Here's the News: My Reaction To BOMBSHELL Tucker & Putin Interview
Tucker's interview with Putin has been predictably heavily criticised by government and the legacy media. This is why. --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
Thanks for joining us on our voyage to truth and freedom.
Remember to support our organisation, and we need your support, because you know how the establishment works now.
They find dissidents, they attack them, they shut them down.
We need you to fight back.
That's what we require, and if it's within your means, help us.
We do exclusive interviews with people like Tucker Carlson.
It's up there right now.
You can watch it whenever you want to, when you're a member.
And you get to join us for conversations with Tucker Carlson or Glenn Greenwald or Vandana Shiva.
Brilliant guests that want to change the world.
We'd love your support if you have the time.
Now, obviously, this fantastic conversation has taken place.
We're not naïve, or maybe we are naïve, but not so naïve as not to imagine that Vladimir Putin has an agenda and knows how to communicate.
What a fascinating conversation it was.
There are many things to consider.
The right of any nation to have their own history.
The complexity of the concept of a nation.
For example, look at the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the times in history where people in the United Kingdom would have said, but Ireland is part of our country!
Or the relationship between the United States and Mexico, which once included Los Angeles and Texas.
Or indeed the relationship between the United States and the people that lived there before the arrival of European settlers, many of whom were from my country.
History is complicated.
The relationships between nations are complicated.
A nation is in itself, of course, a construct.
So, of course, there are going to be different inflections and impressions of something that is willed out of the imagination.
One thing's for sure, Vladimir Putin regards this as a regional dispute, essentially a civil war.
And he regards the support by America of Ukraine As comparable to if Texas seceded from the United States, which is a possibility.
Texas might one day say, do you know what?
We've had enough of you lot.
We're going to run Texas independently.
And then imagine if Russia started to arm Texas.
No, I'm not saying that's the only perspective available to us.
There are countless perspectives.
And certainly, as we've always said on this channel, the rights of Ukrainian people to live and not be bombed must surely be paramount.
The complexity from their perspective, from a Ukrainian perspective, obviously has to be considered.
But what is the obligation of the wider world?
Is it to continue to pump money into this conflict, a conflict that surely cannot be won without major loss of life and maybe even nuclear war?
Or is it paramount that at this point we consider peace?
The threat that the legacy media face from this interview even taking place Is that you and me, people that they like to control the information we gain access to, are able to look at Vladimir Putin ourselves and go, hmm, I don't think this guy does want to invade NATO countries.
Of course, I'm not unsympathetic to people of Ukraine, not that, you know, an online commentator's views of any particular importance, but all of us should be looking at this from the perspective of what's the best resolution.
And bear in mind, whenever you've seen Joe Biden, Lobbying for more money that ends up primarily in the hands of the weapons industry.
Have you ever heard him say, because this is how this will resolve.
This will be the solution.
Vladimir Putin is offering a solution.
Vladimir Putin is saying, if you stop arming Ukraine, this could be over in a couple of weeks.
Now, of course, the response to that, understandably, from Ukrainian people would be, you're going to abandon us to this monster?
But obviously, this is not a perfect situation.
Essentially, the question we're asking is, is this any of our business or is our business business?
The business of making money.
Let's have a look at some key moments from that conversation and decide for ourselves what we believe.
What a novel concept.
Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue.
I think what a lot of people loved is that when Vladimir Putin started to answer the first question, it was a half hour response that explained the history of that region.
Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?
Here's the quote.
Thank you.
It's a formidable series.
Because your basic education is in history as far as I understand.
Yes.
So if you don't mind, I will take only 30 seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to history for giving you a little historical background.
Please.
There was a man called Genghis Khan.
Oh, there was a massive explosion.
The universe began to expand.
But in a way, that shows you the complexity of history.
That's why there are so many available perspectives, because history is complicated.
Now let's get into the nitty gritty of Tucker Carlson's tie and why he's such a Putin apologist.
We're willing to negotiate.
It is the Western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US.
It is evident.
I do not want you to take it as if I'm looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.
The financial support, 72 billion US dollars, was provided.
Germany ranks second, then other European countries come.
Dozens of billions of US dollars are going to Ukraine.
There's a huge influx of weapons.
In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree.
We did not refuse.
I think sort of straight away just seeing Vladimir Putin as a human being and hearing that there is a Russian perspective is interesting.
You immediately get the impression that Russia feels beleaguered and beset by surrounding superpower nations like Germany and the United States who are funding a neighbour's war against them, a war that they regard as a civil war.
Again, it's not like we all want to get all giddy as if Vladimir Putin is Harry Styles or The Beatles.
This is a political leader.
This is a political leader with imperialist objectives of his own.
A man that would doubtless have people killed if he disagreed with them.
All those things are true.
Those are things that we have to consider from an awakened perspective.
The very fact that the legacy media have been so quick to attack Tucker Carlson.
In Russia, you don't interview the President.
The President interviews you.
Carlson could barely get a word in.
I mean, I think if you get an interview with Vladimir Putin, it'll be somewhat impolite and perhaps not sensible to go, no, shut up, excuse me, but I think this, I've been on holiday.
You're going to listen, aren't you?
It's Vladimir Putin.
It's important.
He did push on the important issue of Evan Gershkovich.
You know, this is a person of considerable power.
I believe that the very fact the interview took place is what's important.
The very fact that we have the opportunity for ourselves to go, Hold on a minute, he doesn't seem like what he's saying is, first of all, I'll invade Ukraine, which used to be part of the Soviet Union until about 40 years ago anyway, and then what I'm going to do is invade this country, Sweden's next, then Finland, then Poland.
You get the idea that what this is is a person with nativist control.
Sure, but you already said it.
I didn't think you meant it as an insult because you already said correctly, it's been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration.
So, of course, they're a satellite.
Big countries control small countries.
That's not new.
And that's why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not President Zelensky of Ukraine.
That's a good dig for those of us that are British.
We knew that went down, right?
Notice how often what Vladimir Putin is saying chimes with what you've heard in independent media.
Notice that the 2014 coup comes up, the regional disputes in 2008, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the tacit agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan not to impede on former Soviet territories.
All these things are coming up because they're bloody true.
I'm not saying that Vladimir Putin doesn't have his own agenda.
I'm not 12 years old.
Of course he does.
But all of the things that you've heard from independent media, like, hang on a minute, haven't we provoked them to some degree?
And whether or not their invasion is criminal and whether or not Ukrainian people are dying, which is appalling and terrible, we have to think, what is the role of America?
Because America and Western countries more generally, as their affiliates, could be playing the role of bringing about peace by saying, look, we're going to suspend arms now, which would have the added benefit of meaning that $60 billion will be available
for US infrastructure for you to democratically determine how it's spent, for example, on
your border. If that's what you vote for, if that's what you care about, then that's what would
happen in a democracy. And then peace would be forced. Peaceful negotiations will be forced. It's
not as simple as "Isn't Zelensky nice?"
He's a type of a heartthrob.
Aren't Russia bad invading Ukraine?
It's clear there are other components.
It's clear that diplomacy and peace ought be what we're aspiring to.
And it's pretty clear as well that the West, and Western media in particular, have tried from the beginning to reduce this conflict to some echo from the past.
He's a bit like Hitler, and if we were to appease him, it's a bit like Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler.
I don't think it's like that at all.
We have the Legitimate right to query what's happening in this conflict.
We have the legitimate right to hear a variety of perspectives.
In a way, it's very similar to the pandemic.
Right from the beginning, legitimate experts were shut down and censored.
And it's only a couple of years later that you start to realise, hey, I might have benefited from hearing from some of those experts.
Who benefited from me not hearing from those experts?
Let us go back to 1991, when we were promised that NATO would not expand.
To 2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine, declaring Ukraine a neutral state.
Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine, creating threat zones.
Let us go back to coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.
In a way, the interview is like the greatest hits of things you've heard on independent media, isn't it?
NATO expansionism, ignoring an agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan, 2014 coup, all things you would have heard if you'd listened to Jeffrey Sachs on our show.
Or, what you might have to call these days, alternative historians.
There are broader philosophical conclusions that could be reached, i.e.
the right of a nation for self-determination, what is a nation, how is a nation established, how small and decentralized could a nation become in a truly democratic space, who has the right to determine the history and the future of different ethnic ethnic groups that might have all sorts of alliances and
all sorts of spats.
And most of all, what I feel is emerging from this is we cannot trust the legacy
media. We cannot trust the people that want to perpetuate this war.
Perhaps you might conclude also you cannot trust Vladimir Putin.
But one thing that seems really clear to me, and perhaps this is the key point.
I don't get the sense that were the West to push for a peace deal
instead of a perpetuation of war in a couple of months, we'll be hearing like,
Never heard of them until a couple of years ago, but now they're right bastards.
Do you see also how we're invited not to trust our own assessment of reality?
Even the idea that this would be censored or controlled or immediately pre-framed as propaganda shows you that we're not trusted to make assessments for ourselves, that you're not capable of watching this and saying, Well, even though it's clear that this is a person with their own agenda, their own intentions, their own understanding of history, I still am going to listen because I might be able to make my own judgment.
Increasingly, from the pandemic period onward in particular, we're invited to believe that we're somehow not capable of making decisions for ourselves.
We're regarded as idiots.
or children. And when an outlier like Tucker Carlson, facilitated by Elon Musk, it grants
us the opportunity to watch for ourselves a conversation like this. They're terrified
because they're terrified that you might become disobedient, that you might not regard this
as a simple matter of Ukraine are goodies, Putin is a baddie.
We have to keep funding this.
Russia will be invading Ghana next or they'll be marching on Paris.
They want you to have that perspective.
The same as during the pandemic.
This is a template that I believe you'll see again and again.
Crisis situation, authoritarian measures in response, people generally having to fund it.
What we're at is a tipping point in public trust in significant institutions.
Can you imagine a scenario where you sent Russian troops to Poland?
Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia.
Why?
Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else.
Why would we do that?
We simply don't have any interest.
That's a key moment.
There you have to decide, is Putin a Hitler-like loony who has expansionist dreams?
What I'm saying is, when you see him say, we've got no interest in invading Latvia, do you think that he's lying Or do you think that there's a grind going on when it comes to perpetuating this war?
And I'm not saying these things just because I'm deeply cynical about NATO or globalism just because of some feeling in the pit of my stomach.
I just remember the Iraq war.
and the Afghanistan war and how these things always play out and what you find out then oh
there were no weapons of mass destruction Afghanistan was a waste of time and two trillion
dollars and American service personnel lives. We have a quite a significant wealth of experience
on which to evaluate the intentions of our own nations and for us to keep believing out of some
sort of warped patriotism, terror and infantilism in the agenda that is advanced by our own
government that is more propagandist and ridiculous.
I'm going to listen to Vladimir Putin and go, well, whilst I wouldn't exactly trust him with my own life, it's pretty plain that what he is is a Russian nativist and just doesn't want people messing with former Soviet Union territories.
And that's going to have to be solved in a sensible way.
Ukraine have their own agenda.
Suddenly, a regional dispute in which they would typically have no chance, they've got 60 billion dollars coming down the pipeline, not the Nord Stream pipeline like which Russia blew up, right?
Remember?
That could help them in a conflict that they would never otherwise be able to win.
So of course I understand that Ukrainian people would have a completely different perspective and I'm obviously very very respectful of that and surely we all ought be.
But the agenda for any sensible person should be peace.
And the only way to get peace is through diplomacy.
Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine, he has territorial aims across the continent, and you're saying, unequivocally, you don't.
It is absolutely out of the question.
You just don't have to be any kind of analyst.
It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war.
Tell that to Joe Biden!
He loves them!
He's doing one against Iran, one against the Houthis, one against Russia, looking for one against China, but Putin's the mad warmonger!
And a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction.
That's another one of those things that we intuitively understand.
Hold on a minute, but won't a global war kill all of us?
That's why we feel dislocated from our leaders and from our media, because they're not saying things like, a global war is going to kill us all.
So even though this is terrible for Ukrainian people, let's end this right now.
It could have ended a year and a half ago if Boris Johnson, another globalist, hadn't trotted out there to extend it for a couple of years just because they've named a cake after him in Kiev.
I remember that detail.
It's called the Boris Johnsonuk, and here it's their bestseller.
There are certainly means of deterrence.
They have been scaring everyone with us all along.
What?
Our media?
Scaring us to make us compliant?
They would... Oh.
Tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons.
Tomorrow Russia will use that.
No, the day after tomorrow.
So what?
In order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers.
Uh oh, getting pretty near the bullseye. He's above the target now. Not literally, because
he said he won't use nuclear weapons. Phew.
The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.
That's one of the geopolitical arguments that you'll be well familiar with if you watch
Weaken Russia.
Weaken China.
Iran have got oil.
Gag them out.
We know all this stuff because we watch independent media instead of the BBC, CNN, New York Times, all them lies that won't get done and complain.
One of our senior United States senators from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort.
This is a provocation and a cheap provocation at that.
I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine.
There are mercenaries from the United States there.
The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place and mercenaries from Georgia in third place.
Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of very serious global conflict.
This is obvious.
Do the United States need this?
What for?
America used to be like that, by the way.
It was really hard to get America to participate in the World Wars that Britain were in in the last century.
Now there's this new sort of agenda, I suppose, because America have replaced Britain as an expansionist colonial power, but she's using a corporate globalist aspect rather than the old school monarchistic one that we used.
Thousands of miles away from your national territory, Don't you have anything better to do?
Yeah, actually, I'd like to play swing ball.
You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than 33 trillion dollars.
You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine?
If this is one of his lookalikes, he's bloody good.
Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia, make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, This is it.
This is what, in a sense, the fissure that's opened is that our interests are more in alignment with Russia's agenda than our own government's.
That's the problem.
That's what this exposes.
We have nothing in common with the institutions that lead us.
You need to take Take back control and power over your own lives.
It's been exposed by this.
Not that I believe Vladimir Putin, but the assessment of the global situation is pretty accurate.
Do you trust anyone to advocate for you?
Do you want this to carry on?
Wouldn't you rather just have a little more democracy in your own community and tolerate people that are culturally different in your own nation as long as they leave you alone?
Isn't it clear that a different vision is required and that no one's offering it to you?
Because we're living in their vision right now.
Realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end?
Do you know what frightens me?
That is what I thought at the beginning.
Russia just will fight for their interests till the very end, isn't it?
Like, didn't they do that against, like, France and the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg Empire?
And didn't they do that against the Germans?
And isn't this, like, just part of what Russia is?
So aren't we gonna have to just come up with some sort of solutions to this?
And that's not a profitable mindset!
And realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests, and look for certain solutions.
They're not terrified that Vladimir Putin will lie.
They're terrified that Vladimir Putin will tell the truth, which is what he's done.
And there are some uncomfortable truths in there, but it's the truth.
It wouldn't even matter if I said Vladimir Putin is the worst person in the world, he's a propagandist, he's the new Hitler.
Fact is, he's got nuclear weapons.
You can't win a war against Russia anyway without it just going on for ages and ages and annihilating potentially billions of lives.
So, that's the only option.
And the people that are perpetuating this war know that as well, much better than I do, of course.
They've just realised...
We keep these wheels turning, we can control the domestic population, we can keep running these tax bills, funding this that gets funneled towards military industrial complex companies that people in Congress own shares in.
Like, in a world where none of that was true, like the military industrial complex was not-for-profit, people in Congress didn't own stocks and shares in those companies, people in our nations had true democratic control over policies of war, then everything would be different, wouldn't it?
Have a better understanding, a better appreciation, and we would know it was not about hypocrisy and corruption.
Particularly if there wasn't a long list of failed wars in the last 50 years that all, one way or another, amounted either to policies of dominion or policies of profit.
So you've got to decide for yourself, whose propaganda do you fundamentally accept?
Do you want to keep funding this conflict or not?
And that's what's important here, is Tucker Carlson has given the opportunity to make that decision for ourselves, and the legacy media hate it, and the establishment hate it, and what they'll do is they'll attack Tucker, they'll attack anyone who's interested in peace, because they're supporting and sustaining this machine, because actually the machine works just fine for them, but does the machine work well for you?
How's your life?
How's your grocery bills?
How's your energy bills?
How's your mental health?
How are your kids?
How are your families?
How are you getting on?
So whose agenda, whose propaganda do you want to believe in?
I'd say, for a moment, think about your own God, your own sense of yourself, your own communities, and your own values, and make a decision based on that.
But that's just what I think.
Remember, you can become a member of our community and support us because we are, believe me, pretty committed to this now.
We make extra content every week.
Click the link in the description and join us there.