Mickey Mouse meets Adolf Hitler
Tucker Carlson gave the world a historic interview. Unfortunately, in his two-hour conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he not only asked far too few exciting questions, Putin also, in his usual manner, skilfully talked his way into anger and sometimes even beat around the bush. Not particularly insightful, but it's definitely worth seeing.
By Serdar Somuncu
By Serdar Somuncu
Spoiler: Not much new came out of it. According to Putin's chauvinistic diction, everything that has a historical connection to one another, speaks Russian or thinks Russian, would be linked to one another forever and it would give all the world's invaders the right to declare raids as a legitimate recovery of their own territories.
As a result, Germany would be back within its 1937 borders and the Ottoman Empire would stretch from the Balkans to the Caucasus. Not to mention the Roman Empire and the Persians.
The very beginning of the interview shows the gap between the superficial education of a Western journalist who expects simple answers to simple questions and the obviously history-obsessed Russian president.
Putin begins the interview with a clever counter question: "Is this a talk show or a serious interview?" and they both laugh. What would be the difference, I would think of as a direct counter question, but Putin is not interested in that. He has obviously decided to change his To overwhelm the interlocutor like his troops overrun the Ukraine. Block instead of spill. And so we are in the middle of a historical lecture about the glorious history of Russia, which is basically nothing other than a Putin-esque variation of David versus Goliath or the adventures of Robin Hood.
Carlson listens reverently and lets him have his way. Almost half an hour is spent in long, self-righteous suadas justifying the ideological madness, disguised as enlightenment.
Perhaps Carlson should have pointed out to him at the beginning that this "serious" interview was operating according to his rules and was not like the audiences that Putin usually grants his journalists, then it would certainly have been more exciting. But anyway, this was just the beginning, an impressive conversation that always gave me the idea of what it would have been like if Mickey Mouse had interviewed Adolf Hitler back then.
Interestingly, Putin's further remarks in a didactic elegiac style continue on the history of Russia, right up to the crises of the recent past, the Yugoslavian war and German reunification, and here Putin begins to get entangled in contradictions for the first time. Although it is correct to note that the USA and the West have repeatedly broken agreements such as the Minsk I and II agreements and turned them into the opposite, for example the initial support of Serbia in the Yugoslav war and the subsequent bombing of Belgrade, But Russia has also repeatedly asserted its territorial claims without regard to international sensitivities, such as the failed invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 or the years of military support for Syria.
In Putin's portrayal, Russia is not the aggressor striving for expansion, but always the peaceful defender of pan-Russian integrity. And that is really, considering the extent of his historical factual knowledge, more than simply glorified and astonishingly untrue. Putin's error in thinking lies primarily in seeing through things but drawing the wrong conclusions from them. On the one hand, he describes the underhanded tactics of the USA and at the same time explains why he imitates and adapts them. Ultimately, he laments his own failure.
Only when he lands in the present day and it's about Ukraine and the developments of the last few years does Putin become specific and for the first time his statements seem authentic. It is the psychogram of an offended character that he hides behind the pride of his nation. He describes how the Americans gradually expanded their sphere of influence around Russia and how agreements were broken again. He describes it as 5 sources of conflict, including in the Baltics and the Caucasus. He trivializes the repressive doctrine of the Soviet Union and declares the fight for freedom of the former Soviet republics to be terrorism supported by the West. In his view, it is only about the destabilization of Russia and not about the freedom of the oppressed. In the case of Ukraine, too, he only partially addresses the alleged installation of President Yushchenko and the subsequent developments around the Maidan. He describes it as an illegitimate intervention by the West in inter-Russian affairs and he simply ignores the Ukrainian people's desire for freedom. But here too, Putin is hiding Russia's true interests, which do not lie in defending itself and resisting NATO expansion, but in fact Putin is also clearly pursuing imperialist goals, namely maintaining a great Russia within the borders of the former Soviet Union and thus invisibly make demands on its former vassal states to remain loyal to Russia. Putin almost casually mentions his fear of opening the borders and expanding a free trade zone that is moving further and further east and could thus become a threatening economic competitor to the Russians' painstakingly built gas and grain monopoly.
