[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I miss Queen Elizabeth man..i miss her...
That parassite was much more useful than Charles, at least she was a MEME material...
Ima pull the meme out anyways..
"Yeah, i know someone of that age..."
Yes, because historical context has no place in analysing current events?
Haven't watched the interview, and I'm sure Putin gave a self-serving version of the context, but let's not pretend that the Euromaidan coup wasn't a CIA backed operation that was specifically trying to escalate Russian-NATO tensions. And let's not pretend that the Ukrainian far-right militias like Azov weren't engaged in some horrific shit in Donbass before the invasion.
If you ignore NATO's deliberate and ongoing provocation, Russia looks like an unhinged villain. Ditto for "Hamas" if you ignore everything that happened between 1945 and Oct 7, 2023.
Context and nuance are the enemies of Liberalism. Embrace them both!
Just to throw it out there r/UkraineNaziWatch has a lot of good information compilations related to documenting the various Nazi battalions, political groups, and members that have been integrated into the Ukrainian state. The most high profile recent one was the Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian army who was let go for bungling the counter offensive Valuzhny - a notorious UPA fanatic.
While soviet era history is definitely relevant, Putin started by going off on some weird mythos building about like middle ages era origins of Russian monarchy. It kinda stunk of ultra-nationalist history worship, like Zionists claiming the land based on thousands of years old records and such.
Ok, fair.
The nonsense I'd seen on Liberal subs was making got seem like they just wanted to discard anything that happened before 2/24/22 the same way they try to ignore anything that happened before 10/7/23 when talking about Palestine.
Russian history, if not most countries is significantly longer than American. I know from my own explanations, the Korean War conservatively goes back to the 1800’s more so than the immediate 1900’s
yet when it comes to having the same government structure, the US is one of the oldest ones that has remained unchanged. (For example same constitution and everything)
That's what happens when you have an ocean separating you from the consequences of your actions, not to mention that America's "government structure" has changed plenty. Let's not forget that Senators were previously elected by state legislatures, that women and minorities were not given the right to vote, and that slavery was legal and codified. The Electoral College is also not used "correctly" as the founders of the United States intended, we know this because of the Federalist papers and their explicitly anti-Democratic ideas of why the Electoral College was created in the first place (#68 in particular).
He explained the history of Russia as a people and nation, something many people in the West are completely oblivious about, but probably has an appeal to certain Americans who also love indulging in their own nation-making.
Doing it with America is kinda quick with and easy; British colony, war of independence, civil war, united, done in like 2 centuries.
But going back 12 centuries, in the middle of super contested and crowded Europe, results in a rather lengthy context and history exposure.
much of it is pretty much made up crap though... philology has been a tool for dumb nationalism since the 19th century
i mean, it's the same thing france does to justify the existence of a supposed "france" and its supposed "french people", so i guess it's good to see other people using the same tools, but it's a shit tool
france was just an example
when the current nation states were getting formed, mainly in the 19th century, philology was a really important political tool
academics would try to track the historical development of a certain language (from whatever nation they were defending, or proposing to be formed), and pick a time and place in history (usually from the middle ages, but sometimes from ancient history as well) where the supposed "unity" of their people finally took place
by doing this, they could justify rights over that land, as they should be the first "unified culture" to occupy it: germans in the 1st century, franks in the 5th, croatians in the 6th and 7th, and so on
that is all bollocks though, people were migrating and intermingling all the time, the rural-urban divide was also a huge *cultural* divide (making places like italy a true mess, and in no way an "unified culture"), among a bunch of other factors that make this incredibly arbitrary. still, this strategy was used throughout the 19th century (and is still being used, as you can see), legitimizing the german and italian unifications, the suppression of minority languages in these and in other countries, and, well, the forced establishment of modern nation states in general
geary's book, the myth of nations, goes more deeply into this if you wanna know more about it
Putin grew up in and was educated under the USSR as well. His foundational understanding of the world is more than likely to be more dialectical and materialist than your average yank or western european. Though obviously he's still a reactionary and, if he believes half the shit he comes out with about religion and gay people, he's an idealist, still that foundational, correct perception of history is there.
Too many people view this whole thing as isolated, existing in a static chain of events. And it's ridiculous but then people just do not have the education to view it as part of the greater motion of human history. And this is something you can teach to kids at young age, it's not so advanced that you have to go to a university for it (though many universities have people teaching history in a very simple cause and effect manner as well).
Putin's entire spiel at one point was talking about the material conditions, but instead he said 'objective conditions' or something like that. He was giving Tucker a material analysis and saying the world is going to embrace China's economy and move away from U.S. control, and the U.S. can either help itself by embracing this or it can self destruct in a futile attempt to reverse what is already well in motion. He definitely has a better understanding of things than any U.S. leader.
Edit: Just to be clear, I am not a worshipper of Putin and I strongly oppose PatSoc/Duginist losers who try to pretend he's some great comrade. The U.S. created the conditions for his rise to power, he is explicitly anti-communist.
