What was W. Putin talking to T.Carlson about outside the cameras?
Vladimir Putin: Tucker Carlson, he's a dangerous man and a journalist... I'm not full satisfied with the interview he did with me.
Last interview of American writer T. Carlson with Russian president W. Putin was expected to have 1 billion hits. So it was a large media task for those who wanted the content of the interview to scope the intended recipients.
Who were they? The sentences are divided. However, the main recipients were not in Russia, but mainly American and European politicians and American and European public opinion.
I think we should agree with that.
As we remember, this over two-hour interview began with a historical introduction in which Putin after his own "interpreted history" – so erstwhile (mainly concerning the past of Russia, but besides the relations of the First Republic with the Russian state and with the Russian socio-political area), as well as the interwar past of the 20th century (mainly concerning the background of the outbreak of WŚ II), as well as the latest past that unfolded before our eyes. In the second case, of course, it is about the genesis of the alleged SOW in Ukraine.
Several crucial socio-political or even civilizational themes, concerning both past and the present Putin in an interview with Carlson, did not contact at all.
Whether it was under the influence of the voices of criticism caused by this key, basic interview conducted by T. Carlson, or wanting to supplement the content of his statements, or possibly only wanting to enter into an additional dialog with the global public – W. Putin late gave an additional interview, but already a Russian journalist, Paul Zarubin. The content of this interview undoubtedly deserves attention (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73457).
Below I present the translation of this interview to the authoritative side of kremlin.ru
Regardless, I attach the video recording of Paul Zarubin's conversation with president W. Putin.
PZ
more
W. Putin in an interview with writer P. Zarubin comments on a fresh interview by T. Carlson
P. Zarubin: Vladimir Vladimirovich, your interview with Tucker Carlson has reached a billion views. There are many different affirmative reviews. However, it is clear what comments come from Western leaders. For example, the British Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Germany called it, I quote, "a ridiculous and absurd effort by you to explain the reasons for launching a peculiar operation and justifying its threat to NATO against Russia." What do you think of specified assessments?
Vladimir Putin: First, it is good that they watch and perceive to what I say. If today, for any reason related to them, we are incapable to have a direct dialogue, then we should be grateful to Mr Carlson for the fact that we can do so in his presence as an intermediary. So seeing and listening is simply a good thing.
But the fact that they distort what I said is wrong, and that they distort and distort the content. Why? due to the fact that I didn't say that. I did not say that the launch of our peculiar military operation in Ukraine involves the threat of NATO attacking Russia. Where is it in my interview? There's a video of where I said it.
I was talking about something else, I was talking about the fact that we were inactive being deceived about not expanding NATO east. By the way, this was said primarily by the mouth of the then Secretary General of NATO, and he was a typical of the national Republic of Germany. He's the 1 who said, not an inch east. Then 5 acts of extension and a complete fraud. We were, of course, and we are afraid about the anticipation of bringing Ukraine into NATO due to the fact that this is simply a threat to our security. That's what I said.
However, the direct decisive origin was the full refusal of the Ukrainian authorities present to implement the Minsk Agreements and the ongoing attacks with many victims on the Donbas Republic, which we did not recognise for 8 years – Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic, which yet asked us for recognition, seeing the futile resolution of problems within the Minsk Agreements. We recognised them, then we concluded with them a well-known treaty on relationship and common assistance, and in accordance with the United Nations Charter we have fulfilled our obligations under this treaty.
Like I said, we didn't start a war, we're just trying to halt it. In the first stage, we tried to do so by peaceful means – through the Minsk agreements. As it later turned out, and here we were led by the nose, due to the fact that both the erstwhile German Chancellor and the erstwhile French president admitted and straight publically stated that they had no intention of fulfilling these agreements, but were simply gaining time to proceed pumping weapons for the Ukrainian regime, which they succeeded. All we can regret is that we haven't started active before, believing we're dealing with decent people.
