Putin to Tucker: NATO provoked the war by stabbing Russia in the back

The US deceitful expansion of NATO was obviously unacceptable

Tucker Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin in The Kremlin on February 6, 2024, and made the full tape available to the world two days later.  As of this writing, the interview has nearly 200 million “views” through Tucker’s own Twitter handle.  There are surely numerous more views via other channels, including Tucker’s own website:

https://tuckercarlson.com/the-vladimir-putin-interview/

Of course, one suspects that a large percentage of these views are not people who watched the whole two hour interview, but rather barely touched the post.  Still, this may have been Putin’s best opportunity to explain himself to a broader US audience.  Few Americans have likely watched or read Putin’s previous speeches as the Russian leader from 2000 to 2024.

One must hear the other side

It is critical to hear both sides of the argument.  We do not accept trials in which only one side of the case is heard.  The US public has been fed an incessant one-sided propaganda in which Russia’s partial invasion of Ukraine has been characterized as “unprovoked.”  

As one might suspect coming out of the mouths of US leading politicians and corrupt media, nothing could be further from the truth.  Russia’s attack on Ukraine was extremely provoked.

These are the same people who were wrong about everything in 2020-21

Remember, the same people who now tell us, contrary to all evidence, that Russia’s attack on Ukraine was unprovoked, are the same people who told you in 2020-2021 that:

• C-19 is dangerous to most people.

• You must wear an anti-breathing face-diaper. 

• If you don’t close the schools, grandma will die.

• Close all stores and restaurants, or else you will get C-19.

• If you inject yourself with a foreign substance, you can’t get C-19.

Yeah, those people.  They were wrong about 100% of everything in terms of making life a living hell in 2020-21 via their insane restrictions for no good reason, and as I will show below, they are wrong here too.

1991: The year everything changed

Out of the blue, The USSR (“Soviet Union”) simply ceased to exist on December 25, 1991.  The Soviet flag was lowered, and the Russian flag went up instead.  The former Soviet Republics instantly became their own countries, including Ukraine.  

Gorbachev was no longer the leader in The Kremlin, but rather the torch was passed to Boris Yeltsin, who had become broadly known in conjunction with the failed coup against Gorbachev four months earlier.  

The end of expansionist communism

The entire purpose of NATO ever since 1949 had been to contain expansionist communism as led by Moscow and its Warsaw Pact.  It was the defining status quo of two generations of people all over the globe, from 1949 to 1991.  For those of us who lived it, it was such a fixed set of positions that it seemed like it could never change. 

Then, in two stages, from the fall of The Berlin Wall in November 1989 to the end of The Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, the air went out of this entire tightly sprung balloon, without a shot being fired.  This was infinitely above all expectations we all had for half a century, as we had all feared that this stalemate could only be resolved via a (possibly nuclear) World War 3. 

An instant and totally peaceful solution to The Cold War, in which the USSR because a capitalist country, basically overnight?  Inconceivable. 

Yet, to everyone’s surprise, the new reality dropped into our laps as gently as it was sudden, like a winning Powerball ticket.  Without any war, expansionist communism ended suddenly.  One could not possibly have hoped for a better result than that.

Richard Nixon accurately predicts what must be done

Richard Nixon sprung into action immediately following the December 25, 1991, dissolution of the USSR and went to Moscow.  Having met with the leadership in The Kremlin, he returned to the and hosted a conference in Georgetown, Washington DC, on the subject of what the US should do now.  This was his speech, concluding the conference:

I assisted Nixon at this event, and was just outside of camera view as I had removed the podium immediately prior to Nixon speaking, so that he could speak only immediately in front of the microphone.  He had no notes or teleprompter of any kind.  It is worth watching for what he saw already in the first quarter of 1992. 

The rationale for NATO instantly evaporates

What happened to NATO after 1991 is a study in bureaucratic intransigent deceit and backstabbing -- all led by the US.  What should have happened in the few days following the December 25, 1991, abolition of the entire rationale for NATO’s existence was that the US President, George Bush, should have declared victory and abolished NATO immediately.

