The Putin interview and America's Stockholm Syndrome
The fools think we're fools.
Any doubts I had concerning the leadership of the United States grew exponentially after watching the interview with Vladimir Putin. Doubts I had concerning the media's ability to be an objective medium for presenting just the facts grew just the same after seeing headlines regarding the interview:
Decoding Putin’s ‘obsessive ideas’ in the Tucker Carlson interview
Putin uses Tucker Carlson interview to press his Ukraine narrative, hints at swapping WSJ reporter
Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin's 'nonsense' history
Vladimir Putin pulled a classic power move that steamrolled Tucker Carlson
‘Talkshow or a serious conversation?’ Tucker Carlson’s interview of Putin offered neither
Putin walks away with propaganda victory after Tucker Carlson’s softball interview
Amongst all the headlines —and many of the articles themselves— I noticed something peculiar. The claims Putin made as it relates to Nato aggression and betrayal seem to be absent from the narrative. It's as if the government and mainstream media are pretending to not hear the very loud and vocal claims he's been making about the West and its continued violations. All the fact checkers are out in full force, but none are actually fact checking the failures of Nato or the United States. It's all hit pieces on Putin's character or how Tucker Carlson is a bad journalist or traitor. Its become apparent to me that we really do live in a time where people —to include our own government— are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions no matter the level of devastation levied against any particular group of people. In the course of my own life, I've learned that this is classic narcissistic and psychopathic behavior that bullies endeavor in. Pushing people into a place of desperation and then crying fowl to justify their own hostile retaliation is nothing short of pure unadulterated evil. The United States has a new boogeyman. Sadly, the government's programming of its citizens runs too deep for most people to realize they've been spoon fed a new "America to the Rescue" story.
Years ago I was deep in Christian apologetics. Being involved in this discipline taught me a lot about listening to others and how to become an effective negotiator and teacher —a skill I'm still trying to perfect. Overall, I learned how not to be such a prick when trying to communicate my own beliefs. I learned that you can't win people over by steamrolling them with information or by insulting their intelligence, even if you are right. This type of behavior only serves to create more friction and hostility between you and the individual with an opposing set of ideas or beliefs. In short, everyone closes their ears. No ground is effectively covered this way. But this is a learned skill and I believe it helps contribute to people becoming not only effective communicators but also effective leaders. You need to be able to hear past your own thoughts and ideas in the midst of a debate and actually listen to the other person's position. Humility and respect can and often does transcend disagreement. Once you’re able to understand the reasoning behind someone’s opposing idea, you can now find a foothold to launch a more thought out rebuttal, or launch into deeper debate.
I understand we unfortunately don't live in an age of debate which necessitates real emotional intelligence, self control, and self-awareness, but instead we live in an age of immature rage. Many people lack the ability to see another's position or understand how they may have arrived at a specific conclusion because they're blinded by their own selfish desire to "win the argument" instead of winning the person. I also understand it is difficult for many people to exist without being overpowered by their own emotions due to many reasons that have triggered physiological changes within their bodies such as indoctrination of the mind and pollution of the body due to poisonous food and synthetic toxins. But that's a zombie story for another time.
As I watched the interview I didn't watch it through bias, but through the lens of attempting to understand the why behind Putin's decisions. While I've heard or read many of his main talking points in the past, it wasn't until I watched the interview that I realized nobody is truly listening to him. And as long as your "enemy" is willing to talk, wisdom dictates that you should be willing to listen. It's when people stop talking that you should worry.
Yet, even Tucker Carlson had a difficult time listening and paying attention during the first 30 minutes as Putin monologued the history of Russia. Tucker was only thinking about his question and how he wanted it answered. This was a bit arrogant and a common American trait. He wasn't prepared to receive a history lesson which would lead to getting his answer. He also wasn't prepared for Putin to provide a history lesson to the entire world. Putin understood who was "listening". This cultural difference in dialogue was obvious to me. But I've also lived all over the world and recognize that not everyone has incredibly short attention spans. Admittedly, Tucker later revealed that he was simply impatient and annoyed as he wanted a shorter, more direct answer to compliment his rapid firing style of interviewing. Putin was trying to dialogue and educate. Whether he was entirely truthful in everything he said is another issue. I'm not here to defend his talking points or retelling of history. My only point is its imperative to listen during a dialogue or debate but you don't get to dictate how the other person can answer.
