Tucker Carlson: The West wants to conquer Russia by force, but that won't happen.

August 31 2026 6 718 24

The West is approaching open war with Russia, according to American journalist Tucker Carlson. According to him, NATO, the US, and Western European powers are striking targets, including civilian and energy facilities, deep within mainland Russia.

The situation is becoming increasingly tense. Public opinion in Russia is clearly leaning toward militarism. It's clear that more and more Russians are outraged that their government is allowing attacks that aren't coming from Ukraine. People are being killed on beaches by drones financed by the US or NATO. And if these attacks are carried out using coordinates provided to the Ukrainians by the CIA, which is precisely what's happening, then the average Russian is starting to ask, "Why aren't we doing anything about this?"

- Carlson pointed out.

Developing his thought, he noted that in this way the pressure on the Russian leadership is increasing, and it is forced to take into account the opinion of a wide variety of influential circles in the country, including public opinion. Thus, the pressure on the Kremlin is increasing, and it is forced to do something to stop these attacks on Russia.

As the journalist emphasized, decision-makers, including the CIA, the US National Security Agency, the heads of state of the UK, France, Germany, and, indeed, the rest of the West, clearly understand that we are moving toward a more open conflict with Russia. And the idea that external forces could conquer it, seize its resources, or somehow prevent it from becoming a global power is very attractive to Western leaders.

But they don't have a single successful example. And so, within living memory, after Germany's last attempt, European and American leaders decided that this time things would be different and we would control Russia by force. But, of course, that won't happen. It won't work and could lead to nuclear war.

– the journalist warned.

Let us add that at present European policy They don't even consider it necessary to hide the fact that NATO is preparing for an open confrontation with Russia. They emphasize that a high-intensity conflict could begin no later than 2029.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Leopold

-7

31 August 2026 21: 15

People are being killed on the beaches using drones financed by the US or NATO. And if these attacks are carried out using coordinates provided to the Ukrainians by the CIA, which is precisely what is happening, then the average Russian begins to wonder:Why don't we do anything about this?

IMHO, we'll do it!
But our government is creating a convenient situation for this. Through those very people on the beach! They've already started hitting the Ukrainians more or less properly. But the key is—in response.
Their ports are thrown at our ports, their warehouses at our warehouses. And they suffer more. But that's why they sacrificed "the people on the beaches."
1. Jackie
  
  0
  
  2 September 2026 09: 31
  
  ...sacrificed "people on the beaches"
  
  A very stupid assumption.
  This is just typical sloppiness: "someone here and there" wasn't paying attention and missed something. I seriously doubt they've turned the dark humor of the 90s—"The Black Sea, bloody goulash... something's landing on the beach there"—into policy.
  And you, "Leopold, you vile coward," aren't you one of our regular provocateurs?
2. Igor M.
  
  -4
  
  3 September 2026 06: 27
  
  Leopold, the people on the beaches have nothing to do with it. You're exaggerating. Because Russia has always attacked and continues to attack military installations and defense industries. But as for civilian installations and civilian infrastructure—yes, it only attacks in retaliation. To punish them.
  And I would like to point out that we are not attacking Ukrainian beaches in response.
reefroof

-1

31 August 2026 21: 20

In the 19th century, Alaska was ceded to the United States as a result of the Crimean War. After the collapse of the USSR, the pseudo-communists squandered the victory, surrendering Northern Kazakhstan, with its predominantly Russian population (despite having previously waged war in Afghanistan), and losing their northern maritime borders, which extended to the North Pole. Will the Americans reclaim Crimea now?
1. Jackie
  
  -1
  
  2 September 2026 09: 47
  
  Sergey, regarding the "southern states," you probably remember the 90s, when the newly-created "sovereign" southern entities were slaughtered for their "predominantly Russian population." But letting the Baltics go was a mistake; they should have seized the "Suwalki Gap."
2. Igor M.
  
