The interview that Tucker Carlson was able to land with Vladimir Putin was rife with controversy, partisan posturing, and wild accusations before it was publicly announced.  Once it was announced, it became a touchstone, no matter how brief, for those interested in Foreign Policy.  In less than 15 hours (as of this writing), it was watched more than 104 million times on X, with an additional 5.3 million views on YouTube, over 600K on Rumble, and 60K on Facebook – although that may say more about the platforms that it does the interview.  It is also available on Carlson’s website, but viewership figures are unavailable publicly as it is paid site.

 The Good – the Bad – and the Ugly.

Carlson is a bit of a honey badger, and has a considerable following on social media – notably X, and the following tends to be as libertarian as they are conservative, and anecdotally, seem to dislike the status quo of American politics as a whole – especially the mess that is Washington DC. While many deride him for various reasons, the fact is that he is perhaps one of the most popular and influential independent journalists in the current timeline.  As such, he is able to say and do things that no legacy media journalist can or will, repercussions be damned.

Indeed, the outcry against him even doing this interview has been hysterical and indicative of the complainant’s politics, as opposed to reasoned and measured arguments against the interview.  Indeed, Putin has been interviewed many times before – and the fact that he is the President [sic] of Russia is reason enough for any journalist worth his salt to want to land that interview.  Further, while Putin is less than popular in the West, and is effectively at war with NATO, that does not preclude him from being interviewed.  A quick Google search will reveal that Castro, Bin Ladin, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussien, Bashar, Charles Manson, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin (among many other “bad guys”) have been interviewed by the legacy media – to praise and awards.  So, let us just squash the talk of treachery and treason.  Information is good to have – it is what one does with it that is telling about motive.

The interview itself was long, rambling, and allegedly uncut.  Carlson’s questions seemed to have a point, but Putin did exactly what a trained KGB agent, and veteran politician at the top of his game would be expected to do.  He stayed in his circle, steered the conversation where he wanted it to go, and talked about what he wanted to talk about.  Regardless of the accuracy, veracity, or legitimacy of his answers – it was a clinic in counter-interrogation technique applied to a semi-hostile media interview.

Yes, it was semi-hostile – albeit gentlemanly.  Both men appeared to be on their best behavior, and spoke in deferential but relatively firm tones and responses.  Carlson’s opening question was intended to begin to paint Putin into a corner on his reasons for invading Ukraine.  And that is where Putin began to unravel Carlson’s plan.  Putin talked for over an hour about what led up to the invasion – presenting his version of events – from the birth of Russia forward.  To be fair, Carlson attempted to steer, but appeared to be overcome by events, charm, or genuine interest. Ultimately, the world learned little in terms of new and detailed information – that is the bad part.  But what we did learn is as important as the spoken words.

In the context of what was also going on within the same news cycle, wherein it appears that the SCOTUS will strike down the attempted banning of Trump from ballots at the state level; the Special Counsel that was investigating Biden’s mishandling of classified information at one indicated that Biden is incompetent to stand trial, and that Presidents and former Presidents are not subject to the laws that were weaponized against Trump. Biden has been on another spree of misstatements and dementia-fueled fantasy statements; the juxtaposition of Putin’s interview is stark. Again, ignore for a moment that Putin is an old-school KGB operative, who has, through hook and crook, risen to one of the most powerful positions in the world, and has repeatedly and often been at war with his neighbors.  Look at the optics.  Putin presented as intelligent, healthy, and reasonable. That is more than one can say for Biden, Trump, and most of the leaders of Western Europe.  Putin did not “um” and “like,” he did not misspeak or stumble, he did not resort to playground name-calling, attempts at physical intimidation or blatant refusal to answer a question.  Let us be honest – he looked and acted Presidential – and regardless of substance or lack thereof, charm and charisma go a long way with the hoi polloi.  See Also, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama.

What do we now know?  We know that Carlson, while popular and possessing enough clout to land the interview, is not the greatest journalist of all time.  Indeed, he was effectively bulldozed.  We know that Putin was, and remains, an old-school KGB man and knows how to own a conversation.  We also know that he gives the impression of a believer, even if we do not believe what he is saying.  Finally, we know that, from the specific answers that Putin gave, that he may be open to negotiation with the West – but only if approached with some level of respect and gentlemanly behavior.

Should we trust Putin?  Not as far as we can throw him – he is, after all, still a KGB man.  Should we eviscerate Carlson?  No, he is trying to make a living, and has done no worse than any other journalist. 

The interview on X is HERE.


A transcription is HERE.