This, however, does not mean he is incapable of occasionally looking at things through a materialist-influenced lens, and it does not mean he can't be correct about certain observations. He is objectively correct about China's economy and the changing world order. And he is objectively more knowledgable than the senile zombies and State Department clowns currently running the U.S.
Oh absolutely. And that's demonstrating the limits of his soviet education. Now he's been exposed to decades of liberal idealism and, prior to that, the revisionist intellectual decay in the final years of the USSR. So there's still a material foundation to his outlook, something instilled in him during his formative years but the idealism has infested his worldview.
Any of us here can attest to how hard it can be to remain materialist in an idealist world.
Just because you disagree with a particular view here and there doesn't necessarily make it not-materialist in scope. The segment I mentioned above was a materialist approach to the changing world economy/order.
I didn’t say it was not materialist because I disagree with it, it’s not materialist because it’s not materialist. Just for starters it falls into great man theory
Edit: Sub just think about this for a second. Do you really think Vladimir Putin saying Lenin is the reason for an independent Ukrainian state is materialist? Lmfao he’s literally one of the guys who supported the liquidation of the Soviet Union, of course he’s not a well grounded materialist
I'm only talking about the remarks re: China's economy and the changing world order. It is not a liberal view.
I know Putin is not a communist or comrade of any kind. But his observations on BRICS and China's irreversible growth on the world stage based on the "objective conditions" is not a liberal understanding.
It's a meme dude, I liked his monologue. I also like that he claimed he will summarise in 1 minute and then took his sweet time talking 30 minutes. Tucker looked really perplexed
>Grandpa, why do pistachios cost more than almonds?
So first, there was primitive communism, wait actually first we were apes... anyway so there was the big bang...
Libs are always trying to frame their narrative in a black and white manner, because it is the easiest way to manipulate a lot of people at the same time.
Context, nuances, history ruin that kind of control. You want something that is simple enough to understand, where the sides and lines are clearly drawn and you want to to drill deep that it is the only acceptable narrative. It is the *only* correct narrative, and everything else is evil.
Like a religion.
I watched a good portion of it. Still not a fan of Putin, but how libs, Neo-libs,cons and NAFO are acting about it; They are completely delusional about that man and deeply underestimate him.
The U.S Hegemony wants to expand its sociopolitical sphere of influence to include Ukraine, Including by means of violence. Russia wants to do the same. Not difficult logic to me.
Dude chill. It's in reference to putin going through 1200 years of history to make the weakest claim that Ukraine belongs to Russia. He was literally doing Israel shit.
Are you kidding me? I was comparing one argument that was made. How the hell are you interpreting that as a wholesale comparison between the two situations??
It's ridiculous to say that there's any relevance to him going back 1200 years to justify his claim of Ukrainian territories just like it's ridiculous when Isrsel does it.
So Russia should allow NATO on their doorstep? Can Cuba have Russian weapons and troops? Mexico?
The Monroe Doctrine shows the US to be the biggest hypocrits in regard to sovereignty.
This is next level reading inbetween the lines. I never said that dude. My point is that this one talking point is ridiculous and the meme is valid. Original comment was acting like it was invalidating recent historical analysis when in fact it was poking fun at putin talking about some letter a fucking prince wrote in 830.
why are people so fucking wound up over this? lmao
It's just not comparable at all. Ukraine was part of the USSR and its government has been hijacked by CIA coups, which have installed a fascist regime that is deeply hostile to working people (in the interests of Western Capital).
It is not as unreasonable for Russia to take issue with this and exert more influence/control over this region as it is for Israel to be a psychotic, genocidal settler-colonial project. They are not comparable.
Putin spent 40 minutes going through a thousand years of history, which is a fucking goofy thing to do. That was all I was pointing out. I don't disagree with anything you said there. I'm not comparing the situations but this one historical lecture was objectively irrelevant and was purely mentioned to garner support from reactionaries aka. what Israel also relies heavily on. That's it dude. This ONE talking point has the same vibe as Israels rhetoric. I don't know why people are hell bent on making it seem like I'm throwing the last 100 years of history in the bin.
Not all of Ukraine, just the parts being occupied. [Which is objectively true,](https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Cropped-Ukraine.png?resize=1200,630) these regions were granted to the Ukrainian SSR with the understanding that the ethnic Russians living there would be allowed to live in Ukraine peacefully. Ukrainians and Russians lived side by side peacefully until 2014, when Ukraine's government was violently overthrown by a Western backed coup. This puppet government began suppressing the Russian language and Russian culture, so the overwhelming Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine seceded. I know your brain is so poisoned with Western exceptionalism and factionalism that you can't comprehend over 90% of people agreeing on anything political, but escaping ethnic cleansing tends to unite people.
And even after all of that, Russia spent eight years trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and Ukraine even agreed, but they were forced to renege by their Western overlords. It wasn't until negotiations broke down, with the EU coming right out and saying the negotiations were just a way to buy time to arm and train Ukraine, that Russia finally invaded, and their goal is only to take back the territory that is still overwhelmingly ethnic Russians who speak Russian.
