[ad_1]
“Are you saying he worked for the U.S. government or NATO?” Carlson interjected. “Or was he just a reporter who was given material he shouldn’t have gotten? They seem like completely different things!”
Tucker, this is the important point. President Putin does not see the distinction as important. He’s not the kind of guy who cares about how he’s portrayed in the media. Because at worst, they could just kill the reporter who caused the problem.
In a video recorded after the interview, Carlson mused that Putin doesn’t seem used to having to explain himself, and that, again, “that’s the way it is.” correct. Again, remember that Putin agreed to this interview not because he wanted to have a revealing conversation with a seasoned interlocutor, but because he wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to entrench his rhetoric in the American political mainstream. It is something that makes you
This has been a long-standing goal of President Putin, and in fact, he confirmed the same to Karlsson. Karlsson asked Putin why the Russian president did not “score a propaganda victory” by presenting the international community with evidence of the purported role of Western countries in destroying the Nord Stream pipeline. .
Putin replied, “It is very difficult to win against the United States in a propaganda war, because the United States controls all the world’s media and much of the European media.” “The ultimate beneficiary of Europe’s largest media is American financial institutions. Don’t you know that?”
This argument is consistent with how Russia typically approaches propaganda, using asymmetric efforts to spread the views of President Putin and his state. For example, efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election began years ago with a covert push to amplify divisive issues in U.S. social media discourse. This is Russia’s way of fighting back.
Unfortunately for Putin, his social media efforts have been largely ineffective and often troublesome. The interview with Carlson was no different. It was his two long hours with the enthusiasm and energy level of a Russian History 102 course at Bowling Green State University. Carlson continued to inject subjects and themes that the American right would find persuasive. Was it Vice President Harris’ fault that he felt he had to invade Ukraine? Is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy unable to act on his own? How does his Christianity influence his leadership? –But President Putin continued to give unconvincing answers. Unsurprisingly, unlike Carlson, his experience and focus is not on culture war packaging.
But luckily for Carlson, that wasn’t a problem.
One of the patterns of American politics over the past decade (indeed, the Donald Trump era) is that claims of importance often produce the same utility as actual importance. All too often, President Trump’s declarations were accepted as accurate, or his predictions were treated as inevitable when neither was the case. Trump (or whoever is deploying his strategy) captures the public value of what is happening, including attention, enthusiasm, support, and disdain from opponents, even if it is not actually happening.
All Carlson had to say was, “I’m interviewing Vladimir Putin,” and everything else would unfold as expected. He would be praised for doing something others had not done, which he tried to frame as a unique accomplishment, but Putin’s press secretary made clear that it was solely because the Kremlin Because they considered him sympathetic. (This is not unreasonable; Karlsson is well known to Russian television viewers for his willingness to amplify pro-Russian rhetoric.) Whatever the final outcome of the conversation, , will be hailed as an achievement by his ideological allies simply because it happened. Because his hated adversaries on the right — national security experts and members of the press — were skeptical of the whole thing.and It was so.
In fact, what was notable about this interview was that Carlson was clearly wearing a blindfold. He is not a stupid man, but his blind spots towards Putin and Russia became very clear during the course of the discussion. For example, he claimed in a post-interview video snippet that he was struck by how “hurt” Putin seemed to be by Russia’s treatment by the West.
“He’s angry because he’s like, ‘Hey, why — I thought we could be friends,'” Carlson said. The idea that this was an elaborate influence by a former KGB official, designed to demonize the West, apparently never occurred to Carlson. It brings to mind the declaration of George W. Bush, who once saw through President Putin’s zealous soul.
At one point in the interview, Carlson asked Putin about the “denazification” rhetoric Russia uses to rationalize its invasion of Ukraine. Karlsson asked how that would work, given Russia’s limited presence in Ukraine.
“You can’t control the entire country,” Carlson said. “You don’t control Kiev. You seem unmotivated!”
Mr. Tucker, please be more careful.
[ad_2]
Source link