Fantastic, great analysis. One of your best! I appreciate your explication of the importance of the history conveyed by Putin, with legal doctrine as an addendum.
I worry, however, that the short attention span of the collective West will gloss over the history-lesson (as it is called in a rather snide and derogatory manner by the usuals & their minions on Musk X et al) without accounting for its irrefutable significance in understanding the deceit spewed re: present-day Special Operation. While this is not to say it will go unnoticed, Western media and think-tankers will attempt to throw their geopolitical spin. Interestingly, it was deliberately un-ironic that Putin made clear whom, exactly, is in control of the global media and its narrative, and thus is the global media’s most powerful propagandist.
Someone wrote in another comment section that the interview has already over 150,000,000 views so I think that is a very positive development. It has made a global impact and I think most of the world is applauding Putin in this interview. :)
Just reading your preamble and agree 100%. One of my readers alerted me to your essay, and I'm glad he did. I established my substack to provide translations of Russian, Chinese and other primary documents of importance that readers usually won't see published anywhere else in the West. Viewers will be astonished Putin used no notes, no teleprompter, had no staff to supply info, that it was all off the cuff in a manner no Western government employee is capable. Thanks for your efforts!
“Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” Smart man. I think here he's not just talking about the interview at hand, but the broader conversation in the world. Everything is talk show and theater, and the vast majority in the world are not having a conversation. I'm guilty of this. When I started reading Matt and Cynthia's essays and books I was like Tucker being schooled by Putin for not sitting still long enough to hear the end of an answer. I had so many questions, "But, but, but, what about? That's not the history I was taught. This hurts my brain!" And of course that little voice always, "Who are Chung and Ehret, anyway? Are they plants, limited hangouts?" The angst was real, but I plowed through and by the end of Matt's second volume the clouds cleared away. Now I know to avoid the world's talk show and listen for those having a conversation. This applies to writers, artists, poets, politicians, musicians, religionists, and my furnace repair man. Talk show mentality stifles. It is dead and creates nothing. Conversation creates, inspires, and enlightens. Tucker is teetering between the two, and he'll have to pick one or the other at some point. Most other conservative talk personalities are doing much worse, relying on talk show. Being non-creative, that can only fail.
Thank you, Cynthia, for this extensive review. You gained a new subscriber.
The parts of your article which I appreciated the most were the aside on Bret Weinstein and Putin's thoughts on the expansion of non-US dollar trade with BRICS. He flat out told Tucker that the morons running our country the ones ensuring our economic downfall, not Russia and not China, and he's 100% correct.
I found your article from being a subscriber to Matt's substack (finding him through his numerous posts/shares on lewrockwell.com). The fact that another country wants to invest in our country is a good thing. And I think you are correct that Americans see this as potentially exploitive because that's what the US did for over a century, and the British for centuries before us. This seemed to be Tucker's assumption regarding China, and while Bret Weinstein hasn't read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, I'd be surprised if Tucker hasn't read it. Speaking of foreign investment, I'm interested in how successful the Nippon Steel purchase of US Steel will go. After the 2008 financial collapse and slow recovery, I lost my job and did a 1 year contract job at US Steel. Prior to that, I'd worked a 1 year contract job at Honda manufacturing where the Pilot and Odyssey are made. US Steel is a terribly managed company, largely enabled due to protectionism and other direct corporate welfare. At this point, no amount of welfare will save that company, and maybe the Japanese will turn them around. In case you are unaware, large parts of the Southeast have been revitalized by investment from Japanese, Korean, and German automakers. These manufacturing/assembly plants have been thriving and expanding for 20 years. So while Tucker and others in the 'alt-right' media sphere may seem xenophobic on this aspect of foreign economic investment in the US, their sentiments aren't representative of all of 'red state' America. There are entire towns who owe their existence to foreign investments.
As for Bret Weinstein, imho he has what I would call 'Q Anon Syndrome'. I'm sure there's a term for it that I'm not aware of. Essentially, when a person's entire worldview is blown apart (like during covid), they are susceptible to believing almost any 'conspiracy theory'. This comes from losing faith in all prior trusted sources and giving too much trust in the sources that 'had it right' on whatever it was that changed the worldview. If there is an official term for that, I do not know what it is. Anyway, his last Dark Horse podcast, which I listened to on Saturday, is called 'The Science of Conspiracy'. On the podcast, he said basically that only a pure cynic (not an intelligent person) would have gotten 'everything right' during the pandemic. They also talk about how wrong the old food pyramid was (the one with cereal/grains at the bottom), and they didn't recognize how this lie would have been an understandable gateway for creating skepticism of medical science among a substantial part of America. So, he still doesn't get it. A lot of skeptical, intelligent people got almost everything right during covid, and that's not even the right question to focus on. The real question is how in the world did our appointed experts like Fauci and Birx and their media gatekeepers get literally everything wrong regarding the covid pandemic response. I think this problem applies to geopolitics as well. It took me 10 years, and I'm still refining my list of trusted sources.
@Lisa: To your "real question" about how our appointed experts got everything wrong - that answer seems simple enough - they were captured. Once you see that pattern, a lot can be explained on almost every level of bureaucracy. You align with the hand that feeds you.
Very good article. I'd seen Tucker's entire interview with Putin beforehand, and greatly appreciated your analysis and commentary of it. One thing that I'm not sure if you mentioned is that Putin would very much like to end the war in Ukraine, but that Ukraine and its western backers have to realize that Russia will never give up Crimea and I seriously doubt they'll give up any of the territories in the 4 regions they currently control either, especially since they've now had referendums in all of them and they all apparently came out in favour of joining Russia. I suspect it would be fine to do another referendum, which is something Elon Musk once advocated for, if that's what it would take for the west to endorse this, but that's about as far as I think Russia might be willing to go in terms of western sensibilities on this.
Yes thank you Scott. I believe I did mention it briefly under the map of Ukraine showcasing the ethnicities and languages spoken in Ukraine and areas that were predominantly Russian. That Tucker Carlson even agreed that Russia would never give up Crimea who are Russian and want to remain in Russia. It is true that I did not take time to discuss this because I have covered the subject extensively in other papers, which I cite in the text, and I think it is rather obvious as you mentioned that Russia has the winning hand here and is not going to be returning any regions who have voted for independence or a return to Russia. This will never happen because these regions would be under threat once again defeating the whole purpose of Russia entering the war in the first place. As Putin made clear in the interview he is of course willing to organise for peace, he in fact did so with Ukrainian representation in Turkey but this peace deal was cancelled by Boris Johnson at the behest of American wishes. Putin says the matter is very simple, stop sending weapons to Ukraine and allow for a peaceful resolution. Thanks Scott for bringing this up so people can be aware of this if not already.
Would you really take seriously any referendums that are not supervised by neutral entities (while under the threat of an invading army) and only held once large portions of the people have fled as war refugees (or children sent to Russia = UN called humanitarian crime)?
I say this as someone who has had a Ukrainian refugee in my home since after the war began so am kept very aware of what is happening on the ground and doesn't get reported on as much.
Guidé, I think you may agree with me that finding a neutral entity may be hard. I personally don't think that Al Gore should have lost the 2000 election to George Bush Jr., but the U.S. Supreme Court made it so anyway. There were also some international observers/journalists, such as Eva Bartlett, that interviewed people in at least some of the regions, and the general sentiment did seem to be that they wanted to join Russia. Now, I can certainly agree that those only those who were still in Russian controlled territory and those in Russia were able to vote, but then, the same can be said for western Ukrainian voters in their election- many who didn't feel welcome in Western Ukraine left it as well. Elon Musk suggested that new referendums could be held, this time with more international observers. I'm not sure if Russia would allow this, but they might. I personally strongly believe that the majority of those in Lugansk and Donetsk wanted to leave Ukraine years ago if only to escape being bombarded for so long. I recommend you take a look at a documentary that was done by a team of German journalists called Ukrainian Agony- it talks of the terrible conditions in Donetsk and Lugansk prior to Russia's military intervention. It can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFVNRZv2eM
The expansion psychology of the "civilized" people who believe in "their country and government" has become a behavior of convenient-acceptance which represses the organic connection to humanity--the US government confiscated the lands of the indigenous people, making them into reservation-concentration camps--is why they allow all government interventions of indigenous people. At the same time they sacrifice a part of themselves as the genocides continue over time. . . Thank you for your amazing work! Blessings to You and Matthew Ehret.
Excellent analysis, most impressed! And thank you for deciphering Weinstein for me, something really bothered me about his Panama babble, I have fairly intimate knowledge of their history, yet I didn't pick up on it.
Fantastic, great analysis. One of your best! I appreciate your explication of the importance of the history conveyed by Putin, with legal doctrine as an addendum.
I worry, however, that the short attention span of the collective West will gloss over the history-lesson (as it is called in a rather snide and derogatory manner by the usuals & their minions on Musk X et al) without accounting for its irrefutable significance in understanding the deceit spewed re: present-day Special Operation. While this is not to say it will go unnoticed, Western media and think-tankers will attempt to throw their geopolitical spin. Interestingly, it was deliberately un-ironic that Putin made clear whom, exactly, is in control of the global media and its narrative, and thus is the global media’s most powerful propagandist.
