Last night, watching The Interview with who knows how many millions of others, I was struck instantly, by how Putin interrupted Tucker right away to ask, “Is this a show or is it a serious conversation?” which made Tucker instantly rear back; I could feel him trying to regroup internally. Which made me uncomfortable, since I couldn’t help but identify with his discombobulation!
Then Putin went on to say that he just wanted a little bit of time to present Tucker with some historical context, namely the complex history of Russia, to which Tucker likely said “of course” (I haven’t rewatched it, so don’t know exactly, but that is what Tucker would say) — which then launched a long detailed historical depiction of immense and complex cultural forces that continuously shifted, conquered, morphed, unified, etc. the Taurus land mass in that part of the world, starting back in the 9th century. What I noticed in this lesson he gave Tucker especially, was the part orthodox Christianity played for early rulers of that territory, and that, believe it or not, the very first capitol of Russia was not Moscow, but Kiev! — in what is now known as Ukraine.
Tucker, who, like all of us addled Americans, is used to a journalistic duet consisting of a diet of of quick takes, sound bites, clever remarks, and opinionated theatrics, appeared both fascinated and dumbfounded during Putin’s immensely learned historical display, not to mention more and more annoyed. Tucker’s internal dialogue: “Geez! How to make him stop? What is this? Why? How can I steer it back to what I want to know?”
Tucker actually mentioned his own puzzlement after the interview is over. I am not making this up.
So hopefully that little introductory vignette is enough to get us thinking, to get us to realize that the cultural differences between Russia and the U.S. are both profound and very much need to be addressed, if we wish to actually not just prevent nuclear war, but to begin to see Vladimir Putin as an individual, who loves his country, and is, as Tucker mentioned later, “deeply wounded” by the way Russia is continually treated and dismissed by ignorant and/or lunatic western “leaders” who never keep agreements and are stubbornly determined to conquer Russia.
BTW: I have a feeling Putin would not want to used the word “wounded;” that he prefers to stick to rational facts, and not get emotional. But his points, throughout the interview, were always grounded in his way of viewing what’s going on and for the most part, to me, made immense sense.
Tucker kept having problems picking up on what Putin was getting at throughout the interview, likely because his own internal dialogue kept interfering with his listening to what Putin was saying. So many times, Putin had to remark that he had already discussed that; and then, go over it again, in a slightly different way.
Most of the time Tucker sat there with a stony face, puzzled, listening intently but, I sensed, with that internal dialogue fogging his brain.
On the other hand, I did feel that, by the very end, Tucker had relaxed some, and was beginning to feel his way into Putin’s Dostoyevskian Russian soul. The back and forth in their ending remarks felt both warm and relaxing.
And, as Scott Ritter so well explains, the best part will be what comes next, as Tucker absorbs what happened enough to be able to begin to educate the American public on the cooperative process that will be needed to truly embrace the Aquarian age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOgumS9EJI&ab_channel=EyesontheWorld
