What Should We Make of Putin’s Interview with Tucker Carlson?
Most of us can agree that there's little value in watching or paying attention to Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. A trusted individual who spent 2 hours watching the interview noted that Putin largely ignored the questions posed by Tucker and spoke predominantly about topics of his choosing. Tucker, on the other hand, displayed admirable sportsmanship and managed to come away with an interview that will undoubtedly benefit him in terms of visibility and personal gain.
Focused on Fake Narratives and Lies
The interview serves as a reminder of the importance we should all place on the fake narratives and lies propagated by figures like Putin and Carlson. These individuals are not just misleading the public but are likely deeply deluded in their beliefs and goals.
From a personal perspective, there is nothing particularly noteworthy. As a cynic, I already knew that both Putin and Carlson are immoral, shameless liars and hypocrites. No one can speak for all American citizens, and while the interview itself was a waste of time, it's worth noting that Tucker likely gained from it in terms of visibility and personal benefit.
Randomized Discussion and Lack of Substance
Witnessing the interview was like watching two drunken men on ice skates, each trying to drag the other in random directions. Putin's lengthy exposition on Yaroslav the Wise and Prince Ryurik, while providing some historical context, did little to establish a compelling argument for claims of historical ownership over Muscovy. While Tucker's audience may have found the discussion intriguing, the content itself was mostly uninteresting and boring.
What’s more, Carlson admitted to being an atheist and loyal communist, and his invasion of Ukraine was framed as an expression of imperial ambitions rather than a response to NATO expansion. Both of these revelations are concerning and did little to add new information to the conversation.
Vlad Vexler’s Analysis
According to Vlad Vexler, a Soviet-born philosopher and public intellectual, the current state of journalism has lost its common sense, decency, and moral compass. In his analysis, Vexler points out that Tucker's interview was more about him and his channel gaining airtime and personal gain rather than providing substantive content.
Vexler suggests that the sole purpose of the interview wasn't to give Putin new opportunities to speak, but for Tucker to showcase that he could conduct such a high-profile interview, despite coming completely unprepared. Tucker’s questions to Putin were notably soft, and the discussion was ultimately uninteresting and at times ridiculous.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the interview between Putin and Tucker Carlson is yet another example of gratuitous content that does more harm than good. It’s important to recognize and counter the fake narratives and lies propagated by such individuals. While Putin and Carlson may gain temporary visibility, the public would be better served by focusing on more substantive and meaningful discussions.