Someone wrote in another comment section that the interview has already over 150,000,000 views so I think that is a very positive development. It has made a global impact and I think most of the world is applauding Putin in this interview. :)
Unfortunately, Musk's stats are far out bullshit but that shouldn't distract from the massive effect across many platforms.
Just reading your preamble and agree 100%. One of my readers alerted me to your essay, and I'm glad he did. I established my substack to provide translations of Russian, Chinese and other primary documents of importance that readers usually won't see published anywhere else in the West. Viewers will be astonished Putin used no notes, no teleprompter, had no staff to supply info, that it was all off the cuff in a manner no Western government employee is capable. Thanks for your efforts!
“Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” Smart man. I think here he's not just talking about the interview at hand, but the broader conversation in the world. Everything is talk show and theater, and the vast majority in the world are not having a conversation. I'm guilty of this. When I started reading Matt and Cynthia's essays and books I was like Tucker being schooled by Putin for not sitting still long enough to hear the end of an answer. I had so many questions, "But, but, but, what about? That's not the history I was taught. This hurts my brain!" And of course that little voice always, "Who are Chung and Ehret, anyway? Are they plants, limited hangouts?" The angst was real, but I plowed through and by the end of Matt's second volume the clouds cleared away. Now I know to avoid the world's talk show and listen for those having a conversation. This applies to writers, artists, poets, politicians, musicians, religionists, and my furnace repair man. Talk show mentality stifles. It is dead and creates nothing. Conversation creates, inspires, and enlightens. Tucker is teetering between the two, and he'll have to pick one or the other at some point. Most other conservative talk personalities are doing much worse, relying on talk show. Being non-creative, that can only fail.
Thank you, Cynthia, for this extensive review. You gained a new subscriber.
The parts of your article which I appreciated the most were the aside on Bret Weinstein and Putin's thoughts on the expansion of non-US dollar trade with BRICS. He flat out told Tucker that the morons running our country the ones ensuring our economic downfall, not Russia and not China, and he's 100% correct.
I found your article from being a subscriber to Matt's substack (finding him through his numerous posts/shares on lewrockwell.com). The fact that another country wants to invest in our country is a good thing. And I think you are correct that Americans see this as potentially exploitive because that's what the US did for over a century, and the British for centuries before us. This seemed to be Tucker's assumption regarding China, and while Bret Weinstein hasn't read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, I'd be surprised if Tucker hasn't read it. Speaking of foreign investment, I'm interested in how successful the Nippon Steel purchase of US Steel will go. After the 2008 financial collapse and slow recovery, I lost my job and did a 1 year contract job at US Steel. Prior to that, I'd worked a 1 year contract job at Honda manufacturing where the Pilot and Odyssey are made. US Steel is a terribly managed company, largely enabled due to protectionism and other direct corporate welfare. At this point, no amount of welfare will save that company, and maybe the Japanese will turn them around. In case you are unaware, large parts of the Southeast have been revitalized by investment from Japanese, Korean, and German automakers. These manufacturing/assembly plants have been thriving and expanding for 20 years. So while Tucker and others in the 'alt-right' media sphere may seem xenophobic on this aspect of foreign economic investment in the US, their sentiments aren't representative of all of 'red state' America. There are entire towns who owe their existence to foreign investments.
As for Bret Weinstein, imho he has what I would call 'Q Anon Syndrome'. I'm sure there's a term for it that I'm not aware of. Essentially, when a person's entire worldview is blown apart (like during covid), they are susceptible to believing almost any 'conspiracy theory'. This comes from losing faith in all prior trusted sources and giving too much trust in the sources that 'had it right' on whatever it was that changed the worldview. If there is an official term for that, I do not know what it is. Anyway, his last Dark Horse podcast, which I listened to on Saturday, is called 'The Science of Conspiracy'. On the podcast, he said basically that only a pure cynic (not an intelligent person) would have gotten 'everything right' during the pandemic. They also talk about how wrong the old food pyramid was (the one with cereal/grains at the bottom), and they didn't recognize how this lie would have been an understandable gateway for creating skepticism of medical science among a substantial part of America. So, he still doesn't get it. A lot of skeptical, intelligent people got almost everything right during covid, and that's not even the right question to focus on. The real question is how in the world did our appointed experts like Fauci and Birx and their media gatekeepers get literally everything wrong regarding the covid pandemic response. I think this problem applies to geopolitics as well. It took me 10 years, and I'm still refining my list of trusted sources.
@Lisa: To your "real question" about how our appointed experts got everything wrong - that answer seems simple enough - they were captured. Once you see that pattern, a lot can be explained on almost every level of bureaucracy. You align with the hand that feeds you.
