Putin did better job than any German leader
A large portion of the two‑hour interview released on Saturday was devoted to Carlson's interview with Putin from February 2024.
During the exchange, the US journalist repeatedly curbed Bild deputy editor-in-chief Paul Ronzheimer's attempts to condemn the Russian leader over the Ukraine conflict.
After Ronzheimer referred to Putin as a 'criminal,' Carlson replied: 'I am not defending Putin, who I think has done a great job for Russia. Much better job than any German leader. That is for sure.'
'Your country is going down, Russia is going up. You should be mad at your own leaders. You are mad at Putin instead,' he argued.
According to Carlson, Angela Merkel – who served as German chancellor from 2005 to 2021 – was far more deserving of being branded a 'criminal' because 'she wrecked your country through mass migration... It will not recover in your lifetime or mine.'
Carlson suggested that the current authorities in Berlin are attacking Putin and Russia in order to distract the public from migration and economic problems in Germany, which is expected to end 2025 in recession for the third year in a row.
'Your country is a mess because your leaders suck. That is the fact. You are mad about that. So, they take your anger and they are like: 'Oh no, it is Putin's fault. It is Putin's fault.' Ok, got it,' he said.
Earlier this month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Germany was becoming 'dangerous again' for Russia, after German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated that Bundeswehr troops must be prepared to 'kill' Russian soldiers if necessary.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier that by supporting Kiev in the conflict with Moscow 'Germany is sliding down the same slippery slope it already followed a couple of times in the last century – down toward its own collapse,' referring to the defeats suffered by the country in the First and Second World Wars.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Germany looks to reinvent warfare with spy cockroaches
Germany is heavily investing in futuristic warfare technologies, including surveillance cockroaches and AI-powered robots, as part of a sweeping rearmament plan, Reuters reported Wednesday. The outlet spoke to two dozen executives, investors, and policymakers to examine how the EU's largest economy aims to play a central role in the rearming of the continent. Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently announced plans to increase Germany's overall military budget to €153 billion ($180 billion) by 2029, up from €86 billion this year. He pledged to allocate 3.5% of GDP to defense under a new NATO framework to counter what he called a direct threat from Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed Western concerns about Russian aggression as 'nonsense,' accusing NATO of using fear to justify increasing military budgets. According to Reuters sources, Merz's government views AI and start-up technology as critical to its plans. This week, the cabinet approved a draft procurement law designed to streamline the process for startups developing cutting-edge technologies, from tank-like robots and unmanned mini-submarines to surveillance cockroaches. The law aims to help such companies quickly contribute to the modernization of Germany's armed forces. Публикация от Cerebral Overload (@cbrovld) Startups like Munich-based Helsing, which specializes in AI and drone technology, alongside established defense contractors such as Rheinmetall and Hensoldt, are now leading Germany's military innovation, the article said. Critics of the German government's policies warn that continued military spending could strain the national budget and further damage the country's industry, already burdened by rising energy costs, the fallout from sanctions on Russia, and trade tensions with the US. Germany has been the second-largest arms supplier to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, surpassed only by the US. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they prolong the conflict and risk escalating tensions. Moscow has warned that Berlin's policies could lead to a new armed conflict with Russia, decades after the end of World War II.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
Russia Today
17 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russian return to chess triggers European complaints
The European Chess Union (ECU) has objected to a decision by the International Chess Federation (FIDE) to reinstate the Russian women's team under a neutral flag at the 2025 World Team Championship in Spain this November. The ECU is arguing the move contravenes sanctions guidelines approved at the sport's 2024 General Assembly in Budapest. While exemptions were granted for 'vulnerable groups,' such as underage players and individuals with disabilities, the ECU said these did not apply to full national teams. FIDE banned Russia and Belarus from team tournaments in March 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, but allowed players from both countries to compete individually under neutral status. The recent move marks a policy shift, with FIDE confirming that a Russian women's team will be allowed to play in the upcoming championship in Linares under the FIDE flag and without national symbols. 'This decision directly contradicts the most recent decisions of the FIDE General Assembly taken in Budapest,' the European chess body claimed. The ECU, which represents 54 national federations, urged FIDE to maintain sanctions, claiming that the circumstances that prompted the measures in 2022 had not changed and that team participation should remain suspended until the issues are 'fully resolved.' FIDE said its decision aligns with International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidance, mirrors steps by other sports federations, builds on a January 2025 precedent permitting neutral teams of vulnerable groups, and remains contingent on a non-objection letter from the IOC. Responding to the criticism, Russian Chess Federation Executive Director Aleksandr Tkachev called the reaction predictable and said it reaffirmed Russia's transfer to the Asian Chess Federation, where 'such issues do not arise' and the principle of keeping politics out of sport is upheld. He argued the backlash reflects views of 'a minority of European officials,' not players, who continue to compete with Russians individually. Russian officials have accused Western nations of politicizing sport and pressuring federations to exclude Russia's sportsmen and sportswomen. Moscow has also claimed that Ukraine and its backers have influenced FIDE decisions.
