It seems to me there have been some larger and potentially more consequential conflicts.
Go to this page and scroll down to “List of wars in Europe during the post-WW2 period.” It’s quite a list.
I’m not defending Putin, or denying this is a serious problem for lots of people, but I think there might be a bit of hyperventilating going on here.
QUOTE: I’m not defending Putin, or denying this is a serious problem for lots of people, but I think there might be a bit of hyperventilating going on here.
Isn’t this the nature of the beast these days for this and most major stories? Seems the rush to extremes is a “thing”…likely enhanced by social media and media’s need to garner more likes, clicks and views. Just think about all the hyperventilating that went on about the North Korea (Rocket man) conflict, China’s involvement in the origins of Covid and even the Durham filing (anti-Clinton story).
I think that you have to look at the Russian invasion of Ukraine on a trajectory with ones since the collapse of the Soviet Union (Chechen and Georgia) and also consider such activities together with Putin’s explicit intention to regain the empire that Russia enjoyed under Soviet rule. Every time Russia regains a part of that empire, it gets scarier and scarier, and certainly not at all comparable to localized conflicts (e.g. Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, and the like). There may be someone somewhere who is too alarmed about Highly Aggressive Russian Expansionism, but I find it much more alarming that on Fox they are actually cheering it on under Tucker Carlson.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess on the basis of previous conversations that by “cheering it on”, you mean something which most people would describe as “is dubious about the benefits to Americans of intervening militarily to prevent?”
For my part I’d argue those benefits are real and possibly persuasive — the world would be a better place if Putin were to mysteriously suffer the poisoning his opponents tend to suffer — but mostly indirect and structural.
Evidence of Carlson cheering it on would be something like “It’s about time Putin invaded!” or “Go Russia! Crush those Ukes!”
Examples of the long tradition of American desire to avoid foreign entanglements unless there are clear benefits to Americans don’t count. That view comes in and out of favour with both the left and the right over decades, depending on the circumstances, but has an impeccable pedigree. (“Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” — the original GW)
I’d have to say that Carlson is indeed cheering on the Russian invasion of Ukraine since he has in fact stated that Russia is justified in doing so. He has not merely taken the stance of “let’s stay out of this one.” In no intelligible way is he joining forces with a respectable tradition. He has said repeatedly that it is perfectly understandable that Russia should want to occupy Ukraine as a buffer zone against hostile forces, much as the USA would want to do so with one of its neighbors (Canada or Mexico) if they became adjacent with a force that is hostile to the USA. Perhaps Carlson hasn’t literally said, “Go Russia! Crush those Ukes!” But this is a childishly trivial matter. He has sent out words of encouragement to Russia, as they are even broadcasting those words on Russian TV. As far as any reasonable person is concerned, that suffices to make my point here.
Robin, don’t you just love it when commonly understood idioms are interpreted as literal to create a straw man?
Oh yeah, I so totally love laboriously stating the obvious.
As I thought! 😉
https://images.app.goo.gl/TPeRCNawiiYuwTzb8
In my view, it depends on the context– when you’re arguing about legality or something, the details matter, and can’t be handwaved away. Or when you’re making a serious allegation.
When you’re just goofing around, it’s considerably less important.
I watch Tucker Carlson regularly and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you point to some quotes or something to justify your claim that he is encouraging the Russians?
See 1:04 on in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmaiqCIM5cE&t=28s
There are similar remarks in Carlson’s videos, quite a few of them actually, but I don’t have a strong enough stomach to sit through such an overflow of toxicity.
While he becomes a star on Russian TV, there is absolutely no way he is linked to a respectable American tradition. And the really sad thing is that legally he is pronounced merely as a kind of entertainment in the USA while cognitively deficient people suck down his messages like there’re going out of style.
So you’re relying on a short, selective quote from a competitive (and ideologically opposed) network to get your summary of Carlson’s position. (Filtered, to some degree, by how Russian media interprets it.)
That’s very lame.
As I said, I watch Carlson regularly, and while he does explain Russia’s perspective, and he does blame the west for a lot of this (as does the video I posted here a couple days ago), he’s hardly a cheerleader for Russia’s action in Ukraine.
I see. You are saying that when Carlson is making the pronouncement that Putin is just securing his western border he doesn’t really mean it because CNN is quoting it?
Yes, he is explaining Russia’s perspective, but he is plainly doing so WITH SYMPATHY.
If you can show me where he disavows the remark (and this is not the only time he expressed it) after making it, I’ll fully concede that he is not cheering Russia on against Ukraine.
“Just” securing his western border after NATO stated — over Russia’s strenuous objections — that their goal is to bring Ukraine into NATO.
This conflict has context. Tucker’s comments have context. But no, let’s let Brian Steltzer tell us what it means.
You really should watch the video I posted the other day.
https://crowhill.net/blog/2022/02/22/some-background-and-perspective-on-the-ukraine-situation/
Sure, the conflict has context and Carslon’s remarks have context, but the context that you mention doesn’t get him off the hook. Even if he made said that Russian JUST (and he did say that word) wants to keep its western border secure in response to a prospective alliance of Ukraine with NATO, that will not undo the effect of him cheering Russia on. Russia still has no right to attack Ukraine.
