Considering RT is Kremlin funded, I expect he had all these questions in advance. That's how he routinely does it for his domestic news. Also a reason I tend to avoid this 'news' outfit.

Okay, so it's not a spontaneous and challenging interview but rather a soapbox for his philosophical meanderings.

And that makes him wrong how..?

A lot of the stuff he says is bang on the money, particular as it regards America's actions and stances. Iran is a perfect example. It wouldn't be climbing back from being a fundamentalist state if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader and installed the Shah all those years ago. Which eventually precipitated Ayatollah Khomeni's rise to power as a fundamentalist leader by overthrowing the Shah... Now Israel, and ergo the US, rail against Iran being able to have nuclear power because they are a rogue state, but they are only a rogue state because of western interventionism.

You might not think much of the guy (I don't personally), but you can assess the truth of his words for yourself can't you? He's saying things that plenty of people think or understand, but few care to actually speak out about it. Yup, it's borderline propaganda, so approach it with a critical eye, but a lot of what he talks about is bang on.

Was Japan really that close to surrendering when America dropped the bomb? I get the impression he's exaggerating that.

Sadly, until the US's whitewashing of history was complete, it was pretty widely-spread that Japan had been attempting to surrender for up to a week before the bombs were dropped, but the US didn't want to lose out on its opportunity to show off it's new war-toy.
This is widely disputed today, but I honestly can't tell if it is for reasons of rewriting the past, or that it honestly wasn't true.
(I'd also heard several times in my life that Japan had subs spotted near Hawaii before the Pearl Harbor bombing, but it was 'ignored' so an attack would justify the US's entry into WW2).
So obviously it's almost impossible to determine facts from history when every generation tries to remove the traces of its mistakes, but I *do* know the Japan-surrender was a pretty widely controversial one, and potentially true. What I know of the US today, that detail is another one of those dark pieces of history I can look at and say: "...Yeah, they would do that".

@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

@RedSky

while i agree with you that this was most certainly a scripted interview,and one of the reasons i did not tag it "news",let us be clear and concise that this is a practice that most politicians,or heads of state engage in for most press conferences/interviews.

but that is where our agreement ends.

to downplay americas role in the overthrow of mossadeqh as to little more than a nuisance,with little actual affect on iranian politics,is not entirely accurate.while those elements existed,it was eisenhowers TPAJAX project which was specifically directed to inflame the already tense relationship between the royalists and the PM mossadeqh.

chalmers johnson and john perkins wrote at length and great detail in regards to this situation.

i will concede that i agree to a point (but only to a point),that american foreign policy is about reciprocation,but i find your analysis to be far too simplistic.when there is an over abundance of evidence that american foreign policy is not some benevolent spreading-freedom and democracy for the masses but rather colonialization by way of exploitation,indebtness and ultimately military might.

see:smedley butler
see:IMF and WTO
see:john perkins-confessions of an economic hitman

america is in the business of empire.this is about business and profit and the military is used as the hammer to keep those countries in line.

quid pro quo.

i am no fan of putin.he is ruthless and his domestic policies have caused immense suffering with the under class,but i have to respect his abilities as a politician.the man knows how to work a room.

Of course he knows how to work a room - its his room and he will never allow anyone else in the room. Not even anyone who doubts it should be his. He owns the other people in the room, literally.

Presuming that I don't think it was completely stage managed (I do) or that Russia isn't trying to score cheap points at America's expense (it is).

But again, that doesn't make him wrong. The west, headed by the US, has been putting it's sticky fingers in to the middle east for over 50 years, and it's only gotten worse and worse. How much western equipment now rests in IS hands? How many WMD's did the US find in Iraq? How many innocent people have died in the decades of war waged in the name of what exactly?

You can gussy it up as much as you like, but the US has been preaching the dogma of the greatest nation on earth/leaders of the world for years. Leaders set examples, so I guess it's not a massive surprise that the world is in such a god awful state...

