The first thing that seemed to leap off the screen at me was the tie. Biden made a big deal of his "Ukraine Tie" and pin. Now Carlson wears one to The Interview. Mixed messages no doubt intended to produce a cloud of offerings from the disentanglers back home. Mr. Putin did not seem offended, if he noticed.
The big question, about Ukraine, got a very thorough airing, so much so as to put the whole thing to rest. Yeah, right; maybe if Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow had been asking the questions. But maybe in those days things wouldn't have gone so far off the rails.
At 1:17:26 the conversation moved to other concerns, but at that point I stopped taking notes. My curiosity had been satisfied, about Putin, and although not really a curiosity to me, about Carlson. I have never watched him on TV or read anything he is supposed to have written. In both cases, the men I see in this interview are not at all like the impressions built up in my mind over the years. I have to give Carlson credit for being better informed than I had expected, but he delivered his questions with a certain haughtiness that contrasted with Putin's obvious patience. The conversation was also being translated simultaneously, probably in Putin's earpiece (I don't know if Carlson is fluent in Russian or not). Putin showed intelligence and even wisdom of a kind rarely on display in any western leader.
What follows is a partial transcript with occasional snide remarks by me. Two reasons: one, Putin makes a coherent case that contrasts with the official Washington line, and in my opinion wins the argument; and two, this interview has inspired so much nonsense in the American media that it's almost impossible to ignore the total bankruptcy of the utter, bipartisan, trans-administration failure of the vision foisted on the world by PNAC, the "Project for a New American Century," and this without a mumbling word about the Gaza Genocide.
Carlson's father, as Walter Kirn pointed out, Richard Warner Carlson, was director of Voice of America from 1986 to 1991. Kirn also noted the irony of the son broadcasting to "an audience of captives" from East to West. The choice of neckwear, then, would seem pointed, and in a way that Putin would certainly have understood completely.
In The Interview, Putin established control immediately, and held it effortlessly. Of course Carlson fired off the Big Question of Ukraine. Putin then demonstrated what Carlson called "encyclopedic knowledge" of the history of the region, and methodically delivered a synopsis. Carlson evinced boredom and impatience. Putin did not seem pressed for time.
Despite Carlson's tendency, not exactly catlike, to pounce on the occasional yarn, Putin knitted him a sweater. For instance, he interrupted a couple of times about why Putin had not made his case for Russia's historical rights to Ukraine "24 years ago." Putin pretty much ignored such flak as being beside the point. It was beside by quite a margin.
Putin quoted a German politician: "If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the cold war, only closer to Russia's border," and explained that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, "in 1991, the Russian leadership expected that it could be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, [but] nothing like this happened. They tricked us...the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward; but it happened, five times."
He went on to explain the initial cordiality between the US and Russia, and the "rifts" that opened, around the situation in Yugoslavia. When he became president in 2000, he believed that was over. He recalled asking Clinton about Russia joining NATO (and suggested Tucker "look it up"); Clinton at first had seemed in favor, but after dinner said it would not be possible. Carlson demanded to know if Putin would have joined. Putin explained patiently that "the process of rapprochement could have continued," if conditions were right, but sighed, "Well, no means no."
"I know you're bitter about it, I understand..." came the rejoinder, with knitted brows. Putin shrugged off such paternalistic smarminess with dignified forbearance, it seemed to me. "We're not bride and groom... why we should receive such a negative response, you should ask your own leaders."
Putin recounted three "moments" that showed that the US was not interested in a reasonable relationship, one being the CIA's direct notification that it was working "with the opposition" in the Caucasus. Carlson sought clarification: "The CIA was trying to overthrow your government?" to which Putin made the distinction clear, that this referred to their working with separatists in the Caucasus. The third "moment" was when the US missile defense system was brought to Ukraine. He had suggested to Bush I that the system be created jointly with Russia, the US and Europe, since the US claimed it was for defense against Iran. Gates and Rice had "sat right here, on this table," and said "We agree." But "in the end they just told us to get lost... I said we would be forced to use counter-measures," and Russia built hyper-sonic strike systems. And regarding the promise against NATO growing, he recalled, they said "It's not on paper, so we will expand."
