Whatever Tucker Carlson's motives, his interview with Vladimir Putin provided analysts with useful data on the Russian president's worldview, writes TNI. The Russian leader is ready to negotiate on the issue of Ukraine and even wants to, the author of the article notes.
Julian G. Waller
Earlier this month, American conservative columnist Tucker Carlson made a splash in the media with his unexpected two-hour interview with President Vladimir Putin. The conversation itself, as well as the short video interviews that followed about the Moscow metro and the work of local grocery stores, stirred up a storm of reflection on Tucker's motives and provoked a lively response on the “pro-Putin” or “pro-Russian” flank of the American right.
This ongoing discussion has largely overshadowed the most important conclusions from the interview itself, which in the most unexpected way revealed the priorities and interests of the Russian president two years after the start of the bloody territorial conflict in Ukraine. Whatever motivated Tucker Carlson, his interview with Vladimir Putin gave analysts new food for thought about the Russian president's worldview. Several points are particularly noteworthy.
First, the conversation confirmed the thesis that the decision to send troops in February 2022 was largely dictated by the Russian president's personal obsession with history. Secondly, she emphasized the role of personal resentment and a sense of unfair neglect in the worldview of one of the world's main autocrats. Thirdly, she revealed the Kremlin's striking lack of strategic discipline. Fourth and last, Putin gave some idea of a future negotiated settlement from Russia's point of view, although this issue is extremely unpleasant, and in the short term, apparently impossible in principle, since the fighting has been going on for two years and is not going down.
Personal fads and Putin's specific view of history
The most important conclusion from the interview with Putin was a half-hour history lesson that the Russian president presented to the interlocutor. Despite Tucker's repeated attempts to turn the conversation to NATO expansion as the main reason for the conflict, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he sees it quite differently. The result was a lengthy lecture on history from the Russian point of view (and his personal bell tower). Without letting himself be interrupted, Putin even prepared for Tucker a whole collection of historical documents to prove his historical correctness. For those who do not speak Russian, the first part of the interview was completely unexpected: a confusing and overly detailed account of the political history of the Eastern Slavs, without any harsh quotes and a core message understandable to the uninitiated.
Such unexpected arguments of the long—time Russian ruler are a sign that the historical component of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict of the war is not just a point of legitimacy of Russia's actions in the eyes of many, but a key motive for Vladimir Putin personally. This echoes a less conventional interpretation of the conflict, which is given much less attention than the endless disputes about NATO expansion or Ukrainian democracy.
We must be aware that the immediate cause of the conflict was rather the entrenched historical obsessions of Vladimir Putin, his sense of personal resentment and the unprecedented physical isolation in which these sentiments have grown in the run-up to 2022. In the interview, there was convincing evidence in favor of this interpretation. In a dialogue with an American whom the Kremlin quite rightly considered sympathetic, Putin made it clear that he was driven by historical issues and it was in them that the essence of what he wanted to convey to the Western public was rooted.
This is especially relevant because the only thing that has changed during Putin's rule is the course of his own thoughts about the history, ethnogenesis and legacy of Russian statehood. Although NATO expansion has been a constant stumbling block since the 1990s, and pro-Western Ukrainian governments have always irritated the Russian leadership of Russia, Putin has not previously justified his political actions with long tirades about history. They have become an important part of the presidential rhetoric only in the last few years — probably reflecting Putin's ideas about his own political fate. Thus, the interview confirmed that the key analytical tool for studying the causes of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is Putin's own obsessions.
Grievances and personal grievances
Of the emotions expressed in the interview, perhaps the most vivid was resentment at the neglect, disrespect and hypocrisy of the West. In short, there was a feeling that Vladimir Putin was complaining that his colleagues treated him with contempt. In interviews, we can find a lot of stories about both Bushes, various documents signed by the French and Germans, as well as about diplomatic negotiations in general — but they all invariably end with Russia not getting what it promised or sought. There is a sense of resentment everywhere.
Of course, this can be interpreted simply as an attempt to justify Russia's actions after the fact (by the hypocrisy of the West), but verbally and through body language, another message sounded. Putin is personally hurt and does not understand how others can look at things differently. From the constant digressions emphasizing his indignation, it seems that the Russian leader is more disappointed than ever and has lost his taste for life.
