“The Vorlons say, understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth”
— John Sheridan, Babylon 5
The biggest media story of 2024 so far has come and gone. Tucker Carlson interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin last week.
Everyone, even the Davos/UK dominated media, has put forth their opinion on it. I gave out a quick take for my Patrons the morning after just like everyone else. And like everyone else I missed the biggest takeaway from this interview.
Now, if you go through the commentary what you will mostly see is people, as always, doing what traders call “talking their book.” In other words, as opposed to dealing with the information presented and the motivations of the people involved, most media outlets and commentators put forth their opinion on whether this interview satisfied their needs from it.
So, for the hardcore geopolitical types and armchair psychoanalysts, we heard a lot of opinions second-guessing Putin’s strategy to open the interview with a nearly thirty minute recitation of Russian/Ukrainian history. Why would he do this, was the common refrain.
I’ll use my former-bellwether-for-normies, Scott Adams, as an example of this.
This was the kindest of the ‘bad takes’ I found on this. But I’m having one of Scott’s “One movie, two screens,” moments here. Because Putin looked anything other than “unhinged.” In fact, he looked as calm as I’ve ever seen him, taking a relaxed posture to put Carlson, who was clearly unsure of where he stood at the beginning of the interview, at ease.
But this is the message that Adams wanted to see, framing Putin in relation to Biden, because he needed something unique to say to justify his even being in the conversation.
By contrast, Martin Armstrong had a great post curating all of the crazy Neocon takes from the “media” on his blog over the weekend.
What’s obvious from those is that they understood that Putin’s 30 minute opening monologue would put off a lot of casual watchers who would tune him out at that point. So, their “analysis” focused on steering the conversation to Putin’s ‘false history’ of Russia and Ukraine.
This way that ‘false history’ would dominate everyone’s opinions the next day, managing the Overton Window of the entire interview, making it all about that. This would be the basis of how they discredit Putin.
Then to discredit Carlson, people like Hillary Clinton was trotted out to lie about Tucker Carlson, calling him a “useful idiot,” and “puppy dog” and a joke in Russian media, which is an outright lie. Hillary’s harpy laugh made an appearance alongside a sycophant interviewer as they joked about Carlson’s having been fired from every legitimate news agency.
We were treated to a common sight: Two Beltway insiders laughing inside their echo chamber and only our sick fascination with roadkill makes it even remotely interesting.
So, the whole exercise is reframed as Puppy Dog Tucker throwing softballs to Liar Putin to distract us away from the sum and substance of their talk.
I know… in other news water is wet and women want more sex when they’re fertile.
And I also know that it is fatuous to bring up these panicked attempts to marginalize this event. They started days before Carlson was even rumored to be in Moscow.
On the one hand we have people intentionally missing the point because they need to have their opinions validated. And on the other we have people intentionally leading those truly curious away from the purpose of the interview: to get an unfiltered look at Putin’s motivations for how he governs Russia.
Why? Because, as we already also know, the warmongers are in charge in the West and they will not be deterred by some prep school gadfly and a dirty Slavic ruler with pretensions of adequacy.
So the war show must go on.
But buried beneath these layers of surreality are these men’s motivations for having this talk. Carlson’s motivation is illuminated quite effectively in his first appearance after his talk with Putin (watch the first 90 seconds).
His outrage at being denied this interview for three years by NSA/CIA spying on him is what drove him. The worst thing the gatekeepers ever did was fire Tucker Carlson from Fox News; making him independent freed him from the restraints of the corporate media.
Knowing that Tucker tried for three years to get this interview with Putin, we should assume that Putin would come into the room prepared. So, it makes sense that Putin wanted to give us a history lesson because he assumes, rightly, that most Americans do not have any clue about Russia’s history.
He didn’t do this to bore us, he did this to inform us and set us at ease. To tell us that he is a man with a perspective that he believes he can justify. He’s not a frothing-at-the-mouth cannibal who desires world domination.
No, Putin’s aim was to elucidate, calmly, the nature of the conflict, laying out the missteps made along the way. And I believe he was effective to those that stayed with him. Because, never once did Putin talk down to his audience.
How many Americans learned that Putin asked Bill Clinton for Russia to become part of NATO, thus ending NATO’s raison d’etre?
Or that Bush the Lesser unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty?
Or that the Minsk Agreements were our last hope for a settlement of the differences between the Donbass and Kiev, and that Putin was the one pushing to make them work?
There are at least a half-dozen other things people learned in this interview, if they had ears to listen, I’m looking at you Scott Adams.
And given that this conflict is hurtling towards a war that only very select gatekeepers and power-brokers want, that should have been enough to sharpen everyone’s focus to give Putin an honest hearing.
Now, that said, Putin did present his version of history, of the truth. Shouldn’t we expect that?