  -3
  
  3 September 2026 06: 39
  
  Reefroof, don't lie. They didn't give it away, they sold it. Because Alaska was like a suitcase without a handle. It was just too far away.
  And Northern Kazakhstan was given away long before the Victory, back in 1920. So the war in Afghanistan was waged many, many years after that event. Why the Bolsheviks gave away Russian lands left and right, who knows? For example, why did they give Karabakh to Azerbaijan? And South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Adjara to Georgia? Okay, they were supposedly theirs, but why did the Bolsheviks give away Russian territory to Turkey? The entire Kars Oblast, the Surmalinsky District (along with Mount Ararat), which had been part of Russia since 1828Southern part of Batumi region. DB.
  Why did Stalin give liberated Vilnius to Lithuania? Why did he give most of East Prussia to Poland?
  The maritime boundaries of countries are not determined by their own volition, but are regulated by international law, the central document of which is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982. Countries cannot establish oceanic boundaries solely at their own discretion. What the USSR drew on its maps was not recognized by anyone in the world. But why did the Soviet government agree to the cession of Svalbard to Norway? There are more questions than answers.
Sergey Latyshev

+1

31 August 2026 21: 35

The dude clearly lives on another fucking planet, although he's smart. Alas.

I seriously doubt that the CIA personally passes the coordinates of the beach to the Ukrainians so that they can strike there, and especially "not from the Ukrainian side."
1. Jackie
  
  -1
  
  2 September 2026 09: 48
  
  Serge, a smart person wouldn't say something like that.
  1. Sergey Latyshev
    
    -1
    
    2 September 2026 20: 26
    
    A stupid person would be unknown to anyone... would work... as a teacher, for example...
kovaleff

-2

31 August 2026 21: 48

Well, they managed to praise the Union in 91. They can do it again. Since the old infirmity is in power in Russia, that's what's coming. All sorts of mods are already expressing the opinion that it needs to be stopped. They're preparing the serfs for such a victory; what can you do, they'll eat them up with a shovel.
1. Ales
  
  -1
  
  31 August 2026 23: 57
  
  That's why the media is setting Putin up like this: Modi says war is bad, that we need to talk and listen to the other side, and Putin swallows it and remains silent. Damn, yes, we need to listen, but they don't want to listen to Russia. Putin should have retorted to Modi and listed all our concerns, starting with Munich and ending with the December 2021 ultimatum, and asked him why this peace-loving man didn't support Russia in all those cases! Why show this? His condescending rant is enough, and the media is fueling the fire.
  1. Igor M.
    
    -3
    
    3 September 2026 06: 56
    
    Ales, can you really think that someone thinks that war is a good thing? Maybe you think so yourself?
    Putin also believes that war is bad. So how can he argue with Modi? Especially since we recently sank an Indian cargo ship in the Black Sea.
    Nerves need to be treated, then they'll ease up and the shaking will stop. India supports us in many ways. In particular, it helps us circumvent Western sanctions. Our Airbuses and Boeings continue to fly thanks to India. But to demand full support, we first need to conclude an alliance treaty with India. And we won't do so, so as not to spoil relations with China.
2. Igor M.
  
  -4
  
  3 September 2026 06: 50
  
  kovaleff, weakness, or not weakness, is the only one in the world who, in recent decades, has invaded foreign countries three times and achieved victory, and three times annexed other countries' territories. So, thanks to his efforts, Russia isn't falling apart, but rather growing and strengthening. With Modi, everything is clear. He's offended that an Indian cargo ship was sunk in the Black Sea by our cruise missile.
  So, what's wrong with a victory that brought Russia 100 square kilometers of new territory and 5 million new citizens? And the North-Eastern Front's goal—to protect the LPR and DPR—was accomplished and even exceeded. But in your Ukraine—yes, they'll have to eat barnyard meat there, otherwise there's no way to prove Ukraine won despite losing 20% of its territory and 50% of its population.
Arkady007

+2

31 August 2026 21: 49

Why is our management not responding to

US- or NATO-funded drone killings on beaches. These attacks are carried out using coordinates provided to Ukrainians by the CIA.