Unfortunately, Tucker Carlson rarely follows up here and lets Putin have his way. He lets Putin's plea for an anachronistic plan ideology, as a counter-proposal to the free market economy, pass without being asked. The lecture mutates into a kind of political self-portrayal in which Putin is given (too) much space to expand his theories and, given the abundance and complexity of his statements, creates an overload in the viewer in terms of content and a certain feeling of weariness. Maybe so that you give up and agree with him rather than looking for ways to contradict him?
Only Putin's statements about the neo-Nazi cult of Stepan Bandera and the pop culture-like adoration and permanent presence in Western media and parliaments of Ukrainian President Zelensky seem plausible. Especially since Zelenskyj must have a special sensitivity to this issue due to his Jewish roots and has often entered into strange alliances in recent months like a bull in a china shop in search of support. Putin is too smart to let this pass. Carlson doesn't even address this. And that's why Putin continues to get hung up on this point. His alleged fight against Nazi ideology and the associated justification for the invasion of Ukraine doesn't seem particularly convincing. Putin's constant mischievous smile also seems to indicate that he is aware of this and enjoys crushing his counterpart's intellectual inferiority in extravagant cascades of words.
Only in a somewhat quicker exchange in the middle of the interview does Putin manage to get to the actual thesis, which makes his concern to clarify his peaceful views a little more visible, but not all the more credible. His lament-like whataboutism does not bring the desired added value of an explanation for the irrationality of this war. Putin justifies this with the broken vows of his negotiating partners, but the truth is far from his claims to power and great power fantasies. He also brushes off his succinct answer to Carlson's question about whether he intends to attack other targets, such as Poland or the Baltics, with a "Why should he be interested in that?", although his interest in attacking Ukraine may have been just as inexplicable .
"Who blew up Nordstream?" is probably the most striking question that Carlson asks at the end of an increasingly relaxed atmosphere between the two, only to find out that it was first himself and then correctly the CIA. A very funny passage , which, on the one hand, reveals how clearly Putin judges the matter and, on the other hand, how indifferent he is to how others judge him. It is a political manifesto that Putin delivers in which it is clear that, in addition to the disappointment of the... In recent years he has also developed a calmness that underlines his determination to act and no longer tolerate the deviousness of the West. Perhaps this is what Western reporting calls "You can't negotiate with Putin."
So the entire conclusion about the legitimacy of his war doesn't really seem consistent. Carlson actually asked the crucial question at the beginning. Why are you just now remembering all of this? But Putin cleverly avoided it and lulled him with his explanations, so that Carlson now only asks point by point and doesn't go into any more detail. That doesn't really do the conversation justice. Then Tucker Carslon would have gotten involved and, if he had been prepared, he might even have been able to go into detail and have a conversation lasting several hours about the context. Putin's statements would have been more than just an accusation; they would have been a revelation of the West's strategic interests. Carlson would have won more points that way than through the simplicity of his questions, which were undoubtedly presented in a charming way. Many of the more than one billion viewers around the world would have readily accepted a little more populism and less ideological dogmatism in order to expose the one-sided reporting of Western war propaganda as a machine of lies in their own interest.
But Tucker Carlson ultimately fails because of his own superficiality and Putin recognizes this and overwhelms him with details. In Putin's words, Russia is the eternal victim in the fight against invisible powers that behave corruptly and erratically. In doing so, he ignores ruthless self-reflection. In reality, Russia has always been involved in the world's conflicts. Russia is expansive, idealistic and just as corrupt and deceitful as the states that Putin blames. Whether it was in Syria, where the Russians have supported with weapons and waged conflicts for years, or in Iran. Whether it was during the Cold War or as a result of conflicts in South America or Asia.
The inferiority complex that Putin lays out in detail here is not a real explanation for Russia having the right to invade or occupy other states. And it is certainly not comprehensible for someone who claims to act for the good while doing bad things. The only thing that adds great value to this interview is the fact that Tucker Carlson gives him the opportunity to make these comments. You get an insight into Putin's thought structure and at the same time you learn a lot about the processes in world politics. Much of this is no surprise. It is a truism that the Americans have been controlling the fate of politics for decades by fomenting conflicts and supplying conflicting parties with weapons, while using their propaganda to win people over to their side. But perhaps the general population in this country still lacks the knowledge to see that we too are victims of this propaganda, no matter where it comes from. In this respect, it is actually worth following this conversation closely. Because Putin not only speaks from the inside, but he also reveals which agreements were made without being put up for debate in public. A key point in this interview is Putin asking whether Americans who vote in the elections are actually voting for the policies they want. Or whether politics is conducted independently of election results and is basically nothing other than the representation of interests by lobbies that are concerned with completely different goals.
