What Did Putin Really Say to Tucker Carlson?
The Role of Historical Contexts and Ideological Messages
People who are interested in politics, especially recent actions by Russia, have likely watched Vladimir Putin's interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson. One may have various opinions about the President of Russia and his interviewer, but it's noteworthy that Putin rarely gives interviews.
Putin's interview was not just a casual conversation but rather a statement with serious ideological and political messages.
Let's set aside emotional reactions and moral judgments and analyze what was said philosophically.
Historicism
Let's start with how Putin began the interview. He said he needed just a few minutes for a historical reference, which took up a significant portion of the conversation. This is unsurprising and quite logical, as it set the framework for further discourse and explained all his subsequent remarks.
The first part of the interview focused on creating discourse. We won’t delve into the specific historical facts that Putin used. Instead, I want to draw your attention to the concept of historicism, criticized by a British philosopher of Austrian origin, Karl Popper.
One of Karl Popper's major works is "The Poverty of Historicism." According to him, historicism is an approach to social and political history that suggests society develops according to internal laws. This idea was common among many Western philosophers, from Plato to certainly Marx. They advocated and justified the existence of objective laws of societal development.
Karl Popper robustly criticized this idea. If you find this topic interesting, I recommend reading Karl Popper's "The Poverty of Historicism."
Meanwhile, Putin explicitly states in the interview that the world develops according to its own laws, and from this statement, we can infer that he views history as a basis for explaining and predicting the future through past patterns.
This is a very important point. Whether historicism is a good concept or not isn't the topic of today's conversation. However, we must understand that many ideologies (and the politicians who rely on these ideologies) are indeed based on such historicism.
State Myth or Ideology
It's always useful to refer to classics, so let’s briefly divert from the interview.
In his works, Plato discusses the importance of myths in maintaining social order and strengthening the state. A notable example is his idea of the "myth of the metals" in "The Republic," where he suggests instilling in citizens the belief that their souls were created with different metals, determining their status and role in society. This myth helps legitimize social hierarchy and promotes state stability, asserting that each person is naturally destined for their social role.
Modern states also use myths to shape national identity and manage perceptions of foreign policy.
In the USA, for example, the myth of the "city upon a hill," derived from a biblical metaphor and adapted by the early settlers to describe their vision of a new nation, emphasizes America's exceptionalism and moral superiority, often used to justify foreign policy actions, including interventions in other countries under the pretext of spreading democracy and freedom.
In Europe, the Enlightenment myth asserts that the continent is the cradle of rationality, science, and cultural achievements. This narrative aids in forming a self-identity as an educated, cultural force, opposing the "barbaric" peoples outside its borders.
In the Middle East and other parts of the world, myths about religious and historical uniqueness also exist, strengthening internal unity and justifying external political actions. These regions often focus on following ancient religious laws and commandments, emphasizing a divine destiny and historical mission.
Myths serve not only for internal propaganda but also as a tool of foreign policy, allowing states to shape their image abroad, justify their actions, and influence international public opinion. They help build alliances, justify conflicts, and strengthen political influence on other countries.
New State Myth of Russia
In the interview, Putin used the myth of "Ivan the Fool," a part of Russian folkloric tradition. This character represents a simple, naive, yet honest, and wise man who, despite his simplicity, is capable of remarkable deeds and often turns out to be wiser than others. Ivan the Fool symbolizes incorruptibility, natural wisdom, and the ability to survive and triumph under adverse circumstances in Russian culture.
In his view, Putin used this myth to illustrate how Russia is perceived and should be perceived by the international community as a country that appears simple and straightforward but possesses deep internal wisdom and a long-term strategic perspective. Putin contrasted this with depicting the West as the "Grey Wolf"—cunning, aggressive, and often destructive.
From the perspective of external propaganda, using such myths helps build an image of Russia not as an aggressor but rather as being forced to respond to external threats and pressure. This allows Russia to present its military and political actions as defending its sovereignty and national interests rather than unjustified aggression.
In the context of international relations, the myth of "Ivan the Fool" might be ambiguously received, as such images in Western culture might be associated with negative qualities such as incompetence or shortsightedness. However, in the Russian context, this myth carries positive connotations,
highlighting the ability to circumvent stereotypes and overcome difficulties with intuition and wisdom, which should be considered in cross-cultural interpretations.
Fragmentation of the West
Another notable point was the discussion on the fragmentation of the West, especially the USA.
Putin mentioned his past good contacts with U.S. presidents and agreements that were not always fulfilled. He emphasized that, despite initial agreements, the American administration's real actions often differed from the promises. According to Putin, this indicates that the U.S. president does not have enough power to control his own apparatus, and decisions are made without regard to the initial agreements.
Putin compared this situation to the mythological figure of Leviathan, which symbolizes an omnipotent state in Thomas Hobbes' works. Leviathan, a sea monster, represents a state where the head (king or ruler) and other body parts symbolize different levels of power and classes of society. Putin suggests that in the modern USA, the head (president) does not always control the other parts of the state machinery, leading to inconsistencies and fragmentation in domestic and foreign policy.
Next, Putin raised the question of the role of a leader's personality and the mood of the elite in history and politics, indicating that it's not so much the leader's individual qualities but rather the ruling elite's general mood that determines the course of history. This opinion reflects a deep philosophical, historical, and psychological analysis of power and influence. Putin expressed the thought that, perhaps, in the United States and Russia, the importance of a leader's personality in the political system differs.
He suggested that in America, decisions might depend more on the collective moods of the elite and various interests within the ruling circles, while in Russia, the personal qualities and decisions of the leader play a greater role. However, Putin did not make unequivocal statements about whether his remark applies exclusively to Western countries or is a general principle characteristic of any political system.
Such reflections lead to thoughts on what factors influence decision-making in state governance and what role a leader's personality plays compared to the general moods of the elite. This question is important for understanding the mechanisms of power and accountability, which is particularly significant in analyzing the political systems of different countries.
This analysis helps us better understand Putin's vision of Russia's place and role in the world arena, as well as his views on the mechanisms of world politics and historical development.