Last week, Vladimir Putin took part in his first interview with a Western journalist in years. The significant gap is anything but surprising considering the multiple journalists currently detained in Russian prisons as well as the ongoing war in Ukraine, but Tucker Carlson was seemingly undeterred. After losing his position at Fox News, an agency that skyrocketed him to fame and infamy, he has been looking forward to a large story—a welcome change from his participation in “zyn” ads—and this was certainly that breakthrough moment. Over various platforms, the two-hour interview has been viewed many millions of times over. None of the previous interviews with Putin done by Western journalists—Christiane Amanpour (2019), Megyn Kelly (2017, also a Fox News host before Tucker Carlson), and Oliver Stone (2017)—attracted as much attention as the current one. Yet, there has been no consensus as to what it all means. Journalists and citizens alike have taken to the internet to express their reactions, and it seems the interview has once more further divided Americans; this time whether the interview was a groundbreaking success or merely a rehashing of the same old Russian propaganda. On the one hand, it has been labeled a conservative victory over the corrupt Western nations, while also labeled as a great opportunity for the West to galvanize support against Russia led by a deranged leader. To most, creating a well-formed view is near impossible given the countless directions the media have taken this story, so today a Ukrainian friend of mine and I seek to create a nuanced analysis of what the world witnessed last week. One of the most commonly ‘memed’ moments took place within the initial half-hour of the interview, which saw Putin take the roots of a question about Western aggression back nearly millennia. As someone who closely watched the full half-hour (not to mention the full two-hour interview), I too found it quite comedic, but it certainly raises interesting debates. Foremost, Putin has chosen the wrong direction for the attack. Bringing the ancient history of Russia-Ukraine relations is a mistake. Not only does an average American probably not seriously take historical arguments that took place somewhere in Eastern Europe in 1612 (the Bohdan Khemlnitskyi reference), but they also lack a national understanding of monarch politics due to the democratic nature of the U.S. Looking at this interview as a conversation between a prominent American and prominent Russian, I imagine that a person like Tucker might be able to carefully listen and, perhaps, even engage a little bit in a conversation about medieval Eastern Europe, but let's be honest there, on the following day there isn't much left in his head anymore. In fact, there wasn't even much left in his head before the interview even started. Tucker accurately represents his audience because he doesn't have an elementary knowledge of modern Russia, not even talking about history. He asked only a few questions during the interview, and despite not having much, it took only one of his statements to sign his illiteracy: "Russia is a Christian country." Quite a failure from Tucker's side. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are four acknowledged religions in Russia. Furthermore, Russia's imperialistic intentions in Georgia and Chechnya show that this country doesn't care about preserving its spiritual identity anymore. Various sources say that Russia has from 6% to 18% of the Muslim population, with some regions being primarily Muslim. Tucker wanted to start talking about general topics that are close to the American right-wing public. Perhaps he planned to idealize Putin's image for U.S. right-wing groups. It's easy to fantasize that Russia is a white, traditional haven full of beautiful blonde women and strong Slavic men. What a contrast and a relief to a culturally shifted United States; a goal to strive for, right? That would be an excellent opportunity for Putin to spin his propaganda propeller on alt-right American viewers. However, this is one of the few moments where Putin does indeed give an honest answer. He says Russia has many religious groups and that being Christian is "not about going to Church every day or banging your head on the floor." It's a terrible answer for the Christian American audience. There are so many ways to gain support from right-wing groups in the U.S., especially if you are Putin and everything you say is taken for granted. Imagine a fat Drew from Alabama. He hates Mexicans, Muslims, abortions, furries, gays, rainbow flags, and everything that starts with homo. He wants to hear how wonderful Russia is. There are no ABCDEFG+ people, no migrants, nothing is imported, and taxes are minimal. I say, take all of these values, slap them on Russia (most of them will work if you try hard enough!), and achieve the support from republican Americans with minimal effort. Don't forget to criticize Biden, NATO, bureaucracy, and Western media on the way. Each method would lead to positive results. However, Drew hears some crazy stories about Kyiv Rus and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, receives some letters from Bohdan Khemlnytskyi to the Moscow Empire, and realizes that Russia decided to conquer Ukraine because of some bullshit from the 9th century. After attentively listening, Drew tosses his finished can of root beer into the trash bin and asks himself, "Hm... Isn’t Lithuania a city in Munich?" Putin and his media team did a terrible job, but Tucker also wasn't able to show off his favorite minion. His questions were too complicated and confusing for Putin, so he couldn't ride the same message he does in the inner politics of Russia. Hence, Putin struggled to identify the audience he was working for because, ultimately, his argument did not appeal to every single side of the issue. Slightly more specific and straightforward questions could have moved the interview into a more casual flow, where Putin would be comfortable contrasting the ideals of the U.S. to those of Russia and downplaying other factors. The intimidated Carlson must have been afraid to change the subject of Ruriks and territorial wars, and Putin must have really enjoyed talking about his dearest topic in history and decided to continue like that until the end of the interview. Additionally, Putin’s baffling claim surrounding Poland’s supposed collaboration with the Nazi regime quickly squashed any sentiments of respect that may have taken root in the audience during the first few minutes of the interview. For years the right has tried desperately to frame Putin as the strong antithesis to the West