In some places one would have wished for this philosophical discourse. Instead, the conversation remains on a didactic level for a long time and for long stretches Tucker Carlson actually seems like a little schoolboy listening to his father explain the world to him.
If there is something else that Putin should have learned, despite his extraordinary cleverness, it is that democracy works differently than the one-sided view of what is happening in authoritarian systems and that it is sometimes not logical and does not have to be, but that the development of world history is always characterized by demands and invisible demands, by contradictions and the breaks and breaking of agreements.
In this respect, Putin is an illusionist in an idealistic guise. That may be right for his own people, as long as things go well. But if the cruel side of this war turns against Russia, then Putin will be resented. Because then he was not the defender, but the gravedigger of the Russian nation and nothing and no one will protect him from having to answer for it, no matter how much he can justify it ideologically. Tucker Carlson's naive attempt to expose Putin is like trying to repair a modern computer with a screwdriver. And he fails completely. Even if his demeanor seems smart and sometimes even likeable. Putin can parry this at any time, and you can actually feel how he feels a certain pleasure in doing so.
So you go back to the question asked at the beginning, whether it was an interview or a show, and it quickly becomes apparent that Putin also understands the elements of show business very well. First he pretends to be a sovereign expert on history, then later turns himself into a victim and then conceals his claims as a perpetrator, all for the sake of the Russian nation's struggle for freedom. Tucker Carlson would have had a great chance of cornering him, exposing him and entering into a conflict discussion with him, which would have shown the true motivation that drives Putin to pose as the savior of the world. Putin, on the other hand, might even have been able to point out the reasons that led him to behave this way and it would not have been clear who did better. All of this would have been more grateful and insightful for us as viewers than this very platform on which Putin could unfold for two hours to explain his propaganda.
At the end of the spectacle, I have to think of Donald Trump's cocky statement that he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours and I have to smile inside. Perhaps Trump's arrogant overestimation of himself, coupled with his persistent intellectual incompetence, is really the only adequate antidote to Putin's complex, despotic cunning.
Current program "Soul Heil" can now be downloaded in the shop
02/14/24
*Serdar Somuncu is an actor and director
As a result, Germany would be back within its 1937 borders and the Ottoman Empire would stretch from the Balkans to the Caucasus. Not to mention the Roman Empire and the Persians.
The very beginning of the interview shows the gap between the superficial education of a Western journalist who expects simple answers to simple questions and the obviously history-obsessed Russian president.
Putin begins the interview with a clever counter question: "Is this a talk show or a serious interview?" and they both laugh. What would be the difference, I would think of as a direct counter question, but Putin is not interested in that. He has obviously decided to change his To overwhelm the interlocutor like his troops overrun the Ukraine. Block instead of spill. And so we are in the middle of a historical lecture about the glorious history of Russia, which is basically nothing other than a Putin-esque variation of David versus Goliath or the adventures of Robin Hood.
Carlson listens reverently and lets him have his way. Almost half an hour is spent in long, self-righteous suadas justifying the ideological madness, disguised as enlightenment.
Perhaps Carlson should have pointed out to him at the beginning that this "serious" interview was operating according to his rules and was not like the audiences that Putin usually grants his journalists, then it would certainly have been more exciting. But anyway, this was just the beginning, an impressive conversation that always gave me the idea of what it would have been like if Mickey Mouse had interviewed Adolf Hitler back then.
Interestingly, Putin's further remarks in a didactic elegiac style continue on the history of Russia, right up to the crises of the recent past, the Yugoslavian war and German reunification, and here Putin begins to get entangled in contradictions for the first time. Although it is correct to note that the USA and the West have repeatedly broken agreements such as the Minsk I and II agreements and turned them into the opposite, for example the initial support of Serbia in the Yugoslav war and the subsequent bombing of Belgrade, But Russia has also repeatedly asserted its territorial claims without regard to international sensitivities, such as the failed invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 or the years of military support for Syria.
In Putin's portrayal, Russia is not the aggressor striving for expansion, but always the peaceful defender of pan-Russian integrity. And that is really, considering the extent of his historical factual knowledge, more than simply glorified and astonishingly untrue. Putin's error in thinking lies primarily in seeing through things but drawing the wrong conclusions from them. On the one hand, he describes the underhanded tactics of the USA and at the same time explains why he imitates and adapts them. Ultimately, he laments his own failure.
Only when he lands in the present day and it's about Ukraine and the developments of the last few years does Putin become specific and for the first time his statements seem authentic. It is the psychogram of an offended character that he hides behind the pride of his nation. He describes how the Americans gradually expanded their sphere of influence around Russia and how agreements were broken again. He describes it as 5 sources of conflict, including in the Baltics and the Caucasus. He trivializes the repressive doctrine of the Soviet Union and declares the fight for freedom of the former Soviet republics to be terrorism supported by the West. In his view, it is only about the destabilization of Russia and not about the freedom of the oppressed. In the case of Ukraine, too, he only partially addresses the alleged installation of President Yushchenko and the subsequent developments around the Maidan. He describes it as an illegitimate intervention by the West in inter-Russian affairs and he simply ignores the Ukrainian people's desire for freedom. But here too, Putin is hiding Russia's true interests, which do not lie in defending itself and resisting NATO expansion, but in fact Putin is also clearly pursuing imperialist goals, namely maintaining a great Russia within the borders of the former Soviet Union and thus invisibly make demands on its former vassal states to remain loyal to Russia. Putin almost casually mentions his fear of opening the borders and expanding a free trade zone that is moving further and further east and could thus become a threatening economic competitor to the Russians' painstakingly built gas and grain monopoly.
Unfortunately, Tucker Carlson rarely follows up here and lets Putin have his way. He lets Putin's plea for an anachronistic plan ideology, as a counter-proposal to the free market economy, pass without being asked. The lecture mutates into a kind of political self-portrayal in which Putin is given (too) much space to expand his theories and, given the abundance and complexity of his statements, creates an overload in the viewer in terms of content and a certain feeling of weariness. Maybe so that you give up and agree with him rather than looking for ways to contradict him?
Only Putin's statements about the neo-Nazi cult of Stepan Bandera and the pop culture-like adoration and permanent presence in Western media and parliaments of Ukrainian President Zelensky seem plausible. Especially since Zelenskyj must have a special sensitivity to this issue due to his Jewish roots and has often entered into strange alliances in recent months like a bull in a china shop in search of support. Putin is too smart to let this pass. Carlson doesn't even address this. And that's why Putin continues to get hung up on this point. His alleged fight against Nazi ideology and the associated justification for the invasion of Ukraine doesn't seem particularly convincing. Putin's constant mischievous smile also seems to indicate that he is aware of this and enjoys crushing his counterpart's intellectual inferiority in extravagant cascades of words.
Only in a somewhat quicker exchange in the middle of the interview does Putin manage to get to the actual thesis, which makes his concern to clarify his peaceful views a little more visible, but not all the more credible. His lament-like whataboutism does not bring the desired added value of an explanation for the irrationality of this war. Putin justifies this with the broken vows of his negotiating partners, but the truth is far from his claims to power and great power fantasies. He also brushes off his succinct answer to Carlson's question about whether he intends to attack other targets, such as Poland or the Baltics, with a "Why should he be interested in that?", although his interest in attacking Ukraine may have been just as inexplicable .
"Who blew up Nordstream?" is probably the most striking question that Carlson asks at the end of an increasingly relaxed atmosphere between the two, only to find out that it was first himself and then correctly the CIA. A very funny passage , which, on the one hand, reveals how clearly Putin judges the matter and, on the other hand, how indifferent he is to how others judge him. It is a political manifesto that Putin delivers in which it is clear that, in addition to the disappointment of the... In recent years he has also developed a calmness that underlines his determination to act and no longer tolerate the deviousness of the West. Perhaps this is what Western reporting calls "You can't negotiate with Putin."
