On Thursday evening, Tucker Carlson broke the internet in this video. We are going to break down 10 fact checks on the Tucker Carlson Vladimir Putin interview and we're going to talk where we stand. What's next for Russia Ukraine What's an analysis that we could take away after Tucker Carlson's interview? We're going to do that right now first: I Want to just thank you On Thursday evening, we had 150,000 folks watching my commentary of Tucker Carl son's interview live. At the same time, this was incredible.

That commentary video got over 1.3 million views with a 22 minute summary video there after getting over half a million views all in the span of about 36 hours. And that is a huge thank you to all of y'all So if you're a new subscriber here, welcome I Do my best to be as neutral as possible. and even if I don't get everything right the first time, I try my best to fix it later on. The goal here is to be neutral, so let's get into it: Fact Check number one.

or maybe Point number one because I don't think anybody disputes this one. The Media: The mainstream media absolutely hated Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin Almost every single media outlet that discussed the interview was very upset at Tucker and we'll talk about why in just a moment. But listen to some of these quotes Politico said Tucker all himself with the Enemy that Carlson lied that the Western media had not even bothered to try to speak with Putin and that he's just a useful idiot Al Jazer says Carlson didn't pressure Putin the way he used to sandbag on Pro Democratic guests on Fox News He didn't even try to refute Putin's outlandish and ungrounded claims Tucker Goddamned. Carlson Served a very well microphon stand for the crazy maniac who for 2 hours rambled about how he loved to kill Ukrainians me.

Just take a quick pause there I didn't hear that from Putin Neither did I really align with any of these quotes I've seen so far because I I didn't so far hear any kind of real reputation of what Tucker or Putin said. There's been a lot of this backlash without actual real anal in commentary I mean consider this Chris Wallace claims that Carlson did not interview Putin Carlson just sat there as an eager puppet. He cashed in on a Putin and asked nothing about invading a sovereign country, the innocent lives, lost, war crimes or anything. Calling him a useful idiot is an insult to useful idiots.

The New York Times says Carlson's interview with Putin is a 2-hour marathon of delusion and fakes and also almost no factchecking. At least that I could easily find frankly as an interviewer myself. Uh, since I interview folks like whether it's uh, Peter Schiff or Kevin o or bar Corin from Shark Tank or my interview with Patrick M David You name it as an interviewer myself, there is a real risk of offending the person you're interviewing to a substantial degree to where they kick you out. They cancel your interview, they take your tapes, they ruin the potential of you ever interviewing anybody else.

They prevent the basically. in such a case, you would really prevent your interview from being heard by consumers at all. And so in other words, if in an interview you're way too aggressive, you're basically saying hey, nobody like this person should ever come on the channel again and the free flow of ideas stops. See Usually what I like to do when I interview somebody is interview somebody and then analyze afterwards.

What do we think? Think: Do we agree with this? Do we disagree with this? Let's have commentary on things afterwards. but to debate and prevent the free flow of opinions in an interview when it's an interview and not a debate usually doesn't go very well. Consider: For example, when a BBC reporter famously interviewed Elon Musk while trying to confront Elon Musk and turning it into a debate, Elon Musk turned around and suggested that the reporter was simply a liar and none of the other parts of the interview you ever became memorable. I Then I I say so that you don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Yes, because you can't me a single example of hateful content. Not even one tweet. And yet you claimed that the hateful content was high. Well, that's a false no What? I claim Li What no no What I claim was Uh, there are many uh organizations that say that that kind of information is on the rise now whether whether it has on my or not I mean right.

Something like the the Strategic dialogue Institute in the in the UK. So there is a real risk to actually alienating your audience when you're trying to let somebody your interview share their flu free flow of ideas by debating somebody solely in an interview. What you're basically doing is you're robbing your audience of the ability to make their own decision and see. This is why I Like factchecking things afterwards, let them talk, let them have their free flow, thought, and fact check afterwards.

For example, I looked at Boris Johnson's fact check because he wrote a fact check in the Daily Mail and I'll tell you most of it revolved around Tucker Carlson's interview was a tissue of Lies He betrayed his viewers and listeners around the world. Tucker was just a sewer for Putin's message. why not a point? BYO breakdown of where things were right and where things are wrong. We didn't really get that from Boris Johnson Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson and we must not fall to this tissue of Lies above for the notion that Putin is somehow fated to succeed in.