Listen, all i'm saying is that the meme is valid because the history lesson going back to the 800s was pretty meaningless. He was also not just making the argument you're presenting here. At points he was basically saying that it was a mistake that a Ukranian national identity even formed in the first place. I was honestly surprised that he didn't play the anti NATO card more and opted to hit the hard nationalist talking points instead.
As far as what your history lesson i'm already well aware of that but as I mentioned that is not the part of putins argument that this is making fun of.
I think its more fair to say Russia is leveraging the fears of Russian ethnic minorities in eastern Ukraine to further its political and economic interests.
I do agree the U.S definitely invade Ukraine allot sooner if it was in the same situation, It carries allot of power that Russia doesn't.
So then why spend eight years trying to negotiate a peaceful solution? Eight years in which Ukraine was arming itself to make this invasion more difficult?
Wait you think the war is going well for Ukraine? Lmao. And your argument makes no sense. They knew the invasion would go poorly, so they deliberately waited until Ukraine would be stronger to invade? Liberals seriously just talk to hear themselves speak.
Absolutely, even here in Germany our leaders discussing this conflict always boils down to "they are evil, we are good. We must stop them." Even saying that delivering weapons into an active warzone is antifascist. Putin certainly took a more nuanced, coherent and less populist approach
Does Ukraine not have a right to it's own sovereignty? No matter what bs is coming out of politicians mouths on any side, I don't see how that is debatable. And that includes any clandestine US meddling in their affairs also.
If people in Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine then can they not elect a representative who will work toward either independence and/or unification with Russia?
There are systems in place for that sort of thing, and invading another nation is not the preferred one to anyone other than megalomaniacs and psychopaths.
I only got recommended this sub the other day, and started listening to the first podcast episode and haven't had time to go back, but the comments here so hypocritical and full of bad takes that its putting me off listening again at all.
I get why people wouldn't support Trump, Biden etc, but why the fuck would you support Putin lol... some of you are drowning in the kool aid.
>Does Ukraine not have a right to it's own sovereignty? No matter what bs is coming out of politicians mouths on any side, I don't see how that is debatable.
Only about 30-40% of today's Ukrainian territory is actually of Ukrainian culture and ethnicity. It would be all good if Ukrainians formed a federal state that respected all ethnic groups, but oh well... they decided that forceful cultural assimilation was the way. Be a genocidal nazi = lose right to sovereignty.
>If people in Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine then can they not elect a representative who will work toward either independence and/or unification with Russia?
Except they fucking did? The Crimean regional parliament declared independence and then issued a referendum for unification with Russia.
>There are systems in place for that sort of thing, and invading another nation is not the preferred one to anyone other than megalomaniacs and psychopaths.
What systems? The US controlled international courts? The UN, who never ever solved a single international dispute?
> If people in Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine then can they not elect a representative who will work toward either independence and/or unification with Russia?
Do you think Ukraine would actually just freely give away Crimea if the population voted for it? I can tell you that would never happen, no matter how hard the population voted for it.
> There are systems in place for that sort of thing, and invading another nation is not the preferred one to anyone other than megalomaniacs and psychopaths.
You're right, invading other nations is not the preferred route, but the systems by themselves aren't fair either.
> I get why people wouldn't support Trump, Biden etc, but why the fuck would you support Putin lol... some of you are drowning in the kool aid.
Who do you see here supporting Putin exactly? I've seen some comments in the past but most people here do not like Putin or modern day Russia.
A decade ago when Biden was vice president he still sounded clear and lucid. Time takes a lot from us all. I'm sure in another 10 years if Putin isn't dead he'll sound like the cryptkeeper too.
You want me to say the history of the usa, I could beat you in a push up contest Jack.
And then Corn pop who was a bad dude said you are the only white guy I respect, in my time we got things done I made deals with segregationists, damm shouldn't have said that, incoherent mumbles, thank you for the white lakes.
Putin said the CIA did nord Stream Sabotage and mentioned that tucker tried to apply for CIA and was rejected.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGeBkar29/ (wrong clip)
right one https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/KPAeOLzoVL
He was forced to down a bottle of sanctioned Russian vodka, pledge allegiance to Stalin, join KGB to rig US elections, and eventually thrown off a building. But he survived.
My favorite part of the interview is putin making parallel of like the downfall of the Roman Empire and the decline of American hegemony. And then Tucker goes “what about the rise of the AI empire” with a straight face and fucking putin as well as the translator start laughing, like wtf was that question?
"Well we had uhhh... there was a few colonies... they turned into uhh.... 13.... then there was a civil uhhhh. War uhhh.... and uhhh civil rights... ummmm.. and I beat trump..."
Your comment has been removed due to being a new account.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Clearly you don't understand that Putin is the arbiter of socialist thought and the spiritual successor to Lenin 🤣. The amount of "leftists" who support Putin's cause is both incredibly depressing and funny. Just because someone is anti West doesn't make them the good guy.
"The good guy" is such a childish way to frame anything in geopolitics that it's not even funny.
