I have prepared a critique of the interview and have tied it specifically to points made by Tucker and Putin in the speech…so you can see WHY I concluded what I did. Here’s the first part.
Mark, I always enjoy your positions, but, most people cannot even agree on historical facts within the last 100 years, even when we have audio/video recordings, let alone so-called facts from centuries past, assuming, in the US, that there is interest. All historians write under the gun of the contemporary powers at be and are very aware of what they can say or not say. (we have modern historians questioning the writings of Tacitus or Herodotus). Also, they write with personal agendas. The only facts that most can agree on on are broad stroke events, e.g. wars, migrations, disasters, movements and major coronations, etc. Details and rationale are almost always obscured and eventually lost through narrative. One might as well be debating the number of angels on the head of a pin. Putin got the broad strokes correct and was smart enough to know that whatever he said would be disputed by western propagandists masquerading as historical analysts.
I've just read your corrective to the Russian President's history lesson, and thank you for it. Now I better understand why you wrote of the President's multiple inaccuracies and factual omissions.
Something in particular continues to stand out, for me. At the beginning of the discussion, Mr. Putin named the year 988 as being "Russia's Baptism" in so far as the ruler and his subjects accepting the religious faith of Christianity in the liturgical form and practice of Orthodoxy. Tucker Carlson brought up the current aggression from the Zelensky government against the Ukranian Orthodox Church (under Moscow Patriarchate). In my understanding, Pres. Putin acknowledged that religious conflict as emblematic of the government's ongoing attempts at erasure of fundamental cultural bonds between Ukranians and Russians. Then, at the very end of the interview, President Putin said the following, which is what I continue to think about, dwell upon, and marvel at---
"...the relations between the two peoples will be re-built anyway. It will take a lot of time but they will heal. ...What is happening is to a certain extent an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. No, they will be re-united. The unity is still there. Why are the Ukranian authorities dismantling the Ukranian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory; it brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul."
While much of what Putin peddles as “history” is actually tendentious national mythology, in strict etymological terms, he’s not incorrect to conceive of Ukraine’s identity as somehow being derivative of or dependent on Russian identity.
Mark is absolutely right that the “krai” in “ukraina” refers to a large unit of territory and that, in east slavic as in Polish, it originally implied the English notion of “country.” However, the “country” (krai) in question is the historic lands of Rus’ (or even “Russia,” as conceived in the Muscovite or imperial eras), not the modern nation of Ukraine.
Indeed, the meaning of “ukraina” hinges not so much on “krai” but on the prefix/preposition “u” — as in, an attachment to or extension of something else. Thus “u-kraina” is best translated as “borderland.” Which is why it was proper to refer to the place in English as “THE Ukraine” until (speaking of national myth making) post-Soviet Ukrainian nationalist sentiment made this usage politically incorrect.)
I would distinguish to this extent. Russian identity is actually derivative of the Kievan state that grew to embrace both Novgorod as well as what later became Muscovy. Kievan Rus' gave the 'Russian' identity to the whole. That's why Putin is right to emphasize, as he sometimes does, the centrality of Kiev to "Russia". None of this is simple.
But there's more. The specific use of Ukraina as a term applied to the lands we now call Ukraine arose in a Polish context--beginning in the 1450s or so it was used to refer to the territory of Eastern Galicia around the city of Lwów, now Western Ukraine. That was not some amorphous "borderland" region--it was a defined administrative area at the eastern bounds of the Polish Kingdom, east of which lay Lithuanian/Ruthenian lands. The East Slavs of the region, then usually called Red Ruthenians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ruthenia), adopted that title and, with the rise of nationalism and national identities, extended it eastward and adopted it also as a self designation for the ethnic group.
Ukrainians claim that later (17th century) the Cossacks of the Zaporozhian host used the term Ukraina to refer to the lands that they controlled from their Sich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sich). I can't confirm that, but it's plausible, at least.
The overall point is that Putin's use of etymology and history is quite tendentious. He probably knows that. He has acknowledged at times that there is a specifically Ukrainian identity in the areas that were under Polish/Lithuanian rule. His bigger point that the boundaries and identities--and especially Donbass--were never totally clear over the entire territory that became independent Ukraine is true. Also that much of those territories were discontent with Polish rule. We can accept his valid points without feeling obliged to do so on the basis of his tendentious etymology and history.
Regarding the Polish preposition "u", it actually basically means "at", as in 'u nas' 'at our place/home,' or in Fr. 'chez nous.' It doesn't really change the meaning of the word it's attached to--I would suggest that, as often with prepositions (not only in Slavic languages but Gr. adnd Latin, for example), it serves more as an intensifier of the root meaning. 'Kraj,' most simply, refers to a region inhabited by a common group of people. It's an identifiable area with an identifiable population, which is how it later came to be used in Czech and Russian to be used to refer to an administrative area, such as a province or county. Polish and Serbian preserve the original sense and that is relevant because the term 'Ukraina' for a geographical area and it's people arose in a Polish context.