What was painfully obvious to me is that there was at least some truth in what he stated. President Putin showed up ready to talk, voice his opinion and bring receipts to back up what he said. He was careful to not put words in the mouth's of our country's leaders nor did he spend time disparaging anyone —unlike what our own leaders and mainstream media have spent the last few years doing to him. Several times he requested that Tucker ask our own leaders for the why behind their decision making. He didn't want to speculate. Again, cultural differences at work. I understand why many outside of America call Americans arrogant. We have a habit of running off at the lip about people which is concerning considering we're a super power. With great power comes...well you know the rest.
While one may choose to argue over President Putin's details of history and the formation of Russia's statehood, what could not be argued is how Nato has kept Russia out after the ending of the Soviet era. Putin expressed this concern during the interview and how he had even asked former President Bill Clinton if it was possible for Russia to finally enter into Nato, but was later told no. Some experts believe the reasoning behind Russia's disallowance was due to how Nato perceived Russia —not as a true equal partner, but as a country to force compliance out of:
“Because they thought that they had won the Cold War and could dictate all the terms as Russia was 'beaten'. They were high on the euphoria of a perceived victory rather than a massive opportunity for peace and security,” says Gregory Simons, an associate professor at the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University.
“They did not regard Russia as an equal and probably thought to use the idea of membership as a means of compliance. Like the EU has done to Turkey for years,” Simons tells TRT World. 1
There are others who believe Russia simply wasn't serious about entering the EU. I'd wager the truth is somewhere in the middle, which was obvious by Putin's claims during the interview. But it does beg the question as to why Moscow wasn't admitted into Nato while Ukraine has been invited along with Norway, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Finland. Putin believes Nato —and essentially Western powers— desire a weak and compliant Russia before allowing them in. In short, a country that will be subservient.
There could be some truth to the idea that the West desires a weak Russia. When the war in Ukraine started I remember many talking heads advocating for economic sanctions to be placed on Russia to essentially squeeze them dry. Currently, there are well over 300 sanctions imposed on Russia. However, this is where things get a bit interesting. Despite the many economic sanctions, Russia's economy leads all of Europe in economic growth. This tells me there is a disconnect between how leaders in the West view and understand the global economy. How is it that Russia can grow at such pace with more and more sanctions being imposed upon it? This is another example of our own leaders refusing to listen to the voices of others. Now, I'm sure all of the "fact checkers" will be out in full force to dismiss these claims stated by Putin during the interview, but this claim isn't new. This information was released last year. You can find several published articles online about the growth of their economy.
Something else of interest is the disregarding of Putin's continued claim that Nato has broken its promise and has been practicing encroachment.
"We believe that the eastward expansion of NATO is a mistake and a serious one at that," Boris Yeltsin, Russia's first post-Soviet president, told reporters at a 1997 news conference with US President Bill Clinton in Helsinki, where the two signed a statement on arms control.
Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe.
"In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. "[We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets." 2
The problem —as President Putin mentioned— these promises never made it into any official documents to be deemed policy. I've learned in life that handshake deals are rarely a good idea. Always get it in writing. Especially when dealing with the government.
To make matters worse Nato exercised aggression towards Serbia —a Russian ally— during the 1990 bombing raids during the Kosovo war. It's been a long held belief by the Russian government that the West likes to violate international law and use aggressive force under the pretext of human rights concerns.
One can begin to understand the distrust President Putin holds towards the West, especially when you consider the United States operates military bases within striking distance of Russia in Europe and Asia. The United States —along with Nato— have a military presence in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
And as someone who used to work for the military, I can assure you these are just the locations the government chooses to make public. Bases are put up and taken down at random all over the world for specific purposes unknown to the general public. The reality is, nobody besides our military knows the location of and precise amount of military bases that exist around the world, let alone their purpose.