But, as I’ve painstakingly laid out here, much like Putin himself, focusing on that is focusing on the wrong thing. It’s the wrong framework to view this interview given the current stakes of this conflict.
And this is what everyone missed about this interview. It literally does not matter one whit whose is right and who is wrong here. Putin’s version of history isn’t what’s at stake here.
It doesn’t matter whether Putin violated international law by crossing the post-USSR border. As Putin pointed out, NATO violated Serbia’s borders by bombing Belgrade for six months in 1999. So, borders only matter when it behooves certain actors?
It doesn’t matter if Putin is overstating the level of ‘Nazification’ of Ukraine to justify defending the Donbass, whether he jails journalists, cracks down on free speech, or rules Russia with a thinly-veiled form of democracy.
It doesn’t matter if you believe he pulled off a coup in Crimea in 2014, poisoned Sergei and Yulia Skripal, Alexi Navalny is a freedom-fighter or he helped get Donald Trump elected (and I’m looking at YOU Hillary Clinton!).
What does matter is that is how Putin views this conflict. And we have to deal with it. Period.
What also matters is that those who stand behind Putin are even less patient and circumspect than he is.
In order to avoid that bigger war only the oligarch class wants, we, as people, have to accept some responsibility for it getting to this point. Without that there can be no basis for a negotiated settlement.
This conflict between the West, and this includes all of Europe, the UK as well as the US, and Russia is one with existential consequences.
What Putin said, quite clearly, is that this ball is in our court. We can either sit down and have an honest discussion of a negotiated future or we will be at war. If that is what we in the West want, it is what we will get. Putin has put his sons on the line in eastern Ukraine. Are we?
You can dig in on being right or we can have peace. But, we cannot have both.
The Victoria Nulands and the Ursula Von Der Leyens of this world represent people who refuse to accept that Russia and/or China are not systems, but rather civilizations. They aren’t the current bogeyman ‘ism du jour, like Communism or authoritarianism, they are a people, a culture, an ethnos. The ‘ism is just the thing they’ve adopted now to help them preserve those things inherently Russian or Chinese.
Our leaders are this way because they don’t believe in those things for us no less anyone else. And they spend all their time trying to convince us that that is what divides us. But it isn’t. It’s simply their greed, their emptiness.
Because of this they lack any sense that these civilizations 1) have any right to exist and 2) deserve any empathy. So, logically, none of Russia’s demands are valid.
Putin put how he feels about history on the table. He’s angry about it. The West keeps saying, “Your version of history is wrong. So you have no right to be angry.”
Have you ever had an argument with someone important to you and they did this to you? I’ve done it and had it done to me. In my experience the argument doesn’t get resolved. It escalates.
And it escalates, eventually, even if it goes on for a long time, say, in a marriage, to the point of estrangement if not outright hatred. If you want to repair the relationship in some way then you have to lead with, “Okay, I hear you.”
Then you have to learn how to mean it.
That’s where we are today. The Russians are done with our leadership. We use diplomacy as a basis for betrayal, not as the foundation of a future.
They see us as a failing empire, a failing civilization on the long historical time line, because we have embraced cynicism and allowed the rapacious and the perverse to run our world.
This is why there is no basis for diplomacy at the head of state level. This is an argument between two people one of whom wants nothing to do with the other (The West) while the other one is insisting that no matter what the other does, they will survive (Russia).
Rock, meet Hard Place…. choose between chisels or sledgehammers.
Putin came to the interview with his argument. He laid it out carefully for us, the people of the West, to review. Carlson tried to call him out for not talking to President Biden and open negotiations and Putin rightly set him straight.
Who can he call up and talk to? Who has the political or even moral authority to negotiate? Is there anyone on our side even willing to negotiate? He made it clear that he’s open to someone calling him up. He continues to hold out hope because, as he said, “Stop supplying weapons, and this war will be over in weeks.”
And if your knee-jerk response to that is, “Well, Vlad, you can just leave Ukraine…” then you are part of the problem because you are not even trying to listen.
Because this war is in our hands now. That’s who Putin was speaking to through Tucker Carlson.
The architects of this war have led us to a perilous moment. Putin doesn’t have to invade Poland or Germany to defeat the West. All he and Russia have to do is survive our collective rage. Our leaders are bankrupting us, as he pointed out, trying to defeat Russia.
If you want peace, deal with the facts of this war by acknowledging the feelings of the people on the other side of it while truly examining your own.
Either way, history will not judge any of us kindly.
Join my Patreon if you want to know what you’re missing
100 percent, Tom. I’ve always admired Putin, but I liked him even more after this interview. He seemed, somehow, more accessible (he is incredibly clever and cunning, isn’t he?). And while I understand and appreciate his tact for recounting Russian history (and being fully aware that it may not have been a completely unbiased account – and it doesn’t matter – the important thing is that I get the point that he successfully communicated), one does not need to be a Russian history scholar to understand that the people who have lived on the western border of Russia have been – and are still – anthropologically, culturally, and ethnically Slavic unlike the current Ukrainian “leadership.” So many, many layers to that interview…..thanks again.