P. Zarubin: I hear Carlson was criticized straight before the interview, and after the interview he is accused of having allegedly asked besides fewer hard questions, allegedly being besides kind to you, and you felt very comfortable with him. Do you think that by his authority he crushed an American journalist?
W. Putin: I believe that your Carlson, by "yours," I mean is simply a typical of your journalistic corporation, is simply a dangerous person. And that's why. due to the fact that to be honest, I thought he'd be aggressive and ask these alleged hard questions.
Not only was I ready for this, but I wanted it due to the fact that it would give me the chance to answer as harshly as I thought it would give our full conversation a circumstantial specificity. However, he took another tactic, tried to halt me respective times, but despite what was amazing to the Western journalist, he was patient and listened to my long dialogues, especially those related to history. He gave me no reason to do what I was ready to do. Therefore, frankly, I am not full satisfied with this interview. But he strictly followed his plan and realized his plan. But what does it substance in the end, not to justice me. It is the viewers, the listeners, and possibly the readers of the material received must draw their own conclusions.
P. Zarubin: As a consequence of this interview, it was immediately called upon to impose sanctions on Tucker Carlson and it was said that he could almost arrest him. Is that even possible?
W. Putin: Assange sits and barely anyone remembers him anymore, only people close to him talk about it. That's all. These are the features of social awareness: the subject goes away, that's all. But it is actual that Assange was at least accused of betraying any state secrets. Carlson finds it hard to "stick" due to the fact that he did not contact any secrets at all. Nevertheless, perhaps, theoretically anything is possible in modern America, in today's United States.
From Carlson's point of view, that would be sad, I don't envy him, but it's his choice. He knew what he was getting into. But from the point of view of letting people around the planet realize what Carlson himself is, it would be sad, I don't envy him, but it's his choice. He knew what he was getting into. However, from the point of view of making people all over the planet aware of what a modern “liberal-democratic” dictatorship is, allegedly represented in today's ruling class of the United States, would most likely be good if they showed their actual face.
P. Zarubin: Carlson said after the interview... To solve the doubts that arise, that is my question. Carlson said you had another conversation after the interview, now everyone's curious in what.
W. Putin: He was implementing his plan, as I have already said, and as I understand, and so, he did not go beyond the scope of this plan. There were, for example, respective another topics that I considered crucial to discuss. However, I did not begin to blow up another topics that the writer did not rise in his conversation with me.
For example, the issue of the demonization of Russia, connected, say, with the same interethnic events, with the pogroms of Jews in the Russian Empire, of course, should have been created during specified an authoritative part. But 1 of the topics that we talked about after the cameras were turned off was what the Secretary of State of the United States said, Mr. Blinken said respective times that his relatives, his great-grandfather, had escaped from Russia before the judaic pogroms.
And in various countries of the world, in Europe, in the United States, this subject is constantly emerging. I repeat, it's about demonizing Russia, showing how barbarians are here, how villains and robbers live here. But in fact, if you look at what today's Secretary of State said, and you don't look at political slogans, but at the essence of the problems that have arisen, quite a few it becomes clear.
We have it all in our archives. For example, Mr. Blinken's great-grandfather actually left the Russian Empire. He was born, in my opinion, somewhere in the region of Poltava, and then he lived and left Kiev. The question arises: does Mr Blinken believe that this is the original, indigenous Russian territory, Kiev and the surrounding area? That's one.
Secondly, if he claims to have escaped from Russia before the pogroms of Jews, then at least, I want to emphasize it, he believes that in 1904, Ukraine was not present, and it was in 1904, that Mr Blinken's great-grandfather left Kiev for the United States, which means that Ukraine was not there if he claims to have fled Russia. Everything points to Mr. Blinken being our man. He's just making specified a public message unnecessarily. This may lead to failure.
