What Tucker Carlson Saw When He Interviewed Vladimir Putin
Carlson expressed his surprise at various aspects of his interview with Putin, including the opportunity to conduct the interview in the Kremlin and the chance to share his post-interview thoughts in a lavishly decorated room. Putin used the interview as a platform to deliver a lengthy lecture on the history of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and their aftermath, aiming to convince viewers that Ukraine had no right to exist. Following the lecture, Putin expressed his grievances towards the West, claiming that they have consistently let him down or ignored him over several generations of leaders. After the interview, an astonished Carlson revealed that Putin had given him a folder containing documents to support his historical claims, but Carlson had not yet reviewed them. Carlson initially believed that Putin was stalling for time during the interview, but after reflecting on the history lesson, he realized that Putin’s discussion of the region’s history and its connection to Ukraine was the foundation of his Ukraine policy.
Putin’s conversation with Carlson had little difference from his infrequent speeches, press conferences, and TV productions. Putin has a genuine interest in history and believes in a narrative that justifies Russia’s war against Ukraine. Carlson’s surprise indicates that either he didn’t watch Putin’s previous appearances to prepare for the interview, or despite ample evidence, he expected Putin the person to match his role as a terrifying dictator who imprison or kill his opponents and invades neighboring countries.
After the interview, Carlson came out visibly disappointed. He stated that Russia has no intentions of expanding its power, and only a fool would believe otherwise. However, if one were to analyze the evidence, such as the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the occupation of parts of Ukraine, and the ongoing offensive, it becomes clear that Russia has a history of expansionism. Throughout the interview, Putin’s comments implied that he considers former imperial territories to still belong to Russia, including not just former Soviet republics but also Finland and Poland. Carlson continued to refute any comparisons between Putin and Hitler, claiming that Washington’s portrayal of him as an aggressor is unfounded. Yet, Putin’s rhetoric in the interview undeniably evoked Hitler, showcasing traits of a tyrant driven by resentment.
What Putin Saw When He Was Interviewed by Tucker Carlson
There was a simple target in this situation. Carlson timidly attempted to interrupt Putin a few times in order to ask a question that he couldn’t seem to move past: Why were these historical events and territorial issues not brought up when Putin first became President in 2000? This question displayed a lack of knowledge on Carlson’s part – Putin has consistently manipulated historical facts and his focus on Ukraine grew stronger after the Orange Revolution in 2004. It was an easy question for Putin to disregard, indicating that Carlson was not as well-informed as Putin. Putin used a typical intimidation tactic of a former K.G.B. agent by bringing up personal information about Carlson, such as his unsuccessful attempt to join the C.I.A.
Carlson refrained from interrupting or disputing Putin on numerous occasions, too numerous to tally, when Putin made false statements regarding the history of Ukraine, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the connection between Russia andNATOPresumably, influenced by his talks with previous American leaders, and notably, the Russian Army’s departure from the outskirts of Kyiv following a month-long invasion in 2022. Putin asserted this was a benevolent act to hasten a peace agreement, however, it was actually a military loss. This would have been an appropriate time for Carlson to inquire about the extensively reported war atrocities allegedly committed by Russian soldiers during their occupation. But he chose not to seize this chance
From Putin’s perspective, the significant aspect was that Carlson appeared to agree with him on two fundamental beliefs: firstly, that the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and secondly, that any negotiations would occur directly between the Kremlin and the White House, excluding Kyiv. In fact, Carlson even urged Putin to contact President Biden and propose finding a resolution. Putin’s response was that Russia’s message to the U.S. is to cease providing weapons, as the war would come to an end within a few weeks.
What Russian Television Viewers Saw
Putin has delivered his history lecture on multiple occasions. It appears likely that the majority of Russians who watched the entirety of the interview did so because of their professional duty. Whether they were propagandists or political appointees, their job is to amplify and support the leader’s message. Ordinary Russians, on the other hand, probably only watched edited versions and accompanying commentary. What they witnessed was something of great significance: one of America’s most popular journalists coming to interview Putin and seemingly unsure of what to say. Channel One emphasized both Carlson’s popularity and the evident interest of Americans in what Putin had to say. Interestingly, Carlson’s promotional video prior to the interview had been viewed over a hundred million times! Russians perceive Carlson, with some validity, as a representation of a future Trump Administration, providing a glimpse of the forthcoming America where liberal supporters of Ukraine will be replaced.
Also Read: China assures Australia: Pacific policing support is not a threat
What Tucker Carlson’s Viewers Saw
An American viewer would find it very difficult to sit through the first ten minutes of Putin’s dreary history lecture. In the interview, Putin referred to it as one of his “dialogues,” which shows either his lack of knowledge or his understanding of what a dialogue entails. The Kremlin translated “dialogues” as “my long speeches.” The translator or translators generally improved Putin’s writing by smoothing out parts that didn’t make sense in Russian. For instance, when asked about a potential invasion of Poland, Putin responded in Russian, “Because we don’t have any interests in Poland or Lithuania—nowhere. What do we need it for? We simply don’t have any interests. Only threats.” The translator translated it as, “Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia, or any other place. Why would we do that? We simply have no interest. It’s just fear-mongering.”
In a different interaction, the translator took some liberties in order to present Carlson in a more dignified manner. When Carlson asked Putin about his continued focus on fighting Nazism even 80 years after Hitler’s death, the President responded in Russian, stating, “Your question may seem subtle but it is truly disgusting.” However, when translated into English, Putin seemed to be complimenting Carlson’s question as “subtle,” while the transcript revealed that Carlson himself referred to the question as “quite pesky” – these words were actually spoken by Putin’s translator. Regardless of the obscure topic of Putin’s lengthy conversation, the style of the exchange was likely familiar to Americans. It appeared to be a conversation between an older man who considers himself an expert due to reading a history book and his eager nephew, who pretends to have knowledge in a subject he failed in college. However, the distinction between them is that one of these individuals has a vast viewership while the other possesses nuclear weapons.
What I Saw
There is one passage that I can’t stop thinking about. During the history lecture part of the interview, Putin mentioned the year 1939 and stated that Poland initially cooperated with Germany but later refused to comply with Hitler’s demands. He believes that Poland’s refusal to give up the Danzig Corridor pushed Hitler to start the Second World War by attacking Poland. This view, where the victim becomes the instigator by forcing the aggressor’s hand, is a fundamental aspect of Putin’s explanations for Russia’s war in Ukraine. As far as I know, this is the first time he has described Hitler’s aggression in such terms.
Putin has previously used similar language to Hitler. When announcing the annexation of Crimea a decade ago, his speech seemed to mirror Hitler’s speech on the annexation of Sudetenland. Initially, I assumed that a speechwriter had crafted Putin’s words, as they appeared more deliberate than Putin himself. However, during his interview with Carlson, Putin’s description of the start of World War II implies that he may see himself as a cunning and strategic Hitler-esque figure. Despite continually accusing Ukraine of fostering Nazism, he may believe that he can forge alliances with the United States and its future President.
It is significant to note that Putin made a deliberate effort to blame Poland for forming alliances with Nazi Germany and encouraging Hitler’s aggressive actions. Just as he has previously blamed Ukraine, Putin is portraying Poland as a successor to Nazism. He repeatedly mentioned Poland in his discussion with Tucker, which would undoubtedly instill fear if I were Poland.
