Tucker Carlson’s journalistic failure: Putin gives his first interview since the start of the War
Photo Courtesy: Kremlin.ru via Wikimedia Commons
Two years after the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin gave his first interview to a western journalist in the person of Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News reporter well-known for his conservative views.
In a video posted on X, the American explained the reasoning for the interview in a highly sensationalist fashion. Most notably, Carlson promised to deliver the truth and nothing but the truth, as opposed to what he called the “corrupt” Western media outlets which he accused of only echoing “government propaganda”. Carlson reinforced his point by claiming that he was the only Western journalist who sought to interview Putin —a fact immediately refuted by several sources including the Kremlin press secretary himself.
Despite Carlson’s promises of journalistic excellence, the interview quickly developed into two long hours of unchallenged propaganda. The gap between the reporter’s intended plan for the interview and the reality he encountered was painfully tangible throughout the first thirty minutes, during which Putin almost uninterruptedly justified the invasion of Ukraine on highly contested historical grounds. In what resembled a lecture more than an interview, the Russian leader attempted to uphold the alleged Russian legitimacy over Ukrainian soil and the insignificance of Ukraine as a state, drawing on his pre-invasion essay On the Historical Unity of Russians.
Putin also reaffirmed having no interest in invading Latvia or Poland, denouncing what he presented as NATO’s threat-mongering practices over their populations. It is interesting to note the Kremlin wielded a similar rhetoric until a few days before the start of the war in Ukraine. Regarding a potential peace settlement, Putin once again accused former resident of 10 Downing Street Boris Johnson of having sabotaged the hopes of an accord during the Istanbul talks in March 2022. As of right now, he declared it was time to let NATO “think how to reverse the situation”.
Rather than bring any new elements into his rhetoric, Putin seemed more interested in the current political context of the United States. The Russian leader put pressure where it hurts, drawing away from Carlson’s questions and instead asking “Don’t you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border”. Seeking further commitment from the Biden administration to answer the Mexican border crisis, a portion of the Republicans in Congress is currently blocking a vital $60 billion aid for Kyiv’s war effort. It is no surprise, therefore, that Putin is asking such a question, clearly calling on the pro-Republican population to put further pressure on those Congressmen who are still reluctant to diminish US military aid to Ukraine.
Furthermore, the Kremlin’s wider focus seemed to be on the US Presidential election next November. A reelection of isolationist advocate Trump would inevitably prove a major obstacle to Ukraine’s chances of victory, which strongly depend on US commitment and aid. As Putin said, “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks”. It seems quite easy after all.
It is also no surprise that Putin chose Carlson to interview him. Known for his public dislike of Zelensky and his overall criticism of Ukrainian military actions, Carlson was not going to constitute a major threat and Putin was fully aware of this.
Carlson’s refusal to challenge Putin was blatantly perceptible throughout the interview, even when he came onto his only sensible topic: Evan Gershkovich. The Wall Street Journal reporter was arrested in Russia in March 1983, despite having full press credentials from Russia’s foreign ministry. Accused of espionage, he currently awaits trial in jail. Instead of asking for evidence against Gershkovich, who was allegedly caught “red-handed”, Carlson patronizingly called the experienced, 32-year-old reporter “the kid” and went as far as suggesting he had broken the law. In what was understood by several analysts as a reference to a suspected Russian FSB agent held in Germany, Putin simply evoked the possibility of a prisoner exchange.
Putin was not questioned about the Russo-American journalist Alsu Kourmasheva, jailed since June 2023, nor was he questioned about the strong censorship imposed on Russian journalists, for whom the mention of a “war” instead of special operations can have dramatic consequences. He was also not asked about attacks on civilians and various war crimes, notably in Irpin and Butcha, or about his political opponent Alexei Navalny. The latter died ten days later, last February 16th, in an Artic Circle penitentiary in conditions which are yet to be determined.
Thus, Putin largely dominated the discussion. In a grandiose way, Carlson insisted people would learn more about the conflict, but it was more an occasion for the Russian leader to regurgitate his propaganda than an actually informative and constructive interview. The failure of Carlson’s interview was made clear a few days later, when Putin ironically declared that he was “surprised” Carlson asked “no tough questions”.