Ukraine. On the contrary, he is doomed to fail. Read about it in the daily. Man All We Got Is Well What Putin said Is A Lie Okay, well, why is it a lie? Where's the evidence that? it's a lie.

Remember Putin Specifically called out Boris Johnson Boris Johnson was implicated by Putin as being the person who killed the deal Ukraine and Russia were going to sign as a negotiated settlement in Istanbul Boris Johnson's response was he lied barefaced about his intention to invade Ukraine He lied about the ending of the settlement and that's really it. We didn't really actually get evidence. You could read the piece yourself. It's in the Daily Mail it's literally written by Boris Johnson John Kirby says well.

look this is from the White House right? One of the communications directors there's bipartisan support for Ukraine Don't take at face value what Putin says why Senate Leaders keep in mind: uh. Senate Leaders did just fail to lock in another $7.9 billion Amendment for Ukraine So that's per punch bow as of today. So I'm not sure if there actually is bipartisan support right now, but okay, uh and uh. I did think it was very interesting that in 2019 you had Donald Trump encourage Zalinski to work things out with Putin this is on video I posted the links to a lot of This research and that video with Trump on Ec.com and I really hope that Russia because I really believe that President Putin would like to do something I Really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem.

that would be a tremendous achievement and I know you're trying to do that. Look, it's possible that I failed. Maybe I missed Where the mainstream media really wanted to break down this interview fact by fact, but the reality is I Spent about 6 hours just this morning all solely looking at media fact checks and the vast majority of clips and quotes were simply Putin's a liar Why? Here's a second fact check: where Politico is arguing Tucker Carlson is a liar Tucker Carlson is a liar Politico says because Tucker says it's not that America was going to launch a surprise attack on Russia I didn't say that and then politicals like well Tucker you're a liar because Putin says America was going to do that Okay, so what does Putin say? Well, Putin says quote. We know who the main adversary for the US and NATO is.

It's Russia and Ukraine will serve as the advanced foothold for such an attack. Okay, but wait a second. Let's parse this: Ukraine being a foothold does not necessarily mean the United States is going to conduct a surprise attack. There can be something known as a preemptive strike, which is okay.

Let's say Russia starts moving tanks to the Border where America is and they conduct a preemptive strike, but nobody suggesting that America was going to surprise attack Russia. Now keep this in mind for a moment. Okay, where we're going with this. So Putin's not saying that Putin's not saying that America was going to surprise attack Russia Putin's not saying that uh, or or Tucker Carlson's not saying that America's going to surprise attack Russia and political is like you guys said, America was going to surprise attack them.

That's not true I'm like that's not what they said. So I wanted to clarify that number three. The NATO expansion. Okay, this one is really disputed.

This is a tough one. NATO Expansion Oh boy, this one gets very heated so let's just try to keep this as neutral as possible. According to France 24, they did a French piece on this. It's translated from French in 1990.

I've got these all linked at Ec.com so you can see all my evidence. US Secretary of State James Baker made to former Soviet leader Gorbachov during a meeting on February 9th, 1990 an agreement that NATO would not expand past the territory of East Germany a promise that was then repeated by NATO's General Secretary on a speech May 17th, 1990 that same year in Brussels. Okay, so we have this this argument that Gorbatov was made a deal that NATO would not expand East and that was echoed by NATO's General Secretary in a speech on May 17th, 1990. It's a long time ago.

this is like 34 years ago. 1991 NATO Secretary General Reen Stoltenberg was asked by Desel about NATO expansion and if they promis not to expand Eastward. So about a year later and what does the NATO General Secretary say that simply isn't true. Such a promise was never made.

There was never such a back room deal. It's simply wrong. Hm, what happened after that? Well, in 1990 NATO accepted the Czech Republic Hungary Poland in 2004 Bulgaria Estonia Latva Lithuania Romania Slovakia Slovenia in 2009, Albania Croatia in 2017 Montenegro and in 2020 North Macedonia So as you can see, we've certainly moved. Eastward Now you have folks on both sides of the aisle who say, well, we never made a deal because look at Yens saying we never made a deal and then you have other people quoting 1990 saying wait, but you guys did make a deal So basically people on both sides are using different parts of his history and clearly whether a deal was made, it was pretty much unmade very quickly.

This is highly disputed. NATO claims it never promised it would not expand East NATO actually quotes Gorbatov. the same person that France 24 said was in agreement with no Eastward expansion, but in 2014. So 14 years later Gorbash says in an interview the topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all and it wasn't brought up in any of those years.