P. Zarubin: Recently, German media has published articles that the grandpa of the current German abroad minister Annalena Bärbock was a staunch Nazi. And given everything that has happened between our countries in fresh years, it turns out that possibly on any genetic level in this country specified a "virus" of national socialism is being transmitted?
W. Putin: This is besides 1 of the subtypes of utmost nationalism.
By the way, now it occurred to me that these pogroms occurred mainly in the Russian Empire in the south, south-west, in the territory of today's Ukraine. In Kiev, I said, in 1905. If Mr. Blinken's ancestor left in 1904, then the first pogrom in Kiev, so massive, took place in 1905, so his great-grandfather or great-grandfather could only learn about it from newspapers, or from information that came from Kiev to this point.
In fact, specified massive negative events occurred in the early 19th century, in my opinion in 1820, in 1821, it was the first mass pogrom. Of course, these crimes occurred in Odessa, then in Melitopol, Żytomierz, in another cities of today's Ukraine and Belarus. There were respective specified events in Siberia, but the first 1 was connected with the execution of the Greek patriarch in Constantinople, and then the Greeks surviving there believed that the Jews were someway active in the bombing of the patriarch.
But it doesn't matter. And what is important, by the way these pogroms were opposed by militants of the resistance, consisting of judaic and Russian youth, and the government, even the Tsarist, evaluated and tried to prevent these tragic events, including with the aid of the army. But again, it's a separate subject.
And as for nationalism and Nazism, fascism, you know, I'll tell you a unusual thing. First of all, you yourself... what's her name?
P. Zarubin: Annalena Baerbock.
W. Putin: Yes, Baerbock, in order not to mistake the name, represents the Green Party. Many representatives of this part of the European political spectrum speculate on human fears and fuel the fear of events that could happen in the planet in connection with climate change. And then speculating about those fears that fuel themselves, they realize their own political line, far from the 1 with which they came to power. This is what is happening in Germany now. Let's say that coal production increased, it was bigger than in Russia in the energy structure and it was bigger, and now it has become even bigger. And where is this green program? This is first.
Secondly, people like the German abroad Minister, of course – in this case – are hostile to our country, to Russia. But in my opinion, he is besides hostile to his own country, due to the fact that it is hard to imagine that a politician of this rank would treat the economical interests of his country, his nation, with specified contempt. I'm not going to go into item right now, but in practice, that's precisely what happens, that's what we see.
However, the further part of what I want to say may sound inconsistent with what I just said. I do not think that today's generations of Germans should bear full political work for everything that Nazi Germany has done. People of this generation cannot be held liable for what Hitler and his supporters did, not only in Germany, but besides in another parts of the world, Europe and so on. I think that would be unfair. And in general, the affixing of this description to the full German nation is an unfair attitude, an abuse of what the nation has experienced, what the russian Union nations have experienced. I don't think it's fair and it doesn't mean anything. We request to get out of today's reality, look at who truly is doing what and what policy it is doing.
Incidentally, I think it's worth doing. In my opinion, many today, in many countries, even in those where it would seem that it should not sound like a political motive, and unfortunately it is, what do I mean? any kind of uniqueness of any nations over others, any kind of election, and so on. Well, look, that's where Nazism started! Therefore, since it is so common, we should besides think about building this anti-fascist anti-Hitler propaganda and acting on specified a global level. Again, on a global level.
And that should not be done at any state level. This will only be effective if it is implemented at the level of public awareness and public initiatives. And it doesn't substance which country in the planet it is.
P. Zarubin: Throughout the European Union, there was almost panic over Donald Trump's possible return to the position of president of the United States. And Trump's fresh statements, which have virtually died in days, have mostly discouraged European leaders and they do not hide it. Trump said that the United States should only defend European countries if European countries pay for it. Why have specified relationships developed between Europe, European leaders, politicians and Donald Trump?