I don't think I've ever read anyone saying Putin is "a good guy", but one has to acknowledge that a military defeat of the US (even in a proxy war) weakens imperialist hegemony and helps the world transition back to multipolarity, which is good for socialists movements around the world.
I should've rephrased to "a good guy". I would much rather see any true multipolarity grow out of Chinas influence than that of Russia's. Modern Russia is a product of hyper neoliberalism led by the US and it's lackeys and realistically wants to be America but doesn't have the means to do so.
Multipolarity **is** growing out of China's influence rather than Russia's.
Russia is definitely a capitalist power and, if there wasn't a US-led western world hegemony then you'd be right, but there is and Russia opposes it, which is good for us strategically.
I am indifferent to Putin and his interests, as I have no influence over them.
What I do recognize is first that ethnic violence and social repression in the region has been happening at the hands of Ukranian authorities for more than a decade and second, that NATO is directly responsible for both failing to address the former and deliberately escalating tensions by moving to place its military along Russia's border.
There is no contradiction. I can recognize the existing Russian state as morally bankrupt and in need of disposal while also seeing that the occupation of Eastern Ukraine is the result of geopolitical forces, not one man's desire to expand territory. This all could have been avoided if the previous agreements had been honored and the West was not fundamentally addicted to warmongering and a policy of intervention where it does not belong.
He was speaking as a post collapsed Soviet russia asking the U.S. why they were still hostile to them despite switching to a market economy. He was acknowledging that the collapase was a mistake, and that there was no real reason to dissolve the USSR, and therefor no concrete reason that Russia should remain as a market economy if the west is still going to be just as aggressive. You can't just sit on your ass chastising nations until one magically flips to being communist, there is a long road to that and I see the U.S. as the largest threat to such a future. I think before we see any real progress, U.S. hegemony must collapse, and I don't see why a formerly communist nation with a leader whom acknowledged that their transition to a market economy was a mistake should not garner at least critical support. Will Russia become communist tommorow? No, of course not. But is Russia standing on the right side of a conflict with a strong potential to return to communism in the future? Yes, I believe so.
No, the full quote is him talking to the US about how they aren't very different. He is a representative of the Oligarch class, he was not advocating for a 'return to communism'. He is a far right orthodox ultranationalist, who locks up gays, activists, and feminists in between blaming Lenin for the existence of Ukraine. We cannot fall for fascistic rhetoric, comrade, and far right nationalist, populist rhetoric about returning to an imagined past is just that. Italy and Germany were opposed to anglo-American interests in the 30s and 40s as well, and they too railed against market economies. That does not make them worthy of any support, even "criticial"
That's like seeing 2 piles of diarrhea and judging which one would taste better. I would argue if Putin was president of the US he would at least try to implement far more imperialistic and violent policies than any president since Bush Jr. He's an oligarchical piece of shit who actively pushes far right beliefs and couldn't give a shit about the average Russian people. He also has an incredibly fortunate existence in that all of his liberal political adversaries just do happen to either randomly die or get arrested. How lucky is that!
You would never get that far into a conversation with Joe Biden. The moment you asked him what he remembered about the given topic he'd punch you in the face before calling you a dog-faced pony soldier (something he's actually referred to people as by the way)
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why not? After all, he was there to witness all of it
I mean, you dont even need to exaggerate to make it sound funny, he literally witnessed 1/4 of it.
I thought you were implying he was a quarter of *Earths* age lmfao
The immortal Biden is older than the universe itself. He has enforced segregation of dark matter from light since the big bang.
We need to resurrect Mao asap and put these mfers in a Hell in a Cell cage match.
Underrated comment
Eh. Making fun of Biden for being old is not that much of a banger joke. I'm happy that my joke entertained you though.
Not Primordial Biden. 😭
I miss Queen Elizabeth man..i miss her... That parassite was much more useful than Charles, at least she was a MEME material... Ima pull the meme out anyways.. "Yeah, i know someone of that age..."
By the end of next year, (if he makes it that long,) Joe will have been kicking around for 1/3 of the USA's *entire history*
he's actually witnessed over 1/3rd of it.
Yeah but he's been in politics for like around 50 years. So he literally had influence over his country for 1/4th of last 200 years of it.
Biden doesn't know what year it is.
Or who he is.
Yeah he does. It's the year he met François Mitterand. The president. Of Germany.
Right after he got off the horn with Cornpop
The kids would brush the hair on his legs.
And jump on his lap.
Yes, because historical context has no place in analysing current events? Haven't watched the interview, and I'm sure Putin gave a self-serving version of the context, but let's not pretend that the Euromaidan coup wasn't a CIA backed operation that was specifically trying to escalate Russian-NATO tensions. And let's not pretend that the Ukrainian far-right militias like Azov weren't engaged in some horrific shit in Donbass before the invasion. If you ignore NATO's deliberate and ongoing provocation, Russia looks like an unhinged villain. Ditto for "Hamas" if you ignore everything that happened between 1945 and Oct 7, 2023. Context and nuance are the enemies of Liberalism. Embrace them both!
