As the gilding peels off the 'tough leader' Putin

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, has conducted an interview with a Western journalist for the first time since the war they launched against Ukraine. Famous presenter Tucker Carlson, known in the US for his distance from the Joe Biden administration, Tucker Carlson, traveled to Moscow in person to meet with Putin. This long interview, which lasted over two hours and took place on February 6, was published on Carlson's internet-based personal accounts in the early hours of February 9, Turkey time.

In truth, the interview seems to have served the interests of Carlson—or perhaps a segment of American political circles close to Carlson, most notably Donald Trump—more than it served Putin. Carlson's personal gain is clear. The mere fact that he was able to conduct such a remarkable interview with a head of state whom no Western journalist has interviewed for a long time was enough to make Carlson a major topic of conversation on a global scale.

For certain political circles in the US, particularly a segment that became prominent during Trump's presidency, having certain facts conveyed to Americans firsthand by Putin to steer American public opinion in a specific direction may also be seen as a gain. It may be the goal of these circles to somehow end the war in Ukraine—which is increasingly evident as not going as desired for the West in general—and to focus more firmly on the Asia-Pacific region, which is considered the area where the US should primarily focus. The late, famous It was widely written and discussed that U.S. diplomat and academic Henry Kissingerwas "in play" during the Trump era with the aim of achieving such a goal.in playReferring to the Nixon Strategy, which Kissinger implemented during his active service in U.S. administrations—summarized as drawing China to the U.S. side against the Soviet Union—it was claimed that this time he was attempting to pursue a "reverse Nixon strategy." At this point, the question of what the Trump administration's primary orientation was, especially regarding relations with Russia, in my opinion, still remains unanswered.

Now, in a second Trump term that seems more likely, more likely we can expect this to become clearer. On the other hand, by its very nature, as a 'lame duck' president, it is also likely that Trump will adopt a less rigid stance here and engage in 'expedient management.' Of course, if we look at politics more structurally, it is certain that the reflections of the social power balance between specific social segments within the U.S. on foreign policy, and new foreign policy orientations as this balance shifts, are at play. Will the new orientation of the Trump administration and the social forces it represents simply view the rise of China as a given and objective reality—just as Putin tried to convince American public opinion throughout the interview—and in a MAGA-esque (Make America Great Again!) fashion, turn inward, even if in stages? Or will it be content with becoming a regional power limited to its own hemisphere, reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine? Or, in a manner consistent with the Biden doctrine but different from it, will it establish a kind of compromise with Russia and, with a 'reverse Nixon strategy,' aggressively set out to settle scores with China in the Asia-Pacific? It is possible to find the seeds of all these tendencies, especially within Republican circles known as the Grand Old Party. Of course, which of these tendencies will prevail will also be determined by the course of the competition with China, which is now officially acknowledged.

All three of these emerging tendencies for a potential second Trump term are being closely monitored by Russia the 'lesser of two evils' is clearly evident. The satisfaction Putin visibly felt while hosting Carlson is likely related to this. Carlson, of course, claimed in his announcement before even publishing the interview that they had conducted it with their own resources, without funding from any government. Throughout the interview, he did not neglect to ask questions that appeared to put pressure on Putin. In fact, the question intended to be the final one concerned whether an American journalist imprisoned in Russia would be released. I say 'intended' because the interview could not be cut there and only concluded after continuing with further questions.

Contrary to the clear answer Putin gave regarding the American journalist, it was observed that he dodged other questions asked by Carlson—such as what exactly caused the 2022 invasion—by resorting to long historical explanations and putting forward justifications that, at the end of the day, likely no one other than himself and a group of Russian nationalists would find valid. Putin's [discourse on] how Ukraine is an 'artificial' state, that Ukrainian lands were part of the Russian Empire, simply [labeling them as]Ukrainianthe concept of 'those living on the fringes of the empire' as it is used in Russian, and his claim that modern Ukraine actually emerged as a result of the Soviet Union's excessive generosity—I do not think these historical arguments are worth dwelling on. These are not new arguments either. Putin expressed them extensively in his speeches and articles when he declared war in 2022.

As others have noted, these arguments also give the impression that he is confused about whether the recent problem with Ukraine began with the bloody 'Maidan coup' in 2014, as he puts it, or whether it started in the seventeenth century. For the American audience, it is possible to assume that the first half-hour of the interview, where these arguments were explained at length, would be dismissed by the average viewer as 'Bullshit!' and by more informed segments as 'Nonsense!' In fact, it is possible to make a similar assessment for other nations as well.