So the entire conclusion about the legitimacy of his war doesn't really seem consistent. Carlson actually asked the crucial question at the beginning. Why are you just now remembering all of this? But Putin cleverly avoided it and lulled him with his explanations, so that Carlson now only asks point by point and doesn't go into any more detail. That doesn't really do the conversation justice. Then Tucker Carslon would have gotten involved and, if he had been prepared, he might even have been able to go into detail and have a conversation lasting several hours about the context. Putin's statements would have been more than just an accusation; they would have been a revelation of the West's strategic interests. Carlson would have won more points that way than through the simplicity of his questions, which were undoubtedly presented in a charming way. Many of the more than one billion viewers around the world would have readily accepted a little more populism and less ideological dogmatism in order to expose the one-sided reporting of Western war propaganda as a machine of lies in their own interest.
But Tucker Carlson ultimately fails because of his own superficiality and Putin recognizes this and overwhelms him with details. In Putin's words, Russia is the eternal victim in the fight against invisible powers that behave corruptly and erratically. In doing so, he ignores ruthless self-reflection. In reality, Russia has always been involved in the world's conflicts. Russia is expansive, idealistic and just as corrupt and deceitful as the states that Putin blames. Whether it was in Syria, where the Russians have supported with weapons and waged conflicts for years, or in Iran. Whether it was during the Cold War or as a result of conflicts in South America or Asia.
The inferiority complex that Putin lays out in detail here is not a real explanation for Russia having the right to invade or occupy other states. And it is certainly not comprehensible for someone who claims to act for the good while doing bad things. The only thing that adds great value to this interview is the fact that Tucker Carlson gives him the opportunity to make these comments. You get an insight into Putin's thought structure and at the same time you learn a lot about the processes in world politics. Much of this is no surprise. It is a truism that the Americans have been controlling the fate of politics for decades by fomenting conflicts and supplying conflicting parties with weapons, while using their propaganda to win people over to their side. But perhaps the general population in this country still lacks the knowledge to see that we too are victims of this propaganda, no matter where it comes from. In this respect, it is actually worth following this conversation closely. Because Putin not only speaks from the inside, but he also reveals which agreements were made without being put up for debate in public. A key point in this interview is Putin asking whether Americans who vote in the elections are actually voting for the policies they want. Or whether politics is conducted independently of election results and is basically nothing other than the representation of interests by lobbies that are concerned with completely different goals.
In some places one would have wished for this philosophical discourse. Instead, the conversation remains on a didactic level for a long time and for long stretches Tucker Carlson actually seems like a little schoolboy listening to his father explain the world to him.
If there is something else that Putin should have learned, despite his extraordinary cleverness, it is that democracy works differently than the one-sided view of what is happening in authoritarian systems and that it is sometimes not logical and does not have to be, but that the development of world history is always characterized by demands and invisible demands, by contradictions and the breaks and breaking of agreements.
In this respect, Putin is an illusionist in an idealistic guise. That may be right for his own people, as long as things go well. But if the cruel side of this war turns against Russia, then Putin will be resented. Because then he was not the defender, but the gravedigger of the Russian nation and nothing and no one will protect him from having to answer for it, no matter how much he can justify it ideologically. Tucker Carlson's naive attempt to expose Putin is like trying to repair a modern computer with a screwdriver. And he fails completely. Even if his demeanor seems smart and sometimes even likeable. Putin can parry this at any time, and you can actually feel how he feels a certain pleasure in doing so.
So you go back to the question asked at the beginning, whether it was an interview or a show, and it quickly becomes apparent that Putin also understands the elements of show business very well. First he pretends to be a sovereign expert on history, then later turns himself into a victim and then conceals his claims as a perpetrator, all for the sake of the Russian nation's struggle for freedom. Tucker Carlson would have had a great chance of cornering him, exposing him and entering into a conflict discussion with him, which would have shown the true motivation that drives Putin to pose as the savior of the world. Putin, on the other hand, might even have been able to point out the reasons that led him to behave this way and it would not have been clear who did better. All of this would have been more grateful and insightful for us as viewers than this very platform on which Putin could unfold for two hours to explain his propaganda.
At the end of the spectacle, I have to think of Donald Trump's cocky statement that he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours and I have to smile inside. Perhaps Trump's arrogant overestimation of himself, coupled with his persistent intellectual incompetence, is really the only adequate antidote to Putin's complex, despotic cunning.
Current program "Soul Heil" can now be downloaded in the shop
02/14/24
*Serdar Somuncu is an actor and director
Write a comment