Well done, Tom, I like history and history has lied to us.
Well said ! I would add that 100% of the reason for this war is we have our eyes on Russia’s resources and we want to eliminate a rival.
What would the founding fathers think of us attacking the only remaining white predominantly christian country in the world ?
“. This is an argument between two people one of whom wants nothing to do with the other (The West)”
As replied above, “We” want their ($80 trillion in) resources. Plus “We” want Slavs dead.
I think Putin’s primary audience was people who care enough to watch and/or read the whole thing, and who can stand up to our “leaders.”
I also think Carlson did a masterful job of presenting our “leaders” lies as his questions, allowing Putin to “correct” him/them. Hopefully will keep him safe from Snowden or Assange fates.
Bravo.
Best piece I’ve read RE: Putin/Tucker interview.
coining a new phrase: Kaboomers
“we, as people, have to accept some responsibility for [letting it get] to this point”
I’m comfortable with that perspective.
“What Putin said, quite clearly, is that this ball is in our court.”
Comfortable with that too.
“The Victoria Nulands and the Ursula Von Der Leyens of this world represent people who refuse to accept that Russia and/or China are not systems, but rather civilizations. ”
Comfortable with that too.
“what divides us [is our own leaders] greed, their emptiness”
Ok, though I’d put it down more to mere arrogance of isolation & ignorance. They’re simply incompetent.
“The [whole world is] done with [colonial] leadership.”
Ya think? It’s amazing how slow the uptake is in shabby old gated communities.
The world’s moved on, and our Deep State geezers are embarrassingly out of touch.
Kaboomers?
“Our leaders are bankrupting us, as he pointed out, trying to defeat Russia.”
That’s the point that worries me.
Americans simply don’t care enough to even find out, except the hard way.
If we CAN afford it, they’re down with that. [& genocide in Palestine too]
If we CAN’T afford it? They’re too complacent to do anything but find out the hard way.
Kaboomers indeed, by default.
That’s not a sound strategy for 4.5% of the population of Planet Earth. We either take responsibility, or “yank” ourselves off our own Gong Show by default.
That’s my story, & I’m sticking to it.
I’ll go with Scott Adams take on a matter of psychology. And he’s not alone. Many of us who speak Russian, who have lived in Russia, and who have Russian news sources had a similar reaction. Not that Putin’s grievance narrative was unusual for Russians (or Germans a century ago), but his self-indulgence suggested a bit too much time on the throne. Russians also found it cringe. Just google Putin+cringe in Cyrillic: путин кринж.
BTW, of the questions that “journalist” Tucker Carson failed to ask, my vote for #1 is “How can we take Russia seriously as a democracy when you have presidential elections next month but just disqualified the only opposition candidate?”
Take Russia seriously as a democracy? What country do you believe is a “serious democracy”? The United States, Germany, France, Great Britain, Pakistan? What you observe happening in Russia is a consequence of what the “serious democracies” of the West are currently behaving:
John Mearsheimer
Jeffery Sachs
Rodrigo Duterte
That is what John McCain implied when he said, “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” RussiaGate in 2016 was US psychological projection, accusing Russia of what it is doing all over the world. And what it is currently doing to Trump in the run up to the 2024 election is exactly what it does in all other countries. Pakistan’s Imran Khan is the latest example.
The Western elite’s game plan is to populate the world’s democracies with cookie cutter versions of Justin Trudeau/Jacina Ardern who serve as provincial governors, rather than national leaders. Any leader who puts their nation before Trans-Atlantic/WEF/Davos “rules based international order” will be taken down.
And sadly, for us common folk, “democracy” is their way in. Aristotle observed that “all democracies eventually devolve to oligarchies” and the West has perfected the means of speeding that up through media manipulation and NGO sponsored color revolutions. The West goes around the world “promoting democracy” because it has perfected the means of manufacturing democratic “outcomes” making military conquest obsolete. That is one of the reasons it has basically allowed its manufacturing base and military capability to deteriorate.
Volodymyr Zelensky is an example of the lengths they will go to “manufacture” democratic candidates.
The real Zelensky: from celebrity populist to unpopular Pinochet-style neoliberal
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
Then go read the first 10 pages of Olga Baysha’s book, “Democracy, Populism, and Neoliberalism in Ukraine, On the Fringes of the Virtual and Real” on Amazon preview… if you believe in “serious democracy”, you will be outraged.
There currently is no way to tell if a democratic candidate if for real or a Western sponsored trojan horse, so, if the FSB detects even a whiff of foreign support, disqualification will be the result… as the stakes are just too high.
