Vladimir Putin spent the first stretch of the interview with Carlson in Moscow delivering a relentless monologue. He challenged the interviewer, ignored interruptions, and steered the conversation toward historical revisionism about Russia and Ukraine. He traced the roots of the conflict back to the ninth century, framing it as a long narrative of founding myths. That opening set a tone that carried through the entire exchange, signaling a deliberate attempt to shape perception rather than merely respond to questions. The interview appeared on a platform associated with Carlson and on Elon Musk’s social network X, spreading across two prominent channels on the same day.
Putin continued to press the idea that the war could extend unless certain actions changed. He suggested that if the United States genuinely wished an end to hostilities, it should halt military support for Ukraine. In his view, a pause in weapons deliveries could lead to a rapid settlement and terms that would enable Moscow and Washington to negotiate. He asserted a readiness for dialogue, presenting a pathway to negotiation as a possible resolution.
Another central proposition involved returning to what Putin described as the Istanbul documents, a framework discussed shortly after the war began. He urged NATO allies to acknowledge Russian control over territories it currently occupies in Ukraine, redefining the security architecture of the region and challenging the existing postwar order.
more than two hours
The interview marked Putin’s first extended conversation with a Western journalist since the war began, though Carlson’s account noted that Western journalists had not pursued requests with the same persistence. The session extended beyond two hours, tightly managed by Putin as Carlson largely remained quiet and passive, often looking puzzled, and occasionally facing pointed questions. The format control allowed Putin to convey his preferred message without significant deviation, and the conversation appeared to target Carlson’s typical American conservative audience, a demographic known for skepticism toward broad media narratives and a suspicion of what some call a deep state. The exchange touched on American political dynamics, including proposals for more Ukrainian aid that faced political hurdles in the U.S. Senate.
Putin’s remarks echoed themes frequently voiced by Donald Trump and certain Republican figures, especially in questioning the United States role in the conflict. He asked whether the United States needed to engage in a distant conflict, highlighting policy debates on border and immigration issues and the national debt. He suggested a broader view of priorities and proposed that negotiation with Russia could yield an agreement, shifting responsibility away from Moscow alone and toward a more bilateral approach to the crisis.
In support of his actions in Ukraine, Putin invoked denazification as a justification and reiterated a long-standing critique of NATO’s eastward expansion. He accused the West of stoking fear about possible Russian moves near places like Poland, insisting that Russia would act only if its own security was directly threatened. The account emphasized that Moscow sought to distinguish its military moves from the concerns of neighboring states, positioning the discussion within a larger narrative about sovereignty and regional balance.
Gershkovich case
As the interview progressed, Carlson pressed on questions that touched on moral and legal lines, including the fate of Evan Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter detained in Russia on espionage charges. Carlson questioned the accusations, while Putin stood firm in portraying Gershkovich as an operative for U.S. intelligence. He suggested negotiations around a prisoner exchange as a possible route, signaling a willingness to consider a deal that would bring the journalist home in exchange for detainees held by Russia. Putin also alluded to other cases connected to Russian prisoners, mentioning a life sentence issued in Germany and linking it to broader tensions over justice and accountability in wartime actions.
The exchange touched on media freedom, with references to journalism as a duty and a reminder that reporters can become pawns in larger geopolitical games. The conversation hinted at the broader strategic calculus in Moscow, hinting at a willingness to see a negotiated settlement as part of a broader stabilization effort, even while criticizing Western reporting on the war. The interview did not shy away from controversy, but it remained anchored in a narrative that portrayed Russia as defending its interests against what it described as aggressive Western policies.