Deep Analysis: The Putin Tucker Interview
Here's an interesting perspective.
On Friday February 9th, Tucker Carlson dropped his highly anticipated interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin is nearly 2 years into his war in Ukraine and Tucker wanted answers. I’ve analyzed Putin interviews in the past like the Roger Stone one and I’m well versed in the Ukraine war. Putin is one of the most interesting characters in the world, I even read his autobiography when I was in the military. I though this Tucker interview deserved an article or two, so here we go.
Context
Before we dive into the interview we have to put it in it’s proper context. This talk happened two weeks before the second year anniversary of the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. Putin is currently a man at war and like all men at war, their primary objective is to win it.
This is was a map of the Ukraine war on Feb 9th, the day the interview released:
In the Summer of 2022, Ukrainian forces had a very successful offensive against Russia and took back a lot of territory. In 2023, out of fear Ukraine might do the same, Russia set up deep minefields, dug ditches and blew up the Kakhovka dam. They did this to reduce Ukraine’s options and force them to attack through their minefields. This strategy was very successful for Russia and Ukraine’s 2023 summer offensive did not make it far. Turns out, heavy artillery and deep minefields are a deadly combination. But there’s a catch, while this strategy works it also works against you. Mines don’t have friend or foe identification, everyone get’s blow up all the same. As you can probably guess, Russia also severely limited their own movements. They’ve attempted to mount offensives of their own in this period but they ended with massive losses with minimal territory to show for it. This has been the trend throughout the whole winter, I haven’t given an updated Ukraine War update in 3 months because of it.
Throughout the summer and winter, Ukrainian forces destroyed and damaged a number of Russian naval vessels. The Novocherkassk being the biggest, and the one that’s fresh on everyone’s is the Ivanovets that was sunk on February 1st.
The History Lesson
Tucker starts off the interview with this question:
“On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country”. And to American ears that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?”
Putin responds with: “The point is not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia, I didn't say so. Are we having a talk show or serious conversation?”
Putin then proceeds to talk about the history of Russia. These stories are framed in a certain perspective and are contested by different parties. Who’s telling the truth? I don’t care, what matters is not the story but the goal of telling it. Putin had documents ready to present to Tucker, meaning he planned to tell this elaborate story regardless. This usually means one of four things:
He’s very sentimental about Ukraine because of their shared history.
Humans come up with elaborate justifications for their actions.
Leaders usually take actions then use history and religion as a way to sell it to their population, a manipulation tactic.
Countries as a whole can frame history in a way that’s convenient for them and helps advance their interests.
Throughout Putin’s history lesson there seems to be a reoccurring theme:
“Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization”
“So the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian General Staff.”
“Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before”
“Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever”
“Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.”
“everything that Ukraine received as a gift from Russia, “from the master’s shoulder,” she took with her”
Essentially he’s saying Ukraine is a fabrication and Ukrainians don’t really have an identity. Daddy is just taking back what was his in the first place, this is a really convenient way to frame a country you’re trying to take over. It has echoes of what China does to Taiwan with the One China principle.
NATO
Putin quotes German politician Egon Bahr who said: “NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said: if NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders”. Putin state’s that “The United States - you promised that there would be no NATO expansion to the east”.
Putin is right, there was a promise not to expand NATO to the east. But that’s all it was, a verbal “promise” US secretary of state at the time James A. Baker made to the Soviets and it was also said in a speech by NATO’s secretary. None of this was ever written on paper and there was no kind of vote on this. More importantly, these verbal agreements were made to the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev to be precise. The point of debate here would be: If the Soviet Union is no more, would NATO still be bound by verbal non-written agreements made to Soviet Leaders?
I’ll let you answer that for yourself.
Not wanting a foreign military alliance at your borders is completely normal. Him giving a justification like that would have been completely fine. Putin also said he asked to join NATO and he was denied. I believe this to be true, but he could have been denied for various reasons. Maybe they though he would undermine the organization from within, who knows.
Relationships
Putin complains that after the fall of the Soviet Union the US did not welcome them in like they did for let’s say Germany and Japan. I agree, they did not get that sort of treatment and it was probably a missed opportunity for the US. On the flip side though, countries don’t really owe each other relationships, I can’t assign blame here. The US didn’t really care for Russia at the time. They just fought a 44 year cold war against the Soviets and the communist ideology. Countless of lives lost around the globe fighting conventional wars and proxy wars. I understand the US here and I also understand Putin, there’s no right or wrong it’s just what it is.
This article is getting a bit long so I’ll stop here. Part two will be out later this week, please subscribe.
I felt like Tucker should have cut Putin off at the start of that first rant.