I Say that with full responsibility not a single Eastern European country raised the issue not even after the Warsa Pack ceased to exist in 1991. Western Leaders didn't bring it up either. So on both sides you have this giant potential misunderstanding that unfortunately has been going on forever now. I will give NATO uh a a an argument here when people say Nato is trying to encircle Russia NATO has a really good point when they say, hey, this is how much of Russia we've encircled.

the little orange line at the top left and the tiny little bit at the top right. That's it I I'll remove myself at the bottom. That's that's a pretty pretty solid counterargument. It's still potentially NATO Well, it is NATO right on Russia's border, which obviously unsettles Russia and Putin, but it's worth knowing that detail.

Uh, next, the M agreements. Okay, these are really disputed as well. So remember that these are a series of agreements that started in 2014 M 1 2014 and then a little later in 2014 we had M 2. These were ceasefire and monitoring agreements.

Some people suggest that the M agreement were never meant to be followed by Ukraine Anyway, that they were just a tooled by time. So basically Ukraine wants to buy time so they commit to the mixed agreements and Russia's kind of like hey, Ukraine and Putin Just said this in interview. Ukraine you're not implementing the Mi ofs, Why? why not and Ukraine's like, well, we're not implementing them because you're not implementing them And then you have Merkel's phone call which just added fuel to this fire. Merkel In a call with pranksters where somebody pretended to be a president and and Merkel fell for it, Uh, said that the MST agreement bought Ukraine valuable time H This just adds complexity because now you have folks on one side of the aisle who say oh so Ukraine never actually wanted to fulfill the deal and then you have people on the other side who say no, It's true, a ceasefire buys a country time to rebuild, but then you have people who counter that and go rebuild for what.

Rebuild your Weaponry, rebuild your de your your defenses and fortify so you can see how money this gets really quickly. So this one is very clearly disputed and that's a lot of the problem of what's going on. Here is the issue between Russia and Ukraine. It's not clearcut.

if it was clearcut, probably be a lot easier to solve, but it's a very disputed and both sides never actually made things Crystal Clear Whether on purpose because they never had the true intention of following through with them on both sides, right? or that's just the way things played out. Who knows. Now there was a claim that it was disgusting for Putin to claim that polls collaborated with Nazis. That would never be true.

Well, actually, it is possible that both could be true that poles did not collaborate with Nazis and that poles did present and collaborate with Nazis see Poland currently presents itself as a noble victim during World War II and Poland did suffer. In fact, half of all Jews who died during World War II died on Polish land polls resisted Nazi Occupation Some polls helped hide their Jewish Neighbors. The collaboration point of view comes from the fact that eventually you get individuals in Poland who recognize the Nazis have taken over and you could either collaborate or die. In other words, somebody comes to your house with a gun and says, where are the Jews hiding You get caught hiding, you're dead, your family's dead, your wife is dead, your husband's dead, your children are dead, or people do this during war.

They're over there. This is horrible. It's horrible, right? That would be a form of collaboration to, so to speak. save yourself.

So the reality is probably both are true. There are probably people who did collaborate with the Nazis. There are probably people who would rather die than collaborate with the Nazis. So the odds are both are probably true.

Poland Today makes it a crime to say that anyone in Poland collaborated with Nazis so it's clearly very touchy. Now another fact check. This one comes down to semantics. so political argued that there was a decree Banning negotiations with Putin Politico says the president of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia Putin or or rather political calls this a lie because the be the ban is actually on negotiating with Putin not with Russia.

Okay, so basically they're saying Putin is is lying because there's a ban on negotiating with Russia but the ban isn't actually with Russia, it's with Putin. Point of this is this is semantics: Putin is the President of Russia. If someone said negotiations are banned with Biden like Biden or not, negotiations with the US would probably be dead as well. So this is semantics and I thought this was a really weak like argument to try to get out there and fact check Putin on Putin saying oh yeah, you know they banned people from negotiating with us collectively.

For the purpose of this conflict. Putin is Russia number seven Fact Check. A lot of people got upset about Putin's claim to be the largest European economy on the basis of PPP Purchase Power Parody: Putin's actually right here now. PPP is really complicated to understand.

