In both cases, Carlson’s pretended naïveté made it hard to regard him as the journalist he once might have been. Instead, he appeared as a blind cheerleader for the Russian government.
His next engagement at the World Government Summit in Dubai about Russia confirmed this impression. “Every leader kills people, some kill more than others,” Carlson told the crowd. “Leadership requires killing people, sorry, that’s why I wouldn’t want to be a leader.”
Four days after Carlson’s conference appearance, Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny died in prison. Perhaps Putin wanted to prove Carlson right at least once.
Those of us who have followed global affairs over the past years should not be surprised by any of this. Navalny is just the latest victim of a regime that has killed many of its opponents. They include ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko (poisoned in 2004), journalist Anna Politkovskaya (shot in 2006) and rogue mercenary Yevgeny Prigozhin (plane crash in 2023).
Carlson’s affection for Russia and Putin, is no surprise, either. There is a growing group of Putin apologists among right-wing populists around the world. They have found an unlikely hero in the Russian dictator. Carlson was simply adding his voice to the global extreme right-wing choir.
Though this is not a huge surprise, it still requires an explanation. Who could stand by the man responsible for one of the bloodiest wars in decades? How could anyone be blind to the barbaric atrocities committed by Russian forces in places like Bucha? Which democrat could defend this autocrat’s assault on democracy, the media and the rule of law?
It may seem bizarre, but plenty of people like Carlson seem perfectly capable to do all that. They are happy to justify Putin’s crimes – or at least to overlook them. They blame others for what is happening in Ukraine. And maybe, deep down, they even admire Putin’s ability to have his way.
There are three easy explanations for Putin apologism – and a fourth more disturbing one. Let’s take them one by one.
The first reason to defend Putin is the most harmless but also the most naïve. While accepting Putin’s responsibility for the war and other tyrannous actions, some people would rather make deals with him than confront him head-on. They favour appeasing the dictator and negotiating with him. They may even hope to do business with Russia again, say to import cheap Russian oil and gas.
However, to reach that point, they must first downplay Putin’s brutality and evil. Even appease-niks have some pride, and no one would want to be accused of making deals with the devil or a modern-day Hitler. Chamberlain, of course, once tried, and it did not end well.
Although I consider the appeasement approach morally wrong and shortsighted in the extreme, I can understand why some people prefer to delude themselves in this way.
Another explanation is that some people may have simply been sucked into Russia’s propaganda. The Russian regime has spread falsehoods through many channels for decades, and some of them have taken hold.
For example, Russia’s claim that NATO gave it a guarantee that it would not accept new Eastern European members is demonstrably false. But that does not stop Moscow from propagating it ad nauseam. Meanwhile, they forget to mention that Moscow once guaranteed Ukraine’s security when the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons.
Similarly, Russia’s claim that NATO ‘encircled’ it with its expansion is often taken at face value. Yet looking at a world map reveals how difficult it would be to do that to a country spanning eleven time zones.
Even so, frequent repetition can make even outright falsehoods stick. With Russian propaganda about “Nazis” in the Ukrainian government, Ukraine’s allegedly dodgy dealings with the US, and Western weapons manufacturers’ interests, some people then find themselves caught up in this Russian-made conspiracy theory.
The third reason for the right’s Putin-mania is even more troubling. For some Putin supporters, far from denying his evil, the dictator’s traits are what they admire most.
They see Putin as the ultimate ‘decisive leader.’ Someone who does not care what the world thinks of him. Someone who prefers action over negotiation. If a few hundred thousand people get killed in the process, it only shows that Putin will not be stopped on his mission. Tucker Carlson’s ‘reporting’ from Moscow displayed this strongman fascination that blinds people to Putin’s crimes and evil.
These three justifications – a wish to deal with the regime, the effects of Russian propaganda, and the strongman cult – all play a role for those Putin sympathisers. They range from naïve to ugly.
However, there is a fourth justification that goes even further. That is the self-hatred of Western liberal democracy among parts of the extreme and populist right.
In Putin’s Russia, they see a country very different from their own. Putin likes to portray it as similar to the countries his admirers imagine theirs once to have been.
And so, it looks to them as if Putin’s Russia is a society in which LGBTIQ+ issues are not a concern. As if it was one in which traditional institutions like church and family are still cherished. As if it was a country in which law and order are maintained. In which men are still men – just like Vladimir Putin, who was once photographed riding shirtless on a horse.
This idea of Russia contrasts with Western countries’ left-wing leaders, environmental policies, and identity politics. Because the extreme right hates the state of their own countries so much, they embrace Putin as their countries’ nemesis.
As a result, Putin does not have to pretend to be anything he is not. Putin appeals to his fans on the extreme right by simply being the opposite of those Western leaders they despise, such as Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak or Olaf Scholz. This is the right-wing version of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” - and it is a manifestation of the Western spirit of self-hatred.
There is only one enemy of their enemies who may be even closer to their hearts, and that is Donald Trump, along with his agitator Tucker Carlson.
No wonder they all get on so well with Putin. It is their disdain for free societies that unites them.
And it is that which makes them a danger to any democracy and freedom-loving person.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
Four days after Carlson’s conference appearance, Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny died in prison. Perhaps Putin wanted to prove Carlson right at least once.
Those of us who have followed global affairs over the past years should not be surprised by any of this. Navalny is just the latest victim of a regime that has killed many of its opponents. They include ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko (poisoned in 2004), journalist Anna Politkovskaya (shot in 2006) and rogue mercenary Yevgeny Prigozhin (plane crash in 2023).
Carlson’s affection for Russia and Putin, is no surprise, either. There is a growing group of Putin apologists among right-wing populists around the world. They have found an unlikely hero in the Russian dictator. Carlson was simply adding his voice to the global extreme right-wing choir.
Though this is not a huge surprise, it still requires an explanation. Who could stand by the man responsible for one of the bloodiest wars in decades? How could anyone be blind to the barbaric atrocities committed by Russian forces in places like Bucha? Which democrat could defend this autocrat’s assault on democracy, the media and the rule of law?
It may seem bizarre, but plenty of people like Carlson seem perfectly capable to do all that. They are happy to justify Putin’s crimes – or at least to overlook them. They blame others for what is happening in Ukraine. And maybe, deep down, they even admire Putin’s ability to have his way.
There are three easy explanations for Putin apologism – and a fourth more disturbing one. Let’s take them one by one.
The first reason to defend Putin is the most harmless but also the most naïve. While accepting Putin’s responsibility for the war and other tyrannous actions, some people would rather make deals with him than confront him head-on. They favour appeasing the dictator and negotiating with him. They may even hope to do business with Russia again, say to import cheap Russian oil and gas.
However, to reach that point, they must first downplay Putin’s brutality and evil. Even appease-niks have some pride, and no one would want to be accused of making deals with the devil or a modern-day Hitler. Chamberlain, of course, once tried, and it did not end well.
Although I consider the appeasement approach morally wrong and shortsighted in the extreme, I can understand why some people prefer to delude themselves in this way.
Another explanation is that some people may have simply been sucked into Russia’s propaganda. The Russian regime has spread falsehoods through many channels for decades, and some of them have taken hold.
For example, Russia’s claim that NATO gave it a guarantee that it would not accept new Eastern European members is demonstrably false. But that does not stop Moscow from propagating it ad nauseam. Meanwhile, they forget to mention that Moscow once guaranteed Ukraine’s security when the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons.
Similarly, Russia’s claim that NATO ‘encircled’ it with its expansion is often taken at face value. Yet looking at a world map reveals how difficult it would be to do that to a country spanning eleven time zones.
Even so, frequent repetition can make even outright falsehoods stick. With Russian propaganda about “Nazis” in the Ukrainian government, Ukraine’s allegedly dodgy dealings with the US, and Western weapons manufacturers’ interests, some people then find themselves caught up in this Russian-made conspiracy theory.
The third reason for the right’s Putin-mania is even more troubling. For some Putin supporters, far from denying his evil, the dictator’s traits are what they admire most.
They see Putin as the ultimate ‘decisive leader.’ Someone who does not care what the world thinks of him. Someone who prefers action over negotiation. If a few hundred thousand people get killed in the process, it only shows that Putin will not be stopped on his mission. Tucker Carlson’s ‘reporting’ from Moscow displayed this strongman fascination that blinds people to Putin’s crimes and evil.
These three justifications – a wish to deal with the regime, the effects of Russian propaganda, and the strongman cult – all play a role for those Putin sympathisers. They range from naïve to ugly.
However, there is a fourth justification that goes even further. That is the self-hatred of Western liberal democracy among parts of the extreme and populist right.
In Putin’s Russia, they see a country very different from their own. Putin likes to portray it as similar to the countries his admirers imagine theirs once to have been.
And so, it looks to them as if Putin’s Russia is a society in which LGBTIQ+ issues are not a concern. As if it was one in which traditional institutions like church and family are still cherished. As if it was a country in which law and order are maintained. In which men are still men – just like Vladimir Putin, who was once photographed riding shirtless on a horse.
