NATO isn't even fighting. NATO gave Ukraine their old boxing gloves and some advice.

My guess is is does, but he wants the US to lose interest and move on so coloring this as an exercise in futility helps further that goal.

Yeah, a lot of it is outrage bait. That is basically how Trump got elected, outrage -> coverage, coverage->legitimacy.

Amusingly, even the russian government corrected him on that too - to paraphrase, "we have lots of requests to interview Putin, he just doesn't want to do it"

The even more amazing part is that the Kremlin debunked him. They said they constantly get interview requests from journalists. They just never accept them.

Edit: Just saw this posted as a response already.

Putin really missed his chance.

Tucker Carlson don't got that Seth Rogan build type for a mission like that...

But attack can take strange forms. And you will remember the tooth. The tooth. You will remember the tooth.

But it shouldn't allow him to call what he does "news" or "journalism". Him, and others like him, should have bumpers before and after every segment that says "the views expressed are purely the opinion of the host and do not necessarily reflect reality or facts" and not at the breakneck speed they used to do those car dealer and drug commercial disclaimers.

He has just posted a video of him receiving gifts from the enemy, and he is giving aid to the enemy. This is not speech, this is an attack on America's interests.

It's one thing to campaign in the US and say "I like it when Putin genocides Ukrainians", but it's another thing to be paid by a country that we're indirectly at war with, and provide publishing and broadcasting services to their president, a man who is on the US Sanction list. The illegal thing here is not the speech, it's the business transaction.

Subpoena Tucker's emails and phone and prosecute for illegal business transactions.

Which one?

Outright fascist.

I watched, but it truly is a bunch of rambling.

Putin pushed the CIA sniper incitement conspiracy theory, but didn't present evidence.

On the Nazi thing, he seems to be pivoting to he invaded because Ukraine doesn't have strong enough laws to prevent Nazi speech. Again not very compelling.

He again brings up the conflict pre-invasion in east UA, but fails to mention that Russia was backing the insurgents.

He brings up that the change of power in 2014 wasn't done to the letter of the UA constitution, but fails to mention that the current government clearly has a popular mandate.

He rehashes all the arguments that the West has been the aggressor since the fall of the USSR with NATO expansion.

Other than that it was pretty off topic. Tucker doesn't press him much at all, and when he does Putin deflects and Tucker gives up.

Overall nothing you wouldn't expect.

ETA: just remembered, this was kind of strange. The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn't want to talk evidence. It's kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn't want to set a precedent that evidence is required.