4 ms·

Well it wasn't a "trap" interview, if that's what you mean. It also wasn't a "pr tour" type interview of the sort we have repeatedly given Zelensky. I think the

Well it wasn't a "trap" interview, if that's what you mean. It also wasn't a "pr tour" type interview of the sort we have repeatedly given Zelensky. I think the thing it reminded me most of was the old school days of interviews with people like Larry King.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Well, Larry King asked pretty tough questions when he interviewed Putin.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Yeah I was able to find a transcript of his interview with Putin [1] but oddly it does not seem to exist in YouTube in video format unfortunately. It's been years since I've watched him, but skimming through that transcript I can still hear his voice! And yeah, I do think the two interviews are extremely similar in content. He asks significant and poignant questions, without fishing for trap stuff. So e.g. he asks most obviously why Putin invaded, what he even means by 'denazification', why he thinks Britain wanted Ukraine to fight, whether China may end up dominating (and thus undermining the point of) BRICS, the risks and possibilities around potential ongoing escalation, and other such questions. Whenever I hear "hard hitting" in modern times, I just think of a journalist digging up some random dirt to try to shock the interviewee with, using argumentative fallacies like strawmen, and just generally doing whatever they can to agitate the interviewee and get some sensational headline or emotional response. And there was none of that. [1] - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21558 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21558
  - belter 3y ago
    > Whenever I hear "hard hitting" in modern times, I just think of a journalist digging up some random dirt to try to shock the interviewee with, using argumentative fallacies like strawmen, and just generally doing whatever they can to agitate the interviewee and get some sensational headline or emotional response. And there was none of that. > And there was none of that. Yeap, no questions on Bucha and who did such a well documented atrocities... Yeap, no questions on how people fall from windows, or get poisoned so easily in Russia and the Russian chemical attacks in the UK... Yeap, no questions on the 20,000 Ukrainian children kidnapped into Russia... Yeah none of that. An excellent articulated piece of propaganda.
    - khzw8yyy 3y ago
      On the other hand, we've already heard all these stories and they are clearly very sticky. Getting a different angle was at least new.
      - lispm 3y ago
        What was new, given that Puting has given his history lectures many times before that interview?
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
        This one was actually heard by a sizable audience? The Western take is: look, Putin is avoiding talking about the current conflict and talks history instead. The Russian take is: look, Crimea changes hands once every 100 or so years, and this is just the latest iteration.
        lispm 3y ago
        > This one was actually heard by a sizable audience? So, the content is the same? An aggressor trying to justify his aggression by his version of history? > The Russian take is: look, Crimea changes hands once every 100 or so years, and this is just the latest iteration. Putin was not going after Crimea, he was going to "free" the whole Ukraine in a few days (the "special operation") and then beyond. That's what he sold the Russian people. Too bad, his troops were defeated while on their way to Kiev. Now his troops are fighting a bloody war and Russia is isolated in Europe. Countries are joining NATO instead. Putin has achieved to unite most of Europe, unfortunately without and against him. The Russia public lives in the propaganda bubble of an aggressive regime. There are no flights to much of Europe, few trains, borders are closed, ... There Russian take is that the evil West is responsible and the reason why its now hard to get all the good things..., but is it worth for them to die for an outdated version of an imperialistic history, where Putin is a czar? Putin, the emperor with no clothes.
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
lispm 3y ago
Putin has invaded the Ukraine. This "interview" was only a platform for him to explain his propaganda version of his motives, based on his skewed version of history. None of that was questioned. The reality is that he failed to conquer Ukraine in a few days, as he planned initially, and now is in a bloody war where he sacrifices the lives of hundreds of russians per day for his own personal goals. His troops kills and destroys in the Ukraine. His invasion is a huge catastrophe for him, for russia and especially for the ukraine. There is no justification for this and it can't be found in history.

actionfromafar 3y ago

Well, Larry King asked pretty tough questions when he interviewed Putin.

somenameforme 3y ago
Yeah I was able to find a transcript of his interview with Putin [1] but oddly it does not seem to exist in YouTube in video format unfortunately. It's been years since I've watched him, but skimming through that transcript I can still hear his voice! And yeah, I do think the two interviews are extremely similar in content. He asks significant and poignant questions, without fishing for trap stuff. So e.g. he asks most obviously why Putin invaded, what he even means by 'denazification', why he thinks Britain wanted Ukraine to fight, whether China may end up dominating (and thus undermining the point of) BRICS, the risks and possibilities around potential ongoing escalation, and other such questions. Whenever I hear "hard hitting" in modern times, I just think of a journalist digging up some random dirt to try to shock the interviewee with, using argumentative fallacies like strawmen, and just generally doing whatever they can to agitate the interviewee and get some sensational headline or emotional response. And there was none of that. [1] - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21558 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21558
- belter 3y ago
  > Whenever I hear "hard hitting" in modern times, I just think of a journalist digging up some random dirt to try to shock the interviewee with, using argumentative fallacies like strawmen, and just generally doing whatever they can to agitate the interviewee and get some sensational headline or emotional response. And there was none of that. > And there was none of that. Yeap, no questions on Bucha and who did such a well documented atrocities... Yeap, no questions on how people fall from windows, or get poisoned so easily in Russia and the Russian chemical attacks in the UK... Yeap, no questions on the 20,000 Ukrainian children kidnapped into Russia... Yeah none of that. An excellent articulated piece of propaganda.
  - khzw8yyy 3y ago
    On the other hand, we've already heard all these stories and they are clearly very sticky. Getting a different angle was at least new.
    - lispm 3y ago
      What was new, given that Puting has given his history lectures many times before that interview?
      - khzw8yyy 3y ago
        This one was actually heard by a sizable audience? The Western take is: look, Putin is avoiding talking about the current conflict and talks history instead. The Russian take is: look, Crimea changes hands once every 100 or so years, and this is just the latest iteration.
        lispm 3y ago
        > This one was actually heard by a sizable audience? So, the content is the same? An aggressor trying to justify his aggression by his version of history? > The Russian take is: look, Crimea changes hands once every 100 or so years, and this is just the latest iteration. Putin was not going after Crimea, he was going to "free" the whole Ukraine in a few days (the "special operation") and then beyond. That's what he sold the Russian people. Too bad, his troops were defeated while on their way to Kiev. Now his troops are fighting a bloody war and Russia is isolated in Europe. Countries are joining NATO instead. Putin has achieved to unite most of Europe, unfortunately without and against him. The Russia public lives in the propaganda bubble of an aggressive regime. There are no flights to much of Europe, few trains, borders are closed, ... There Russian take is that the evil West is responsible and the reason why its now hard to get all the good things..., but is it worth for them to die for an outdated version of an imperialistic history, where Putin is a czar? Putin, the emperor with no clothes.
        khzw8yyy 3y ago

lispm 3y ago

Putin has invaded the Ukraine. This "interview" was only a platform for him to explain his propaganda version of his motives, based on his skewed version of history. None of that was questioned. The reality is that he failed to conquer Ukraine in a few days, as he planned initially, and now is in a bloody war where he sacrifices the lives of hundreds of russians per day for his own personal goals. His troops kills and destroys in the Ukraine. His invasion is a huge catastrophe for him, for russia and especially for the ukraine. There is no justification for this and it can't be found in history.