HOW ABOUT THAT INTERVIEW?
By Matthew Bryant
Before beginning in earnest to discuss the interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin it must be said at the outset that it is not the intention of this opinion piece to debunk or refute the beliefs of the interviewer or interviewee. The aim is rather to give some thoughts about what both sides hoped this would gain from the interview, and what effects this had on the international discourse around the Ukraine war, and the wider conflict between Russia and the United States. If you are looking to understand many of the points Putin brought up in their historical context and from a more scholarly background, Some useful books on the subject would be; ‘Affirmative Action Empire’ by Terry Martin, and ‘Empire of Nations by Francine Hirsch. These works give a balanced and nuanced approach to issues related to Ukraine within the Soviet Union.
In the weeks leading up to the interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin, There was quite a lot of discourse surrounding what the interview was going to be about. Some suggested that this interview was going to be used by Putin to dupe the “useful idiot” Carlson into spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda. From those who have supported Russia, this was seen as the time when Vladimir Putin would be able to finally express himself to a Western audience that had been unfairly poisoned against him. As they say, an ounce of evidence is worth a pound of speculation, and when the interview finally dropped, neither party was completely right in their speculation. The Putin-Carlson interview was if nothing else, a very mixed bag.
Carlson likely went into the interview with the full assumption that he would have a similar conversation to the one he had with Victor Orban where Carlson was treated to a conservative-style leader who spoke in terms that Carlson understood. Similar values, and similar struggles against socialists and liberals. Instead of appealing to broadly conservative values against a decadent West, a particular hobby horse of Carlson’s, Putin instead appeared to be talking to his people. In all fairness to Tucker, most informed people would have found this line of dialogue difficult to deal with. This was also Tucker’s self-assessment in an interview that he gave to Lex Fridman (Carlson, 2024). He mentioned how he had come with a prepared packet of questions but when Putin began his historical lecture he decided to toss his questions and let Putin go where he wanted. I think this is one of the main issues Carlson had coming into the interview. He was not prepared to adequately understand what Putin was going to use the interview to do.
There was a thought put forward by some that Putin would use the interview to advance conspiracies against the West. Putin made many assertions about NATO involvement in Eastern Europe, this did not seem to be the main thrust of his beginning monologue to Tucker. Carlson did not seem to grasp that Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s security independence was not just a cold realist calculation of security and safety. Deep at the core of Putin’s defense of his own country’s military incursions into the country, lies the belief that Ukrainians and Russians are essentially the same people. Referencing historical claims surrounding the baptism of the Rus, the Tatar Yoke, and the ‘Polanization’ of what is now western Ukraine. This does not represent a war against two people but a civil war amongst one people. Carlson seemingly did not read or was not aware of Putin’s essay in 2018 where he outlined many of the same points. I think Carlson probably would have used this information to his advantage had he known about it.
Many criticisms of Tucker were fair, and many of these critiques were very well summed up by the Egyptian journalist Emad Adeeb (CNBC-TV18, 2024). He mentions rightly how Carlson did not bring up free speech in Russia, something he is quite passionate about in the US. He did not bring up Navalny, assassinations within the country, or restrictions on opposition parties. Carlson positions himself in America as an opposition figure and it would have been nice to bring up similar opposition figures within Russia. Carlson defended himself by saying that he did not want to have an interview like ‘every other Western journalist’ finishing up this defense by saying that every leader kills people. Whether or not these defenses are defensible, I will leave it up to the reader.
One thing that ought to be mentioned in closing. Despite my many disagreements with Carlson for how the interview went I want to highlight a few areas in which Carlson should be commended regardless of your feelings about him politically. First and foremost Carlson has paid a personal price for being willing to interview Putin. At a time when Russia continues to be at war in Ukraine, it took a special kind of courage to be willing to try to hear out the other side of what many in the West characterize as a one-sided moral issue.
Secondly, I think that Carlson has not been given credit for directly asking Putin tough questions regarding his military incursions into Ukraine. He did not allow Putin’s long historical lectures to distract from the initial question. Numerous times Carlson said, “How does this make sense with the modern era?” “Why now and not then?”. The claims made by many that the interview would merely be an occasion for Putin to use Carlson as a personal mouthpiece were unwarranted.
Lastly, I was genuinely touched that Carlson did not merely bring up the case of Evan Gershkovich but vigorously and repeatedly pushed and questioned Putin’s reasons for jailing Gershkovich. This was not a case of bringing it up just to say that he had, it seemed that Carlson had a genuine interest in trying to get Putin to free the wrongly jailed journalist. Carlson repeatedly and vigorously tried to get Putin to justify what was happening to Gershkovich and I think to any fair viewer, Putin’s answers were not satisfactory. Whether you agree with Carlson politically or his motives, I do believe that the world is better off for having heard from Putin in his own words.
Photo: The Tucker Carlson Interview 06/02/24
Sources Cited:
Carlson, T. (2024, February 27). Tucker Carlson: Putin, Navalny, Trump, CIA, NSA, War, Politics & Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #414 [Youtube (Lex Fridman)]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoY&pp=ygUcbGV4IGZyZWlkbWFuIHR1Y2tlciBjYXJsc29uIA%3D%3D
CNBC-TV18 (Director). (2024, February 12). LIVE: Tucker Carlson, Takes Part in World Government Summit at What’s Next for Storytelling? | IN18L. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2xa7hHMUho
Further Resources on Ukraine, Soviet History, and other things discussed in the Carlson-Putin Interview
Hirsch, F. (2005). Empire of nations: Ethnographic knowledge & the making of the Soviet Union. Cornell University Press.
Lex Fridman (Director). (2024, March 4). Serhii Plokhy: History of Ukraine, Russia, Soviet Union, KGB, Nazis & War | Lex Fridman Podcast #415. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-wl8_wpZA
Martin, T. (2001). The affirmative action empire: Nations and nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939. Cornell University Press.
Zubok, V. M. (2022). Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union (First published in paperback). Yale University Press.