"A coup d'e'tat was committed... The US told us: 'calm Yanukovych down, and we will calm the opposition.... we said, 'Alright. Agreed...' As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces, nor the police; yet the opposition committed a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean, who do you think you are? I wanted to ask the then US leadership."
"With the backing of Whom?" Tucker interjected, expectantly. Capital "Whom."
"With the backing of CIA of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in, although it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis-a-vis, in the sense that I served in the first Main Directorate, the Soviet Union's intelligence service." (I knew your daddy, boy...) "They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically they did everything right: they achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely it was political leadership's miscalculation; they should have seen what it would devolve into."
After more detailed and quite relevant history of the military assaults by the Ukrainian government on the Donbas, Carlson pounced: "That was eight years before the current conflict started, so what was the trigger, for you, what was the moment where you decided you had to do this?"
Putin, seeing that what he had just explained had gone over his questioner's head, said it was the coup that provoked the conflict; and added that Germany, Poland and France had signed as guarantors of the agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition; but the opposition committed a coup, and now they all pretended they didn't remember. "They just threw it in the stove right away, and nobody recalls that."
"President Yanukovych had agreed to all conditions. He was ready to hold an early election in which he had no chance of winning. Everybody knew that. Then, why the coup?... Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbas? That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said it cost a large sum of money... but the political mistake was colossal. Why did they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action; without losing Crimea. We would never have considered to even lift a finger, if it hadn't been for the bloody developments in Maidan. Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former Union's republic. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO's expansion, and moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us."
Putin explained that the Ukrainian leadership declared it would not implement the signed Minsk Agreements, and then, "the former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they had indeed signed the Minsk Agreements, but had never intended to implement them." And something about "led us by the nose."
"I honestly believe that if we manage to convince the residents of Donbas, and we had to work hard to convince them, to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then, gradually the wounds would start to heal. When this part of territory reintegrated into common social environment... all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No: nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only."
The war, Putin asserted, started in 2014, and Russia's actions were all an attempt to stop it. Carlson: "Do you think you've stopped it now? I mean, have you achieved your aims?"
"No...because one of them is de-Nazification." This had been discussed in Istanbul early this year, said Putin, and it was the Europeans who said it was "necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents. My counterparts in France and Germany said, 'How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads?'" and that the troops should be pulled back from Kiev. This was done, and then "all Ukrainian negotiators threw our agreements reached in Istanbul, into the bin, and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation, with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation developed, and that is how it looks now."
"But what is 'de-nazification?' What would that mean?"
Putin explained that after independence, Ukraine had built its identity on "false heroes," wartime collaborators with invading Nazis, who had done "the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish... as well as the Russian population" under the German SS, naming Bandera and others (readers may recall Putin recounting this to Oliver Stone).
"I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. The Ukrainians say no, they are a separate people. Ok. Fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so; but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology."
"Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?"
"I will finish answering the question. You just asked the question about neo-Nazism and de-Nazification," Putin answered, and recalled the President of Ukraine's visit to the Canadian Parliament, and their extraordinary presentation of a man who "fought against the Russians during the World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during the World War II? Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops, and personally killed Russians, Poles and Jews."
"Really my question is what do you do about it. I mean, Hitler's been dead for eighty years, Nazi Germany no longer exists, and so, true, and I think what you're saying is you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism, but how, how do you do that?"
Perhaps we should note here that most Americans have never acknowledged, don't even know about, the devastating losses suffered by Russians, before we (the US) even entered the Second World War, a war that we continue to claim we won. In the unexpurgated version of history, without that terrible Russian sacrifice we might all be yelling "Heil" in rallies choreographed by Leni Riefenstahl. The Russians will never forget. The US reminds them daily. I also note here that what Putin said next included the phrase (translated, presumably by his own staff), "get rid of"; and that might be an unfortunate turn of phrase from a person of Putin's stature. In context, however, he's discussing the Nazi collaborators who were personally culpable in the part of the Holocaust that took place in Ukraine, who are still active in the region. It appears from his questions that Carlson, in light of his personal background (and his neckwear on this occasion), is being willfully insensitive. But to be fair, he is doing an interview for the general, marginally informed public. It still seems a bit obtuse.