For an example of the absurdities you can get involved in if you feel compelled to defend Putin's "history" and etymology for geopolitical purposes, this Will Schryver thread is a perfect illustration:
He ends up arguing that Ukraine is an artificial creation by outsiders, based on an 1887 encyclopedia. Commenters then point him to 17th century maps labeled "Ukraine".
The DIGITAL Paradigm is about Memory (it is literally how the technology works). China and Russia, add in India among others, are embracing retrieval of their Medieval “history” and “identity.” The US and rest of the West is in denial about this and lagging behind in finding a new “foundation” for the West civilization…
Normally this is driven by civilizational “elites,” and their institutions. The US and West have NO ELITES. Literally, no elites and we have not had any for decades (see Issacson/Thomas’ Wise Men to get a sense for what elites used to be). And no schools or universities to train them and give them confidence to go out into the world.
The Chinese and Russians are aware of this and they are generating their own civilizational elites and the places to train them. They are retrieving their history as a foundation for the new civilization in the DIGITAL/Robot paradigm, and plan to utilize this technology to get them there: the tech needs the humans, not the other way around.
I agree. Our ruling class is profoundly disquieted by the Russian and Chinese recovery of their civilizational roots, following their disastrous experiments with the West's revolutionary ideologies.
After all the hype, I felt obliged to watch this interview. Usually I don’t do this. Putin became too good in his role of a president, which renders his interviews not very interesting (I wholeheartedly approve this; we’ve been through a way too many interesting events here in Russia). So I was predisposed rather skeptical. I’m glad I was wrong. So far I watched the first 14 minutes (can’t afford swallow 2 hours in one piece, having a lot of time-consuming work to do). My impression differs from that of most commenters here. For me, the conversation was funny and entertaining, Putin was relaxed and uncharacteristically open. As a preliminary note I’d say that the West was not the main target audience, at least on the surface of conveyed meanings (but this in itself may be a signal). Putin made it clear that he was not particularly concerned about the comfort of this segment, and even seemingly indulged in his satisfaction with such a line. Very interesting and promising.
My apologies for the late response. I only have the luxury of free time on Sundays. I should have kept this in mind when writing my comment, but the desire to share my first impression overpowered me.
First, to your question. The answer is no, there was no threat in what Putin said. On the contrary, I feel that his intention was to present himself as a normal, responsible person, and not the war-mongering thug that Western MSM try to portray him as. And he didn't want to make anyone squirm.
I feel obliged to explain my points in more detail.
Putin is highly experienced politician and has a profound background as a KGB officer. He is smart and calculating. Usually I can’t “read” his emotions except what he intentionally put on display. But he’s not an actor either, and a couple of time (on another occasions) I found his presentation not convincing. My conclusion is that during this interview we saw the real Putin as a person. All those little details that could only be picked up by people who share the same culture, language and similar history, make me think so. And it was very interesting.
The funny thing was the interaction between Putin and Carlson. In my eyes, the image of Putin corresponded to the image of a good Orthodox priest - wise, tolerant, patient, benevolent and absolutely confident in his rightness. In fact, he acted as a teacher and from the very beginning put Carlson in the role of a student. This is a sort of archetypical plot in Russian literature and folklore. Let’s call it “Naive foreigner”. Face reactions of Carlson were priceless. In my opinion, he didn’t handle the interview well. But I have to admit that I’m not his fan.
I had a few short discussions about the interview with some of my friends. Five of them agreed that at least the historical part was funny, three cited the same reasons as me, and two more were less reflective and couldn't recognize any of them. One “respondent” was disappointed in Carlson, who failed to turn the interview into an intellectual debate, and the next one got tired of a lecture about widely known (for Russians) historical facts and switched off prematurely. There was another person who would like Putin to provide a more refined and West-oriented explanation of the causes of the SMO. The last person I asked wanted a stronger message and harsher language from Putin.
Despite the abovementioned metaphor of a “benevolent priest,” I would strongly advise against interpreting Putin’s interview as a sign of a willingness to compromise to the detriment of Russia’s interests.
First, his position is grounded on values, principles and worldview, which resemble religious beliefs of a true believer. There is no hypocrisy in Putin's beliefs. This is a very strong motivational core.
Second, the “collective West” is guilty of mortal sins: it betrayed his trust, provoked a civil war between Russia and Ukraine, used real Nazis for this purpose, tried to impose anti-Christian values and practices on the Russian people, and there are many more items on this list. To say that Putin is angry is an understatement. This is a very strong and stable attitude.
