Several Western media reports described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s interview with US broadcaster Tucker Carlson as a “massive propaganda victory for Putin,” in which he delivered a “history lesson.” Other reports suggested that the “interview wasn’t journalism. It was sycophancy.”
Conducted in the Kremlin and aired on 8 February on Carlson’s X account, the interview garnered more than 120 million views worldwide, causing the ire of “Western circles”, according to Russian reports.
In the course of two hours with the right-wing Fox News former host, Putin devoted over 30 minutes to the historical backdrop of relations between Russia and Ukraine, spanning more than a millennium, dating back to 862 AD.
On why he conducted the interview, Carlson said the “Americans 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,” alluding to the substantial support the US provides to Ukraine — a point Tucker has consistently criticised.
Tucker also directed criticism towards the US media, noting the absence of any attempts by journalists to secure an interview with Putin, despite many engaging with his Ukrainian counterpart. In response, British journalist Christiane Amanpour, a CNN host, promptly rebuked Carlson. She said that she and several of her peers had sought to conduct an interview with Putin, but their requests were met with a negative response.
Carlson said he was “shocked” at Putin’s response to his question regarding the motive behind the invasion of Ukraine. However, tempering his language, before the interview aired the host said, “What you are about to see seemed to us sincere… A sincere expression of what he thinks.” He then waxed lyrical about Putin’s extensive knowledge.
Carlson steered clear of any topics that might be deemed sensitive to the Kremlin. These include reports of potential Russian war crimes in places like Bucha and Mariupol in Ukraine, the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Putin, and the fate of Russian opposition figures, notably Alexei Navalny and other prisoners.
The host also refrained from discussing Russian mobilisation for war and alleged high death tolls in battles, the upcoming Russian presidential elections, and last week’s exclusion of anti-war candidate Boris Nadezhdin from the presidential race.
“Putin’s choice to talk to Carlson was based partly on his perceived sympathy — the former Fox host has repeatedly dismissed criticism of Putin over the years — and the opportunity to appeal to the more MAGA reaches of the Republican Party during an election year,” reported The Washington Post.
The timing of the interview prompted the ire of the Democrats and liberals, grappling with a decline in their president’s popularity. Questions about his memory and capacity to handle the demands of governance at his age have surfaced, despite his extensive four-decade experience in American politics.
The Republicans seem to have benefited from this interview, which resonated with their supporters and reinforced their determination to reclaim the White House, gain control of Congress, and secure influence in several states.
Amid the lack of victories in Ukraine and the inability to halt Russian pressure on the Ukrainians, the Democratic Party finds itself in a precarious position, exacerbated by their controversial policy regarding the Israeli war on Gaza, which resulted in the death of 28,000 Palestinians and the injury and displacement of countless others.
The interview further amplifies the Democrats’ decline in key states and the erosion of support they had cultivated among minorities over decades. This support, particularly from voters of Arab, Latin and Eastern European origins, is increasingly shifting in favour of Republicans.
Traditionally aligned with socially conservative policies, the Republican Party lost many minorities to the Democrats in the 1970s, but it appears that a resurgence of support from these communities is now taking place.
Russian politician Yevgeny Fyodorov wrote, “100 million people tuned in to watch the interview. It is expected that more than a billion people will learn about its content.” Fyodorov characterised Carlson in Russia Today as “a true professional in his field,” who enjoys popularity in the US, particularly among conservatives and Republicans. He attributed Carlson’s expulsion from Fox News to his “bold reporting on the Ukraine war.”
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova spoke of the US “hysteria” over the interview, saying the White House, State Department and major media outlets did not want the US host to conduct the interview with Putin.
Indeed, leading US media outlets criticised Carlson and his interview, labelling him a “promoter” of Kremlin propaganda rather than a journalist.
Francesca Ebel, a Russian affairs expert at The Washington Post, noted in her report on the newspaper’s website that, during the extensive and diversionary interview, Putin dominated the conversation, leaving Carlson with little opportunity to interject. She said that, in the first 30 minutes, Putin delivered a “reactionary address” on the founding myths of Russia and Ukraine, the Soviet Union’s disintegration, and NATO’s expansion.
On the CNN website, Oliver Darcy wrote that “Putin walks away with a propaganda victory after Tucker Carlson’s softball interview.” Darcy suggested that Carlson’s approach allowed Putin to manipulate public perception and present his narrative, regardless of its veracity.
Putin effectively used the interview to criticise Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, specifically pointing out that Zelensky applauding for Yaroslav Honka, an Ukrainian veteran associated with a Nazi unit during World War II, during Zelensky’s visit to Canada in September.
Fox News, the media outlet that catapulted Carlson to fame through his political programme “Tucker Carlson Tonight” (2016-2023), has not issued any comments on the interview.
“Putin greatly benefited from the interview, particularly after two years of exhausting war in Ukraine,” said Ahmed Al-Khamisi, a professor of Russian literature and culture with over two decades’ experience as a correspondent for various Arab media outlets in Moscow. Al-Khamisi is the author of several political books on Russian politics, including titles such as Moscow Knows Tears and Ladies of the Kremlin. He explained that, “after two years, public sentiments in the West, particularly in the US, softened, enabling Putin to overcome the barrier of American media control.”
Putin acknowledged in the interview that he didn’t anticipate winning the propaganda battle against Washington, given the global media influence of the US. However, Al-Khamisi believes that “the dissemination of Putin’s perspective to millions of Americans could moderately influence the atmosphere of the US presidential race. It is true the Democratic Party and US liberals are disturbed by Putin’s interview,” Al-Khamisi added, “but the impact on the US electoral landscape might still be limited.”
Putin seems to have emerged triumphant from the interview, with the ability to sustain the ongoing war where his forces are advancing slowly but surely. There is growing concern in Europe that the victory of former president Donald Trump could lead to a cessation of support for Kyiv, a scenario European capitals may find difficult to prevent.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose country is the second largest contributor to Ukraine after the US, said Berlin cannot fill the potential void left by Washington’s withdrawal of support for Kyiv. The Europeans’ apprehension has heightened with the escalation of the Israeli war on Gaza, leading to increased public opposition. European governments find themselves unable to exert sufficient pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war council to halt the conflict.
Despite Putin’s apparent advantage after two years of war, marked by undisclosed human and material losses on Moscow’s part, the conflict’s conclusion is not imminent. A press interview, regardless of its impact and outcomes, cannot determine its outcome, and it is well to remember that the West is still holding cards it can play against Russia.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 February, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: