Kremlin insiders explain key takeaways from Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin

On February 8, American political commentator Tucker Carlson released his two-hour-long interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Carlson’s visit put pro-Kremlin media outlets into a frenzy, with some referring to him as a “cornerstone of modern American journalism” who enjoys “unequivocal support from the overwhelming majority of Republicans.” But what did those actually in the Russian administration have to say about the interview? Meduza special correspondent Andrey Pertsev gives us an inside look.

According to Meduza’s sources in the Putin administration’s political bloc, Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president wasn’t intended for a domestic audience since its “main points are difficult to use for the election campaign.” The sources with whom Meduza spoke also noted that they didn’t have anything to do with Carlson’s invitation, weren’t involved in preparing Putin for the interview, and could only express their personal opinions.

The interview saw Putin deliver another long-winded lecture about the history of Russia and Ukraine, repeating his long-standing thesis that Vladimir Lenin created “Ukraine as a state.” At the end of the interview, the Russian president suggested that he would exchange U.S. citizen and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, whom the Russian authorities arrested and accused of espionage, for “a person who eliminated a bandit for patriotic reasons.” It’s likely that Putin was referring to the ex-FSB officer Vadim Krasikov, who killed the former Chechen field commander Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Germany, where he is currently serving a life sentence.

“The interview doesn’t really suit the internal narrative [of the election campaign]. It’s hard to communicate: There are pretty much no new twists and turns. It’s all discussed at campaign events and has already been discussed many times,” said a source close to the Putin administration’s political team whose work focuses on interactions with online publications.

According to the source, the only way the interview could be useful is by leveraging the way the West reacted to it. “Everyone’s hysterical there [in the West]. Biden urgently gathered journalists. Approval from Trump or Musk could also mean millions of views,” said the source, who said the Kremlin’s political team hoped Russians would see the interview’s popularity abroad, believe that Putin “still sets the agenda,” and conclude, “Look how much he impacted everyone with just one interview!”

Both this source close to the presidential administration and a political strategist working with the Kremlin on the election were shocked by the “essentially pro-Western” tone of the conversation. “The message was clear: I want to speak with the West. Was an [agreement reached to have an interview] with Carlson? I’ll also speak with Trump and with Biden. But it’s better [to do it] with America than with Europe, since they’re under U.S. influence [anyway],” the political strategist told Meduza.

A different source close to the Putin administration pointed out another key theme emphasized in the interview: “We wanted to be with you, now we’re with China, but that’s only because the U.S. leadership pushed us into it.” The average American must think, “Oh, what has our leadership done!” the source commented ironically.

Both sources said they don’t know why Carlson didn’t ask Putin any tough questions. “Most likely, there was no such goal… Besides, Carlson’s audience isn’t expecting [him] to expose Putin, quite the opposite,” one individual told Meduza.

A source close to the leadership of the ruling United Russia party said he considers Carlson a “top-tier journalist.” “Within the first few hours [of the release], tens of millions of people watched the interview — it doesn’t matter what the questions were,” he added.

But not everyone took the time. Two political strategists who work for the Kremlin and different regional authorities said they have no plans to watch it. One told Meduza that he saw the news headlines and “didn’t get anything new.” The other said he hadn’t taken the interview seriously from the very beginning. “Of course, one can think and speak pompously about sending signals to the Republicans, Trump, the audience in the U.S., and the [American] elites,” he said. “But there are established channels in security structures for this. Clowns can be used to send signals to the dressing room or to the caterers.”

Story by Andrey Pertsev