Replies to post #461249 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[12yearplan]

Excellent and some scholars fact checked Putin's history lesson:

Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin's 'nonsense' history
1 day ago
By Ido VockBBC News
Reuters PutinReuters
Mr Putin began the interview by claiming that 862 was the year of the "establishment of the Russian state"

US talk show host Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin began with a rambling half-hour lecture on the history of Russia and Ukraine.

Mr Carlson, frequently appearing bemused, listened as Mr Putin expounded at length about the origins of Russian statehood in the ninth century, Ukraine as an artificial state and Polish collaboration with Hitler.

It is familiar ground for Mr Putin, who infamously penned a 5,000-word essay entitled "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" in 2021, which foreshadowed the intellectual justification the Kremlin offered for its invasion of Ukraine less than a year later.

Historians say the litany of claims made by Mr Putin are nonsense - representing nothing more than a selective abuse of history to justify the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Regardless of the historical realities, none of Putin's assertions would form a legal justification for his invasion.
A state-centred narrative

Mr Putin began the interview by claiming that 862 was the year of the "establishment of the Russian state". This was the year that Rurik, a Scandinavian prince, was invited to rule over the city of Novgorod, the capital of the Rus - the people who would eventually develop into today's Russians.

Mr Putin contrasts what he claims is the unbroken tradition of Russian statehood dating back to the 9th Century with the modern "invention" of Ukraine - a country he insists was "created" as late as the 20th Century.
Getty Images An engraving of Prince Rurik in 862Getty Images
An engraving showing Prince Rurik in 862

But Sergey Radchenko, a historian at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, says the president's claim is "a complete falsehood".

"Vladimir Putin is trying to construct a narrative backwards, saying Russia as a state began its development in the 9th Century. You could equally say that Ukraine as a state began its development in the 9th Century, exactly with the same kind of evidence and documents.

"He's trying to use certain historical facts to construct a state-centred narrative that would favour Russia as opposed to any alternative agglomerations."

Putin says deal can be reached to free US reporter
Putin takes charge as Carlson gives free rein to Kremlin
The former Fox star interviewing Vladimir Putin

Ronald Suny, a professor at the University of Michigan, says the Rus was made up of "a bunch of bandits, who burned their own capital repeatedly".

He adds that Mr Putin is repeating an "established mythology made up at certain points in the past by Muscovite tsars who trace their lineage back to Rurik."

"This mythology was crystallised in Moscow to justify their imperial hold over Ukraine."
A 'special ethnic group'

Mr Putin told Tucker Carlson that by the 17th Century, when Poland came to rule over parts of present-day Ukraine, they introduced the idea that the population of those areas "was not exactly Russians. Because they lived on the fringe, they were Ukrainians."

"Originally the word Ukrainian meant that the person was living on the outskirts of the state, along the fringes."

But Anita Prazmowska, a professor emerita at the LSE, says that although a national consciousness emerged later among Ukrainians than other central European nations, there were Ukrainians during that period.

"[Vladimir Putin] is using a 20th Century concept of the state based on the protection of a defined nation, as something that goes back. It doesn't."

Mr Suny says that while it may be true that Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians "came from the same stock … through time, they developed into different peoples."
'New Russia'

Mr Putin claims that areas in the south and east of Ukraine "had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever". Conquered from the Ottoman Empire by the Russian Empress Catherine the Great in the 17th Century, the Russian president says that means these lands are in fact rightfully Russian. Mr Putin later refers to them using the 18th Century term "Novorossiya" - New Russia.

Mr Suny points out that the inhabitants of these lands when they were conquered by Russia were neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but Ottoman, Tatar or Cossacks - Slavic peasants who had fled to the frontiers.
Getty Images Statue of Catherine the GreatGetty Images
Catherine the Great conquered parts of present-day Ukraine

But claiming that these territories are in reality rightfully Russian serves Mr Putin's interests, as they are precisely the areas that Russia is attempting to conquer from Ukraine during the now decade-long conflict with its neighbour.

So-called Novorossiya includes Crimea - illegally annexed from Ukraine in 2014. New Russia also covers areas around Kherson, Mariupol and Bakhmut, which Mr Putin declared part of Russia in 2022.
An 'artificial state'

Mr Putin went on to claim that "Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at [Joseph] Stalin's will," arguing that Ukraine was created by the Soviet leadership in the 1920s and received lands to which it had no historical claim.

In a sense, he is correct, says Prof Radchenko. The Soviet leadership drew up the borders of Soviet republics "almost like the Western colonial powers drew up borders in Africa - kind of randomly."

"But that does not mean that Ukrainians did not exist."

More broadly, Mr Radchenko denies Mr Putin's claims that Ukraine is not a real country because it was formed in its modern form in the 20th Century. "Any country is a fake country, in the sense that countries are created as a result of a historical process."

"Russia was created as a result of decisions taken by the Russian tsars, such as the colonisation of Siberia, which came at the considerable expense of the local population.

"If Ukraine is a fake country, then so is Russia."
'Collaborating with Hitler'

Perhaps Mr Putin's most inflammatory claim was regarding Poland. Mr Putin claimed that Poland - which was invaded by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 - "collaborated with Hitler".

The Russian president told his interviewer that by refusing to cede an area of Poland called the Danzig Corridor to Hitler, Poland "went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War Two by attacking them".

For Prof Prazmowska, President Putin's interpretation of history is a flawed reading of the historical record. She says that while it is true that there were diplomatic contacts between Poland and the Nazis - the first treaty Hitler signed after coming to power was a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934 - Mr Putin is conflating diplomatic outreach to a threatening neighbour with collaboration.

