I thought Tucker hammered the WSJ reporter issue pretty well and held Putin to an answer. After initial prevarications Putin essentially answered “we will release the dude eventually, but I am bingo good faith gestures to the west so we’re not doing it now.” I don’t like that answer, but hearing it directly from Putin was illuminating for many reasons. I also reject your unspecified moral concerns at engaging in dialogue with someone who has done something bad. Of course Putin portrays himself as the good guy and is evasive; knowing he’s bullshitting isn’t a reason not to listen.
I’m surprised how many military officers are disgusted by Tucker‘s interview. I would gladly hear from adversaries no matter how much I despise them. I want to hear from North Korea, from Iran, the Houthi’s, would love to hear a podcast from al Shabab, AQ, etc. I watched the Vice documentary on ISIS with interest. I would kill all of them with no hesitation, but talking is the way wars end and listening is potentially advantageous.
This is a recent development in our country and not a good one: we used to listen to everybody and journalists were applauded by interviewing adversaries. Now there is a large group of people who cover their ears and shout when introduced to a different opinion, claiming it is propaganda disinformation malinformation. Yes it is, so what?
The enemy believes things we think are wrong, that is why they are the enemy. Answers can’t always be taken at face value, we’re engaged against them so their speech is a lot of subterfuge and attempted manipulation and they fight with words. Listening to those things doesn’t infect me, it helps me understand how to resolve conflicts to my advantage. Where might we agree? What are things they care about that we don’t where concessions might be made? What are sensitive areas where we might ascertain vulnerabilities previously unseen? How can we exploit their words against them? Who are the charismatic, intelligent leaders who have a chance of defeating us that we should target and kill? Who are the dumb ones we should prop up to weaken their organization? There are also tactical advantages: UBL, ISIS & NVA were targeted successfully based on analysis of items in the background of videos they allowed reporters to take; fucking dummies. I encourage that (Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake). So let’s all be mature and realize there is goodness here if we are smart enough to filter appropriately. And if hearing a different perspective challenges your own conclusions, that is healthy as well.