"Listen to me. Your question is very subtle. And I can tell you what I think. Do not take offense." This an offering, almost a question, as to whether Carlson really understands his own question.. "Of course!" grins our intrepid interrogator.
"This question appears to be subtle; it is, quite pesky. You say Hitler has been dead for so many years... but his example lives on. People who exterminated Poles, Russians and Jews are alive. And the president, the current president of Ukraine, applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation. Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology, if what we see is happening today? That is what de-Nazification is, in our understanding: we have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept, and support this practice and try to preserve it; That is what de-Nazification is. That is what we mean."
In an otherwise almost pedantic conversation, such as might occur over drinks in a quiet social setting, Putin delivered this with an intensity that normally would invoke a moment of respectful silence. Normally. But Tucker piped up immediately and dismissively. "---Uh, right, but my question's a li'l more specific, it was of course not a defense of Nazis, neo- or otherwise, it was a practical question: you don't control the entire country, you don't control Kiev, you don't seem like you want to, so how, how do you eliminate a culture, or an ideology, or feelings, or a view of history, in a country that you don't control, what do you do about that?"
"You know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiaions in Istanbul we did agree that, we have it all in writing, that neo-Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine. Including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level. Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine, as a modern civilized state. Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it."
Tucker: "Uh--!" (Was that Carlson? He was not on camera, Putin was still speaking.)
Putin: "That is it."
"Um, will there be talks, and why haven't there been talks, about resolving the conflict, in Ukraine, peace talks."
"There have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of western countries, European countries, and the United States, to fight Russia to the bitter end. Moreover, the president of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia." (Carlson: "Right.") "But how are we going to negotiate, if he forbade everyone and himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas, about a settlement, but in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialog, is that not right?"
"Welll, but you wouldn't be speaking to the Ukrainian president, you'd be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke with Joe Biden?"
Oh dear. Tucker, did you not remember that this war is a Ukrainian problem, that the president and Blinken and the whole team keep telling everyone that it's all up to them, and we stand behind them forever, um, to the end, um, as long as it takes, um, until... well anyway.
"I do not remember. We can look it up."
Carlson (laughing incredulously): "Heh heh, you don't remember!? Hahaha..."
Putin (unmoved): "No. Why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs."
Carlson: "Well he's funding the war that you're fighting, so I would think that would be memorable."
"Well yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the Special Military Operation of course. And I said to him then... I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away. I told him, told him repeatedly by the way. I think that would be correct, if I stop here.
"What did he say?"
"Ask him, please. It is easier for you, you are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation."
"B-But-but, you haven't spoken to him since before February of 2022."
"No, we haven't spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?"
"Yes."
"You can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former president, Condolleezza is safe and sound, and I think Mr. Gates, and the current director of the intelligence agency, Mr. Burns (the then-Ambassador to Russia, in my opinion a very successful Ambassador); they were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them. Same here, if you are interested in what Mr. President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talked to him about it."
Carlson: "I'm, I'm, definitely interested, but from the outside, it seems like this could devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict, and could, um, initiate some, a nuclear launch, and so why don't you just call Biden, and say, 'let's work this out'..."
"What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts with various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter, and what we are conveying to the US leadership: if you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then, we can agree on some terms. Before you do that, stop. What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him, for what?"
Carlson (interrupting): "And, and, what messages did you get back?"
Ignoring this outburst, Putin goes on: "'You are going to deliver such-and-such weapons to Ukraine? Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid, please don't?' What is there to talk about?"
Carlson: "Do you think NATO is worried about this becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?"
"At least that is what they are talking about, and they are trying to intimidate their own population with imaginary Russian threats. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not Philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people, understand perfectly well that this is a fake. They are trying to fuel the Russian Threat." (Western ears might hear "realpolitik" but the translator used the two words, "real politics.")
Tucker leaps in: "The threat I think you're referring to is a Russian invasion of, Poland, Latvia, expansionist behavior, is... can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?"
"Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply do not have any interest. It's just threat-mongering."
Carlson: "The argument, I know you know this, is, 'well, he invaded Ukraine, he has territorial aims across the continent,' and your saying, unequivocally you don't."