Third, the image of a good priest is also a kind of archetype in Russian civilization. For example, I have seen this when interacting with elderly administrators, businessmen or criminals. In our society, it is very important to adhere to high moral principles (in the case of criminals, such principles may seem unusual, but they exist). This makes you capable of decisive action. Make no mistake, Putin is very capable.
What does he want? I understand that for him this is a war of independence. He is not interested in a military invasion of Europe. This is a horror story created by the MSM for Europeans. Independence, security and the possibility of development of Russia are the ultimate goals of his presidency. Having achieved this, he will write himself into the history that he loves so much. I imagine that after his retirement he will be relieved to immerse himself in reading historical treatises and documents.
And I hope this image of a happy end is reassuring.
Thanks for the post Mark. Are you familiar with Billington’s Icon and the Axe? It has been foolishly ignored over the decades by many in the West, thus very little understanding of Russia.
Consider “civilization” rather than culture. There can be several cultures within a civilization. What Putin is articulating, regarding today, is that Russia is building a civilization, regardless of what the rest of the West does. The Third Rome and the Orthodox Church are central to this, beyond language and territory or political “ideology,” of which they have largely rejected what we call Leninism/Marxism. The “conflict” within the West, of which Russia is a part, has been over the civilization and the church, which was replaced in the late 20th century by the post modern notion of Globalism.
Think of Russia as “literate,” as in the PRINT paradigm, with some additions by the RADIO (propaganda) and TELEVISION (imagination) paradigm. Think of the US/rest of the West, including Japan, as TELEVISION paradigm and thus illiterate or having retrieved the ancient ORAL (voices in your heads).
So no, we are not the audience. The Chinese, who are actually taught about their history, are an audience, as are all the other places that don’t want to be part of what the West has been about and want to avoid the West’s rapid decline, from which there is no stopping it. DIGITAL retrieves the Medieval (what came before Modern, which is now destroyed), thus the Russian and Chinese references to that history.
Identity is a huge thing now that we are in the Robot/Digital Paradigm. China and Russia are going through it as well and dealing with it differently: we are not dealing with it at all.
Think of Putin as leading a very spiritual civilization. Something we have been resisting but it is happening here as well. Everything we have believed in all of our lives, most of us anyway, is now being questioned and jettisoned in search for something else.
Given your own historical research, might a comparable time for the West be the decades before the Carolingian Renaissance?
Yes, I own a copy and consider it a wonderful study of Russia. Samuel Huntington would certainly be familiar with the civilizational/culture concept--he designates Eastern Orthodox as one of the great civilizations. I agree re the concept of a Western Christendom that has been lost, whereas the concept of an Orthodox Christendom remains.
Re the middle ages around the Carolingian Renaissance and the surrounding centuries, that history and culture is simply ignored in our schools now, even in Catholic schools. Absolutely formative for the West, but historical memory is suppressed. That suppression was programmatic for the "Reformers" the Renewers and the Enlighteners.
"Historical illiteracy" cannot exist as history is soft. Why get panties in a twist over one version of history? Putin spoke as he pleased. It's all opinion.
To only know history from the perspective of your one lifetime is to be historically illiterate. Especially when your lifetime is full of historical revisionists and fabulists that make it up to suit their preferences or the current political narrative. Even if you only get one nation's version, at least look back a few centuries and read the original writings.
I’ve seen lots of analysis of the Putin interview, some criticizing Tucker, some criticizing Putin, but no one, NO ONE AT ALL, has talked about what Putin had to say about the slow deterioration, perhaps deliberate, destruction of the dollar! You know, our coin of the realm? Globally known as the reserved currency???? I found that part to be CRITICAL! Perhaps folks just don’t want to know about it? Don’t know what to say? Put it in the back pocket of their brains to deal with when the dollar totally collapses?
Strikes me as pretty irresponsible response from the SGUN:
Maria Zakharova:
“Not a joke.
Briefing at the UN on February 9, 2024:
Question: Has the Secretary-General watched the interview with the President of Russia?
Answer: In his free time, the Secretary-General prefers to read books on medieval history rather than watch television.
Now it's clear why many believe that the UN is in a deep crisis. It's no wonder that we have been unable to obtain from António Guterres for a year and a half the list of "victims" of the staging in Bucha.
It is interesting whether other acute international events remain without deep involvement from the Secretariat leadership for the same reason.”
Just wow: I'm guessing this might have been an attempt at sarcasm on the part of the Sec Gen but wildly inappropriate. M Zakharova can be quite acidic herself but she was 100% over the target this time.
As for the TC/Putin interview: I agree that as a measure of the man it succeeded very well. TC was very firmly put in his place but not treated disrespectfully. My big takeaway is that VPP is slow to anger, and this is very laudable (I'm way too easy to trigger, personally), but even slower to forgive, especially after years of incredible forebearance.
We can only hope that people in positions of influence listened carefully to the music, not so much the words. If so there might still be hope for us all.
The mere fact that Biden’s handlers allowed him to do a press conference at 7:45 PM today after months of keeping him from the Press is proof that they are setting him up to fail. The rug pull is happening before your eyes. The decision has been made…he is done. Only Question now is who is up to bat for replacement.
CIA director Bill Burns is expected to travel to Cairo next week for meetings with Egyptian officials about the efforts to launch negotiations over a new deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza.
Great analysis Mark. My eyes were glazing over about 3 minutes into Putin's lecture on the history of Russia. We stipulate that European borders and tribal identities have been shifting continually for 500 years. He should have responded directly to Tucker's question and kept his history lesson to events since WW2, and especially the breakup of the USSR in 1990.
I see the conflict more simply....Burns warned about Ukraine Nato membership in 2008 as a redline for Russia/Putin. That warning was ignored as well as other direct messages from Russia/Putin up to the war. Finally it was FAFO time and Ukraine has been decimated (property and especially population) since the war started. Peace deal weeks into the conflict was drafted and turned down at UK/US direction, No Russia is tightening the vice at their time and choosing and no amount of $$$ will change that outcome.
The neocon crowd that generated this conflict are war criminals and should all be treated as such.
The problem is that 95/100 Americans on the street couldn't find Ukraine on a map if we spotted Poland and the Black Sea. We need a senior Republican political with some stones to take a stand and put halt to this madness. My top candidates are JD Vance and Rand Paul. Put down a marker and let's change the narrative of Putin bad/Ukraine good.
I think so. If he thought a history lesson would help he could have confined it to pointing out the futility of Poles living out their fantasies of revenge rather than airing Russia's perceived grievances against minor players. Present a more positive message, that Russia has done what it could to make up for its own past. He did, at one point, bring up the Yamal pipeline that runs through Poland and that Poland shut off. That would have worked into the theme of EU cutting its nose to spite its face based on Russophobic ideologies.
We're in danger of missing the woods for the trees here. As McLuhan said, the message really is the medium here. We can parse what Putin said till kingdom come, but what really matters is that he was able to have an interview with the top Western journalist that has been seen by millions of Westerners. The proof of this is the hysterical response from our "elites". Most of these idiots probably haven't even listened to the interview but they are clearly incensed by the fact that it happened. Putin could have talked to TC about pig farming in Upper Silesia and it would have had the same effect on them. Mission accomplished: we made the Borg looked stupid!
I think another important takeaway from the Putin interview was just his personality and demeanor. He came across as intelligent, calm and self-assured. Far from the maniacal territory grabbing lunatic he is made out to be in the west. I think that is another thing our "leaders" didn't want anyone to see. This is completely separate from Putin's policies which one can agree or disagree with. What kind of man is he? People who watch the interview can then make up their own mind without being told what their opinions should be.
It’s interesting when you hear many American citizens portray Putin as a KGB thug and this portrait is how many see him, but this is a mistake. No one referred to
G. H. Bush as a CIA thug as he most likely was if it can be said of Putin. I see Putin as a man who grew up in the Soviet state, a Russian who loved his country and its 500 + history. He was KGB because it was a job and career just like any aspiring college grad who wanted to join the FBI or CIA as a career, it was a path like any American who seeks fame, fortune and a good life. In all this an age old saying is, “who are we to judge?” Seems apt.
Without the involvement of the West I wonder whether Ukraine would have autonomously gone down this route.
One thing history has taught me is that empires use viscous and megalomaniac minority satrapies to cower the majority subjects. From Herod to ISIS to gays/trans and Ukrainian fascists, it’s always the same story.
But for the Neocons embracing the crazy Neo-Nazis and staging the 2014 coup Ukraine might have developed into something like a normal nation. The other big obstacle was and is the corruption, the money behind the Neo-Nazis.
The history of Europe is so complicated, claim in small regions over territory after some war or treaty turn into entire countries hosting other regions with little affinity with each other. I could never understand some American fascination with them. When I think of Europe I think of the inventor of the machine gun Hiram Maxim and this alleged quote “Maxim was reported to have said: "In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility.
Why we get involved with them is still beyond me, I’m more inclined to treat them like a zoo, something to visit and look at for amusement or entertainment.
What does it really mean?
I have prepared a critique of the interview and have tied it specifically to points made by Tucker and Putin in the speech…so you can see WHY I concluded what I did. Here’s the first part.
https://tierneyrealnewsnetwork.substack.com/p/what-does-it-really-mean
Mark, I always enjoy your positions, but, most people cannot even agree on historical facts within the last 100 years, even when we have audio/video recordings, let alone so-called facts from centuries past, assuming, in the US, that there is interest. All historians write under the gun of the contemporary powers at be and are very aware of what they can say or not say. (we have modern historians questioning the writings of Tacitus or Herodotus). Also, they write with personal agendas. The only facts that most can agree on on are broad stroke events, e.g. wars, migrations, disasters, movements and major coronations, etc. Details and rationale are almost always obscured and eventually lost through narrative. One might as well be debating the number of angels on the head of a pin. Putin got the broad strokes correct and was smart enough to know that whatever he said would be disputed by western propagandists masquerading as historical analysts.
Hello Mr. Wauck,
I've just read your corrective to the Russian President's history lesson, and thank you for it. Now I better understand why you wrote of the President's multiple inaccuracies and factual omissions.
Something in particular continues to stand out, for me. At the beginning of the discussion, Mr. Putin named the year 988 as being "Russia's Baptism" in so far as the ruler and his subjects accepting the religious faith of Christianity in the liturgical form and practice of Orthodoxy. Tucker Carlson brought up the current aggression from the Zelensky government against the Ukranian Orthodox Church (under Moscow Patriarchate). In my understanding, Pres. Putin acknowledged that religious conflict as emblematic of the government's ongoing attempts at erasure of fundamental cultural bonds between Ukranians and Russians. Then, at the very end of the interview, President Putin said the following, which is what I continue to think about, dwell upon, and marvel at---
"...the relations between the two peoples will be re-built anyway. It will take a lot of time but they will heal. ...What is happening is to a certain extent an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. No, they will be re-united. The unity is still there. Why are the Ukranian authorities dismantling the Ukranian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory; it brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul."
Very best wishes, Joanne Wasserman
While much of what Putin peddles as “history” is actually tendentious national mythology, in strict etymological terms, he’s not incorrect to conceive of Ukraine’s identity as somehow being derivative of or dependent on Russian identity.
Mark is absolutely right that the “krai” in “ukraina” refers to a large unit of territory and that, in east slavic as in Polish, it originally implied the English notion of “country.” However, the “country” (krai) in question is the historic lands of Rus’ (or even “Russia,” as conceived in the Muscovite or imperial eras), not the modern nation of Ukraine.
Indeed, the meaning of “ukraina” hinges not so much on “krai” but on the prefix/preposition “u” — as in, an attachment to or extension of something else. Thus “u-kraina” is best translated as “borderland.” Which is why it was proper to refer to the place in English as “THE Ukraine” until (speaking of national myth making) post-Soviet Ukrainian nationalist sentiment made this usage politically incorrect.)
I would distinguish to this extent. Russian identity is actually derivative of the Kievan state that grew to embrace both Novgorod as well as what later became Muscovy. Kievan Rus' gave the 'Russian' identity to the whole. That's why Putin is right to emphasize, as he sometimes does, the centrality of Kiev to "Russia". None of this is simple.
But there's more. The specific use of Ukraina as a term applied to the lands we now call Ukraine arose in a Polish context--beginning in the 1450s or so it was used to refer to the territory of Eastern Galicia around the city of Lwów, now Western Ukraine. That was not some amorphous "borderland" region--it was a defined administrative area at the eastern bounds of the Polish Kingdom, east of which lay Lithuanian/Ruthenian lands. The East Slavs of the region, then usually called Red Ruthenians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ruthenia), adopted that title and, with the rise of nationalism and national identities, extended it eastward and adopted it also as a self designation for the ethnic group.
Ukrainians claim that later (17th century) the Cossacks of the Zaporozhian host used the term Ukraina to refer to the lands that they controlled from their Sich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sich). I can't confirm that, but it's plausible, at least.
The overall point is that Putin's use of etymology and history is quite tendentious. He probably knows that. He has acknowledged at times that there is a specifically Ukrainian identity in the areas that were under Polish/Lithuanian rule. His bigger point that the boundaries and identities--and especially Donbass--were never totally clear over the entire territory that became independent Ukraine is true. Also that much of those territories were discontent with Polish rule. We can accept his valid points without feeling obliged to do so on the basis of his tendentious etymology and history.
Regarding the Polish preposition "u", it actually basically means "at", as in 'u nas' 'at our place/home,' or in Fr. 'chez nous.' It doesn't really change the meaning of the word it's attached to--I would suggest that, as often with prepositions (not only in Slavic languages but Gr. adnd Latin, for example), it serves more as an intensifier of the root meaning. 'Kraj,' most simply, refers to a region inhabited by a common group of people. It's an identifiable area with an identifiable population, which is how it later came to be used in Czech and Russian to be used to refer to an administrative area, such as a province or county. Polish and Serbian preserve the original sense and that is relevant because the term 'Ukraina' for a geographical area and it's people arose in a Polish context.