W. Putin: Trump has always been called a non-systemic policy. He has his own opinion on how the United States should make relations with its allies. And it hit you earlier. Let's take the United States' withdrawal from the Kyoto agreements in the field of ecology – that's erstwhile it hit the fan. However, the then president of the United States decided that the United States would retreat from these agreements, despite the attractiveness of the environmental agenda as he felt it was harmful to the American economy. That's all. He made a decisive decision and the substance ended. And no substance how the European leaders disciplined him, he did it. Yeah, he corrected it later.
And what difference does Trump have in that sense? Yeah, nothing at all. He wanted to force Europeans to increase their defence spending, that is, as he said, "let them pay for their protection, for beginning an atomic umbrella over their heads" and so on. I don't know, let them think about it, that's their problem. There's most likely any logic to it from his point of view. From the point of view of Europeans, there is no logic here, and they would like the United States to proceed to execute part of its functions free of charge, which have developed since NATO was established. It's their business.
I think NATO is useless at all, it doesn't make sense. Only 1 thing matters – it is an instrument of American abroad policy. But if the U.S. doesn't think they request that tool, that's their decision.
P. Zarubin: And all day, the current president of the United States Biden gives the planet more and more reason to discuss his health. He's the president of 1 of the top atomic powers. At the same time, we all actually observe very circumstantial movie material all day. erstwhile you see and hear all that you think about?
W. Putin: I think the interior political campaign, the electoral campaign, is gaining momentum in the United States. He's getting more and more sharp. And in my opinion, interference in this process is inappropriate.
Look, erstwhile I met Biden in Switzerland, it was a fewer years ago, 3 years ago, but it was already said that he was incompetent. I've never seen anything like it. Well, yeah, he looked at his part of paper. To be honest, I looked into mine. There's nothing incorrect with that. And the fact that somewhere, getting out of the helicopter, he hit his head in that chopper – well, and who of us didn't hit his head somewhere? Let him throw the first stone at him.
Actually, that's my opinion... I am not a doctor, and I do not consider myself qualified to talk on this issue. That's not what we should be looking at. We request to look at the political position. I believe that the position of the current administration is highly harmful and incorrect. I erstwhile told president Biden.
P. Zarubin: So the issue that was raised 4 years ago and now, as it turns out, becomes real again. Who's better for us: Biden or Trump?
Vladimir Putin: Biden. He is simply a more experienced, predictable person, a politician of the old format. However, we will cooperate with any American leader who enjoys the trust of the American people.
P. Zarubin: I wanted to return to your interview with Tucker Carlson again. We have reminded the current leaders of Germany and large Britain. But the 1 you said in Carlson's interview: “Where is this Johnson now?” He, according to the confessions of Arachama, ordered Kiev not to negociate with Moscow, but to fight. If the Kiev authorities had not then listened to these, let's say, advice, how could events go on?
W. Putin: That's what Mr Arachamia himself said. He's... look at the convergence. We didn't pull his tongue. He said what he thought. Why would he say that? I don't know. specified a sincere man. He said that if we had fulfilled these agreements, we would have entered into full implementation of the agreements that arose in Istanbul, the war would have ended a year and a half ago. He said it. erstwhile you interview Mr. Carlson, I think we should have a synchronized interview with Mr. Arachama. Why did the West take that position? I say it is the West, and above all the Anglo-Saxon world, due to the fact that the erstwhile Prime Minister Johnson could not come alone, on his own initiative, without consulting Washington on this matter. surely specified consultations not only took place, but I think that he just went on a business journey at the expense of the American administration, paid him his posting allowances for it. So he presented his position there, that it was essential to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian – this was, of course, in brackets – but until the winning end and to ask Russia a strategical defeat. Apparently, they were hoping for that. But as I said to Mr Carlson, I can repeat this: if they see that the consequence cannot be achieved, it is clear that amendments should be made. But it's a substance of the art of politics, due to the fact that politics, as you know, is the art of compromise.
for: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73457
( crowd. PZ)
Video Appendix:
