 |
|
| Anatol Țăranu | |
Vladimir Putin’s recently broadcast interview with Tucker Carlson, a well-known American journalist with conservative views who is close to Donald Trump, has literally upended the international information space. Carlson was accused in the West of providing an information platform to the political figure who triggered a catastrophic war in the very center of Europe, as well as a comfortable platform to state his position without risking serious criticism. While in Russia, contrarywise, there was real euphoria in the mainstream media, Carlson being described as the most remarkable and independent American journalist who came to reveal to the world the historical truth directly from the Kremlin.
History used for propaganda purposes
All media admonitions that Putin used Carlson as a puppet to solve his propaganda tasks can be justified even after a superficial analysis of the content of the interview. The leader in Moscow started the presentation of his position with a long and sometimes boring historical and, it must be said, very controversial lecture, often bordering on the use of historical falsehoods. At one point, bewildered by Putin’s escapades in the history of Ukraine, Carlson, with a rare dose of sarcasm, asked the interviewee whether Ukraine should be returned to its 1654 borders? But Putin casually ignored the question and took the conversation, unrelated to context, from the Middle Ages directly to Stalin’s time. And this way of using historical data reveals Putin’s true belief that goddess Clio, the muse of history in Greek mythology, can be used as an escort by the Kremlin propaganda. At least, this conclusion shines through Putin’s historical narratives.
Strategically, Putin uses history to substantiate an old obsession of his about the intention of the West that supposedly sleeps and dreams of destroying Russia and devastating its natural riches. In the end, this phobia of the Russian leader led to the situation in which Russian politics finally slipped into a civilizational and ideological confrontation with the West, and the Anglo-Saxons led by the US are the embodiment of evil for the current Kremlin. In this sense, the interview exercise is used by Putin as an attempt to have a dialogue, but this time not with the American political mainstream, but with conservative America, personified by Trump, Elon Musk, Carlson, etc. In his perception, this part of America seems to be ideologically closer to current Moscow, which is potentially capable of a conversation about the delimitation of spheres of influence according to the principle “do not bother us and we will not bother you”.
Putin recognizes annexation of Bessarabia
In his historical excursions, Putin again returned to the old thesis about the artificiality of the Ukrainian state, composed of pieces of other states that were broken in the past by the Russian tsar and the Soviets and “donated” by Stalin to Ukraine. Poland, Hungary and Romania were also mentioned, being urged to reclaim from Ukraine the territories that belonged to them in the past. For Putin, engaging these states in the territorial review of the area would be a godsend, an international justification for the aggressive war against Ukraine. By assuming this strategic objective, Putin volens nolens indirectly recognizes the falsity of the Russian imperialist thesis about Bessarabia’s affiliation to the so-called Russian world, because this Romanian province was kidnapped from Romania by the Soviets in the same political and international context as Northern Bukovina and Hertsa were, the last two territories belonging today to Ukraine. If Romania, in Putin’s viewpoint, is entitled to claim the territory of Northern Bukovina and Hertsa as Romanian land, then this right can definitely expand to also cover Bessarabia, which is also Romanian land in the formal logic of the Russian leader.
In the “unhistorical” part of the interview, Putin tried, tactically, to solve a set of more mundane, but not less important political problems. The first and main objective was to try and indicate to the West and, above all, to the current American leadership the intention to obtain Ukraine’s surrender at any cost. Putin spoke directly about banning so-called neo-Nazi movements, which entails a radical revision of the constitutional framework and the reformation of the political system in such a way as to exclude the emergence of carriers of Ukrainian “nationalism” – that is the formation of a regime that is friendly to Russia. However, this does not simply mean “installing” a loyal president in Kiev as a long-term consequence of capitulation, but creating institutional conditions under which a pro-Western leader simply cannot emerge in Ukraine. Putin announced his earlier ultimatum to the West to renounce all aid to Ukraine as a sine qua non for stopping hostilities.
The target - society and political elite in the U.S.
Putin’s interview makes it clear that he perceives 2024 as a window of opportunity, when Russia has a better chance of turning the situation with the war in Ukraine in its favor. They are counting on major problems with significant Western arms deliveries (ammunition production will seriously increase only at the beginning of 2025). The Americans are busy with elections and geopolitically their strategy will be much less deterministic in terms of supporting Kiev. The EU is divided by internal problems and Ukraine itself risks facing serious internal political problems amid the resignation of Valery Zaluzhnyi.
Putin hopes to provoke a more heated debate in American society and political elite about the appropriateness of additional aid for Kiev by reducing the base of support for the current administration in Washington, forcing it to reconsider its current political line in relation to the war in Ukraine. His message was worded very directly: “Isn’t it better to reach a deal with Russia? It should be understood that Russia will fight for its interests to the end. It is much smarter and more rational for the West to reach an agreement to divide the spheres of influence with Russia.”
Negotiations without negotiations
To achieve this goal, Putin insistently convinces public opinion that Russia is ready to sit down at the negotiating table today, even with Zelensky himself, but the Ukrainians must accept this. However, even if Zelensky cancels his decree banning negotiations with Putin, Moscow sees the resumption of negotiations not with the aim of finding a compromise, but only as a prelude to ending Ukrainian military resistance, which, according to Putin, is the key to pacifying Ukraine. And this means that despite the Russian leader’s statements about the readiness to start peace talks in Ukraine, the likelihood of cessation of military hostilities this year is minimal.
So, all these details of Putin’s position are important to follow in order to understand the logic of the Russian political authorities, which obviously anticipate more favorable geopolitical circumstances capable of contributing to changing the dynamics of the war in favor of the Kremlin, and the interview is intended to contribute to achieving this goal. For the Republic of Moldova, the main conclusion of the interview is that the war in Ukraine will imminently continue with all the risks of dramatic changes on the front in Moldova’s disinterest.
Republic of Moldova’s perspective in gloomy colors
No less problematic are the prospects of Ukraine’s pacification, the negotiated conditions of the future peace treaty, the place of the Republic of Moldova in the future peace arrangement. For now, Putin’s view on the prospects of Ukraine’s pacification induces gloomy colors for the Republic of Moldova’s development prospects, transforming Chisinau’s hopes for settling the Transnistrian conflict in optimistic temporal terms, lacking a realistic vision.
In his interview, Putin involuntarily formulated a conclusion with content of strategic orientation for the Republic of Moldova as regards the achieving of guaranteed security. Asked directly about Moscow’s plans to militarily attack NATO states such as Poland or Latvia, Putin categorically denied this probability, hinting that a war with NATO would be suicidal for Russia. We will yet see whether the Moldovan citizens and political class are able to intelligently decipher the messages and solutions invoked by the major geopolitical players of the time by drawing correct conclusions to ensure the rapid and sustainable security of the long-suffering people living in Romanian Moldova eastward the Prut.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.