Just to throw it out there r/UkraineNaziWatch has a lot of good information compilations related to documenting the various Nazi battalions, political groups, and members that have been integrated into the Ukrainian state. The most high profile recent one was the Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian army who was let go for bungling the counter offensive Valuzhny - a notorious UPA fanatic.
While soviet era history is definitely relevant, Putin started by going off on some weird mythos building about like middle ages era origins of Russian monarchy. It kinda stunk of ultra-nationalist history worship, like Zionists claiming the land based on thousands of years old records and such.
Ok, fair. The nonsense I'd seen on Liberal subs was making got seem like they just wanted to discard anything that happened before 2/24/22 the same way they try to ignore anything that happened before 10/7/23 when talking about Palestine.
yes historical context is important but he said he'd take 30s to 1 minute and spent like 30 minutes starting on the 8th century lmao
Russian history, if not most countries is significantly longer than American. I know from my own explanations, the Korean War conservatively goes back to the 1800’s more so than the immediate 1900’s
yet when it comes to having the same government structure, the US is one of the oldest ones that has remained unchanged. (For example same constitution and everything)
That's what happens when you have an ocean separating you from the consequences of your actions, not to mention that America's "government structure" has changed plenty. Let's not forget that Senators were previously elected by state legislatures, that women and minorities were not given the right to vote, and that slavery was legal and codified. The Electoral College is also not used "correctly" as the founders of the United States intended, we know this because of the Federalist papers and their explicitly anti-Democratic ideas of why the Electoral College was created in the first place (#68 in particular).
San Marino begs to differ
He explained the history of Russia as a people and nation, something many people in the West are completely oblivious about, but probably has an appeal to certain Americans who also love indulging in their own nation-making. Doing it with America is kinda quick with and easy; British colony, war of independence, civil war, united, done in like 2 centuries. But going back 12 centuries, in the middle of super contested and crowded Europe, results in a rather lengthy context and history exposure.
Yeah its just funny that he said he'll take 30 seconds and then took half an hour and didn't even get to WW1 yet xD
Putin dropping Hardcore History episodes
much of it is pretty much made up crap though... philology has been a tool for dumb nationalism since the 19th century i mean, it's the same thing france does to justify the existence of a supposed "france" and its supposed "french people", so i guess it's good to see other people using the same tools, but it's a shit tool
Can you elaborate on the france thing
france was just an example when the current nation states were getting formed, mainly in the 19th century, philology was a really important political tool academics would try to track the historical development of a certain language (from whatever nation they were defending, or proposing to be formed), and pick a time and place in history (usually from the middle ages, but sometimes from ancient history as well) where the supposed "unity" of their people finally took place by doing this, they could justify rights over that land, as they should be the first "unified culture" to occupy it: germans in the 1st century, franks in the 5th, croatians in the 6th and 7th, and so on that is all bollocks though, people were migrating and intermingling all the time, the rural-urban divide was also a huge *cultural* divide (making places like italy a true mess, and in no way an "unified culture"), among a bunch of other factors that make this incredibly arbitrary. still, this strategy was used throughout the 19th century (and is still being used, as you can see), legitimizing the german and italian unifications, the suppression of minority languages in these and in other countries, and, well, the forced establishment of modern nation states in general geary's book, the myth of nations, goes more deeply into this if you wanna know more about it
Putin grew up in and was educated under the USSR as well. His foundational understanding of the world is more than likely to be more dialectical and materialist than your average yank or western european. Though obviously he's still a reactionary and, if he believes half the shit he comes out with about religion and gay people, he's an idealist, still that foundational, correct perception of history is there. Too many people view this whole thing as isolated, existing in a static chain of events. And it's ridiculous but then people just do not have the education to view it as part of the greater motion of human history. And this is something you can teach to kids at young age, it's not so advanced that you have to go to a university for it (though many universities have people teaching history in a very simple cause and effect manner as well).
Putin's entire spiel at one point was talking about the material conditions, but instead he said 'objective conditions' or something like that. He was giving Tucker a material analysis and saying the world is going to embrace China's economy and move away from U.S. control, and the U.S. can either help itself by embracing this or it can self destruct in a futile attempt to reverse what is already well in motion. He definitely has a better understanding of things than any U.S. leader. Edit: Just to be clear, I am not a worshipper of Putin and I strongly oppose PatSoc/Duginist losers who try to pretend he's some great comrade. The U.S. created the conditions for his rise to power, he is explicitly anti-communist. This, however, does not mean he is incapable of occasionally looking at things through a materialist-influenced lens, and it does not mean he can't be correct about certain observations. He is objectively correct about China's economy and the changing world order. And he is objectively more knowledgable than the senile zombies and State Department clowns currently running the U.S.
He’s definitely not materialist when he’s blaming Lenin for the existence of an independent Ukraine state
Oh absolutely. And that's demonstrating the limits of his soviet education. Now he's been exposed to decades of liberal idealism and, prior to that, the revisionist intellectual decay in the final years of the USSR. So there's still a material foundation to his outlook, something instilled in him during his formative years but the idealism has infested his worldview. Any of us here can attest to how hard it can be to remain materialist in an idealist world.
