Why hasn’t anyone posted here about the Putin interview yet?
I know everyone here is kinda busy to set aside 2h during the week to watch this, but surprised no ape has started a thread on this yet. Is WSO suppressing any posts about itđź‘€
Trending Content
| +30 | ADHD ! | 14 | 14h | |
| +30 | Non-Competes Banned | 36 | 14m | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 3d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 1d | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 2d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 4d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 3d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 2d | |
| +10 | What are divorce rates in IB? | 13 | 5d | |
| +9 | Drunk in an interview | 5 | 3d |
Career Resources
Based on the most helpful WSO content, it seems like there hasn't been a specific thread started on the Putin interview you're referring to. It's not uncommon for certain topics to fly under the radar, especially in a community where the focus is heavily on finance and career-related discussions. It's also possible that members of the Wall Street Oasis community haven't felt compelled to start a discussion on this topic, or it simply hasn't caught the attention of the users as much as other topics have.
As for the idea of WSO suppressing posts about it, there's no evidence in the provided context to suggest that Wall Street Oasis is actively suppressing any discussions. It's more likely that the topic hasn't sparked enough interest among the community members to warrant its own thread. Remember, the forums are user-driven, so the content largely depends on what the users decide to post about.
If you're keen on discussing the interview, don't hesitate to start a thread yourself! It could be a great way to initiate a conversation and get insights from other members of the community.
Sources: Make or Break the Economy | The Daily Peel | 3/22/23, Don't Feel So Good | The Daily Peel | 3/17/22, J.P. Morgan 2019 IBD Video Interview, Why can't I even get any interviews?, Everybody Loves A Bargain | The Daily Peel | 3/4/22
It’s a bit niche to be honest. The first 45 minutes is Vlad going on and on about 862, the conversion to Orthodoxy, the Kievan Rus, Katherine the Great, the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Bolsheviks, and Tucker is going “but why didn’t you invade Ukraine earlier in your 20 year presidency,” and Vlad says, “is this a talk show or a serious conversation?”
Upon receiving an answer that it’s a serious conversation, he just plows headfirst into another anecdote about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or some other random thing. It feels more like a talk with a lopsided and biased Russian History PhD than a head of state.
Lol "history PhD". Pretty sure Putin tried to make the argument that Poland was actually to blame in WWII because they wouldn't hand over Gdansk to the Nazis. Also, he conveniently left out the part where the Soviets were in cahoots with the fascists, because that doesn't make him look too good, especially when his whole justification for invading Ukraine was to root out "Nazis".
I haven't listened to the whole thing, but the parts I did hear were pretty much entirely bullshit. You'd have to be as credulous as, well, Tucker Carlson to buy any of it, it's all patently revisionist history meant to justify Russian revanchism.
Though I did enjoy a couple of the burns Putin dropped on Mr Carlson. Not that he's a difficult target, but still.
I said “lopsided and biased,” so clearly not an endorsement of the veracity of the claims. The point is that normal heads of state don’t give 45 minute lectures on regional history starting 1300 years ago and give the blow-by-blow of what treaty Prince Yaroslav the Holy agreed to or whatever. That’s history wonk stuff. His historiography is completely biased and warped, but his complete obsession with historiography in the first place is the bizarre thing.
The fact he was blaming Poland for the planned partition under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact when it says it right there in the name that it’s Russian… it’s bizarre.
Don’t want a big Ozy debate. I think we agree here. He has professor-like obsession, and I was not remotely endorsing his historiography.
I mean, I think his obsession stems from the fact that he's engaged in a war of naked conquest against a nation-state Russia with which has deep and binding agreements and are currently abrogating, so he needs some excuse. I sincerely doubt Mr Putin has the slightest interest in history
Tucker is about as sympathetic an audience as Putin could hope for with an interview that has this kind of potential reach, and didn't do himself any favors in my opinion, which is probably for the best. His drag it out, ignore the question, here is a 30 minute history lesson approach may work to dodge more pointed questions from other western journalists in the past. But with Tucker I actually think he had a real opportunity to undermine American support for that conflict and put Russia as a defender of culturally conservative values
Ultimately dont think this will have much cultural impact.
I agree with this. I think the interview paints him as an out-of-touch hermit who drank the Kool-Aid on a highly fringe, tortured perception of Russian history and lack of Ukrainian statehood.Â
If his logic were more poorly laid out, it would almost be easier to believe him. Hearing him elaborate on every detail step by step made things less plausible, not more. His best argument on the de-n***fication of Ukraine was that Zelenskyy stood up in parliament for that one veteran in Canada that they didn't do the background check on, which is a really terrible argument. Putin even admitted a lot of stuff which was odd, like that Zelenskyy was Jewish (which a lot of pro-Russian people try attacking in order to promote the de-n***fy narrative) and that having a separate Ukrainian People's Republic was a good idea and that promoting indigenous languages was a good idea (which flies in the face of his assertion that Ukraine never has been a state and has no legitimacy as a people distinct from Russia).
He's an intelligent guy, but it works against him because he's intelligent enough to tell you all the acrobatics he had to do to get to his conclusion, and he would have been better served by a less intellectual, less complicated justification of NATO encroachment, West is bad, I defend traditional values and Christian Orthodoxy.
Adipisci in assumenda dicta. Sunt excepturi quos consequuntur fuga eum illum.
Omnis nihil sint error ut veniam. Cum et maiores nam minus quia autem omnis voluptatibus. Et et fugiat cumque provident amet molestias. Aliquid sit molestiae eum. Quas totam eos qui quisquam.
Eos asperiores eligendi sint harum. Dolorem maiores ex nemo aut. Et porro est dolore.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...