The commentary I've heard all seem to acknowledge what he said as (roughly) the truth of the situation, they generally to acknowledge that a bit of historical background is necessary. And, importantly, that acknowledging this interview does not mean one excuses bad things he has done. You can separate what is being said from other events. 

 Right. I wanted to be really clear on that. People often jump right to the assumption that I am pro-Putin if I don't denounce every word out of his mouth. 

Seems nearly religious at times.  

 👆 this 

 Here’s a rational argument against his position from someone living very near to Russia. You might even visit here if you choose to attend the next Nostr Unconference :)

What riles me up the most is his gripe about “NATO expanding and encroaching on Russian interests”. Here’s the thing. We worked very hard to get into NATO for more than a decade. Look up Vaira Vike Freiberga NATO speech. We wanted to get in because we never wanted the repeat of Russian occupation. We barely survived the last one as a nation.

He can’t wrap his mind around the idea that people might have a will of their own that they exercise through action.

From our point of view it was us who wanted out of the Soviet Union , we took action to achieve that (see Baltic Way, barricades). We wanted to get into EU and NATO. We took action and achieved that. It’s not Soviet Union breaking apart, and NATO expanding. We did it, even though nobody apart from us was very keen on either idea.

From this perspective, we understand Ukrainians. They wanted to rid themselves from corrupt pro-Moscow president who wanted to nix the EU association agreement. They took action, and achieved it.

To punish them, Russia annexed Crimea, and invaded the country. Then launched a full scale invasion 8 years later to destroy Ukrainians as people and as a nation.

He can’t stomach the fact that people can have a will that they express through action. He can’t stomach the fact that people would want the freedom to choose their own government. 

 Ahhh a Latvian 🙃🤙 

 Thanks for sharing your perspective. That helps me understand the situation better. 

I am under the impression that Latvia is fairly independent and that Belarus is more or less a puppet government of Russia. Does that match your view of the situation?  

 Well said. 
I will not morally defend the actions of Putin or the Russian army- but I also can’t morally defend Nato/CIA involvement in the 2014 Ukraine coup, or the actions of the Ukraine government against the eastern regions after that. 

Similar to the NATO bombings of Belgrade Serbia, after the Croatians got assurances/support from US/Nato and ended that part of the Yugoslav war- NATO took it too far with their response to the war in Bosnia. 

We have a path forward for peace: trade and business relations reopen with a globally independent and decentralized monetary unit. 

As long as one countries fiat is enforced as a unit of trade, there will be constant conflict and often war. 

 Well put. It's fiat all the way down.  

 My 2 cents is Russia has been fighting a rear guard action against aggression for years. Considering the psychological impact of Germany moving so fast East in the Second World War and that geography makes Moscow vulnerable, it’s hard to perceive of other responses from them. The question I always have is if USA/Europe stop attacking people all over the world, would we have more peace or would those that we attack feel emboldened to project state violence? We cannot know the answer until western nations stop attacking other nations perpetually. 

 Yeah, Biden couldn't do an interview like this, and it would be pointless anyway. You'd have to talk to the real puppet-masters behind the scenes, possibly Victoria Nuland or Susan Rice (or even other Deep State denizens buried more deeply in The Swamp) to get the U.S.-NATO rationale.

Perhaps along the national self-determination line of argument, one could argue that #Ukraine has the right to join NATO if it wants to. Russia saying that it can't is like the U.S. trying to dictate what nations can and can't have nukes. But I do understand Russia not wanting missiles pointed at it right on her border, just like the U.S. objected to Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba during the Cold War. Perhaps if the Ukraine were to join NATO they should agree not to do this.

But the real rationale for US-NATO actions in this conflict probably has to do with stirring up trouble for #Russia in order to keep the Military-Industrial-Complex gravy-train alive, as well as hiding the money-laundering and bioweapons development that the Deep State had going on there... 

 Yes. I wasn't familiar with the two names you mentioned in the first paragraph. Might have to take a look.. 

 if u listening to "the screaming of presstitutes in msm" its TOO BAD for EARS n BRAIN  

 I think I agree. 

 Go ask a Pole how they provoked Hitler into invading them. You will probably learn all the Polish swear words pretty quickly. 