Yes, I know, technically speaking the US can’t abolish NATO by itself immediately, but as a practical matter that is what the US President could have done.  Without US support, NATO is nothing but a taxpayer-supported coffee club. 

Clearly neither the NATO bureaucracy, nor the US military bureaucracy in Washington DC, or the military-industrial complex that makes its money supplying it with weapons, wanted any part of this “peace” thing.  They had to invent some new reason to keep NATO alive, despite its mission being gone.

As a result, by hook or by crook, the US turned around after 1991 and slowly (relatively quickly?) between then and 1996 reached around and stabbed Russia in the back in an epic betrayal of all logic and justice.  Instead of happily declaring victory and mercifully retiring NATO, the US decided to expand NATO instead -- in the direction of Russia’s borders.  

Remember the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?

This US-led NATO provocation has as one of its closest historical analogies the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis -- in reverse.  In 1962, the USSR partnered with Cuba to station nuclear missiles on Cuba, which was in the US sphere of influence as defined in 1823 by US President James Monroe.  The US isn’t going to accept any other major global power setting foot in the Americas.

Is that “legal”?  Who cares?  The point is that the US is powerful and has set the principle.  Cuba and the USSR had the “right” to partner and station nukes in Cuba, but the US said that the only thing that matters is what we, the US, says -- end of story.  International law?  Have you ever heard of Realpolitik? 

The US imposed a blockade on Soviet ships going to Cuba, and used back-channels to negotiate for the USSR to stand down.  This was successful.  The USSR stood down, and received the concession that the US would withdraw some missiles from Turkey and Italy in the quiet, later.  World War 3 was averted.  The USSR had come to its senses.

In the 1990s, the roles became reversed, and as we will see later, the US did not follow the USSR example from October 1962 to stand down as we entered 2022.  This has already been a catastrophic miscalculation by the US with deadly consequences.  

The US wouldn’t take a 100% victory in 1991 for an answer

The US had achieved the ultimate victory in The Cold War in 1991: The USSR was no longer communist, and it was no longer expanding.  It was shrinking.  It had become, while imperfectly, a somewhat capitalist country.  Certainly no worse than the grand dictatorship of China, for example.  There is no question in which country has been more free after 1991, China or Russia?  China may have more electronic gadgets, but there is no semblance of freedom there.  Russia has aspects of dictatorial power, but you can largely move around without the government bitching about having to show a QR code or wear a mask.  China oppresses (tens of) millions of its own citizens, murdering them by the bushel and harvesting their organs.  Russia’s transgressions, while also grotesque in their own right, are way to the right of the decimal point compared to China’s. 

The Mexico-Canada analogy

Imagine if, a mere half-century years ago, The Soviet Union had partnered with Mexico and/or Canada and had them enter The Warsaw Pact: Soviet troops, while not yet stationed there, and perhaps no weapons systems quite yet, but it was obvious to the US that those were the next steps.  What do you think the US would have said about it?

1. Sure, no problem, you have the right to do this.  Welcome to the continent, Mr Brezhnev! 

2. Get out immediately or the carpet-bombing begins immediately.

Only a clueless fool would think that the reaction would be (1) instead of (2).  The US would wipe Mexico and/or Canada off the map if they tried such a move.

Yet, this is the current Ukraine situation

Russia kept bending over and taking it hard from the late 1990s until 2022.  They kept warning the US and NATO that these expansionist provocations were unacceptable and would not stand.  Russia specifically made it clear that Ukraine was the (final) red line in the sand that Russia would never allow to fall as the last domino.  US diplomats kept begging Washington DC to stop these provocations.  

The US careens in favor of World War 3

The US must learn to understand that Russia will never lose a war in Ukraine.  Winning in Ukraine is existential for Russia.  It has made it clear that it will do EVERYTHING it takes to ensure that Ukraine does not end up in NATO hands.  I don’t think I have to spell out what EVERYTHING means.  