This idea of Russia contrasts with Western countries’ left-wing leaders, environmental policies, and identity politics. Because the extreme right hates the state of their own countries so much, they embrace Putin as their countries’ nemesis.
As a result, Putin does not have to pretend to be anything he is not. Putin appeals to his fans on the extreme right by simply being the opposite of those Western leaders they despise, such as Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak or Olaf Scholz. This is the right-wing version of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” - and it is a manifestation of the Western spirit of self-hatred.
There is only one enemy of their enemies who may be even closer to their hearts, and that is Donald Trump, along with his agitator Tucker Carlson.
No wonder they all get on so well with Putin. It is their disdain for free societies that unites them.
And it is that which makes them a danger to any democracy and freedom-loving person.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
3 comments:
Interesting how reason one implies we need to front up to Putin. Yet we aren't at all. We feed weapons into Ukraine, at a profit to Oliver's business community and let the Ukrainians get slaughtered.
I will listen when he is promoting countries like Germany send in troops. Until then it is just a 'righteous' way of dealing with Putin. Pretending to care as long as there is no personal sacrifice.
Dr. Hartwich, I find your analyses of New Zealand domestic issues very insightful and carefully considered. Not so with this article I'm sorry to say. I think you overstate many points to the extent that you are guilty of creating strawmen to shoot down:
"Similarly, Russia’s claim that NATO ‘encircled’ it with its expansion is often taken at face value." Seriously??? By whom???
"For example, Russia’s claim that NATO gave it a guarantee that it would not accept new Eastern European members is demonstrably false." Are you saying that there is no record whatsoever of several American Presidents and diplomats giving assurances (not guarantees) to Russia that NATO had no intention of expanding eastward prior to doing precisely that?
"Even so, frequent repetition can make even outright falsehoods stick. With Russian propaganda about “Nazis” in the Ukrainian government, Ukraine’s allegedly dodgy dealings with the US, and Western weapons manufacturers’ interests, some people then find themselves caught up in this Russian-made conspiracy theory." Maybe not Nazis, but are you saying there are no ultra-nationalists in the Ukraine government? Ukraine has had no dodgy dealings with the US? There haven't been numerous reports of Zelensky cracking down on corruption involving US handouts? American officials such as Blinken haven't been making the case that the Ukraine war is benefiting US weapons manufacturers and by extension helping boost jobs and the economy?
I could go on, but I think these examples are suffice as the same style of argumentation is repeated throughout your article. I am disappointed to see such black/white thinking and not the usual nuance and tolerance for complexity that your writing usually exhibits.
I am no fan of Putin or Tucker Carlson. However, this is a highly complex situation. Russia has nuclear weapons and I see no reason to trust that Putin wouldn't use them if pushed. The war is going badly for Ukraine just now and it is hard to see how more money and weapons to Ukraine is going to change that. Am I crazy for looking for what possible off-ramps to this conflict might exist? And in doing so, am I a Putin apologist for trying my best to understand where he is coming from? Am I a west-hater because I question the current policy of simply doubling down on a strategy that is looking less and less likely to be effective by the day? Am I wrong to look forward to the day when this is all over and trading and dealing between the countries involved is getting back to normal?
"The first reason to defend Putin is the most harmless but also the most naïve. While accepting Putin’s responsibility for the war and other tyrannous actions, some people would rather make deals with him than confront him head-on. They favour appeasing the dictator and negotiating with him. They may even hope to do business with Russia again, say to import cheap Russian oil and gas.
However, to reach that point, they must first downplay Putin’s brutality and evil. Even appease-niks have some pride, and no one would want to be accused of making deals with the devil or a modern-day Hitler. Chamberlain, of course, once tried, and it did not end well."
I know that you are trying to explain Putin appeasement, but in doing so, you seem to be making some rather bold claims. First of all, instead of "appeasing" Putin, a better alternative is to "confront him head-on". Secondly, to "downplay Putin's brutality and evil" is an attempt to cover up his real identity which is "the devil or a modern-day Hitler". And by way of conclusion, World WarII is a good example of the benefits of confronting Hitler-types head on.
In other words, reading between the lines, you are advocating for World War III. Might I remind you, Russia has nuclear weapons. For the west and NATO to follow the heroic example of the Allies in WWII they would need to launch an invasion of Russia. If Hitler had the weaponry that Russia possesses, I doubt the outcome would have been anything like 1945.
You may have intended to discredit so-called Putin apologists, but in effect, by offering WWWIII as the better alternative, I think you have undermined your case so badly that it will have the opposite effect. If those are the choices I have, you've successfully talked me into teaming up with Tucker Carlson and his ilk. Congratulations.
Post a Comment