People who watch Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin and only see Kremlin propaganda are like moviegoers who immediately want to join the Mafia after watching it. godfather or Goodfellas. They saw the cars, the money, and the glory, but somehow they missed that almost all of the characters end up dead or in jail by the end.
Of course, there are many people who watch gangster movies and admire gangsters. And there is a minority of conservatives who worship Putin as an antihero, like Viktor Orbans’ Ronald Reagan, or at least Tony Soprano telling the globalists: I was teased about it.
Anyone who paid close attention to Mr. Carlson’s interview with Mr. Putin knows that whatever the Russian leader’s concerns about NATO expansion, they are in part harboring expansionist fantasies and are willing to pursue a costly and brutal I came to see him as a ranting maniac promoting the war in Ukraine. This was done without Mr. Carlson engaging in acting like an MSNBC personality criticizing Republican senators who are just as bad for viewers as Mr. Putin himself.
Then Karlsson’s critics moved the goalposts.They predicted that he would not demand the release of those imprisoned. wall street journal Reporter Evan Gershkovich. When Mr. Karlsson did just that, they claimed in an interview that he had done it too late, or derided him as appealing to Putin’s “common sense.”
Although Carlson did not defend Gershkovic in the most emotionally satisfying way, he did so from the standpoint of actually having a small chance of securing the reporter’s release. If the goal is to gain Gershkovic’s freedom rather than to feel good about himself, then it must be worth it. And Putin did not fare well in that exchange.
But the people most outraged by Carlson’s interview don’t watch mob movies.They think instead that west wing is a documentary, and they wanted Carlson to be Ronald Reagan’s Martin Sheen, delivering a cinematic denunciation of Putin that would make you feel good even if it accomplished nothing.
This is the problem with U.S. policy in Ukraine in general. It is more concerned with high-minded moralist rhetoric than with determining what is in our national interest and what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine. Despite Putin’s resemblance to the main cast’s villains and Volodymyr Zelensky’s resemblance to a Hollywood mogul, this is not a feel-good story.
Nikki Haley says we can support Ukraine indefinitely with minimal sacrifices, a preventive war that prevents any war. “This is about preventing war. It’s always about preventing war,” she said during the Republican presidential debate. “Even if we help Ukraine, it’s only 3.5 percent of the defense budget.” But in reality there is a war going on. right now.
President Joe Biden has exuded similar restraint, suggesting he is perfectly capable of threading the needle between confrontations with Russia without getting drawn into a war himself. Like Nucky Thompson on HBO boardwalk empire He was advised, “You can’t be half a gangster, but it’s difficult to be half a wartime president.”
At times, proponents of this policy seem confused about its purpose. Is it about liberating Ukraine and defeating the Russian invaders? Or is the problem a long-term war that weakens Russia’s military power? Might there be some trade-off between these two goals that can be measured from the lives of Ukrainians?
Is it really true that what we are doing now will make a NATO war with Russia less likely, not more likely? Bringing Ukraine into NATO will make such a war less likely. Is it more or less likely to happen?
There are useful things to be learned from talking to Putin, but these are the questions to ask Biden. Someone should do that, but it doesn’t seem like he’s giving many interviews at this point. Let’s enjoy the Super Bowl!
Subscribe now
Receive daily emails in your inbox
There are several reasons why the war in Ukraine turned into a quagmire. Ukraine is more important to Ukrainians than a ragtag group of Russian conscripts. Ukraine is more important to Russia, and arguably the Putin regime, than the United States and its allies, which are providing arms to Kiev.
Until these basic realities are accepted, it will be impossible to have intelligent conversations about Ukraine policy. Does anything Russia do in Ukraine seem like it could realistically threaten NATO territory? If the answer is no, but the possession of nuclear weapons must be taken seriously, what are the limits to what the United States and its allies can do to Ukraine? And what is realistically achievable for Ukraine? What does a just peace look like?
It might not make for a good TV show. That is why a few contrarians would rather watch the Putin show, and why most of the people who actually make decisions in Washington prefer the Zelensky show. However, this is the beginning of a pragmatic foreign policy, not a feel-good foreign policy.