Blog
It's 5:40 am, but I'll do it. I watched the two-hour show and took notes. Here they are:
In a recent and highly controversial interview, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down with Tucker Carlson, sparking a wide array of reactions across the globe. This blog post aims to dissect and expand upon the key moments and underlying messages from this extensive dialogue.
At the outset, it's important to acknowledge my mixed feelings surrounding Carlson's decision to conduct this interview, as it gave a platform to someone often viewed as an aggressor.
Carlson's introductory remarks seem to preemptively address the skepticism and criticism he anticipated from viewers, signaling an awareness of the contentious parts of the conversation that lay ahead.
Putin's demeanor and responses throughout the interview were telling. His initial actions, such as removing his watch and interrupting Carlson, projected an air of intimidation and control. This behavior sets a confrontational tone early on, with Putin appearing dismissive of questions that sought to challenge his narrative regarding Ukraine.
From the beginning, Putin delved into historical grievances, asserting that Ukraine historically sought integration with Russia, a point he uses to justify his aggressive stance towards the country. This revisionist perspective ignores the sovereignty of Ukraine, framing its existence as a historical anomaly rather than a legitimate nation-state. Putin's refusal to engage with Carlson's counterpoints, such as the question, “Should all countries revert to 1650 borders as you propose here vis-à-vis Ukraine and Austria-Hungary?” highlights selective engagement to serve current political objectives.
Putin's narrative also included personal anecdotes and broader geopolitical arguments, attempting to justify actions in Crimea and Donbas through historical revisionism and personal grievances. His comments on denazification in Ukraine, a concept that remained unclear until Carlson's direct inquiry, were filled with misleading characterizations, illustrating an attempt to frame his actions within a distorted moral imperative. He thinks because Ukrainian nationalism is questionably based on some figures who participated in Nazism throughout the Second World War, they must be denazified. First of all, this is highly debatable; secondly, this is a sovereign country, and he just doesn't get it. Carlson rightfully pressed him on these points.
The interview also touched on broader themes of international relations, including NATO's expansion and the West's treatment of Russia. Putin portrayed Russia as a victim of Western duplicity, using this narrative to justify military aggression as a defensive measure. His hesitance when discussing the possibility of joining NATO, if offered, revealed the complexity of his sincerity as well as Russia's perceived strength and vulnerability.
Economically, Putin criticized the reliance on the U.S. dollar and hinted at emerging global powers. However, his critique lacked a coherent alternative, highlighting the challenges of displacing the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. He thinks the US administration made a grave error by sanctioning Russia. But what is the alternative? Using hard power. As a matter of fact, sanctions are the softest, friendliest way of keeping the rules-based world order intact. He was very conflicted. While he praises BRICS' growth over the past few decades, he criticizes the world. Well, BRICS grew because of the fairness of the world order. And while they could just appreciate it, instead, they (China and Russia) got greedy and wanted to control the world instead.
I understand and could empathize with him when he mentioned Russia's soul, as Dostoevsky puts it, their moral values, etc., and yes, some of the propaganda vis-à-vis today's corrupt family & gender schemes, it is propaganda, and the war has nothing to do with them.
As the interview between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Tucker Carlson neared its conclusion, a significant shift occurred, not just in tone but in the content of the dialogue. Amidst the strategic posturing and historical revisionism, Putin made a poignant mention of Ukrainian soldiers, highlighting their cries of "Russians never surrender." This moment, albeit one-sided, resonated as a rare instance of emotional depth in an otherwise tense conversation. Putin suggested that, despite the current hostilities, Russians and Ukrainians will eventually reconcile, likening the situation to a civil war that necessitates a brotherly resolution.
Yes, they will, but not under your management, Mr. Putin! You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people from both sides. The path to such a resolution is obstructed by the current war and the manner of Putin's leadership, which starkly contrasts with the ideals of moral reconciliation.
The interview's exploration into the supernatural, AI, and religion at the end was an indication of Putin's state of mind and his mental health. Carlson seemed to get under his skin when he asked whether supernaturals are at play, and Putin did hesitate there. Obviously, his job is not an easy one while he's responsible for the death and suffering of so many.
Last but not least, Carlson pressed him multiple times on a potential deal. Putin seems to want it. He's not in a position of strength but wants to appear as though he is.
In conclusion, the interview was a blend of deflection, historical revisionism, and strategic posturing. Putin's attempts to justify his geopolitical stance often relied on misleading narratives.
The discussion also drew parallels with Turkey's situation, emphasizing the complexities of regional power dynamics and the potential of soft power. Like Russia, Turkey stands at a crossroads, with the opportunity to leverage its cultural, economic, and strategic assets. The popularity of Turkish series in the Arab world exemplifies the effective use of cultural influence to strengthen political and economic ties, showcasing a sustainable path toward enhancing Turkey's regional influence. However, the challenge remains in resisting the temptation to employ hard power, a dilemma that mirrors personal relationships where assertiveness may be used to effect change. The consequences of hard power in governance are far-reaching, underscoring the importance of democratic checks and balances.
Overall, this interview felt akin to Putin's trial in the War Crimes Court; he seems to be really losing it. I hope a solution can be found that will save face for him, as it's preferable to a lengthy war and the death of many others, while also bringing democracy to Russia and allowing both Russia and Ukraine to prosper. As for me, I have some homework: I will read Dostoevsky to learn more about Russia's soul.