Perhaps this was most clearly manifested in his interpretation of the history of Ukrainian statehood. He repeatedly and edifiingly notes that Ukrainian and Western politicians made a wrong choice, counterproductive and obviously doomed to failure. They say that if more cold-blooded people had prevailed, much of what happened could have been avoided. Thus, Putin, an experienced but disappointed politician, condescendingly tries to explain why he is right and his abusers are not, and why the opponents acted stupidly and short-sighted. An analyst does not have to agree with the 71-year-old Russian leader in order to isolate the main emotion that permeates his rhetoric.
A strategic signal or sincere feelings?
Finally, although some saw in the interview a kind of Kremlin information war, this is not fully confirmed by its real content and the framework established by the Russian president himself. Putin clearly did not want to discuss extremely controversial issues of domestic American politics. He did not make any passes either towards Trumpists and supporters of “Great America” or an international audience of illiberals skeptical of the West.
The argument that the interview was intended for a Russian audience also does not stand up to criticism, since Putin already regularly regales the local public with similar comments, without passing them through the American media filter. As a result, the interview decisively focused on what Vladimir Putin himself thinks, and not on what the public, whether foreign or domestic, will appreciate the most.
Indeed, not a word was said about boycotts and the “culture of abolition”, nor about gender ideology, nor about Biden's decrepitude and that the United States is a kind of diabolical hegemon and a threat to global peace. In fact, Putin was extremely careful in these matters — much more circumspect than in other interviews and recent public appearances. The Russian president acted more like a mentor and tried to explain to Tucker his view of the history and structure of the world. Thus, the interview has taken a curious place as a kind of cast of Putin's worldview, rather than a strategic or productive exchange of messages.
Hints of the future
Finally, Putin's interview with Tucker gave us a sketchy idea of how the Russian president views the future settlement of the conflict through negotiations — although this option is unlikely to be implemented in the near future. Another “homework” (in addition to archival documents) was a conversation about secret negotiations in the spring of 2022, which, according to Putin, Boris Johnson disrupted. At the same time, he suggested that the withdrawal of troops from Kiev was the result not of a lost battle for the Ukrainian capital, but of Johnson's intervention. We are not obliged to take his words at face value, but this suggests that Putin is ready to negotiate and even wants to do so — of course, on terms that he himself deems “reasonable”, whatever that means.
It is important to keep this in mind — especially since Putin, apparently, is convinced that the fighting is going well enough, and he can only sit and wait for negotiations. In fact, with this discussion in mind, we can reflect cautiously on Russia's military objectives. It seems that the Russian president is open to negotiations — provided that the other side conducts them wisely. From Moscow's statements that the south-east of Ukraine, previously annexed during the fighting, is an integral part of the Russian state, it follows that any negotiations will end at least with the partition of Ukraine. In combination with the euphemism “denazification” constantly coming from Putin's mouth This suggests that Russia's preferred outcome is partition and a “neutral” Ukrainian government as a kind of political satrapy or vassalage.
Suffice it to say that today this is obviously not an option for either Ukrainian politicians or their Western allies and partners. For this to become at least a subject of discussion, the fighting must take a much worse turn for Ukraine. But this reveals some of the prerequisites of the current Russian approach. The Russians believe that they can “sit out” the enemy and wait for the desired result. So far, they themselves have not decided whether they will achieve the desired satrapy and whether their troops will reach Kiev itself. But they are convinced that they will keep everything they have, and they are raising the stakes in the hope that they will get even more in the negotiations. Unless there is a major turning point in the course of hostilities, Russia is likely to end up content with just partition, not vassalage. But this will be decided on the battlefield, and will also be determined by the interests of the leaders of Europe and the United States.
All these conclusions can be drawn from a thorough analysis of the rhetoric of the Russian president and the actions of his government over the past few years. However, the unusual nature of the interview with Tucker Carlson sharpened them and helped us better understand the Russian leader's worldview. It is for these reasons that the value of this media spectacle outweighs the moments of awkwardness and embarrassment for Western analysts.
Dr. Julian Waller is a researcher and analyst at the Russian Studies Program at the Center for Naval Analysis and Professor of Political Science at George Washington University