The lack of transparency and secrecy surrounding some of the US bases overseas makes it difficult to compile a fully accurate list.
In previous years, the Pentagon has published data on its bases in the 'Base Structure Report'. The annual report is Congressionally mandated, but the Pentagon has failed to release it since 2018. Moreover, according to Professor Vine, it is "notoriously incomplete, and at times inaccurate". 3
So not only do we have the breaking of a promise by Nato and the encroaching of territory in the East, we also have the bombing of a Russian ally and military bases propped up in striking distance of Russia despite pleas from the Russian government to cease these efforts. What should a President do when faced with such concerns that seem like pure threats to its country and citizens? But there's more.
After months of denying the claim the US was operating biolabs in Ukraine, the Department of Defense finally admitted they were.
The Pentagon said on Thursday that it has operated 46 biolabs in Ukraine handling dangerous pathogens, after previously dismissing the charges as Russian propaganda.
The irony in all of this is the repeated labeling of anything that makes Russia look competent or truthful as propaganda, yet our own government has been feeding its own citizens propaganda for decades. We have a history of aggression, entering other countries as the savior of the world to topple evil boogeymen only to end up completely destabilizing the country and region that was supposed to be saved. And that's not counting the failures of toppling regimes such as the Taliban —who eventually recaptured Afghanistan— after a 20 year war Americans paid for in tax dollars and blood.
President Putin also mentioned there was a peace deal on the table —brokered by Turkey— over a year ago to end the war in Ukraine. However, the United States pressured Ukraine not to take the deal. He was adamant that he is certainly willing to negotiate and end the war. He was very specific in his demand to stop supplying Ukraine with weapons if the West is truly serious about ending the war. But this isn't something our media or government has communicated to its citizens. No, we simply hear that Putin is a madman who shares the same ideology for global domination like Pinky and the Brain. Which to him was utterly ridiculous.
What's most concerning to me about all of this is the lack of transparency we're given as taxpayers who are once again, funding a war across the ocean. Meanwhile —as even President Putin pointed out— we have our own problems that should demand more attention such as our climbing national debt and border crisis. He brings up a valid point. Why doesn't our leader of the free world place the same level of concern and care for us? Why is so much time, energy, and money spent on propping up countries in other parts of the world while Americans are suffering? As I've stated in an earlier article:
I believe the government exists to protect and supply the needs of its citizens to the degree it can first protect and supply its own needs. If sowing division, increasing inflation or eroding the civil liberties of its citizens bolsters its cause, then so be it.
The last thing I want to leave you with is the claim Putin made concerning who is running the country. He said on more than one occasion that he doesn't believe our Presidents are the individuals who actually lead our nation. Mainstream media will undoubtedly spin his comments as Russian propaganda like everything else.
Yet, in a recent presser held to defend the idea that his memory is failing, President Biden —the leader of the most powerful nation in the world— mixes up not only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also the presidents of Egypt and Mexico, who have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in one fell swoop. However, President Putin was able to monologue for 30 minutes straight Russia's entire history —which one can debate the accuracy of all events— dating back to the 9th century. But for some reason, President Biden still has access to the nuclear codes! Nobody with a grain of sanity or common sense really believes this man is running the country. You'd be a fool to think so. But this is precisely what the government and the mainstream media think of us all. Fools who are ok with being abused as we will go to great lengths to defend our government even while they bring us harm. This is classic Stockholm Syndrome at work. And the only thing they want planted in our mind, is that we have a boogeyman that needs to be defeated and people that need our saving. Truth and reality be damned.
Thank you for reading. Feel free to leave comments as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Nicely done and lots of food for thought. Thank you!
I am particularly impressed by your hard earned observations of what it takes to win the person rather than win the argument, and the importance of listening even just out of self interest.