I'm going to try to make it as simple as possible. That's what I try to do on the channel I Try to keep things simple and explain them as simply as possible. All right. Purchasing Power Parody: Basically, how much does it cost to buy a TV remote control? I'm making this totally up as an example and a cup of coffee in uh, America versus China versus Europe.

Let's say okay and and and you know what, a rental car. So let's do a rental car, a remote control, and a cup of coffee. Okay, let's say in America it costs $400 and that's going to be our Baseline. Let's say it cost $500 in Europe and let's say it cost $200 $ in China.

Well, in China it cost half as much as the US. In Europe it costs 25% more. So now what you could do is you can divide a country's GDP by a waiting Factor. So in other words, if China's GDP is $13 trillion on a PPP basis because everything's half as expensive, you actually divide their GDP by 0.5 which makes their GDP look twice as big, whereas in Europe you divide by 1.25 it's a waiting Factor You're trying to put everything at the dollars to wait it all the same.

Which actually makes let's say Germany's economy for example, look smaller and Russia's look larger. So is it true? Yes, on a PPP basis? Not, you know the paycheck. Protection Program on a purchasing Power parody basis. Yes, Europe is the largest economy in.

well, sorry, Russia is the largest economy in Europe. However, remember, it can be very, very inaccurate because it's not that easy to calculate the cost of a basket of goods in all these different countries and then adjust them. Uh, it is also complex because usually these adjustments don't account for uh, the costs of actually trying to buy these things, the tariffs, the taxes, supply and demand factors. So there's so much adjusting to do it's it's not a good measure And so we could agree that purchasing power parody is probably a little bit of a bad comparison.

but if we are going to use it, Putin is correct. Number eight: Why did the USSR collapse? So political says that the USSR collapsed because of Economic and internal political struggles and they complained that Putin said the collapse was initiated by Russian leadership again. I Feel like we're trying to like grasp at straws to call Putin a liar Here both can be true. It can be true that Russian leadership was actually the reason there were internal political struggles and economic issues.

Political counter claims of Putin's argument that the US controls the world's media. Political argues media are privately owned. Yes, most media are privately owned in America Though let's be real: the Twitter files have made it, or at least created substantial doubt in the independence of the mainstream media. This does not make all journalists bad.

This does not make all media companies bad. however. Putin hits on American doubts he's twisting the knife in a wound of Suspicion and Americans have the right to be suspicious. In fact, everybody around the world has the right to be suspicious of what they're being told.

This is why it's nice to hear the opposite point of view. Everybody has their own prop propaganda, but at least if you are provided both sets of propaganda, at least you have a little bit more ammunition to to see where the differences truly lay. now. Russell Brand goes on a rant.

that's I Shouldn't maybe call it a rant, but let's just say he has a a somewhat simplistic approach of the US just wants more money for the military industrial complex. That's why we're going to keep this going, which Putin hit on as well. and Russell Brand is probably correct. The military industrial complex is very, very powerful and many people in America are frustrated that we keep spending money for bombs and weapons for other countries.

Look at the amount of money we've given Israel and now folks are scratching their head going wait wait wait wait, we're asking you not to invade Rafa city Egypt is putting their military on high alert on the border of Rafa City because that's right on the border with Egypt and now y'all want to invade Rafa City where you've got a bunch of refugees essentially and Israel's like, well, we got to fully eliminate Hamas So at some point you wonder like if you keep supporting the supplying of weapons, are you financing people's other Wars to where maybe their their ability to make decisions could be skewed by the fact that you don't actually have to open your wallet. you know, if somebody's like cart blanch, you know. here's as much money as you need for bombs and weapons, it's probably a lot easier to make the decision to invade somewhere or not. Whereas if you actually have to cut the check yourself, you actually have to start weighing things like okay, do we invade here or do we invade there right? You, You have to pick.

You can't pick everything, but if somebody else is paying for everything, it's easier to just go I'll just keep going right? So again, this this isn't like an argument for against Israel it's just saying yes this is. this is a fair argument from Russell Brand Yes and people are very frustrated in America about the military-industrial complex the funding of Wars around the world cuz could we instead use that money to focus on our own needs? Now of course we have to balance this because other people say hey, well you know it's the reason uh America is deemed to be as safe as it is. You know the reason for it is because of the military-industrial complex, they're keeping us safe. You know this is obviously where debates could be had about the military-industrial complex.

