Some strategies for discerning credible information and analyzing the motives behind such interviews include critical thinking, source evaluation, expert analysis, and historical context. Putin was an avid user of historical context, and followed his points of going to war with Ukraine. Researching Putins claims, along with facts stated in the interview, allows you to understand and interpret the information much more accurately.

     Putin used his platform to communicate his platforms by agreeing to the interview, then expressing his feelings about the certain topics, and expressing them well and in detail. Putin agreed to do an interview that could be considered difficult or could cause problems. When he agreed to do this it’s showing that he wants to get his perspective out there to share with everyone. He expressed his feelings about all the topics and answered every question that was asked. He answered no matter how difficult it would or if it would cause issues. Putin also expressed his feelings about these questions very detailed and with a lot of information to educate people about the topics. This shows how he used the platform to communicate his views.

In summary, Putin aimed to discourage ongoing military assistance to Ukraine through his address to the American public, with Carlson's cooperation. Additionally, it is plausible to argue that Ukraine could have avoided the attacks they faced if they had not pursued membership in NATO.

Currency matters because throughout a world leaders time leading a country, many things can happen which can change his or her point of view on a situation. Depending on what is being interviewed, the time of the interview can affect what is being said. Revelance is also part of this strategy. Revelance matters because world leaders are interviewed on many different subjects so what is being talked about needs to be revelant to finding credible information. Authority also matter a lot. When being interviewed, world leaders are likely to be biased, however, the person who is interviewing that leader needs to have an unbiased opinion. This is because it can affect what types of questions are asked and the questions asked can be strategically used to set up to make the world leader look good or bad. Next, accuracy is a big part because in order to see if the information is credible, we need to know if it is even accurate. This can also rely on the time that the interview took place, so some information can be inaccurate at that time. Last is the purpose. The purpose of the interview needs to be clear in order to find credible information. If there is no purpose for the interview then it wouldn’t be too credible.

I think that we should also look at our sources when watching interviewed the world leade. For example, if someone from the government of Iraq interviewed the president of the United States ( they don’t get along) we would half to search through to find what is true and what is not.

I think that while watching an interview you should listen to the questions that are being asked and figure out if their might be ulterior motive behind the question, such as a question that is setting them up to look bad or maybe a question they they are not allowed to answer or cannot answer making them look bad.

Putin also stated that the war between the two countries could have ended along time ago. The countries had a agreement made up that if Russia pulled its troops from Kyiv that the war could end. Russia did pull the troops from Kyiv only to find out that the U.S.A. and middle Europe countries started to fund Ukraine in the war and Ukraine decided not to sign that agreement.

Putins main goals of this interview was to get his side of the story out to the world so that people could actually pick a side because if you haven’t listened to both sides of the story you can’t pick a side with out being fair and responsible.

While the border argument is solely to explain Russia’s want for the return of Russian (Ukrainian) land, the argument of “denatzification” appears to be more of a way to stoke the fire and attempt to turn the media against Ukraine (because Nazis are bad, and accusing Ukraine of being affiliated with them also makes Ukraine bad, duh). Throughout the interview, he acts like Tucker has no idea what he’s talking about and even points out that he believes the American people are just as uneducated. This move, for the sake of the interview, is an attempt to make Putin himself appear more knowledgeable and credible. It should be noted that he also attacks the American government and tries to discredit them as well, and in the same breath, claiming that there is no beating the American propaganda machine. So, by painting himself to be an honest man, bashing American credibility, and “illuminating” Ukraine’s two-faced, corrupt government and morale standing, he tries to capture the Western (mostly American) audience that would see the interview and influence them to favor Russia, or at the very least, distrust Ukraine and the West as a whole.

Strategies for discerning credible imformation could be trying to understand why they’re going to war and if it’s for a good reason or a bad reason like the fiasco with Ukrain and Putin. Interviews like these help the media see eye to eye with these big figures.

     Some strategies that we can use to get credible information is by taking notes from the interviews and reviewing over all that was asked and said during the interview to see at what the world leaders could be talking and leading us toward. During the interveiw with Putin, the journalist would ask Putin questions that he had already came up with before even entering the interveiw so the Journalist wouldn’t get too side-tracked about whatever Putin will talk about. The journalist also knew what he was looking for throughout the interview so he could make sure he received all the information he needed. Once the interview with Putin was over, the journalist could fully analyze what Putin had responded to and why.

He answered every question Carlson asked with depth of how he felt. He listened to Carlson and let him ask his questions respectfully I feel. He gave just about everything that everyone has been asking. Towards the middle of the interview, he was asked about nuclear threats to the U.S. and he answered by saying how it is only the United Satets scaring their own citizens. He also pointed how they use propaganda for these types of things. He used this for a message to the United States. As well as Ukraine. He told the U.S he is fine with negotiating and explained his reasoning behind the attacks to Kyiev. In my opinion he is still not the nest leader, but he has his points and can back them up. This is how he used the interview to communicate his viewpoints.