Imagine the lengths to which the US would have gone to ensure that neither Mexico nor Canada would have ended up in Warsaw Pact hands.  Yes, the US would have used all of the tools in its arsenal, full-blown World War 3, to ensure that it did not end up with a Warsaw Pact country on its borders -- especially not the most important one with the longest shared land border. 

Putin made sure in his interview with Tucker Carlson to explain that Russia has a special history with Ukraine, and it ought to have been clear to intelligent people watching, that this is an existential issue for Russia.  It is victory or bust.  From Charles XVII in 1709 to Napoleon in 1812 to Germany in 1941, this is it.  Victory or death.  The end of all things. 

US/NATO sending more resources to Ukraine is useless

It doesn’t matter how many weapons, money, soldiers or other resources that the US, NATO or the rest of the world sends to Ukraine, because Russia will simply escalate in order to wipe the other side off the map if that is what it takes.  Remember, this is EXISTENTIAL for Russia.  Remember how the USSR fought in 1941-45 alone?  Yes, it burnt everything to the ground.  There was no mercy.  You attack Russia, and the blowback will be devastating.  So don’t attack Russia on its home turf!  Trying to incorporate Ukraine into NATO is such an attack.  Russia will respond like the US responded to 9/11, except for Russia this is even more serious. 

Russia gave the US numerous chances to avert war in Ukraine

From 2007 until 2021, Russia kept asking for guarantees from the US that Ukraine would never be part of NATO, either in practice or on paper.  In December 2021, it finally sent an ultimatum to Joe Biden.  Biden snoozed and his handlers told Putin to buzz off.  Secretary of State Blinken said NATO had “an open-door policy” for new members.  That’s code-word for “Yeah, we’ll bring Ukraine into NATO soon enough, we just can’t admit it quite yet.”

Putin knew what this language meant.  The broken promises starting with the first NATO expansion in the late 1990s were clear signs that the US was nothing but the most deceitful backstabber Russia had seen in decades.  The US spit Russia in its face in response to its final ultimatum.  After decades of patience and bending over, it was time for Russia to not take it anymore. 

Unprovoked my ass

The US -- and European -- populations are being brainwashed by one-sided media into parroting the false notion that Russia’s attack on Ukraine was “unprovoked.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Russia was as provoked as if Mexico or Canada had tried to join The Warsaw Pact half a century ago.  And you really ought to know what the US response would have been to such a brazen provocation at that time.  Yes, full-blown World War 3, nothing held back. 

Thanks to Tucker for fighting this US propaganda lie

The road is long to return US policy to sanity, but Tucker’s interview with Putin was one important step to hopefully avoid a devastating World War 3.  Clueless Americans have been indoctrinated into believing that there is somehow a happy outcome of the US and NATO pressing forward in Ukraine.  There isn’t.  It’s time for the American population to wake up. 

What the US must do: Abolish NATO and apologize

The US took advantage of the voluntary collapse of the USSR on December 25, 1991, by stabbing Russia in the back in the most deceitful manner imaginable.  It kept stabbing and stabbing from the late 1990s until 2021 when Russia, after begging the US and NATO to stop provoking it, finally issued its ultimatum on December 17, 2021.  

The US spit in Russia’s face.  It was one backstabbing too much. 

It is time for the US to apologize to Russia for its deceit, and finally abolish NATO, 33 years too late.  The result would be world peace and prosperity.  The US would have an ally against the other menacing threats around the world, instead of pushing Russia to make friends with its enemies.  As they say, it would be a win-win. 

One more thing: Putin isn’t an expansionist

Putin assumed power on New Year’s Eve 1999, effectively 2000.  He’s been in power for 23 full years.  He’s over 70 years old now.  The argument that Putin is some sort of world conqueror is laughable on its face.  He has not invaded anything other than some legitimate skirmishes inside historical USSR lands.  He has not invaded Finland, which he has 22 years to do.  He hasn’t invaded Poland.  Etcetera.  The idea that Putin is somehow going to march into these countries now, having waited 23 years to do so, is laughable.  When would he start doing that?  When he turns 80 or 90 years old?  100?