The Vladimir Putin Interview - Part Two
Part Two — Is Russia Angling for an Exit?
In the immediate aftermath of Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin, Carlson recorded at least two brief segments during which he gave his impressions of the experience. I was exceedingly surprised that one of his foremost “takeaways” from the interview was that Putin had expressed a desire to enter into negotiations to bring the hostilities in Ukraine to an end; that Putin was, as it were, “angling for an exit” from the war.
This is a gross misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what Putin actually said — and the fact is that Putin, on multiple occasions, reiterated his posture on the question.
Tucker Carlson: Will there be talks? And why haven’t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine? Peace talks.
Putin’s reply came without hesitation:
Vladimir Putin: There have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side (Ukraine) threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of … European countries and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end.
A brief discussion ensued wherein Carlson suggested that the negotiations must take place between Russia and the United States, rather than between Russia and Ukraine, and he (Carlson) lamented that Putin had not even spoken with US President Joe Biden since the war commenced.
Tucker Carlson: … why don’t you just call Biden and say “let’s work this out”?
Vladimir Putin: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms …”
What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? “You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid, please don't.” What is there to talk about?
I don’t know how Putin could have been more clear about the Russian posture at this stage of the war [paraphrasing]: “If the United States desires for the war to end, the solution is simple: STOP FIGHTING US!”
Earlier in the interview, Carlson had asked Putin if Russia had now achieved its aims in the war. Putin explicitly replied in the negative.
What are Russia’s aims in this war? Well, they were explicitly articulated in Putin’s two landmark speeches delivered in February 2022.
In his February 21, 2022 speech, Putin meticulously recounted the relevant history of the region dating back multiple centuries, and focused specifically on the events that followed in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
In addition to Putin’s history lesson, he makes particular reference to a detailed proposal Russia delivered to the United States and its NATO allies in mid-December 2021 — a proposal that effectively amounted to a “final warning”; a last-ditch effort to avoid war in Ukraine.
Consider his words carefully, and particularly in light of how Russia has unswervingly adhered to the objectives Putin articulated in his February 24, 2022 speech.
Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states.
The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray.
We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia’s core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.
Vladimir Putin, Address by the President of the Russian Federation, February 21, 2022
(emphasis added)
I submit we can confidently assume Putin was as deadly serious on February 21, 2022 as he was on February 24, 2022; that he was not bluffing; that he was resolved to “raise the stakes” commensurate to whatever was required to achieve the objectives he had so carefully articulated.
The Russian objectives, as delineated in February of 2022, were as follows:
To prevent further NATO expansion.
To compel the withdrawal of NATO military forces and infrastructure to their 1997 borders.
To demilitarize Ukraine.
To denazify Ukraine.
To restore to mother Russia the portions of the “Russian Nation” that had been previously severed from it as a result of the ill-considered decisions of Russian leadership over the course of the twentieth century.
As the war has continued, Russian territorial objectives have been further defined. In addition to the reassimilation of the Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions into Russia, it is now clear that the Russians are determined to reassimilate into the motherland the Kharkov region and all of the regions bordering the Black Sea coast, extending to the Danube River bordering Romania.
I was convinced as early as February 27, 2022 that it would become imperative for Russia to reassimilate at least the territory indicated on the map below:
Indeed, based on numerous repeated statements from various of the foremost Russian government leaders, including President Putin, it is increasingly evident that the imperatives of Russian “strategic depth” will not be satisfied short of reassimilating both the red and orange-shaded regions indicated on this map, and perhaps even the region shaded in yellow:
It is categorically false to believe Russia would be willing to “freeze” the conflict on the current line of contact, or even with the full annexation of the four regions that have already conducted referendums to rejoin Russia.
I submit that Vladimir Putin’s domestic popularity AND the support of his generals correlate closely to the perception that he will not waver from the objectives he set forth in the beginning. Indeed, it has only been the misplaced sense that he might stop short of achieving his stated objectives that has resulted in meaningful criticism arising from his domestic supporters — whether in government, the military, or the general public.
I further submit that it is precisely the burgeoning faith that Putin will resolutely pursue and achieve his stated objectives that has resulted in the unprecedented willingness of China, Iran, India, and other geostrategically important Eurasian and Global South nations to not only openly support Russia in this conflict, but to also, in many instances, openly defy imperial decrees forbidding military and commercial relations with Russia.
I am thoroughly convinced that a large proportion of the support Russia continues to command across the planet is directly correlated to a pervasive perception that the Russians “really meant it” when they solemnly, formally, and explicitly informed the United States and NATO that peace would henceforth be contingent on them “… rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.”
Near the end of the interview, Carlson once again returned to the topic of negotiations to end the conflict:
Tucker Carlson: … are you worried that what’s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible and how motivated are you just to call the US government and say “let’s come to terms”?
Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We are willing to negotiate. It is the Western side [not willing to negotiate], and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the U.S. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.
Putin then briefly referred to the massive amounts of money and weaponry the NATO nations have pumped into Ukraine, and made the point again that, if there is a desire for the war to end, NATO support for Ukraine must end first.
Tucker Carlson: … that is why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelensky of Ukraine.
Putin then proceeds to explain to Carlson the situation in terms that ought to have defied any misunderstanding. Indeed, this is arguably the single most important part of the entire interview. Pay close attention to how Putin frames the issue:
Vladimir Putin: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume that they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it, let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted, let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision, it was them, so let them go back on it. … They did it so let them correct it themselves. We support this.
And yet, amazingly, the ill-prepared and slow-to-comprehend Tucker Carlson still does not grasp Putin’s meaning:
Tucker Carlson: So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what you are saying — and I don't think that I am — I think you are saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine.
Putin visibly sighs at this retort, and patiently attempts again to make Carlson understand. He reminds Carlson of how a tentative peace settlement had been reached in early 2022, but was then torpedoed by the west, who instead persuaded Ukraine to fight on, with the reassurance that NATO would continue to support them “for as long it takes”.
Vladimir Putin: … we prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions … [later] he himself said: “We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance.”
Well, you missed it, you made a mistake … Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?
I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbass, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back further in history, I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not be expanded, to 2008 when the doors to NATO opened, to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats for us. Let us go back to the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly. But they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?
Tucker Carlson: Do you think it is too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?
Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will.
Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition. It is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.
That both Tucker Carlson and others have failed to correctly interpret Putin’s words is incomprehensible to me. So permit me to paraphrase them in language that is perhaps more understandable to the dimwitted and disingenuous people in the west who continue to misrepresent them:
“We offered them an early out, and they rejected it in favor of an appeal to arms in order to inflict what they imagined would be a severe strategic defeat against Russia on the field of battle. But their reach greatly exceeded their grasp. They cannot defeat us. Now let them seek a delicate exit from the mess they’ve gotten themselves into — but we will achieve our objectives.”
FYI: Over the life of this blog, a few generous people have pledged some money to support it. But I have never required a paid subscription to read my stuff. And I still won’t. However, I have now “enabled” subscriptions purely as a means by which, if people are so inclined, they may support me with whatever amount they so choose. I also include a “Tip Jar” link in every post, if you’d like to go that route. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to. It’s purely voluntary. Everyone will still be able to read everything I write.
For all of you who have previously pledged to support this blog, I express my genuine gratitude. I hope my writing has been informative in some small manner and aided you in your quest to understand our crazy world a little better.
— Will Schryver