Tucker Carlson’s Interview with Vladimir Putin — A Brief History of the West’s Embrace of Putin

Jakub Ferencik
10 min readFeb 10, 2024

Like many of you, I have been very concerned with the state of disinformation and misinformation when it comes to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

We’ve all heard the claims coming out of disinformation actors: “But Ukraine is infinitely corrupt, how do you know our funds are being used well?” “Zelensky is simply pocketing everything!” “Putin was forced to invade Ukraine because of NATO.”

It is entirely valid to pose questions. It is good to look at the experience Ukrainians have had with corruption and trace how our funds are being used; it’s also good to make sure that a country that was ranked particularly low on the global corruption chart before 2022 is not continuing in that trajectory; and it’s good to look at why NATO exists and how countries become members of the security alliance.

As you know, I have looked at all of these issues extensively. I do not shy away from being critical of Ukraine. I firmly believe that in the pursuit of truth, we must be able to criticize those we consider to be allies, or in our own “camp.”

However, Tucker Carlson’s trip to Mosocw does not fall under that sphere of honest inquiry. Carlson has a history of speech that resembles the propaganda that he is so willing to go and listen to.

One of his latest claims that many seem to have swallowed up is that he is the “only journalist willing to speak to Putin.”

Of course, that’s incorrect. Many journalists have sought to speak with Putin since 2022. The problem is that Putin follows a lineage that other Russian leaders have set for him, including Nicholas II, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. These figures used state-sponsored propaganda to manipulate public opinion into believing whatever narrative kept them in power.

In an ideal society, the traditional media should serve to educate the people on contemporary affairs without attributing a particular bias. Of course, we should not expect complete impartiality. For example, we could safely expect the media to be biased about the need for properly functioning institutions; we could also expect that they would advocate for the freedom of the press; and so forth.

These areas of bias are fairly inconsequential, however, and, arguably, necessary.



Jakub Ferencik

Author of “Up in the Air,” “Beyond Reason,” & "Surprised by Uncertainty" on AMAZON | MA McGill Uni | 750+ articles with 1+ mil. views