I have little regard for Putin but for most of this dog and pony show, he's pretty much on the money.

@Asmo

Don't really want to get a more general argument about the history of US foreign policy, I was talking more about the present day. The US's rationale for intervention during the Cold War was an exaggerated sense of the spread of communism and later to prevent anything that might precipitate an oil price spike like in the 1973-74/79. Nowadays with greatly expanded US shale oil supply and no Cold War I simply don't see any real incentive, if anything with the furore over debt, quite the opposite.

@enoch

Successful US intervention in the previous century generally involved large sums of money, whether it be propping up a government (Zaire/Congo) or funding an insurgent militia (Guatemala). Same thing with the USSR (North Korea). The ability to influence public opinion or mount credible propaganda campaigns in my opinion is generally exaggerated especially in a large, modern and educated country like Iran. It's also the conspiratorial myth that repressive regimes (like Iran, Russia) frequently turn to when they need to discredit dissent. A good example is:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/11/arab-conspiracy-theories

I mention Russia because this is the line pushed aggressively to both his domestic audience by it's wholly state controlled television media and to a mix of foreign and expatriate audiences (of which Russia Today is most successful) through a web of shadowy funding and home grown sounding organisations (see link below for a nice overview, e.g. http://www.globalresearch.ca/). It's pretty important to view what he says as part of a narrative to vastly exaggerate US and western intervention in Ukraine and previously Georgia, because that allows him to construct his myth of being a counterbalance to present day western imperialism.

https://criticusnixalsverdruss.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/propagramm3.jpg

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote discussion!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by RedSky.

1) Thinking that any other western media outlet doesnt do exactly that is naive to put it friendly.
2) If you would have seen several interviews with Putin by western media, you would have realized that he is extremely well informed and prepares himself much better for interviews than any western politician I know. I would go as far to say that he is a political genius and very intelligent. He can talk any western politician into the ground and even the interviewers look extremely stupid when talking to him, since its made obvious how PC they are and how much they follow their agenda, which is not neutral or objective in the slightest.

Very. Even radio messages were intercepted that made that clear. The USA chose to ignore those, play them down.
Truman had his agenda with the Soviets. What does Russia has to do with Japan? Pretty simple actually. After Germany was defeated Russia was advancing very quickly towards Japan, and Truman didnt want them in Japan. Truman hated Stalin with a passion and used every opportunity to humiliate him or show Americas strength to him. One particular event was very telling, after he announced the nuclear bombs to Stalin and expected respect, fear and acknowledgement from Stalin but instead got indifference and burst in rage about Stalins reaction. Even Churchill noticed how much Truman changed after he got the bomb. He seemed like an insecure boy who suddenly got the power of a superhero. A very dangerous combination and it proved to be fatal for at least the Japanese and was pretty much the sole reason for the cold war.
Japan was bombed not only once but twice, even though the USA knew they would surrender soon, not because of them fearing more human loss on their side, but because they feared Russia would be able to reach Japan if they waited longer.

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

I never said to rely on Putin or RT solely. I just tried to explain that ignoring him and RT because of stupid reasons like that is not very wise, because the west isnt much better. You have to see all the sides to make a proper judgement.

A, B and C are irrelevant. Ownership is irrelevant because the western media is also "owned" by people with an agenda. But even between those different people there is a common agenda. You can see that in Germanys media right now very well. They are outright lying collectively to the people just to stay politically correct.

Reputation also is irrelevant because objectivity > reputation.

Funding is also irrelevant, as you said yourself. You can see it very well that it doesnt change much where they get their money from. The agenda matters. Also very well observable lately.