Bravo. I'm even going to go back and read this article again. Great work! Thank you.
Excellent! Posted to my networks with the following header:
“History Matters! How it is that NATO-Ukraine were Nazified, and the Collective West (including Tucker Carlson), became Naive and Stupidified”
❤️Wage Peace,
⭐️Keep the Faith
#AttacktheMIMAC
#DeNazthePlanet!
Very good article. I'd seen Tucker's entire interview with Putin beforehand, and greatly appreciated your analysis and commentary of it. One thing that I'm not sure if you mentioned is that Putin would very much like to end the war in Ukraine, but that Ukraine and its western backers have to realize that Russia will never give up Crimea and I seriously doubt they'll give up any of the territories in the 4 regions they currently control either, especially since they've now had referendums in all of them and they all apparently came out in favour of joining Russia. I suspect it would be fine to do another referendum, which is something Elon Musk once advocated for, if that's what it would take for the west to endorse this, but that's about as far as I think Russia might be willing to go in terms of western sensibilities on this.
Yes thank you Scott. I believe I did mention it briefly under the map of Ukraine showcasing the ethnicities and languages spoken in Ukraine and areas that were predominantly Russian. That Tucker Carlson even agreed that Russia would never give up Crimea who are Russian and want to remain in Russia. It is true that I did not take time to discuss this because I have covered the subject extensively in other papers, which I cite in the text, and I think it is rather obvious as you mentioned that Russia has the winning hand here and is not going to be returning any regions who have voted for independence or a return to Russia. This will never happen because these regions would be under threat once again defeating the whole purpose of Russia entering the war in the first place. As Putin made clear in the interview he is of course willing to organise for peace, he in fact did so with Ukrainian representation in Turkey but this peace deal was cancelled by Boris Johnson at the behest of American wishes. Putin says the matter is very simple, stop sending weapons to Ukraine and allow for a peaceful resolution. Thanks Scott for bringing this up so people can be aware of this if not already.
Would you really take seriously any referendums that are not supervised by neutral entities (while under the threat of an invading army) and only held once large portions of the people have fled as war refugees (or children sent to Russia = UN called humanitarian crime)?
I say this as someone who has had a Ukrainian refugee in my home since after the war began so am kept very aware of what is happening on the ground and doesn't get reported on as much.
Guidé, I think you may agree with me that finding a neutral entity may be hard. I personally don't think that Al Gore should have lost the 2000 election to George Bush Jr., but the U.S. Supreme Court made it so anyway. There were also some international observers/journalists, such as Eva Bartlett, that interviewed people in at least some of the regions, and the general sentiment did seem to be that they wanted to join Russia. Now, I can certainly agree that those only those who were still in Russian controlled territory and those in Russia were able to vote, but then, the same can be said for western Ukrainian voters in their election- many who didn't feel welcome in Western Ukraine left it as well. Elon Musk suggested that new referendums could be held, this time with more international observers. I'm not sure if Russia would allow this, but they might. I personally strongly believe that the majority of those in Lugansk and Donetsk wanted to leave Ukraine years ago if only to escape being bombarded for so long. I recommend you take a look at a documentary that was done by a team of German journalists called Ukrainian Agony- it talks of the terrible conditions in Donetsk and Lugansk prior to Russia's military intervention. It can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFVNRZv2eM
The expansion psychology of the "civilized" people who believe in "their country and government" has become a behavior of convenient-acceptance which represses the organic connection to humanity--the US government confiscated the lands of the indigenous people, making them into reservation-concentration camps--is why they allow all government interventions of indigenous people. At the same time they sacrifice a part of themselves as the genocides continue over time. . . Thank you for your amazing work! Blessings to You and Matthew Ehret.
Thank you for your efforts
Cynthia and Matt are brilliant historians and commentators. I wish I had more time to watch lectures but 130+ stack subs limits me to speed reading
This is Brilliant. Factual and thorough. Thank you Cynthia!
This is great, Cynthia!
What immense courage you demonstrate to stride forth into the weeds of Russia-Ukraine history! Chapeau!
I want to share this in my local social media this week. I hope that is okay. I can’t think why not...
Yes, of course Ki. :)
Wow, Cynthia!
Bravo! Thank you, Cynthia, for this tour-de-force analysis, replete with fascinating and relevant side-tracks.
Thank you Marilyn!
Excellent analysis, most impressed! And thank you for deciphering Weinstein for me, something really bothered me about his Panama babble, I have fairly intimate knowledge of their history, yet I didn't pick up on it.
That dig at Bret though... seemingly out of nowhere. But you were on a roll.
I'm new to your Substack and enjoyed your analysis. Thank you.