Putin pushed the CIA sniper incitement conspiracy theory, but didn’t present evidence.
On the Nazi thing, he seems to be pivoting to he invaded because Ukraine doesn’t have strong enough laws to prevent Nazi speech. Again not very compelling.
He again brings up the conflict pre-invasion in east UA, but fails to mention that Russia was backing the insurgents.
He brings up that the change of power in 2014 wasn’t done to the letter of the UA constitution, but fails to mention that the current government clearly has a popular mandate.
He rehashes all the arguments that the West has been the aggressor since the fall of the USSR with NATO expansion.
Other than that it was pretty off topic. Tucker doesn’t press him much at all, and when he does Putin deflects and Tucker gives up.
Overall nothing you wouldn’t expect.
ETA: just remembered, this was kind of strange. The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn’t want to talk evidence. It’s kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn’t want to set a precedent that evidence is required.
The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn’t want to talk evidence. It’s kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn’t want to set a precedent that evidence is required.
I don’t believe it was UA or US. IIRC (a) the mass media suspected it was Russia and (b) Russian navy was spotted.
The article says absolutely nothing about what Putin said
I watched, but it truly is a bunch of rambling.
Putin pushed the CIA sniper incitement conspiracy theory, but didn’t present evidence.
On the Nazi thing, he seems to be pivoting to he invaded because Ukraine doesn’t have strong enough laws to prevent Nazi speech. Again not very compelling.
He again brings up the conflict pre-invasion in east UA, but fails to mention that Russia was backing the insurgents.
He brings up that the change of power in 2014 wasn’t done to the letter of the UA constitution, but fails to mention that the current government clearly has a popular mandate.
He rehashes all the arguments that the West has been the aggressor since the fall of the USSR with NATO expansion.
Other than that it was pretty off topic. Tucker doesn’t press him much at all, and when he does Putin deflects and Tucker gives up.
Overall nothing you wouldn’t expect.
ETA: just remembered, this was kind of strange. The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn’t want to talk evidence. It’s kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn’t want to set a precedent that evidence is required.
Thank you for this.
I don’t believe it was UA or US. IIRC (a) the mass media suspected it was Russia and (b) Russian navy was spotted.
There are three on going investigations, well two after the Swedish cancelled theirs. He doesn’t need to do much on that
I’m sure the propagandist just doesn’t want a chance to spread more propaganda.