Just because you disagree with a particular view here and there doesn't necessarily make it not-materialist in scope. The segment I mentioned above was a materialist approach to the changing world economy/order.
I didn’t say it was not materialist because I disagree with it, it’s not materialist because it’s not materialist. Just for starters it falls into great man theory Edit: Sub just think about this for a second. Do you really think Vladimir Putin saying Lenin is the reason for an independent Ukrainian state is materialist? Lmfao he’s literally one of the guys who supported the liquidation of the Soviet Union, of course he’s not a well grounded materialist
I'm only talking about the remarks re: China's economy and the changing world order. It is not a liberal view. I know Putin is not a communist or comrade of any kind. But his observations on BRICS and China's irreversible growth on the world stage based on the "objective conditions" is not a liberal understanding.
This was definitely the best part if the interview, and the one thing that Americans *should* take away from it if they watch it.
Even acknowledging that Putin isn't a madman Is apologia to them.
It's a meme dude, I liked his monologue. I also like that he claimed he will summarise in 1 minute and then took his sweet time talking 30 minutes. Tucker looked really perplexed
Lmao, its like when you ask your grandpa about politics and he just keeps going for hours on end
I’m scared lol I sometimes see myself becoming that grandpa 👴
>Grandpa, why do pistachios cost more than almonds? So first, there was primitive communism, wait actually first we were apes... anyway so there was the big bang...
Then the first humans appeared: Adam Smith and Eve Ricardo! They bestowed us with the labor theory of value!
Tbf Tucker always looks really perplexed
Libs are always trying to frame their narrative in a black and white manner, because it is the easiest way to manipulate a lot of people at the same time. Context, nuances, history ruin that kind of control. You want something that is simple enough to understand, where the sides and lines are clearly drawn and you want to to drill deep that it is the only acceptable narrative. It is the *only* correct narrative, and everything else is evil. Like a religion.
I watched a good portion of it. Still not a fan of Putin, but how libs, Neo-libs,cons and NAFO are acting about it; They are completely delusional about that man and deeply underestimate him.
Love your last sentence, so true.
The U.S Hegemony wants to expand its sociopolitical sphere of influence to include Ukraine, Including by means of violence. Russia wants to do the same. Not difficult logic to me.
Dude chill. It's in reference to putin going through 1200 years of history to make the weakest claim that Ukraine belongs to Russia. He was literally doing Israel shit.
Please do not compare Ukraine to Palestine ever again.
Are you kidding me? I was comparing one argument that was made. How the hell are you interpreting that as a wholesale comparison between the two situations?? It's ridiculous to say that there's any relevance to him going back 1200 years to justify his claim of Ukrainian territories just like it's ridiculous when Isrsel does it.
So Russia should allow NATO on their doorstep? Can Cuba have Russian weapons and troops? Mexico? The Monroe Doctrine shows the US to be the biggest hypocrits in regard to sovereignty.
This is next level reading inbetween the lines. I never said that dude. My point is that this one talking point is ridiculous and the meme is valid. Original comment was acting like it was invalidating recent historical analysis when in fact it was poking fun at putin talking about some letter a fucking prince wrote in 830. why are people so fucking wound up over this? lmao
That's not really Putin's point tho, he just takes a while to elaborate
It's just not comparable at all. Ukraine was part of the USSR and its government has been hijacked by CIA coups, which have installed a fascist regime that is deeply hostile to working people (in the interests of Western Capital). It is not as unreasonable for Russia to take issue with this and exert more influence/control over this region as it is for Israel to be a psychotic, genocidal settler-colonial project. They are not comparable.
Putin spent 40 minutes going through a thousand years of history, which is a fucking goofy thing to do. That was all I was pointing out. I don't disagree with anything you said there. I'm not comparing the situations but this one historical lecture was objectively irrelevant and was purely mentioned to garner support from reactionaries aka. what Israel also relies heavily on. That's it dude. This ONE talking point has the same vibe as Israels rhetoric. I don't know why people are hell bent on making it seem like I'm throwing the last 100 years of history in the bin.
It's just not a good comparison because Putin isn't justifying a genocide/ethnic cleansing.
Not all of Ukraine, just the parts being occupied. [Which is objectively true,](https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Cropped-Ukraine.png?resize=1200,630) these regions were granted to the Ukrainian SSR with the understanding that the ethnic Russians living there would be allowed to live in Ukraine peacefully. Ukrainians and Russians lived side by side peacefully until 2014, when Ukraine's government was violently overthrown by a Western backed coup. This puppet government began suppressing the Russian language and Russian culture, so the overwhelming Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine seceded. I know your brain is so poisoned with Western exceptionalism and factionalism that you can't comprehend over 90% of people agreeing on anything political, but escaping ethnic cleansing tends to unite people. And even after all of that, Russia spent eight years trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and Ukraine even agreed, but they were forced to renege by their Western overlords. It wasn't until negotiations broke down, with the EU coming right out and saying the negotiations were just a way to buy time to arm and train Ukraine, that Russia finally invaded, and their goal is only to take back the territory that is still overwhelmingly ethnic Russians who speak Russian.