For an example of the absurdities you can get involved in if you feel compelled to defend Putin's "history" and etymology for geopolitical purposes, this Will Schryver thread is a perfect illustration:
https://twitter.com/imetatronink/status/1756482012750491890
He ends up arguing that Ukraine is an artificial creation by outsiders, based on an 1887 encyclopedia. Commenters then point him to 17th century maps labeled "Ukraine".
The DIGITAL Paradigm is about Memory (it is literally how the technology works). China and Russia, add in India among others, are embracing retrieval of their Medieval “history” and “identity.” The US and rest of the West is in denial about this and lagging behind in finding a new “foundation” for the West civilization…
Normally this is driven by civilizational “elites,” and their institutions. The US and West have NO ELITES. Literally, no elites and we have not had any for decades (see Issacson/Thomas’ Wise Men to get a sense for what elites used to be). And no schools or universities to train them and give them confidence to go out into the world.
The Chinese and Russians are aware of this and they are generating their own civilizational elites and the places to train them. They are retrieving their history as a foundation for the new civilization in the DIGITAL/Robot paradigm, and plan to utilize this technology to get them there: the tech needs the humans, not the other way around.
I agree. Our ruling class is profoundly disquieted by the Russian and Chinese recovery of their civilizational roots, following their disastrous experiments with the West's revolutionary ideologies.
After all the hype, I felt obliged to watch this interview. Usually I don’t do this. Putin became too good in his role of a president, which renders his interviews not very interesting (I wholeheartedly approve this; we’ve been through a way too many interesting events here in Russia). So I was predisposed rather skeptical. I’m glad I was wrong. So far I watched the first 14 minutes (can’t afford swallow 2 hours in one piece, having a lot of time-consuming work to do). My impression differs from that of most commenters here. For me, the conversation was funny and entertaining, Putin was relaxed and uncharacteristically open. As a preliminary note I’d say that the West was not the main target audience, at least on the surface of conveyed meanings (but this in itself may be a signal). Putin made it clear that he was not particularly concerned about the comfort of this segment, and even seemingly indulged in his satisfaction with such a line. Very interesting and promising.
My apologies for the late response. I only have the luxury of free time on Sundays. I should have kept this in mind when writing my comment, but the desire to share my first impression overpowered me.
First, to your question. The answer is no, there was no threat in what Putin said. On the contrary, I feel that his intention was to present himself as a normal, responsible person, and not the war-mongering thug that Western MSM try to portray him as. And he didn't want to make anyone squirm.
I feel obliged to explain my points in more detail.
Putin is highly experienced politician and has a profound background as a KGB officer. He is smart and calculating. Usually I can’t “read” his emotions except what he intentionally put on display. But he’s not an actor either, and a couple of time (on another occasions) I found his presentation not convincing. My conclusion is that during this interview we saw the real Putin as a person. All those little details that could only be picked up by people who share the same culture, language and similar history, make me think so. And it was very interesting.
The funny thing was the interaction between Putin and Carlson. In my eyes, the image of Putin corresponded to the image of a good Orthodox priest - wise, tolerant, patient, benevolent and absolutely confident in his rightness. In fact, he acted as a teacher and from the very beginning put Carlson in the role of a student. This is a sort of archetypical plot in Russian literature and folklore. Let’s call it “Naive foreigner”. Face reactions of Carlson were priceless. In my opinion, he didn’t handle the interview well. But I have to admit that I’m not his fan.
I had a few short discussions about the interview with some of my friends. Five of them agreed that at least the historical part was funny, three cited the same reasons as me, and two more were less reflective and couldn't recognize any of them. One “respondent” was disappointed in Carlson, who failed to turn the interview into an intellectual debate, and the next one got tired of a lecture about widely known (for Russians) historical facts and switched off prematurely. There was another person who would like Putin to provide a more refined and West-oriented explanation of the causes of the SMO. The last person I asked wanted a stronger message and harsher language from Putin.
Despite the abovementioned metaphor of a “benevolent priest,” I would strongly advise against interpreting Putin’s interview as a sign of a willingness to compromise to the detriment of Russia’s interests.
First, his position is grounded on values, principles and worldview, which resemble religious beliefs of a true believer. There is no hypocrisy in Putin's beliefs. This is a very strong motivational core.
Second, the “collective West” is guilty of mortal sins: it betrayed his trust, provoked a civil war between Russia and Ukraine, used real Nazis for this purpose, tried to impose anti-Christian values and practices on the Russian people, and there are many more items on this list. To say that Putin is angry is an understatement. This is a very strong and stable attitude.