"It is absolutely out of the question. You just don't have to be any kind of analyst; it goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war. And a global war will bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction. It's obvious. There are certainly means of deterrence; they have been scaring everyone with us, all along: 'tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons; tomorrow Russia will use that; no, the day after tomorrow.' So what? In order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers, in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theater of war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible."
Carlson: "Wha, owp... one of, ah, our senior US Senators, from the State of New York, Chuck Schumer said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian, effort, or, US soldiers, citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?"
"This is a provocation, and a cheap provocation at that. I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place, and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the disire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of very serious global conflict. This is obvious. Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. Don't you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issue with the national debt, more than thirty three trillion dollars; you have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia, make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end? And realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests, and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational."
Tucker pounces: "Who blew up Nordstream?"
"You, for sure."
Tucker: "I was busy that day. Heh heh. I did not blow up Nordstream. I think you know..."
"You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi."
"Did you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?"
"You know, I won't get into details, but people always say... look for someone who is interested. But... also for someone who has capabilities. Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea, and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected..."
"But I'm confused, I mean that's the biggest act of industrial terrorism, ever, and it's the largest emission of CO2 in history. Ok-so, if you had evidence, and presumably given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West, did this, why wouldn't you present it, and win a propaganda victory?"
(Wow. You said a mouthful, boy...)
Putin (Laughing): "In the war of propaganda it is very difficult to defeat the United States, because the United States controls all the world's media, and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost-prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly, it's true."
"Yes, I. But here's a question you may be able to answer, you worked in Germany, famously; the Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they, and it damaged their economy greatly, it may never recover; why are they being silent about it, that's very confusing, to me; why wouldn't the Germans, say something, about it?"
"This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the collective west, rather than its national interests; otherwise it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nordstream 1, which was blown up, and the Nordstream 2 was damaged; but one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it. But Germany does not open it. We are ready. Please. There is another route through Poland... that also allows for a large flow... Poland has closed it. Germany feeds Poland to a certain extent; and they closed their route to Germany. Why?" He posed the question of why Germany, which supplies weapons for Ukraine, doesn't ask Ukraine to open their pipleline from Russia to Germany, when the money for Ukraine comes from the gas-starved European economy. "Ask them. That is what it is like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people."
"Maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres, one with cheap energy and one without, and I want to ask you that, if, if we're now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocs of alliances, wh- who is in each side? Do you think?"
"Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres; one is responsible for one type of activities; the other is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole. Security should be shared, rather than meant for the Golden Billion. That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable. Until then, while the head is split in two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is a period of severe disease that the world is going through now. But I think that, thanks to honest journalism, this work is akin to the work of the doctors, this could somehow be remedied."
It wasn't apparent that Carlson got that last little joke.
The conversation did have some additional highlights, probably of more interests to spectators than scholars, like Carlson's attempt to get an American charged with espionage released to take home on his return flight. Putin did not shy from this or any other subject, but it would have been much more than the situation, or the interviewer, deserved.
It's refreshing to see a head of state who speaks from a broad historical context. If he lies, the lies are deep and complex, rather than superficial and utterly dependent on the "news cycle" for the wind under their wings. It's an accomplishment to construct a lie, if indeed Putin even tried, out of well-understood historical forces that hangs together well enough to be debated by historians with strings of abbreviated titles. It's even more refreshing when the speaker does this on the fly, off the top of his head. It's unheard of for a head of state to give understandable answers to over-simplified questions about incredibly complex issues, and seem to enjoy the conversation.
The worldview that emerges is coherent, and comports with widely known fact much more consistently than the Washington narratives that have wafted over us like spaghetti heading for the wall, without sticking, over and over again.
Carlson, who given his very well-informed background, at least seemed to follow the historical dissertations, but came off like a teenager who just wants the car keys, yeah, yeah, whatever, Dad.
My take on the whole thing was that for credibility, Putin hands-down owned it, and the "west" as represented by Carlson, is the goat.
There is certainly a lot more to this, but most of it is likely to be based on denial of an essential truth: that the Empire is emerging into public view like the naked emperor, whose magical raiment, we may remember, was invisible only to fools. Whether this is because it is collapsing like Rome, or because power is now so concentrated in the hands of less than a dozen men that it no longer needs to bother with what people think, we shall certainly learn sooner or later.