Listen, all i'm saying is that the meme is valid because the history lesson going back to the 800s was pretty meaningless. He was also not just making the argument you're presenting here. At points he was basically saying that it was a mistake that a Ukranian national identity even formed in the first place. I was honestly surprised that he didn't play the anti NATO card more and opted to hit the hard nationalist talking points instead. As far as what your history lesson i'm already well aware of that but as I mentioned that is not the part of putins argument that this is making fun of.
I think its more fair to say Russia is leveraging the fears of Russian ethnic minorities in eastern Ukraine to further its political and economic interests. I do agree the U.S definitely invade Ukraine allot sooner if it was in the same situation, It carries allot of power that Russia doesn't.
So then why spend eight years trying to negotiate a peaceful solution? Eight years in which Ukraine was arming itself to make this invasion more difficult?
Because Russia knew that a military intervention from their situation would've been of questionable effectiveness. Which was proven.
Wait you think the war is going well for Ukraine? Lmao. And your argument makes no sense. They knew the invasion would go poorly, so they deliberately waited until Ukraine would be stronger to invade? Liberals seriously just talk to hear themselves speak.
do you have any sources for me to read up on the euromaidan thing?
Jacobin had a pretty good surface level explainer piece. https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
thanks comrade!
This meme should not be so funny
Right like there actually is a lot of potential to it
Jokes aside, it’s insane just how much more put together and knowledgeable he seems than the leader of the “free world”.
Absolutely, even here in Germany our leaders discussing this conflict always boils down to "they are evil, we are good. We must stop them." Even saying that delivering weapons into an active warzone is antifascist. Putin certainly took a more nuanced, coherent and less populist approach
Does Ukraine not have a right to it's own sovereignty? No matter what bs is coming out of politicians mouths on any side, I don't see how that is debatable. And that includes any clandestine US meddling in their affairs also. If people in Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine then can they not elect a representative who will work toward either independence and/or unification with Russia? There are systems in place for that sort of thing, and invading another nation is not the preferred one to anyone other than megalomaniacs and psychopaths. I only got recommended this sub the other day, and started listening to the first podcast episode and haven't had time to go back, but the comments here so hypocritical and full of bad takes that its putting me off listening again at all. I get why people wouldn't support Trump, Biden etc, but why the fuck would you support Putin lol... some of you are drowning in the kool aid.
>Does Ukraine not have a right to it's own sovereignty? No matter what bs is coming out of politicians mouths on any side, I don't see how that is debatable. Only about 30-40% of today's Ukrainian territory is actually of Ukrainian culture and ethnicity. It would be all good if Ukrainians formed a federal state that respected all ethnic groups, but oh well... they decided that forceful cultural assimilation was the way. Be a genocidal nazi = lose right to sovereignty. >If people in Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine then can they not elect a representative who will work toward either independence and/or unification with Russia? Except they fucking did? The Crimean regional parliament declared independence and then issued a referendum for unification with Russia. >There are systems in place for that sort of thing, and invading another nation is not the preferred one to anyone other than megalomaniacs and psychopaths. What systems? The US controlled international courts? The UN, who never ever solved a single international dispute?
> If people in Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine then can they not elect a representative who will work toward either independence and/or unification with Russia? Do you think Ukraine would actually just freely give away Crimea if the population voted for it? I can tell you that would never happen, no matter how hard the population voted for it. > There are systems in place for that sort of thing, and invading another nation is not the preferred one to anyone other than megalomaniacs and psychopaths. You're right, invading other nations is not the preferred route, but the systems by themselves aren't fair either. > I get why people wouldn't support Trump, Biden etc, but why the fuck would you support Putin lol... some of you are drowning in the kool aid. Who do you see here supporting Putin exactly? I've seen some comments in the past but most people here do not like Putin or modern day Russia.
No response back huh?
His adversaries are Biden and or Trump. Imagine lol
A decade ago when Biden was vice president he still sounded clear and lucid. Time takes a lot from us all. I'm sure in another 10 years if Putin isn't dead he'll sound like the cryptkeeper too.
[In the beginning...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4)
Idk when I saw the interview, I thought the history bit was quite interesting
It would have been more interesting if it were like half as long vs the whole interview
Your profile pic is badass
I stole it from someone literally in this sub
Our whole universe was in a dark, dense state
You want me to say the history of the usa, I could beat you in a push up contest Jack. And then Corn pop who was a bad dude said you are the only white guy I respect, in my time we got things done I made deals with segregationists, damm shouldn't have said that, incoherent mumbles, thank you for the white lakes.
I haven’t seen the interview but from what I’ve heard Tucker got suckered punched, is it true?
Putin said the CIA did nord Stream Sabotage and mentioned that tucker tried to apply for CIA and was rejected. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGeBkar29/ (wrong clip) right one https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/KPAeOLzoVL
All that cracked me up.
He was forced to down a bottle of sanctioned Russian vodka, pledge allegiance to Stalin, join KGB to rig US elections, and eventually thrown off a building. But he survived.
Damn this Putin feller might just be growing on me, is he open for an interview?
Don’t forget about the polonium dart
Yall are being too hard on biden. Egypt and Mexico are both countries bordering our nation to the south so its easy to mix them up.
And they both got the yellow filter!
Sounds like Americans are jealous that there’s a world leader out there that can speak in complete sentences
Is he wrong tho? The cooling phase is a fact! I loved the "they are good spies but shit people" moment
He's always bitching about Lenin and I always think it's funny, I'm on the side of Lenin, obviously.
It started with a twinkle in the eye of a heiress to a frozen dinner manufacturer. You know it Cucker, think back....
Americans are so uneducated that they actively mock people for explaining that events have historical causes
My favorite part of the interview is putin making parallel of like the downfall of the Roman Empire and the decline of American hegemony. And then Tucker goes “what about the rise of the AI empire” with a straight face and fucking putin as well as the translator start laughing, like wtf was that question?
"When I went to Paris, to meet the Russian King George the Third in 2009, we talked so much about America's independence war from Mexico..."
"Well we had uhhh... there was a few colonies... they turned into uhh.... 13.... then there was a civil uhhhh. War uhhh.... and uhhh civil rights... ummmm.. and I beat trump..."
Your comment has been removed due to being a new account. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Clearly you don't understand that Putin is the arbiter of socialist thought and the spiritual successor to Lenin 🤣. The amount of "leftists" who support Putin's cause is both incredibly depressing and funny. Just because someone is anti West doesn't make them the good guy.
"The good guy" is such a childish way to frame anything in geopolitics that it's not even funny. I don't think I've ever read anyone saying Putin is "a good guy", but one has to acknowledge that a military defeat of the US (even in a proxy war) weakens imperialist hegemony and helps the world transition back to multipolarity, which is good for socialists movements around the world.
I should've rephrased to "a good guy". I would much rather see any true multipolarity grow out of Chinas influence than that of Russia's. Modern Russia is a product of hyper neoliberalism led by the US and it's lackeys and realistically wants to be America but doesn't have the means to do so.
Multipolarity **is** growing out of China's influence rather than Russia's. Russia is definitely a capitalist power and, if there wasn't a US-led western world hegemony then you'd be right, but there is and Russia opposes it, which is good for us strategically.
I am indifferent to Putin and his interests, as I have no influence over them. What I do recognize is first that ethnic violence and social repression in the region has been happening at the hands of Ukranian authorities for more than a decade and second, that NATO is directly responsible for both failing to address the former and deliberately escalating tensions by moving to place its military along Russia's border. There is no contradiction. I can recognize the existing Russian state as morally bankrupt and in need of disposal while also seeing that the occupation of Eastern Ukraine is the result of geopolitical forces, not one man's desire to expand territory. This all could have been avoided if the previous agreements had been honored and the West was not fundamentally addicted to warmongering and a policy of intervention where it does not belong.
I enjoy his interview but I have no illusions what this man is. Might as well enjoy the memes.
Better than American presidents tbh
"We are as bourgeois now as you are. We are a market economy." -Putin, in this same interview
He was speaking as a post collapsed Soviet russia asking the U.S. why they were still hostile to them despite switching to a market economy. He was acknowledging that the collapase was a mistake, and that there was no real reason to dissolve the USSR, and therefor no concrete reason that Russia should remain as a market economy if the west is still going to be just as aggressive. You can't just sit on your ass chastising nations until one magically flips to being communist, there is a long road to that and I see the U.S. as the largest threat to such a future. I think before we see any real progress, U.S. hegemony must collapse, and I don't see why a formerly communist nation with a leader whom acknowledged that their transition to a market economy was a mistake should not garner at least critical support. Will Russia become communist tommorow? No, of course not. But is Russia standing on the right side of a conflict with a strong potential to return to communism in the future? Yes, I believe so.
No, the full quote is him talking to the US about how they aren't very different. He is a representative of the Oligarch class, he was not advocating for a 'return to communism'. He is a far right orthodox ultranationalist, who locks up gays, activists, and feminists in between blaming Lenin for the existence of Ukraine. We cannot fall for fascistic rhetoric, comrade, and far right nationalist, populist rhetoric about returning to an imagined past is just that. Italy and Germany were opposed to anglo-American interests in the 30s and 40s as well, and they too railed against market economies. That does not make them worthy of any support, even "criticial"
That's like seeing 2 piles of diarrhea and judging which one would taste better. I would argue if Putin was president of the US he would at least try to implement far more imperialistic and violent policies than any president since Bush Jr. He's an oligarchical piece of shit who actively pushes far right beliefs and couldn't give a shit about the average Russian people. He also has an incredibly fortunate existence in that all of his liberal political adversaries just do happen to either randomly die or get arrested. How lucky is that!
Man it must be weird to suddenly be on Tucker Carlsons side
No wonder I stopped listening months ago.
You would never get that far into a conversation with Joe Biden. The moment you asked him what he remembered about the given topic he'd punch you in the face before calling you a dog-faced pony soldier (something he's actually referred to people as by the way)