After the Tucker interview I expressed the view that Putin’s 20+ minute narratival interpretation of Russian history was basically beside the point of Tucker’s initial question: Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
I think Putin’s real target audience was the population of Ukraine itself.
A peculiarity of Orthodoxy is the national church which is the font of identity and nationhood in the East.
The newly formed OCU (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) formerly recognised by the Phanar has usurped the property and churches of the UOC (which recognises the Moscow patriarch as its head) to the extent of closing UOC churches, expelling monks and imprisoning bishops.
Putin’s narrative is trying to paint a hostile Western (Polish) incursion into native Russian lands.
I can't claim to ever wondered about origins of the Crimean War, but, once one asks the question, it seems odd: Britain and France allied with Ottoman Empire against Russia. As of 1812, the Ottoman Empire than held most of Balkan Europe: Russian Empire held Ukraine except for Lviv and surrounding area - later (and today) the heartland of Banderista Ukro-nationalism, then part of Austrian Empire.
"The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea – we can always do it again."
Uhhhhhh. LOL? How can they speak that kind of nonsense in public?
I would argue that what the Crimean showed--but not for the first time--was the loss of a common "European" identity. In other words, the collapse of Christendom as the unifying principle of the West left raw power as the only geopolitical dynamic operating in the West. In the East, Russia has always shown a sense of civilizational solidarity with culturally related people--Serbs, etc.
You've written in the past about the British angst and threats against the enemy known as Russia. Obviously more depth in this blog but I haven't forgotten about the pre-20th century British desire to paint Russia as evil.
Further, Putin probably realizes he missed a golden opportunity to be more specific and hence the much briefer summary. However, I still stand the Putin/Tucker interview was more about sharing his thoughts to the Russian people than to the West.
Matthew Ehret has pointed out that the Russian navy has been an American ally in three wars, with the British the direct or indirect opponent in all of them: I believe that they are the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
I wish that Putin made the case to be our allies again.
Iraq 1.0 hasn’t worked out so well for the western oligarchs. The Chinese and even Russians have now secured the major contracts for Iraqi oil going forward. Our genius neocons do not excel at follow through, nor the long game. Patience is not a quality they possess. More like smash and grab is their thing.
Blinded by revenge motives and smitten by greed and the lust for power tends to alter a persons reality to the extent they believe themselves to be omnipotent and money can buy anything they feel entitled to. This sort of hubris is why the powerful eventually miss the signs of the time.
"I just don't think Putin's history lesson (regardless of spin and/or inaccuracies) was all that important in the great scheme of things."
As long as people stuck around for the rest--after the first 20+ minutes or so--that's true. But the view numbers don't tell us how many stuck past that point. Normal people are anti-war, so maybe this won't matter in the long run, except, perhaps as an opportunity lost.
I agree. I thought Putin tried to take control from the start, suspicious that he could be placed on the defensive. That wasn't at all what Tucker had in mind, as you say. Some of the blame should go to his advisers. The Russian ambassador and other diplomats and intel people in the US should have been able to give Putin a better take on Tucker.
I think Putin’s real target audience was the population of Ukraine itself.
A peculiarity of Orthodoxy is the national church which is the font of identity and nationhood in the East.
The newly formed OCU (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) formerly recognised by the Phanar has usurped the property and churches of the UOC (which recognises the Moscow patriarch as its head) to the extent of closing UOC churches, expelling monks and imprisoning bishops.
Putin’s narrative is trying to paint a hostile Western (Polish) incursion into native Russian lands.
UOC Russia
Ocu Ukraine
in the long arc of history, there seems some continuity between British involvement in the Crimean War in the 1850s and British policy in WW1 era.
And perhaps even to the present: a recent UK Defence Minister, Ben Webster, pompously claimed that "The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea – we can always do it again." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ukraine-putin-invasion-latest-ben-wallace-b2021363.html
I can't claim to ever wondered about origins of the Crimean War, but, once one asks the question, it seems odd: Britain and France allied with Ottoman Empire against Russia. As of 1812, the Ottoman Empire than held most of Balkan Europe: Russian Empire held Ukraine except for Lviv and surrounding area - later (and today) the heartland of Banderista Ukro-nationalism, then part of Austrian Empire.
"The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea – we can always do it again."
Uhhhhhh. LOL? How can they speak that kind of nonsense in public?
I would argue that what the Crimean showed--but not for the first time--was the loss of a common "European" identity. In other words, the collapse of Christendom as the unifying principle of the West left raw power as the only geopolitical dynamic operating in the West. In the East, Russia has always shown a sense of civilizational solidarity with culturally related people--Serbs, etc.
You've written in the past about the British angst and threats against the enemy known as Russia. Obviously more depth in this blog but I haven't forgotten about the pre-20th century British desire to paint Russia as evil.
Further, Putin probably realizes he missed a golden opportunity to be more specific and hence the much briefer summary. However, I still stand the Putin/Tucker interview was more about sharing his thoughts to the Russian people than to the West.
Matthew Ehret has pointed out that the Russian navy has been an American ally in three wars, with the British the direct or indirect opponent in all of them: I believe that they are the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
I wish that Putin made the case to be our allies again.
Iraq 1.0 hasn’t worked out so well for the western oligarchs. The Chinese and even Russians have now secured the major contracts for Iraqi oil going forward. Our genius neocons do not excel at follow through, nor the long game. Patience is not a quality they possess. More like smash and grab is their thing.
Blinded by revenge motives and smitten by greed and the lust for power tends to alter a persons reality to the extent they believe themselves to be omnipotent and money can buy anything they feel entitled to. This sort of hubris is why the powerful eventually miss the signs of the time.
"I just don't think Putin's history lesson (regardless of spin and/or inaccuracies) was all that important in the great scheme of things."
As long as people stuck around for the rest--after the first 20+ minutes or so--that's true. But the view numbers don't tell us how many stuck past that point. Normal people are anti-war, so maybe this won't matter in the long run, except, perhaps as an opportunity lost.
I agree. I thought Putin tried to take control from the start, suspicious that he could be placed on the defensive. That wasn't at all what Tucker had in mind, as you say. Some of the blame should go to his advisers. The Russian ambassador and other diplomats and intel people in the US should have been able to give Putin a better take on Tucker.