Carlson: Conspiratorial or Credible?

Does Interviewing a World Leader Make Tucker a Traitor?

Once again, headlines about former U.S. President Donald Trump swamp the headlines of corporate media.  Let’s all get in a tizzy over this rather than focusing on the fact that an American journalist just published an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin!

Well, those of us that have awakened to the tactics of corporate media are not having it.  The bigger story is Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, whose country is still engaged in a war that started nearly two years ago.  The U.S. government has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to fund Ukraine’s defense against the Russian invasion.  Most U.S. taxpayers are well past their pain point and have a strong preference to resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Strangely, funding for the Ukraine-Russia War has received significant bipartisan support.  But it seems that right-leaning citizens have developed a distaste for war much more quickly than the left-leaning folks that used to be the anti-war crowd.  This is a conversation for another time, but take note that the “peace and love” crowd has now taken an it’s-the-humane-thing-to-do position in support of various military activities.  And it is completely fueled by propaganda, compliments of your favorite corporate media mouthpieces.

Propaganda.  That is what “news” has become, hasn’t it?  How is what we, the “good Americans,” digest as honest information any different from what those “poor Russians” are forced to digest in the form of what we have been told is state-controlled information?  What is “propaganda” anyway?  Well, propaganda is defined as “The systemic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.”  Such causes might include social issues, environmental issues, or geopolitical issues. 

Earlier this week, Carlson traveled to Moscow to ask President Putin about a variety of topics, with a focus on the Ukraine-Russia War and a Wall Street Journal reporter who has been imprisoned in Russia since March 2023.  News of Carlson’s travel and speculation of the potential interview surfaced, and members of the war machine joined the corporate media in their utter freak out.  Carlson pointed out ahead of the Putin interview that “Not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin.”  How did Western journalism respond?

Before the Interview:

The corporate media set the stage for the interview with ridiculous attacks of Carlson. Here is just a small sampling. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough didn’t name Carlson directly but accused him of “doing Putin’s bidding.”  He claimed that “if Trump’s elected, that’s the end of NATO, that’s the end of any deterrence with Putin.  He’ll sweep across Eastern Europe.” Adam Kinzinger, former Republican congressman and current CNN political commentator, straight up called Carlson a traitor. Meanwhile, Carlson was described as a Putin apologist and it was suggested that any Carlson interview of Putin “is likely to be about as illuminating as a light bulb with no filament.”

What do You Want to Know?

Consider for a moment what you would ask Vladimir Putin if given the chance to question him.  Perhaps the most important questions are: Why did you start this war and how can this war end?

Why He Interviewed Putin

Carlson made a video announcement stating, “We’re in Moscow tonight.  We’re here to interview the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.  We’ll be doing that soon.  There are risks to conducting an interview like this, obviously.  So we’ve thought about it carefully over many months.  Here’s why we’re doing it.  First, because its our job.  We’re in journalism.  Our duty is to inform people.  Two years into a war that’s reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what’s happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine.  But they should know, they’re paying for much of it in ways they might not fully yet perceive.” 

His announcement details the price that many have already paid for this war.  He goes on to say, “We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin.  We are here because we love the United States, and we want it to remain prosperous and free.”  Does that sound like a traitor?

The Interview

You can watch the entire two-hour interview here.  Putin begins with quite a long explanation of the history of the relationship between Russia, Europe, and Ukraine, bringing his listeners back over 1,500 years into the past.  He highlighted that Ukraine had common history, common families, common language, and deeply interconnected economies.  Putin touched on some details of more recent history.  Upon the dismantling of the Soviet Union, there was an assumption that there were no longer any “idealogical dividing lines.”  Russia left communism behind and became a capitalist country.  Russia agreed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia expected to be embraced into the “Civilized West.”

Putin explained that the North American Trade Organization (NATO) agreed that they would not expand toward Russia.  According to Putin, after 1991, Russia expected to “be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations.”  NATO promised not to expand eastward and there were “five waves” of eastward expansion.  Russia “tolerated” all of those NATO expansion maneuvers while trying to persuade NATO not to expand, using rationale such as “we are a market economy.”

Putin describes Russia’s support for the Serbs and points to the United States bombing of Belgrade as a rift between the two countries.  He points out that Russian protests were met with claims that the United Nations “charter and international law had become obsolete.”  He pointed out that “now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything was outdated.”

Putin described conversations with Bill Clinton about the possibilities of Russia joining NATO.  Clinton gave some hopes initially, but his advisors told Clinton that it could not happen at that time.

In 2008, at a summit in Bucharest, it was declared that “the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were opened.”  (Note that this was during George W. Bush’s administration).  Putin went on to describe a 2014 Ukrainian election in which the U.S. supported a different candidate, backed a coup, and ultimately the U.S.-favored candidate was installed.  Carlson points out that this happened eight years before the current conflict.  Putin said it was the coup in 2014 that set this off.  (In case you need a reminder, that was during the Obama administration.)

Putin says that Russia has not achieved all of the goals of the Ukrainian invasion.  One goal is the “denazification.”  This includes the removal of the Nazi advocates that remain in Ukraine.

Putin claims that, since the 2014 coup, Russia has attempted to find solutions through peaceful means.  Today, Putin’s message to U.S. leadership is: “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons.  It will be over within a few weeks.  That’s it.”

Putin claims that the West is “trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat.”  Will Putin attack and attempt to expand Russian power into Europe by invading Poland or Latvia?  Russia has no interest in Poland or Latvia, he says.  Putin says that expansionist behavior is “absolutely out of the question.”  He says, “Global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction.”  He says that propagandists are using the Russia threat to extort money from the U.S. taxpayers.

After the Interview

Critics claimed Carlson was not “hard-hitting” enough; defenders say that Carlson allowed Putin to talk and that this is consistent with Carlson’s general interview approach. The Wall Street Journal (via MSN.com) published support for the “conspiracy theory” that Putin has been dead for months and that Carlson actually interviewed his body double.  (This is confusing since we were led to believe that only right-wing nut jobs engage in conspiracy theories). Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called Carlson a “traitor to journalism.” Some fool at the Washington Examiner fans the flames of incredibility with an article entitled “Moscow building engulfs in flames as Tucker Carlson-Putin interview releases.”  The connection being what exactly?  Talk about desperate!

Making Sense of It All

For the first time, we are hearing from Putin himself rather than hearing about him through the narrative of an untrustworthy corporate media.  Should we believe everything that he claims?  Perhaps not. But we can certainly listen and learn.

Putin points out that the NATO expansion was a violation of a promise that was made by the West.  Putin drives home the point that this war did not start in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  This war really started in 2014 between the Russian-speaking eastern territory of Ukraine and the governing forces in Kiev, which were installed with the help of the U.S.  That eastern territory of Ukraine has deep historical and cultural ties with Russia and the people there, we are to understand, consider themselves much more Russian than they do Ukrainian.  From the Russian perspective, this was followed by more provocations from the U.S., especially by opening the door for Ukraine to join NATO.  So, while the war escalated in 2022, it had in fact been started long before.

Does it make sense that Russia would feel threatened when a U.S.-installed government is engaged in bombings of people who consider themselves Russian?  Does it make sense that Russia would feel like their security is at risk?

We have been hearing from corporate media these past two years that Putin plans to invade other European countries, but – believe it or not – he says otherwise.  He says it would be insane to do so and he has no interest in a global war.  He has been prepared to negotiate peace, but the West (i.e., the U.S. and its allies) have blocked negotiations.

Potency of Propaganda

Putin has had productive relationships with American presidents going back to George H. W. Bush. Those good relations were maintained with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.  These presidents all had positive things to say about Putin.  Then comes along the Biden administration and now Putin is compared to Hitler (along with pretty much any other opposition to the Biden regime).  The Western media now has nothing but bad things to say about Putin.  While the reputation of the Russian media as a propaganda tool for the state is probably well-earned, are we to ignore the propagandist strategies employed by Biden’s administration in conjunction with the corporate media?

Bringing it Home

The irrational funding of the Ukrainian war effort is facing increasingly substantial opposition, which is why Congress is now trying to tie funding to other legislation.  Want a border deal?  Sure, but you will have to fork over billions more for Ukraine. 

Now, Tucker Carlson has provided the West access to the opposition’s leader, a man who says he has been willing and continues to be willing to negotiate peace. Putin rationally explained the Russian perspective (whether you agree with it or not).  His countenance and demeanor are not that of the power-hungry egomaniac that has been portrayed by corporate media in recent years.  What are we to make of it all?  Is the U.S. engaged in a proxy war against a great evil?  Ukraine has experienced massive losses as this war has decimated an entire generation of young Ukrainian men.  How much of that blood is on Putin’s hands and how much is on the hands of the U.S. presidents who broke promises and promoted NATO expansion (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, and Joe Biden)?

Is Carlson a traitor?  Can you genuinely get behind that sentiment?  Or is he a journalist that has done the public a great service?  Could this interview be a tipping point?  Corporate media cannot continue with the same narrative about Putin now that we have heard from him that he wants peace.  Well, we can see how corporate media has responded with more propaganda.

What is most important to you?  Saving Ukrainian lives?  The propagandists would have us believe that it is our moral duty not to be deterred from supporting Ukraine until the very end.  But is that really what is best?  The cost in both Ukrainian lives and U.S. dollars has been astronomical.  How much of that price actually needed to be paid?