Steltzer is by no means infallible, but in this case he quite obviously nailed Carlson. It is total nonsense to say that you can’t quote a few sentences from someone, unless of course there follows a disavowing sentence immediately thereafter. The context that you provide doesn’t do the trick.
And remember, this thread also has context. DSM was suggesting that Carlson is merely joining in a good ol’ American tradition of isolationism. That is plainly not the case, as shown above.
Other Eastern European countries joined NATO and it wasn’t a problem. Russia didn’t like it, it was unthinkable that they should attack them.
I think Tucker is sort of a dickhead for saying it on TV…sort of a useful idiot for Putin. But, not necessarily pro-Putin or pro-Russia. It is reality that pushing for Ukraine into NATO might have prompted Putin. However, maybe someone in private might tell their husband/wife that they need to lose weight, but not at a public dinner party. That’s just being an asshole. That’s Tucker…but nothing new with him.
Unconscionable is calling Putin a “genius.” I can’t imagine any other president in my lifetime responding to this aggression that way except for orange bozo. I figure he thinks it helps his odds in 2024 and so if it helps him, it’s all good.
Or to put it another way, I hear Tucker himself, but you expect me to believe what Brian Steltzer and Russian propagandists say about him.
Brian Steltzer and Russian proprogandists are quoting Tucker Carlson’s words. Of course words can be taken out of context. If, after saying that Russia is securing its western borders, Carlson continues by saying something like, “But that is nonsense!” I will concede that he is not being quoted in an honest way.
And there are similar quotes, but it would take a very strong stomach to sit through Carlson’s rants because they are, as a court ruled, “not literal commentary,” but rather “bloviations,” in spite of the fact that those of small intellect this crap seriously.
It’s alleged that a leaked Kremlin memo indicates Tucker Carlson’s commentary is useful in Russian propaganda. So, while some Americans deny Carlson’s culpability, Russia seems to value his commentary and find it useful. Now having this allegation out there, it will be interesting to see how Tucker responds…will he double down or make clear that he wants nothing to do with being a useful Putin pawn.
https://youtu.be/lqwfbKrU3Eo
If that’s the type of quote you think counts as encouraging a war, I’m not persuaded.
FWIW, for my part, I also don’t find it at all surprising or unreasonable that Russia would be unhappy with NATO members on its border, but believe that Russia should suck it up, sometimes other people get to do things you don’t like.
My problem I guess is that based on our Afghanistan conversation I don’t think we share the same definitions of reasonable. Is there a particular video or transcript of his that would convince me he was sending out words of encouragement? I don’t watch Fox — as a matter of fact I don’t have cable, or even own a television — so I’m going to need to dive in.
Okay, I’ve just spent a lot of time reading Carlson transcripts dating back to last year, and I still don’t see war encouragement, or cheering it on, or whatever phrases I’m allowed to take seriously enough to think about whether I agree with.
He’s definitely more sympathetic to the Russian regime than I am, and perhaps too optimistic about the limits of Russian territorial ambitions — he’s probably right about Belgium in the short term, but there’s always something next to your border — but I don’t see how anyone can fairly interpret it as cheering them on.
And I’m even more convinced now that he’s deliberately situating himself within the non-intervention stream of thought, which requires not insurmountable but considerable barriers to getting involved in wars on the other side of the world. That stream of thought has always had a tendency to err on the insurmountable side while understating the potential dangers in the situation (whether Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) while accurately pointing out the risks and low returns of acting. And they tend to make their own exceptions: IIRC Buchanan had a soft spot for Croatia or some random place.
I guess there’s a sense in which anyone not in favour of going to war with Putin over Ukraine, or China over Taiwan, or etc., is objectively encouraging the war by not sufficiently dissuading it beforehand and not resisting it after it began. But that sense seems way too attenuated to be meaningful.
QUOTE: I think Tucker is sort of a dickhead for saying it on TV…sort of a useful idiot for Putin. But, not necessarily pro-Putin or pro-Russia.
I must confess, I literally laughed out loud when I read this! ;-).
I agree that Tucker’s support was more implicit than explicit. But, I wouldn’t expect him to be overt in his commentary. Characters like him always leave wiggy room so they can claim plausible deniability, when necessary. I still wonder why people give so much credibility to Carlson, given his very own lawyer/network and a US judge agreed that viewers should approach his commentary with skepticism. Yet, others are accused of delivering “fake news”???
“The ‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes. Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”
QUOTE: Unconscionable is calling Putin a “genius.” I can’t imagine any other president in my lifetime responding to this aggression that way except for orange bozo. I figure he thinks it helps his odds in 2024 and so if it helps him, it’s all good.
Touché! Yet, is anyone surprised? This is more of what we’ve heard from Trump during his tenure and especially during the press conference with Putin in Helsinki.