On the other hand, contrary to the judgments of the Western press reviewing the interview, one occasionally encounters a less rigid Putin. For instance, Putin's statement that he is open to negotiations between U.S. intelligence agencies and his own institutions regarding the release of the American journalist, and his mention of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy not speaking harshly about him, and claiming—citing Ukrainian officials—that at a moment when they were close to signing an agreement with Ukraine, this was blocked by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gives the impression that he is seeking common ground with both Ukraine and the US. When recounting his own words during a dialogue with Zelensky, his care in not relaying Zelensky's response by stating that it would not be right to disclose it shows his attention to not being disrespectful toward Zelensky. The fact that he shows the same care when recounting a dialogue with Biden might lead one to think that this view is unfair. Nevertheless, the fact that he shows this care even toward the president of a state he is at war with, a state he does not hide that he views as an "artificial state" and, moreover, one he more explicitly calls a "US satellite" toward the end of the interview—a figure often caricatured by world public opinion—can be interpreted as him not wanting to sever the channel of dialogue with Zelensky in some way. It can be thought that this semi-relaxed, semi-flexible attitude that Putin displayed from time to time throughout the interview aims both to make a potential Trump administration even more likely and to draw this segment closer to himself from the start. However, although Putin spoke more about the increasing negative aspects of the war from Ukraine's perspective, he did not claim that everything was going perfectly from his own point of view. Of course, that would not have been realistic either. It is a fact that Ukraine is finding it increasingly difficult to sustain the war and that the West is also less convinced of the correctness of financing Ukraine, especially at the level of public opinion. "artificial state" as he sees it, and furthermore, which he more openly calls a "US satellite" toward the end of the interview, even to the president of a state that world public opinion often caricatures, can be interpreted as him not wanting to break the dialogue channel with Zelensky in some way.

It can be thought that this semi-relaxed, semi-flexible attitude that Putin displayed from time to time throughout the interview aims both to make a potential Trump administration even more likely and to draw this segment closer to himself from the start. However, although Putin spoke more about the increasing negative aspects of the war from Ukraine's perspective, he did not claim that everything was going perfectly from his own point of view. Of course, that would not have been realistic either. It is a fact that Ukraine is finding it increasingly difficult to sustain the war and that the West is also less convinced of the correctness of financing Ukraine, especially at the level of public opinion.

On the other hand, it is also clear that Russia has failed to achieve its military objectives in many respects, starting with the attack on Kyiv at the beginning of the war. Moreover, the fact that Putin, on his own initiative and even though Carlson did not ask a question about it, stated that Westerners believe the unity between Russians and Ukrainians has been irreparably damaged but that this unity will actually be restored very quickly, reveals that he is indeed concerned about this issue. Interestingly, the interview is quite far from the image of a 'tough leader' that Putin usually prefers to project.

In fact, it gives the impression of a Putin who is filled with fallacies, appears shaky in foreign policy and war, and seems to be trying to appear as flexible as possible because of this, which significantly shakes the common belief that he has a very consistent inner world, a belief also reflected in Trump's statement that 'Putin is a smart man.' There is no trace of an admirable leader here. Finally, Putin's enthusiastic repetition of claims regarding China's rise and his apparent reliance on this rise also significantly damages the 'tough leader Putin' image. The fact that Putin did not mention other global issues such as Syria and Gaza at all, with the exception of the alleged rise of China, also reveals that he has inwardly adopted a kind of secondary role. It is as if there is only a Putin who complains about the Ukraine problem and is pleading with the West regarding this matter.

In short, it appears that with the Carlson interview, Putin has targeted a segment of American politics and chosen to appeal to that specific group. Setting aside the issues of the U.S.'s internal political strife and whether it is losing its superiority to China, we are faced with a Putin who attempts to harness history in the service of what could be considered fallacious contemporary political arguments, who fails to convince anyone outside his own supporters, who has lost his global ambitions, who seems excited by the rise of another power and appears to rely solely on it, and who, furthermore, seems to be pleading with the West regarding the quagmire in Ukraine in which he is stuck. It would likely not be wrong to state that Putin did not gain any legitimacy on a global level or in the eyes of the West through the Carlson interview; rather, he appeared as a leader whose nose has been rubbed in it and who is open to negotiation. In other words, we watched a conversation in which the gilding of the 'tough leader' Putin has peeled away.