Third, the image of a good priest is also a kind of archetype in Russian civilization. For example, I have seen this when interacting with elderly administrators, businessmen or criminals. In our society, it is very important to adhere to high moral principles (in the case of criminals, such principles may seem unusual, but they exist). This makes you capable of decisive action. Make no mistake, Putin is very capable.
What does he want? I understand that for him this is a war of independence. He is not interested in a military invasion of Europe. This is a horror story created by the MSM for Europeans. Independence, security and the possibility of development of Russia are the ultimate goals of his presidency. Having achieved this, he will write himself into the history that he loves so much. I imagine that after his retirement he will be relieved to immerse himself in reading historical treatises and documents.
And I hope this image of a happy end is reassuring.
I take it as a mild reprimand. Well, OK.
I was misled by the adjective “obtuse.” With this I disagree. I read your comments.
Thanks for the post Mark. Are you familiar with Billington’s Icon and the Axe? It has been foolishly ignored over the decades by many in the West, thus very little understanding of Russia.
Consider “civilization” rather than culture. There can be several cultures within a civilization. What Putin is articulating, regarding today, is that Russia is building a civilization, regardless of what the rest of the West does. The Third Rome and the Orthodox Church are central to this, beyond language and territory or political “ideology,” of which they have largely rejected what we call Leninism/Marxism. The “conflict” within the West, of which Russia is a part, has been over the civilization and the church, which was replaced in the late 20th century by the post modern notion of Globalism.
Think of Russia as “literate,” as in the PRINT paradigm, with some additions by the RADIO (propaganda) and TELEVISION (imagination) paradigm. Think of the US/rest of the West, including Japan, as TELEVISION paradigm and thus illiterate or having retrieved the ancient ORAL (voices in your heads).
So no, we are not the audience. The Chinese, who are actually taught about their history, are an audience, as are all the other places that don’t want to be part of what the West has been about and want to avoid the West’s rapid decline, from which there is no stopping it. DIGITAL retrieves the Medieval (what came before Modern, which is now destroyed), thus the Russian and Chinese references to that history.
Identity is a huge thing now that we are in the Robot/Digital Paradigm. China and Russia are going through it as well and dealing with it differently: we are not dealing with it at all.
Think of Putin as leading a very spiritual civilization. Something we have been resisting but it is happening here as well. Everything we have believed in all of our lives, most of us anyway, is now being questioned and jettisoned in search for something else.
Given your own historical research, might a comparable time for the West be the decades before the Carolingian Renaissance?
Yes, I own a copy and consider it a wonderful study of Russia. Samuel Huntington would certainly be familiar with the civilizational/culture concept--he designates Eastern Orthodox as one of the great civilizations. I agree re the concept of a Western Christendom that has been lost, whereas the concept of an Orthodox Christendom remains.
Re the middle ages around the Carolingian Renaissance and the surrounding centuries, that history and culture is simply ignored in our schools now, even in Catholic schools. Absolutely formative for the West, but historical memory is suppressed. That suppression was programmatic for the "Reformers" the Renewers and the Enlighteners.
"Historical illiteracy" cannot exist as history is soft. Why get panties in a twist over one version of history? Putin spoke as he pleased. It's all opinion.
To only know history from the perspective of your one lifetime is to be historically illiterate. Especially when your lifetime is full of historical revisionists and fabulists that make it up to suit their preferences or the current political narrative. Even if you only get one nation's version, at least look back a few centuries and read the original writings.
I’ve seen lots of analysis of the Putin interview, some criticizing Tucker, some criticizing Putin, but no one, NO ONE AT ALL, has talked about what Putin had to say about the slow deterioration, perhaps deliberate, destruction of the dollar! You know, our coin of the realm? Globally known as the reserved currency???? I found that part to be CRITICAL! Perhaps folks just don’t want to know about it? Don’t know what to say? Put it in the back pocket of their brains to deal with when the dollar totally collapses?
Strikes me as pretty irresponsible response from the SGUN:
Maria Zakharova:
“Not a joke.
Briefing at the UN on February 9, 2024:
Question: Has the Secretary-General watched the interview with the President of Russia?
Answer: In his free time, the Secretary-General prefers to read books on medieval history rather than watch television.
Now it's clear why many believe that the UN is in a deep crisis. It's no wonder that we have been unable to obtain from António Guterres for a year and a half the list of "victims" of the staging in Bucha.
It is interesting whether other acute international events remain without deep involvement from the Secretariat leadership for the same reason.”
Just wow: I'm guessing this might have been an attempt at sarcasm on the part of the Sec Gen but wildly inappropriate. M Zakharova can be quite acidic herself but she was 100% over the target this time.
