea.

Okay.

You know something that else that obscures the notion of a mode of production.

I'm thinking about this.

Anonymous was up.

I was a malbronite leftist driven to insanity in late 2022.

My foundation is poisoned.

How do I start believing in my heart and soul once more?

Is it too late?

Read, read, read, you know.

Learn, learn, learn.

Rev, I'll get to your question in a second.

Something that complicates the notion of a mode of production being defined

As including the forces of production, is it's like the Marxist view is either too vague, sorry, too broad, or it's too specific.

Because, for example, under capitalism, a diversity of methods of production and qualitative stages of the forces of production

exist.

There's a diversity of those things across the history of capitalism as well as socialism.

Capitalism is not based on a specific type of technology, for example.

It's not based on a specific totality of methods of production.

And the relations of production, at least according to the Marxist view of capitalism, remain despite.

The innovations in the methods of production that are necessary to reduce the cost of labor.

This is in Marxist Capital.

So this opens up important questions.

About what the mode of production actually is because the um

The common understanding clearly isn't compatible with the Marxist view of capitalism, right?

Or socialism for that matter.

Anyway guys.

Sunday we're going to do the Patreon Q ⁇ A.

I want you guys to get your questions in there.

We're gonna sign off.

See you later.