I sat down, with great anticipation, to watch Tucker Carlson’s much-hyped interview with Vladimir Putin last night. It was over two hours, and there was much there..but I have a few thoughts.
Putin began with a nearly 30-minute history lesson. While the details were interesting, and I was particularly struck by his story of a trip into Hungarian Ukraine, the “meta” was more important. Putin was communicating that history is not only informative, but also in some way authoritative. He was, in this way, laying his claim as a reactionary. He was, by going back over a millennia to begin with the history of the Rus, the explorer Scandinavians, under the rule of the Varangians. The establishment of a Rus state in Kiev in 882.
On the surface, this is a claim to Ukraine as Russian. And he is right. History is clear. But the greater claim, tied to that of reaction, is that “I am no Liberal. My history that informs me, predates this ‘enlightenment’ world that we reject.” I am quoting the esoteric subtext, not the actual words, but this was clear as day to me upon hearing the history.
Furthermore, Putin was clear in mentioning the “bourgeois” status of modern Russia. “We are as bourgeois as you (the US), we have a market economy…the communists have no power.” This, on the face, is an appeal to commonality. It was, below the surface, an indication of the true dispute. Putin was indicating that the conflict is not one of economic ideologies or personal freedom of arms-length transaction and price discovery. The conflict is not between “capitalism” and “communism”. No, the conflict is more foundational, it is between enlightenment liberalism, especially the empirical version which informs the American-imposed “rules based order”, and a nationalist rightism that recognizes that people must be governed.
This is why the elite hate Putin. It is for his audacity in saying “the old ways are better, and sinful man must be ruled” that he must be vanquished. Putin was communicating his full awareness of such.
He appealed, cleverly, to the factionalism present in America. “America is conservative, in one way…” saying in effect that he knew many would understand and support what he was saying, and yet because peoples are pitted against each other that their voices are muted.
After finishing the interview last night, I went online to check the responses. Much of the response was as expected, saying that democracy was endangered by the interview and that Carlson was enabling this via a series of softballs. I was taken aback.
Softballs? These were pointed questions about motivations, territorial aims, etc. Carlson asked about specific goals with regard to Poland and Hungary. For those (not my readers) not paying attention, Russia is no longer communist. That fact is now decades old. I’m beginning to think the anticommunist fervor that I grew up with and agreed with was simply a smokescreen for other motivations. Those motivations being mainly the crushing of our “bourgeois” middle class with its desires for morality, religious faithfulness, and governmental accountability.
Ukraine has always been the center of corruption since the USSR breakup - and even before it was a bit of an uncontrolled mess. “The ukraine” simply is “the frontier”. Now it is the frontier of NGO kickback and laundering schemes and a DARPA playground. The latter I have personal knowledge of. Victoria Nuland was obvious about running a color revolution in 2014 so claims of “democracy” are spurious.
“To use the US Dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest mistakes made by US political leadership.” Putin is undeniably right here. Our weaponizing of the dollar and dollar deposits has curtailed the US ability to export inflation impoverishing US citizens.
Being Russia’s enemy was supposed to be about communism. Yet the only time we have been allies was during the most brutal Soviet period. That, and the current rabid anti-Russian fervor should really cause one to think, because the purpose of a system is what it does. What does our system do? What does it produce?
It does not produce competency. And Putin, agree or not, was a magnificent display of national self-interested competency, the likes of which we have not seen here since Nixon. Putin calling out Tucker’s failed attempt to join the CIA was the chiastic center of a magnificent palistrophe of demonstrated competence.
If the US Sovereign (acting from a basement in Kalorama, just north of DuPont Circle) were a smart geopolitical agent who sought to actually harm Russia rather than annoy & strengthen it, then instead of sanctions would simply enable and incentivize every possible means of US oil production. Russia survives on oil exports. The health of Russia is positively correlated to the price of oil. We have instead done the exact opposite, and the sanctions have spurred much domestication of production of other items.
The right should stand up to this liberalism and the disastrous results it produces. Instead, if the right is as historically and philosophically ignorant as I’ve observed in the reaction to this interview, then sadly we deserve what we get — to be the “beautiful losers” Francis pinned us as.
It was a 'Masterclass' in journalism and in diplomacy.
Carlson asked non-adversarial questions and did not try and play "Gotcha" with a world leader. Somewhat like MSNBC interviewing Biden.
However, he then kept quiet and allowed Putin to fully answer the questions posed. When Carlson got impatient, Putin insisted on answering in his own manner.
Putin was the statesman, not putting on a show or challenging the US narrative directly, but putting the Russian and Russian people's perspective in clear and unambiguous terms. He (and Xi) are unashamedly Nationalist. They see that as their job, as their duty. They have a clear vision of the future which does not contain the US hegemony or bullying. They have sold that vision to 80% of the world's population and 60% of the world's wealth. (It was instructional that a UK poll asking which leader the British public would vote for had Putin at 80% and Sunak and Starmer a combined total of 13%.)
One cannot imagine any of the Western leaders being able to sit and talk on any subject for over 2 hours, he may have had a script or a prompt, but if so it was not apparent. I am sure that the questions were presented before the start but his responses were natural and not the speech of some actor or rhetorical.
I am certain that 90% of people listening were not able to go the whole distance as they are used to 10 second soundbites and a commercial break every 5 minutes, but to those of us who actually listened and contemplated what was said, it was gold.
You say he US should increase oil production and export and that we are doing the opposite. This is false. US oil production is at a global and historical high. "Higher than any other country in history" (via NY Times, Reuters, Bloomberg) and part of the motive is the strategy you mention, to weaken Russia's capacity for geopolitical leverage via its own oil production and attendant market control. You say (inaccurately) "We [the US] have instead done the exact opposite, and the sanctions have spurred much domestication of production of other items." ---not sure to what you are referring in that last clause. Do you have examples of "domestication of production of other items"? Thanks for your letter and thanks for taking the time to read this if you can.