to highlight the West’s own decrepit and pitiful ruling class, and while this criticism is valid, Putin is certainly not a correct role model for a traditionalist nation. To summarize, his history lesson was not intended to answer the question provided by Carlson, but rather an attempt to drag the conversation into waters far out of Carlson’s depth in order to dominate the narrative. Carlson is no genius or historian, and this proved to be an easy task. Ultimately, just like Putin’s various “Are we having a serious conversation?” comments, the lecture was nothing more than a way for the leader to assert total dominance over his interviewer. Additionally, Putin is somewhat disappointed by the direction of the interview, seemingly expecting more engagement and follow-up questions from Carlson. However, there's a subtle acknowledgment, perhaps even by Putin himself, that his propaganda tactics may have fallen short. Therefore, Putin downplays the interview's significance to minimize attention and drive away from vulnerabilities in his narrative. Putin’s assertion of control leads cleanly into the next point, which is the unjust criticism of Carlson’s conduct. The media have been quick to lambast him for not ‘pushing’ Putin enough, which is laughable considering where he is. Do they forget he is literally in the heart of the Kremlin? On a personal level, I find that Carlson exhibited remarkable bravery in even suggesting the release of Russia’s American journalist prisoners. However, Carlson certainly understood this balance of power going in, and that is where much of his genuine criticism is drawn from. The main argument states: Carlson knew Putin would have total control over the conversation, so why would he even allow Putin the opportunity to speak through the interview? Of course, it was a foreseeable conclusion that Putin would simply rehash his nation's meticulously crafted propaganda for two hours, but does that mean he should not have the opportunity to do so? Similar to the points made in my last article about the death of liberalism, free media is essential to a nation that claims to be ‘liberal’, and that involves giving a voice to stories with weight. Most Westerners have no idea what Russian propaganda truly professes because it is not targeted at them, and now for the first time, it is. Putin planned to use this as an opportunity to sell himself to the West, and he did so. On the other hand, now the Western citizenry has more knowledge of the ideology and worldview they are up against, so it is certainly a double-edged sword for Russia. After the history lesson, Putin moved to the real meat and potatoes of the interview. Of all the topics spoken about, the most interesting points made by Putin were surrounding geopolitics and ‘how things are really run’. As an outsider to the West with a valuable first-hand understanding of the inner workings of a modern state, his points around the effectiveness of elected leaders were quite poignant. Though these facts were not new to me, I find that it is an ultimate net positive that the average American—especially with an election looming—once more has the depressing reality of modern democracy hammered through their skull. Of course, all his points surrounding these matters had an underlying goal of reaffirming the Russian Crusade against the West, yet a broken clock is right twice a day. Once more, however, the moment I began to have a spark of respect for the points made, that spark was just as quickly pinched out. For years, the most baffling part of Russian propaganda has been the idea of ‘de-Nazification’. I understand why this may work for many Russians—seeing as the ‘great patriotic war’ still stirs up fervent nationalism—yet watching Putin attempt to make the idea applicable to a Western audience was quite entertaining. His main issue is he has to appeal to the West, while also accusing them of supporting Nazism or even being Nazis themselves; a ravine in his argument that is never once bridged. His only two comprehensible points on the matter were the invocation of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to an SS officer and the infamous AZOV battalion, yet the AZOV is a small extreme sect reviled by most Ukrainians, and the Canadian parliament debacle is nothing more than a lack of due diligence in research. The obvious counter comes with the fact Zelenskyy is Jewish, however, Putin foresees this counter-argument and offers a vaguely recalled conversation between the two leaders about how Zelenskyy was forced into compromising with the extreme right to hold power. Once more, knowledge is power, and a Western audience will be deterred by statements as ludicrous as these, no matter how watered down to meet their palate they become. So by this point, we understand what Putin was actually saying and what he intended to achieve, but what will be the outcome? In all honesty, nothing groundbreaking. It will certainly help the Trump campaign, for Americans have seen what they are up against in regard to foreign policy, and for all his faults, Putin certainly maintained a strong presence during the interview. This presence and mere ability to speak for an extended amount of time—a shallow bar I know however one that Biden has created through his own inability—certainly once more struck the jagged nail of reality into the American psyche. In truth, this interview coupled with his press conference fiasco has effectively sealed the Biden campaign's defeat this November; no longer can Americans sit back and allow themselves to be humiliated on the world stage. Besides the electoral impact, it achieved little else of substance. Americans already have a lukewarm view of the war, and Putin offered a lukewarm interview that many Westerners will find an utter bore or at best mildly interesting. On the one hand, Putin has not made himself any more likable and his small but vocal following in the West has suffered a serious blow from his utter unremarkably, however, Putin came across as little more than an average politician, not the fantastical villain he is usually made out to be. Effectively, this has led to the current balance of views on the conflict as well as Russia in their pre-interview trenches, which is increasingly staid and unlikely to shift. In short, I found the interview to be an interesting watch, but I highly doubt it will lead to any revelations in the West or breakthroughs in the ongoing war.
0 Comments
|
News mattersThough traditionalism has an eye for the past, it is so much more. We want to change the world to reflect the values of old, and to do so we must stay up to date. ArchivesCategories |