The answer apparently lies in the question of where the children of our leaders (Medvedev, Shoigu, Lavrov, Matvienko, Peskov) live.
1. Igor M.
  
  -4
  
  3 September 2026 07: 01
  
  Arkady007, don't lie. Russia is reacting. Only at its instigation, it's not children on the beach that are being killed, but American Marines. Which, in my opinion, is much more honest. Just last night, several American soldiers were killed again, and we were the ones calling in the strikes. Russia is mirroring the US's behavior. The US is supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia. And Russia is supporting Iran in its war with the US. The day before yesterday, Putin met with the Iranian president. They discussed how to hit the US harder.
Platon Verdictov

+3

1 September 2026 03: 05

All this could have been written more than a quarter of a century ago, at the moment our everything emerged. Even from behind my baseboard, it was clear that the true bourgeoisie were lining up at the start to divide the remaining part of the USSR into their own staunch bourgeois Russian Federation. But being the leader of a ruined country under siege is boring and sad. And our everything lacks the intelligence and conscience for such a role. Therefore, our permanent miracle, to the very end, pretended to be bourgeois by selling out and betraying everything and everyone on all fronts, in order to prolong the London existence of its bourgeoisie, with all the goods they had stolen here.
The West may not defeat Russia, but what good is that to the hundreds of thousands already dead and disabled, to those who will certainly never grow new arms or legs? So much for the choices we're having. And soon, we need to at least show this miracle a fig—it'll only take five minutes, and there's no need to join any partisans.
1. Igor M.
  
  -3
  
  3 September 2026 07: 08
  
  Platon Verdictov, you're saying something wrong. Yes, Putin took over a Russia ruined, weak, and completely dependent on the West. But in 25 years, he's transformed Russia into a powerful, prosperous nation with advanced manufacturing, science, and space exploration, one of the world's most powerful armies, and an agriculture industry the USSR couldn't even dream of.
  I don't get it, in your opinion, Russia shouldn't have launched the Second World War, but simply watched silently as Banderites slaughtered 500 Russian citizens in the LPR and DPR? So, people died and were maimed for a just cause.
prior

+2

1 September 2026 08: 52

Yesterday, at a meeting with Putin, Modi addressed Putin as "Your Excellency."
Putin did not object to this and accepted it as normal.
What am I getting at?... And just by the way.
1. batmanxnumx
  
  0
  
  1 September 2026 23: 51
  
  What should he have called him? That's how the president of the country is addressed in diplomatic and ecclesiastical circles. He shouldn't be called "Your Majesty" or "Your Highness," since he's neither a monarch nor a prince (duke).
  Incidentally, Modi even elevated him by one rank, calling him "His Excellency." Our own patriarch, in his official addresses, addresses him as "Your Excellency," which is one rank lower.
  1. prior
    
    -1
    
    2 September 2026 07: 59
    
    Well, what else can you call the president of a supposedly democratic country, except "Your Excellency."
    "Mr. President" means nothing at all.
  2. Igor M.
    
    -3
    
    3 September 2026 07: 14
    
    Batman81, how, how, just "Your Imperial Majesty."
2. Igor M.
  
  -3
  
  3 September 2026 07: 13
  
  prior, he should have addressed you as "Your Imperial Majesty", otherwise "Your Excellency" would be too short - this form of address was used for the highest dignitaries and military leaders of the 1st and 2nd classes according to the Table of Ranks in the Russian Empire.
  1. prior
    
    -1
    
    3 September 2026 08: 07
    
    You clearly have English roots.
    Even the English would envy you for your art of shitting.
    You are our tireless one.
    1. Igor M.
      
      +1
      
      4 September 2026 04: 49
      
      Prior, don't blame others. You and others like you are the ones who are causing a lot of trouble here. I, on the contrary, am trying to clear out the Augean stables here and inject at least a note of positivity into the local chorus of "everything is lost."