I haven't finished the Tucker Carlson - Vladimir Putin interview yet. It's long and I'm half way through. But I'm leaning towards the view that in terms of winning over Americans to a Russian viewpoint, Putin blew it. And it was a chance he will likely never get again.
The interview was such a mismatch of cultures. Or maybe it's specific to Putin. I believe I could see and understand his mindset as he talked. And he was plainly aware that what he was delivering was not conforming to Western interview standards. He said so himself at several points. I can also understand why he would do that - he seems to think and is probably not wrong that the typical American TV interview style isn't actually that conducive to understanding. A lot of the time it is more entertainment than informative. However, it is what American audiences are used to. And I think it will leave many viewers scratching their heads and those who were not already predisposed to Russia's viewpoint probably regarding it as evasive and not to the point. Repeatedly Tucker Carlson put direct questions to Putin and got back very wide ranging info dumps. Which were all very good for giving people a full picture of everything but quite bad for rebutting an accusation.
Western audience expect: Challenge -> Defence / Counter.
Putin turned this into Challenge -> Facts from which viewer is expected to assemble understanding.
As I said, I can see why someone would want to reject the typical Western interview format and simply explain a point of view thoroughly. I can see the advantages of that. But one thing I've learned from my own public experiences - preformative or business - people don't like it when they don't get what they're expecting. You can see that often with films where it a movie can be excellent but if people were expecting something else, they don't like it because it's "not that funny" or "too slow" or "juvenille" or whatever. And Tucker Carlson had that issue with it too so much so that he prefaced the interview with "I initially thought he was being evasive, that he was filibustering. But I eventually realised this is what he really believes".
There were so many times when Putin could have given a direct and to the point answer that would have worked well with American audiences. When Tucker says "why does Russia view itself as threatened by the USA?" Putin could have responded very simply with facts like "Victoria Nuland has said openly she wants to see Russia broken up" or "if Ukraine joins NATO then that enables the USA to station nuclear missiles six minutes from Moscow. America did not like that with the Cuban missile crisis and they're even more effective now!" Anything like that would have American audiences - or at least a section of them - nodding along and saying 'okay, I can see that'. Instead of going cross-eyed listening to a history of the region. Whereas Putin seems to be thinking: "We have to correct this problem at source, not just treat symptoms - the American people need to understand us". Like I say, not wrong, but mismatch.
It was also interesting to see the values that were held as critical by Russians or again, maybe this is just Putin. Specifically I am thinking the need to seem unemotional and non-confrontational. By twenty minutes in I was already getting a feel for how Putin wanted to present things and the moment Tucker used the term "bitter" about something I knew that Putin's first words would be to dispute that. It was obvious that in Russian public discussion it is very critical to appear dispassionate and not driven by emotions. Or that is how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong. Also that one must always appear reasonable and open to negotiation. A recurrent theme in what I have seen so far is Putin emphasising his attempts to seek consensus and cooperation. I feel on some level American audiences would have responded better to a Putin that was more confrontational. Americans would understand "Western Ukranians bombed Russian people in Donetsk and we are angry about it" better than they might Putin's "we would like to work with you." But maybe I do American audience's a disservice. Maybe a complex meal with lots of vegetables will be more nourishing than seeing the requested cheeseburger arrive. But I think a lot of people were expecting their cheeseburger.
I shouldn't and wont criticise Putin's responses too much. For a start, I haven't finished it yet and for another I actually learned a surprising amount. For example that the Soviet Union actively encouraged and fostered ethnic identities. I wouldn't have learned much from Putin just giving simple Russian answers as to why the US is a threat which I already know. I also got a laugh out of Putin handing Tucker documents proving Russian history. But Russians apparently care about history and documents. Americans on the whole do not. So I'm not sure I will get what I hope for from this interview which was Americans becoming more familiar with many of the things we in this thread know and understand.
Still, I will hope it helps.