Brilliant assessment…………on an equally brilliant piece from Tom
A lot of the time I don’t know what to think about your stuff and sometimes you sound entirely unhinged. But this article… well, I think you’ve made a very valid point.
The comment asking if Putin was “all there” hits the mark, but in the wrong way. It seemed to me that he was all… *there*. *There*, like the people in Jan 6 in the Capitol seemed to be *there*. I don’t think it means necessarily somebody being irrational, though it can well mean that. Just operating on a different plane. Whether that different plane is solidly anchored on reality or not, it’s for you to judge. And I honestly don’t know if Putin is usually on that plane, or it was just for the interview.
I have to say, I didn’t resist myself writing something on my blog about the interview. I don’t know if you’ll find it interesting, but in any case, here it is:
https://cluelessmagic.wordpress.com/2024/02/11/energy-fanaticism-putin-and-carlson/
Hi!
How did Tucker manage to obtain that interview in the first place?
Who had the power that allowed this?
Thank you!
Lise from Maine (former licensed clinician)
That’s the big question isn’t it?
Umm, cuz he asked for one. But who cares? Why is there air? Pill Cosby once supplied the answer was to put in volley balls. Carlson gets an A+ for this interview that zero others were able to obtain since The Putin Interviews on SHOWTIME that took place TEN YEARS AGO over the course of two years by American treasure Oliver Stone. For the interested, E3 of four total is dedicated to topic of Ukraine and I honestly thought he was about to get jujitsued in the dick — like, he was getting rude. Hi*5 Carlson and Stone, thumbs down everyone el…
Isn’t it weird how mere days after this interview, Alexei Navalny suddenly dies, and then Putin gets the blame?
It is more than weird IMHO.
It seems like Navalny was elevated to be a martyr. Remember, the film about Navalny won the Oscar for best documentary in 2023, making him a star in elite Western circles.
And, his death coincided with:
1] Tucker Carlson Interview: Just as Putin was getting some good press in the West, Tucker is forced to repudiate him. This death certainly took the shine off that interview.
2] Munich Security Conference: It just kicked off yesterday, and Navalny’s wife just happened to be there to give a speech about his death. That conference is so important, that last year George Soros passed up Davos to attend. Navalny’s death will shutdown any talk of compromise or peace talks with Russia at the conference.
3] Congressional Ukraine Funding: Congress has been holding up $60 billion for Ukraine, but it will be much more difficult to continue obstructing with Navalny’s passing.
4] Russian Presidential Election: The election is to be held a month from now. (March 15-17, 2024). Navalny’s death is going make Putin’s election look illegitimate and make Russian democracy look like a farce.
5] Fall of Fortress Adiivka: The Navalny story is likely to knock the fall of Adiivka, a decisive Russian victory, out of the news.
Quite frankly, Putin would have to be an idiot if he ordered Navalny’s assassination. Adolf Hitler detested Pastor Martin Niemöller (“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”) but was smart enough to keep him alive throughout the war. Ditto for many Soviet dissidents like Solzhenitsyn as well. And we know from history, Jeffery Epstein & Sergei Magnitsky, that prison does not put a person out of reach.
Henry Kissinger may have put it best, “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
*It is either the above or Navalny “dying suddenly” from you know what …making Putin one of the most unlucky people on earth. IMHO
Good points. I hope you have been making them other places, too.
good assessment
Thank you Tom, so insightful. I have a sinking feeling the battle going on here is more than Russia’s, it’s about HUMANITY (in all it’s varying definitions of the word). No country, or person, wants to be delegated to the position of just a resource feeding a system… hello Matrix.
The collective wisdom of the common people to fight for what we are all given (freedom) is our best hope. Ironic and telling that the people in the West, with their hands in the soil, are the first ones starting to revolt, fighting for survival (and food), while Ukrainians are sent to fight for an ideology.
I wonder if a divorced world is where we are headed. Everyone views the WEF as Davos. Davos is the wintertime session. They have an annual summertime session in China too. Ever noticed, no one talks much about that. As per usual, the same old suspects are playing both sides.
Germany WWII could be viewed as a proxy used to fight Russia with disastrous consequences, especially for Germans who were chewed up and spat out twice.. all for the sake of an ideology Hilter picked up from America who was introduced to it by some Brits. So they’re having another go with Ukraine.
For those “in the know”, I think they are aware of just how spiteful this could get globally. Chinese scientists’ preprint publication regarding pangolins really does take the war for humanity to another stratosphere. I can only see that paper as a warning to the West that if you want to go there, we can too.
The interview showed the West had so many opportunities to get it right with Russia. And, Putin is still holding out, holding out for some humanity, because that’s what will save us all. Even if you don’t believe in Jesus, he gave us some pretty good lessons to learn from. Maybe it’s time to start learning, and to do that we must listen. Do we destroy the world by cutting it in half, or save the baby who can spend their time on “better things to do”.