"The accusation that the Poles were collaborating is nonsense," says Mrs Prazmowska.

"You can't interpret these things as if this were collaboration with Nazi Germany, because it just so happened that the Soviet Union also signed treaties with Germany [at the same time]."

In September 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland according to the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed between both states earlier that year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68255302

[hookrider]

fuagf: "Putin: His father actually fought against the fascists, the Nazis during World War II, I spoke with him about that. I told Zelenskyy, Volodya what are you doing?! Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, when your father fought against fascists? He is a combat veteran.” I won’t tell what his answer was, I believe it’s impolite to share it.

That is false

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s father - Oleksandr Zelenskyy, was born in 1947 .. https://www.duet.edu.ua/ua/persons/49 , two years after the end of World War II."

Putin, sounds like a true Fucking Trump republican!!! Lies his ass off!!!

[newmedman]

[fuagf]

Tucker Carlson’s Putin interview wasn’t journalism. It was sycophancy

"Putin’s Talk with Tucker Carlson... and America: A Mixture of Blunt Lies and Toxic Propaganda
"Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution Was Not a ‘Coup’""

Related: Tucker cares about what God thinks of him? God thinks, as that interviewer did, Carlson should not have played Putin puppet...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173831006

Margaret Sullivan

The Russian president was waiting for the right stooge. With Carlson, he got just that


‘Carlson’s interests were served, as were Putin’s.’ Photograph: Sputnik/Reuters

Sat 10 Feb 2024 04.30 AEDT
Last modified on Sat 10 Feb 2024 05.00 AEDT

The former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s much touted sit-down with Vladimir Putin was many things.

It was damaging to global democracy, giving ammunition to the craven congressional Republicans who want to do Putin’s bidding by denying aid to Ukraine. It was boring, particularly given the Russian president’s long discourse, early in the two-hour slog, on his version of the history of the region.

And it was a priceless propaganda gift, helping Putin in every possible way with his messaging – internally in Russia, and externally to the world – about Ukraine. That started with Carlson’s introductory video message, recorded after the interview, urging his viewers on X (formerly Twitter) to see Putin above all as “sincere”.

But here’s what the interview was not. It was not journalism, despite being a rare chance for a western media figure to question the Russian leader.

Even Carlson’s question – toward the end of the excruciatingly long session – about the imprisoned Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich wasn’t really a gesture of journalistic solidarity or a nod to democratic ideals about a free press.

Instead, it was decency theater, poorly performed.

Sucking up to Putin at every turn, Carlson described Gershkovich – an accomplished and respected American reporter in his 30s – as a “kid” and even suggesting that he may have done something illegal that justified his arrest almost a year ago.

Gershkovich’s colleagues at the Wall Street Journal were appropriately appalled. Ted Mann, a Journal reporter, tweeted that it was “disgraceful” of Carlson to suggest he’d broken the law, and the Journal issued a statement that made their position clear: “Evan is a journalist and journalism is not a crime. Any portrayal to the contrary is total fiction.”

A personal note: Gershkovich was my editorial assistant in 2015 when I was the New York Times public editor; even then, when he really was a kid in his early 20s, he was diligent, honest and a journalist at heart; I’m sickened by how he’s been treated.

I’m sure that Carlson would love to help bring Gershkovich home, as he suggested – think of the publicity – but Putin didn’t bite. He insisted that the Journal reporter was “caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information”. That sounds a lot like reporting; and there’s no reason to think Gershkovich was a pipeline to the government.

But Putin clearly wants a swap for Vadim Krasikov, an FSB assassin serving a life sentence in Germany for killing a Georgian military officer in Berlin in 2019. After all, state-approved assassins must be looked after; that’s crucial messaging, too, if you want that work to continue.

It certainly gave Carlson renewed visibility and ego gratification, so let’s call
that a win for the smarmiest guy in American media.

Nor did Carlson say a word about Alsu Kurmasheva, an editor with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who has been in Russian custody since October. Russia claims she failed to register as a foreign agent. And, of course, Carlson made no mention of the nearly two dozen journalists who have been killed in Russia since Putin came to power, with little or no legal accountability for the perpetrators.

No, even Carlson’s nod to journalism proved that he doesn’t really care about anything but his own faded relevancy and getting his career back on track.

Did the sit-down with Putin serve that purpose? It certainly gave Carlson renewed visibility and ego gratification, so let’s call that a win for the smarmiest guy in American media.

But the benefit to Carlson pales in comparison to what Putin got. As NPR’s David Folkenflik noted: “Russian media has fawned over Carlson this week, giving his comings and goings in Moscow a treatment akin to US media’s coverage of Taylor Swift.” The interview has circulated widely in Russia – and why not?

So Carlson’s interests were served, as were Putin’s.

As for the truth, not so much. But really, no surprise there. Cast your mind back to last April when Fox abruptly dumped their rainmaker and ratings star.

The reasons were never completely clear. But they surely had something to do with the huge settlement – $787m – that Fox had just paid to Dominion Voting Systems after the network circulated lies about the 2020 election and that company’s supposed role.

Carlson has never been a stickler for the truth, as he proved in the run-up to this interview, when he claimed that he was the only western media figure who cared enough to get Putin on the record.

That’s absurd. Many American reporters have tried unsuccessfully to sit down with Putin, especially since the invasion of Ukraine.

But the Russian president was waiting for the right stooge. With Carlson, he got just that.

Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/09/tucker-carlson-putin-interview-journalism-sycophancy