Dr. Muhammad AkramZaheer
Russian President Vladimir Putin undertook an unprecedented action last week when a two-hour press conference intended for the American public. It didn’t quite fit the conventional definition of a press conference, as Tucker Carlson, a talk show host perceived as sympathetic to Russia, was the sole reporter present. Nor was it strictly an interview, as Putin predominantly spoke without the benefit of questions. In a way, this format enhanced its value, allowing Putin to articulate his views in a manner that might not have been possible with questions framed from an American perspective.What emerged was a distinctly Russian perspective on the war in Ukraine, presenting Putin as a seemingly reasonable and thoughtful individual. While he made some dubious claims, it’s acknowledged that leaders often make such assertions, even those who project statesmanship. Putin’s conduct conveyed to the American public that his position is not entirely baseless. He emphasized his role as a Russian patriot working in the interest of his country, discouraging any comparison to figures like Stalin. Furthermore, he demonstrated extensive knowledge, surpassing that of most politicians. Though aided by pre-prepared questions, Putin gave the impression of a sophisticated thinker, showcasing Russia as governed by an adept leader.
However, due to the interview’s length and complexity, there’s a possibility that some of the American public might have tuned out early, missing parts of the conversation. The historical context, the intended American audience and the remarkably detailed description of Russia and its history seem to be setting the stage for negotiations. In defense of Russian attack, Putin accused the United States and NATO of dishonesty and duplicity in dealing with Russia, which he argued was simply pursuing its historical imperative. This wasn’t an ordinary program, nor was it a self-indulgent rambling; Putin’s emphasis on the failure of negotiations in Turkey at the war’s outset makes this clear.
Putin’s main presentation delved into Russian history, explaining its formation centuries ago and drawing comparisons with the formation of Eastern Europe. He argued that Ukraine had always been a part of Russia, both physically and linguistically. Though unstated, implicit in his argument was the notion that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia and the invasion represents a return to an older reality. Consequently, according to Putin, Russian actions in Ukraine constitute a special military operation rather than an act of war. He also touched on Poland, suggesting that Poland and Lithuania are renegades inseparable from Russia. The discussion on Russian history was lengthy but not merely academic. Putin’s argument was that history connects a place to its environment and inhabitants, giving Russia the right, in this case, to make claims on foreign territory. He subtly slipped in claims to the region that could be dismissed or overlooked, laying the foundation for Russian claims in Poland.Some of Putin’s statements were confusing. For instance, he claimed that the current Ukrainian government and its predecessors were Nazis and therefore enemies of Russia. He cited collaborators before concluding that Ukraine is a remnant of Nazi Germany and therefore hostile to Russia and other countries that fought against Hitler. This left me puzzled, as every German-occupied country had collaborators, from France to the Netherlands, etc. Some may have been ideologically aligned with Nazis, but all sought to survive or prosper. Putin has proven to be sophisticated, so he must understand what he says and likely depends on the world not taking his claims seriously.
Elsewhere, while expressing his willingness to negotiate, Putin mentioned that the United States was harming itself by using the dollar to force foreign powers to align with its worldview. He then made disconcerting comments, stating that China’s economy dwarfs that of the United States and that its economic future is bright. It’s as if the reality of China has been overlooked in the two years since Ukraine was attacked. He said this in the context of claiming that a new economic order is emerging and that for that to happen, China must lead it. It’s interesting that Putin’s deeply analytical remarks, even if some parts are debatable, concluded with obviously erroneous claims, likely due to fatigue.Another point that caught my attention was his comments about Russian intercontinental hypersonic missiles. The speed and maneuverability of hypersonics make defending against an attack very difficult. The United States has not yet deployed a hypersonic missile and there is no evidence that it is developing an intercontinental version. If Russian intercontinental hypersonic missile is as capable as Putin suggested, then that may have been the most significant aspect of his statement.The remainder of Putin’s comments comprised complaints about NATO and the United States and his insistence that the uprising in Kyiv in 2014 was the real start of the war. He did not explain how Russia could have ignored such a significant threat for so long. As the president of a modern nation-state, Putin is obligated to elucidate his policies to his people and seek to influence foreign governments and public opinions. The objective is not solely truthfulness, but rather persuasiveness, strategically applying pressure on other governments. It can be observed that Russia has embraced modernity, adeptly balancing the presentation of truth and myths, even allowing Carlson some opportunities for refutation. Putin perceived him as a friendly yet unpredictable figure, leading to a cautious approach with limited engagement.