 Well, about Ukraine.   It should be remembered that the Russians killed and starved out an estimated 10 million Ukrainians (google Holodomor).   There is a deep hatred of Russia in many parts of Ukraine, and for good reason.   Also, the NAZI's there are not like the German NAZI's whose philosophy led them to kill Jews and attack Poland.   There are most likely NAZI only because the NAZI's attacked their blood enemy, the Russians.  I don't think it's accurate to come off like they are the equivalent to the Hitler NAZI's.  (Poland also has good reason to hate Russia)  I agree with Putin that those Russian parts of Ukraine should have never been Ukraine, and even though I don't agree with them becoming part of the Russian empire, they should have at least been allowed to break off and have self determination.  It was stupid to try and keep them under Ukrainian control, and begging to create the disaster that has happened.  

Also, I don't buy that Putin was doing this for historical purposes, or the Russians. Those are justifications for him to expand his power base, and economic access.  The justifications have a lot of legitimate points, but in the end they were still just raw power grabs.  Though I agree with Tucker, that the Russian empire would probably be unable to act expansionist, except for Russian cultural areas.   

Also, it doesn't matter that the US promised to not let Ukraine join NATO.  Are countries not allowed to change their policies, change their mind?   However, it was stupid for the USA to even remain in NATO after the fall of the USSR.   This was just begging to create the disaster that has happened today.   Why the Fuck is the USA still in NATO?  I can not comprehend how this will serve our best interests in any way, but can easily comprehend how this could lead to lots of unneeded and unnecessary conflicts and wars.   

 Nice! A very nuanced take. I agree that the historical argument is bullshit. 

If every country thought that way there would never be peace anywhere. 

Also never thought about the US leaving NATO. Sounds like a dream to be honest. If I could change any single moment in history it would be the US entering WW1, but of course that would have been bad for the war business..  

 So in Putin's telling the expulsions, mass murders, rapes, and famines, of 1910-1950 either didn't really happen or were just minor mistakes.

Sadly, they did and until very late in USSR that was minimised or completely denied in the official history. So people nursed their grievances, passed them down through the kitchen table, told their kids not believe the teachers, told their kids to smile and learn Russian. Told them one day, it will be our turn.

Putin (and tbh most Russian's) understanding of their immediate neighbours excludes their rawest and most important unresolved history.

That's dangerous and tragic. Countries like Ukraine and Poland who's partisans committed terrible atrocities can and do just blame Russia instead of owning that responsibility. Russia also provokes them every time it errects another Stalin statue or similar.

Russia in turn reacts to every criticism or attempt to limit it's influence as a plot by "enemies" as these are "little brothers" it protected and industrialised (even though in fact most were significanly more developed than Russia pre-WW2). Poles have been treated so kindly by us, if they say these things it is the CIA. Or NGOs, gays, whatever.

I'm not saying the CIA doesn't do it's best to inflame this. But can I tell you everytime a Russian nationalists opens their mouth on RT it does a thousand times more. No one wants to end up like the Volga Germans, the Karelians, or the Kazan in the 40s. And unlike the average Fox TV viewer they have learned those names at school. 

 Thanks for the historical/cultural insight. 

Ultimately the stupidest part of the interview seems to have been the first thirty minutes.

If he hadn't gone on that long political history rant the conversation would have been much more rational. In the context of what I have seen in these replies that portion just seems like an over-complicated way to cope with guilt.

Is Russia really putting up new statues of Stalin? 

 I'm glad I posted this because I got some excellent replies that gave me insight into the historical context, which was the area where I was missing the most information.

Worth a look if you're interested 🤙
nostr:nevent1qqs0lwv868mk82s58vgve24avck94tq8j4zyjjugpgz9e5t7ex9cuespz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzpyn823wjj9acpac8lld5f28lj7gcy45w77a2qnh826clq82wx6y2qvzqqqqqqyuc57ha 

 Monroe Doctrine.

This is Putin's equivalent of the Monroe doctrine.   It was predicted that Russia would react violently to Nato expansion eastwardss, and it has.

The argument that is should not have have reacted violently presupposes that the Global American empire does not use violence to expand its power and dominion.  There are a whole lot of dead people in Serbia and Donbas whose ghosts will tell you that it does.