Pretty incredible that the only person willing and/or capable of showing to the Anglosphere the Russian perspective on this ongoing war is a reactionary sophomoric dingus with a high-school-level understanding of politics.
During the Cold War immense resources were spent by the yanks on trying to understand the Soviets, what made them tick, their perspectives on things, how they thought, etc, all in the interests of averting nuclear holocaust.
Now, there is no line of communication between the West and Russia, period. We are sleepwalking into nuclear hellfire.
I actually thought that Carlson's interview with Putin was outstanding and historically significant. Not because I like Putin (I don't, obviously) but because it was so refreshing to actually hear the other side of this conflict for once, and to hear an experienced and established statesman speak his mind at length (who, bonus, isn't a dottering old octogenarian walking crypt keeper who can't speak full coherent sentences).
All I hear from Western media and the gullible fools who actually watch and believe it is psychotic RUSSIA BAD RUSSIA BAD RUSSIA BAD!!!!!!1 and anybody who even acknowledges that Russia is, in fact, its own country with its own security interests, is branded as spreading Russian propaganda (this has happened to me, personally, multiple times. In fact, I think that is just about the only thing that libs have on Tulsi Gabbard to accuse her of being "Putin's Puppet" - god even typing this has me rolling my god damned eyes).
Also, during the Putin interview it was pretty funny to see how politically illiterate Tucker Carlson actually is, and what an incredibly short attention span he has. Pretty sad state of affairs when this is the only person willing to even show the perspective of the other side of the war in Ukraine.
In any event, I look forward to this interview when it comes out in the coming days.
the elephant in the lib room is that the major rivals to american hegemony, particularly China and Russia, are lead by competent and coherent statesmen with a clearly articulated vision for their countries and the capacity to speak to those visions to an audience.
there hasn't really been anything like that in the US for at least 8 years, but more realistically nearly 12. and early obama felt like a miracle after 8 years of W. but all that is ancient history. the main point i am making is that American Democracy cannot seem to reliably field somebody who isn't a complete disaster at these basic skills of oratory. which, wtf is a president supposed to be good at if not that? and, not just president.... but even to advance to the lead candidate of an opposition party.
we've had two ancient, rambling cranks, a Xanax-fueld, never-wrong blatherer and that weirdly affected/rehearsed "completely regular human" patter that clinton was trying to peddle while scolding people under 45 that asking for healthcare is the same as a little girl asking for a pony and to pokemon go to the polls instead of asking for healthcare. in the hooting cacophony of The American Discourse, a hunched over, 70 year old crank who wouldn't deviate from the subject of billionaires fucking us all came across as the only smart one. like, god damn. our shit is cooked.
in comparison, the last time russia had an embarassment as the figurehead was Yeltsin, who seemed to be shitfaced at every public function. and i don't know that china has ever had a intemperate buffoon in charge, certainly not in the last 50 years.