Putin first and foremost is a counterweight. He makes the western mistakes more obvious. He also has very good points when defending his own countries actions. Even the homosexual ones, if you ever listened to him on that topic. Yes, as a political leader he is of course manipulating, but he makes much more sense, actually uses facts and doesnt nearly lie as much as any politician I have ever seen.
You of course need to have and acknowledge those facts to realize that. But you made it clear that you arent. Comparing Russias imperialism with Americas shows just how much. Its pretty much clear the USA was involved in that coup detat once again. Now imagine how the USA would have reacted if Russia did that in Canada or Mexico. Or imagine how the USA would react to being completely surrounded by Russian military bases, having decades of history of destabilizing and overthrowing countries and whole regions, breaking and ignoring international law, even threatening the country where the international court sits to never dare to bring one of their before their court and then Russia claiming that the USA is the aggressor.

Actually Russia has long been very passive about the eastern expansion of NATO and they forgave that bleeding out of Russia towards the west in the 90s. Something like that happening at their doorstep actually justifies much MUCH harsher reactions, but they didnt use them. Instead they actually took another (hypocritical) slap in the face rather passively and silently with those sanctions.

Syria... I am surprised you even bring that up, because thats just stupid to use that for your argument. Syria has been a long ally of Russia and they asked for help after the US and NATO started bombing their infrastructure instead of ISIS. The war in Syria is even more obviously an externally funded war, not a civil war, while in the Ukraine you can actually see parts of a civil war, it started like that, because those people didnt want the new government. Also again mostly due to America and their support of other totalitarian regimes in that region.
You should read this:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/31/holes-in-the-neocons-syrian-story/

Well, right until Pearl Harbor there were the do-fights and don't-fights. If the anti-war party hadn't been assassinated, ran out and broken, we wouldn't have had to fight Japan at all.

The problem is these people still ruled. Imagine them pressing forward with a nuclear plan (which would have absolutely occurred if they thought they could get away with it.) Interestingly Germany sent material to them to dump on our shores as a sort of nuclear bomb but we intercepted it. It is thought that we used it against Japan, which is hilarious. But I digress.

The point is--even if they planned on surrendering, they had no intention of concessions. Would those in power (who were as guilty as the Nazi) willingly turn themselves over for trial? Huehue.

As far as the Soviet issue, yeah, your facts go without saying. And Truman did get his results--he got Stalin to restrain himself (In a certain way...though there was the cold war.)

So premise A, B, and C are all inconsequential, that I can give you. But if I give you that, then every piece of information we have is skewered and corrupted in some fashion (Regarding history, less so science such as global warming.) If we agree all information is corrupt, and significantly so, which is also a logical fact, then history in general is meaningless. So the study of history and "facts" is stupid. Not that I agree with Red, for I am more like Socrates.

There never was an issue about concessions. They always were ready to accept their fate. But even the peace talks before only included the condition that their emperor was left untouched. And thats exactly what the USA gave them later. So not accepting peace with them was a farce from the start, no matter from what side you look at it.

Truman didnt restrain Stalin. Truman provoked Stalin massively, making him think that they would invade Russia next or at least start a war with them, which started the cold war.
The USA was always provoking, especially at the start of the cold war. Theres a well known video on Youtube (prolly even here) that shows exactly where and when nuclear tests happened. It makes perfectly obvious how much the USA provoked the Soviets.

Of course. People always try to manipulate facts so that they fit their agenda.
History doesnt lie. Historians however... and history is written by the victors.
That doesnt make history meaningless, because sooner or later the truth gets out. It took a long while on WW2 and even WW1 (read The Sleepwalkers), but it happens. Also people, thanks to the Internet, get more and more informed from different sides. Common sense has been reformed. People actually understand cause and effect now, and dont just believe in what the news or some history books say that were written by PC or victor authors.

The problem with history is that it is taught fundamentally wrong. When it happened and who were involved are more or less unimportant. The real importance is that we learn from it, so we dont repeat historical mistakes and know what happens when we do this or that decision. People need to think for themselves when learning history, how that is projected on todays happenings, how we can avoid the things that happened so many times in history and always caused the same bad thing and how it all worked together to cause that. That should be taught. Instead names and dates are the most important thing to our society. No wonder history is so easily manipulated and repeated then!