As for the TC/Putin interview: I agree that as a measure of the man it succeeded very well. TC was very firmly put in his place but not treated disrespectfully. My big takeaway is that VPP is slow to anger, and this is very laudable (I'm way too easy to trigger, personally), but even slower to forgive, especially after years of incredible forebearance.
We can only hope that people in positions of influence listened carefully to the music, not so much the words. If so there might still be hope for us all.
Edward Dowd
@DowdEdward
The mere fact that Biden’s handlers allowed him to do a press conference at 7:45 PM today after months of keeping him from the Press is proof that they are setting him up to fail. The rug pull is happening before your eyes. The decision has been made…he is done. Only Question now is who is up to bat for replacement.
zerohedge @zerohedge
He is really just going for the mexican food
Quote
Axios @axios
CIA director Bill Burns is expected to travel to Cairo next week for meetings with Egyptian officials about the efforts to launch negotiations over a new deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza.
Great analysis Mark. My eyes were glazing over about 3 minutes into Putin's lecture on the history of Russia. We stipulate that European borders and tribal identities have been shifting continually for 500 years. He should have responded directly to Tucker's question and kept his history lesson to events since WW2, and especially the breakup of the USSR in 1990.
I see the conflict more simply....Burns warned about Ukraine Nato membership in 2008 as a redline for Russia/Putin. That warning was ignored as well as other direct messages from Russia/Putin up to the war. Finally it was FAFO time and Ukraine has been decimated (property and especially population) since the war started. Peace deal weeks into the conflict was drafted and turned down at UK/US direction, No Russia is tightening the vice at their time and choosing and no amount of $$$ will change that outcome.
The neocon crowd that generated this conflict are war criminals and should all be treated as such.
The problem is that 95/100 Americans on the street couldn't find Ukraine on a map if we spotted Poland and the Black Sea. We need a senior Republican political with some stones to take a stand and put halt to this madness. My top candidates are JD Vance and Rand Paul. Put down a marker and let's change the narrative of Putin bad/Ukraine good.
I think so. If he thought a history lesson would help he could have confined it to pointing out the futility of Poles living out their fantasies of revenge rather than airing Russia's perceived grievances against minor players. Present a more positive message, that Russia has done what it could to make up for its own past. He did, at one point, bring up the Yamal pipeline that runs through Poland and that Poland shut off. That would have worked into the theme of EU cutting its nose to spite its face based on Russophobic ideologies.
We're in danger of missing the woods for the trees here. As McLuhan said, the message really is the medium here. We can parse what Putin said till kingdom come, but what really matters is that he was able to have an interview with the top Western journalist that has been seen by millions of Westerners. The proof of this is the hysterical response from our "elites". Most of these idiots probably haven't even listened to the interview but they are clearly incensed by the fact that it happened. Putin could have talked to TC about pig farming in Upper Silesia and it would have had the same effect on them. Mission accomplished: we made the Borg looked stupid!
I think another important takeaway from the Putin interview was just his personality and demeanor. He came across as intelligent, calm and self-assured. Far from the maniacal territory grabbing lunatic he is made out to be in the west. I think that is another thing our "leaders" didn't want anyone to see. This is completely separate from Putin's policies which one can agree or disagree with. What kind of man is he? People who watch the interview can then make up their own mind without being told what their opinions should be.
It’s interesting when you hear many American citizens portray Putin as a KGB thug and this portrait is how many see him, but this is a mistake. No one referred to
G. H. Bush as a CIA thug as he most likely was if it can be said of Putin. I see Putin as a man who grew up in the Soviet state, a Russian who loved his country and its 500 + history. He was KGB because it was a job and career just like any aspiring college grad who wanted to join the FBI or CIA as a career, it was a path like any American who seeks fame, fortune and a good life. In all this an age old saying is, “who are we to judge?” Seems apt.
Without the involvement of the West I wonder whether Ukraine would have autonomously gone down this route.
One thing history has taught me is that empires use viscous and megalomaniac minority satrapies to cower the majority subjects. From Herod to ISIS to gays/trans and Ukrainian fascists, it’s always the same story.
I would argue that "but for" the Neocon West: absolutely not.
But for the Neocons embracing the crazy Neo-Nazis and staging the 2014 coup Ukraine might have developed into something like a normal nation. The other big obstacle was and is the corruption, the money behind the Neo-Nazis.
The history of Europe is so complicated, claim in small regions over territory after some war or treaty turn into entire countries hosting other regions with little affinity with each other. I could never understand some American fascination with them. When I think of Europe I think of the inventor of the machine gun Hiram Maxim and this alleged quote “Maxim was reported to have said: "In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility.
Why we get involved with them is still beyond me, I’m more inclined to treat them like a zoo, something to visit and look at for amusement or entertainment.