Take a shot every time I just said that phrase. So anyway, want to give a little bit of that uh, it is. Uh, it is something that has been the core of many videos, most mostly because I think it's it that that is a pain point for a lot of Americans If you go to Americans and you're like, should we keep funding you know, bombs in other countries it's very popular for people say hell no, spend the money here in America and there are a lot of problems America needs help with Ir Ran for governor in California to try to work to solve those Zelinsky's father point 10 Zin's father it Putin was wrong about this Putin suggested that Zelinsky's father fought in World War II it was actually his grandfather Zinski father was born in 1947 so that's after the war. However, Zelinsky's grandfather did fight in World War II however he was an awarded comrade.

He fought for the Soviet Union not the Nazis So something to keep in mind. Uh, some other things that really aren't up for dispute. Uh, it is true that the Soviet Union did try to join NATO before the Warsaw PCT between you know the Russian side and and various countries was signed before the Warsaw PCT collapsed and then those a lot of those countries ended up joining NATO NATO rejected Russia citing a lack of democratic and defensive AIMS in Russia So yes, that that did happen. Uh, some folks are are picking up on Uh Putin claiming that Ukrainians and Russians are one.

This is probably false. You're probably not going to see a clear Unity between the two populations anymore and you could go all the way back to 2001 where Ur conducted a a poll. We know polls can be misleading as well, but Uh, 67.5% of Ukraine's population declared themselves as Ukrainian and Uh chose Ukrainian as their native language. 29.6% declared it Russian Most of the time you're seeing their primary language, uh being Russian on on the Eastern flanks which makes sense uh and as far as like nationality or ethnic origin.

Overall, 77.8% of Ukraine's population self-identified ethnically as Ukrainian with 17.3% identifying ethnically as Russian something else and and again, take these for what they are at this point. I Think things are so different between Ukraine and Russia you're probably not going to fully assimilate assimilate. But yeah, you do need to come up with some kind of resolution because the constant war is just ridiculous. Yeah, something else that we got out of this is frankly, Putin's Health Putin's the fact that Putin is dead is clearly not true, that he has these massive ailments and is incapable of leading probably aren't true, so it's nice to kind of put some of those conspiracies to rest.

I mean I suppose he could still have cancer? You can't really tell. But anyway, uh, Canadian uh or Justin Trudeau responded to the Nazi argument. That's the argument that why did you invite a shff officer to Parliament and give him a standing ovation? This was a big Scandal a big faux paw in Canada and Justin Trudeau Basically said the invasion of Ukraine was unjust. No response at all to the question, so punted the question.

this is what why I get frustrated about the lack of like fact checking like if the the mainstream media is supposed to be So so good. Where where are the real fact checks? why can't somebody go? Thanks for giving us the perspective I know. So, where do we stand now? Well, in my opinion, Ukraine will likely rely on IMF loans and budget cuts to fund its defense as progress to fund Ukraine is stalled in Congress and probably will be until at least January of 2025 and that would be the end of January 2025. Anyway, the interview will Spotlight Uh, you know? Well, I I Think the interview spotlights uh, talk of resolutions for Russia Ukraine and uh, this is good.

We want people talking about negotiating this and ending this war. In fact, Putin invited for negotiation. The problem is what Putin said in terms of negotiation was blurry. There's some folks who listened to the speech from Putin or the interview from Putin.

It was somewhat a speech given that most of it was Putin talking. Some people listen to the direct Russian translation and said that our translation wasn't as good as what Putin actually said. See, our translation is what's there to work out. If you want to stop fighting, stop supplying weapons, then it'll be over in a few weeks.

Then we can negotiate, which is basically saying let's mop up Ukraine when they don't get supplied weapons and then we can negotiate. That's the way it came through in English. However, people who listen to it in Russian say that's not exactly what Putin meant, suggesting that Putin is actually much more open to compromise because obviously the English translation is not very negotiable. So the reality though, is: both sides have dug in.

Putin has dug in Biden's dug in Putin's doing the well they can call me, it's their fault and Biden's doing. He can call us. it's his fault. It's like it's like fifth graders fighting.

It's frankly, ridiculous. It's a stalemate of stubbornness. People need to wake up and get their leaders to actually get on the phone. Stop being little weenie babies and start actually negotiating in Nnest.

Why not advertise these things that you told us here? I Feel like nobody else know about this? We'll We'll try a little advertising and see how it. Go Congratulations man, you have done so much. People love you people look up to you Kevin P there financial anist and YouTuber meet Kevin Always wait to get your take.