Vladimir Putin is in the news again, since Tucker Carlson did the unthinkable and went to Moscow to interview him. This has proved to be a media sensation on Elon Musk’s X, a remarkably popular gesture, but has also therefore incurred a lot of criticism.
Carlson has been accused of lack of patriotism and servility to tyrants, and worse things, typically by people who have never shown any courage or resource themselves.
Indeed, Tucker’s interview is primarily an opportunity for American media figures to say nasty, moralistic things about Putin and Russia.
Once upon a time, Putin was penning op-eds for The New York Times, back when American liberals pretended to be civilized and, therefore, to take interest in the self-understanding of their adversaries. Then Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, years of Russia hoax hysteria followed, and now, too, the war in Ukraine.
Madness has replaced intelligent curiosity and, accordingly, the massive facts of politics and war have been forgotten or buried under propaganda. But Tucker today is just the intelligent liberal of 10 years back.
Intelligent patriotism, indeed, requires understanding what’s happening in the world. The first important thing to notice is that the US has backed Ukraine against Russia, only to lose.
In moments of madness, opinions about the “ruble being reduced to rubble” were expressed by President Joe Biden, who may or may not be compos mentis nowadays. But the US has failed to create either an economic or a political alliance against Russia.
Nobody, in short, will fight, except a Ukrainian army that has proved tactically impotent and strategically mad in attempting to retake the Donbas, the far east of the country. Failure after two years, since it portends defeat, should chasten arrogance.
The pro-war media and politicians, far from having earned any right to question Tucker’s patriotism, should tell the American people what they’ve achieved, at what cost, for what purpose, and what they plan to do next.
Any answer to these questions requires a basic understanding of Putin and Russia that America’s public deliberation entirely lacks. I offer a sketch of such an understanding in three points.
Fantasy and paranoia
First, the fantasy of Putin as a thug or KGB figure of cruelty or a warlord bent on invasion has to be abandoned. This is nonsense fit only for a Hollywood blockbuster. The conduct of the war has proved that Putin is not particularly interested or competent when it comes to invading even a weak, corrupt country like Ukraine.
Further, there is nothing important about the war that is specifically traced to Putin. He has no strategic or tactical preferences; the Russian military would have fought the same way without him, as it has in the past; and pretty much any other Russian leader would have done the same in his place.
Second, we must begin to think about Putin as an “economist” of remarkable ability. Not only was the ruble not reduced to rubble, but Russia seems to have suffered no serious economic problems after two years of war.
Maybe the war decisions the US has made in order to hurt Russia have hurt the West more instead, especially regarding energy. To speak very quickly, Putin is the best thing to have happened to Russia since the czar foolishly got himself ousted and slaughtered with his family a century back. Since then, Russia has not had as much peaceful prosperity as it has had since 2000, when Putin took power.
It may be intolerable to liberals to respect the accomplishments of a despot, though that’s narrow-minded.
And perhaps contempt for Russian poverty blinds elites to the staggering historical accomplishment, despite the immediately available comparison with the economic and social catastrophe that was ’90s Russia, which liberals helped along with some enthusiasm. But it’s never smart to mix moralism and contempt when we’re talking about an important power.
Third, we must begin to learn politics again, and Putin will teach us at a cost we can afford to pay, indeed have already paid.
The US is very wealthy and has enough military might to take care of itself; but there is no need to waste those advantages. We can have no alliance with Russia, but America apparently cannot defeat Russia, and therefore should not have tried.
Further, we must stop with the media and think-tank hysteria. Putin has proved he’s no danger to NATO by his weakness and a very limited victory in the east of Ukraine, which could have been prevented with less suicidal strategy.
Russia is a country of old men, and wars are fought by young men. Russia is also poor compared with Europe, to say nothing of the US, and war is very expensive.
More important, Putin is 71 and has a succession crisis on his hands, not dreams of overwhelming Poland.
Let us admit these facts and plan accordingly. Let us stop with the moralism and put an end to a war we’re losing everywhere in the West, not just in Ukraine – let’s regain sanity, clarity about the dangers we’re facing and some seriousness about foreign policy.
Two years of slaughter is enough.