Two hours of a guy talking about a Viking prince named Rurik wasn’t exactly what most people expected. Honestly, when the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin dropped in early 2024, the internet basically broke for a second. Some people thought it was going to be the scoop of the century. Others were convinced it was just a massive propaganda stunt.
Whatever side you’re on, you can't deny it was weird.
📖 Related: Remembering the Annunciation School Shooting Victims: What Really Happened
For the first thirty minutes, Vladimir Putin didn’t even talk about the war in Ukraine or NATO. Instead, he handed Tucker Carlson a folder of documents and launched into a massive history lecture that started in the year 862. It was like being stuck in a PhD seminar you didn't sign up for. Tucker looked genuinely confused for a while, just blinking while Putin explained why he thinks Ukraine isn't really a real country.
The "History Lesson" No One Asked For
Most Westerners have a short memory. Putin knows this. He spent a huge chunk of time during the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin arguing that Russia and Ukraine are essentially one people because of Kievan Rus'.
He talked about 1654 and letters written by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. He blamed the Poles. He blamed the Austrians. He even suggested that Poland was the one that forced Hitler’s hand in 1939—a claim that had historians like Timothy Snyder and Sergey Radchenko pulling their hair out the next morning.
Basically, Putin’s logic is that if a piece of land belonged to you 400 years ago, it’s still yours. If we all lived by that rule, the world map would look like a Jackson Pollock painting.
What Actually Happened Behind the Scenes?
Getting into Moscow isn't exactly easy for a Western journalist these days. Tucker Carlson was the first to get a sit-down since the invasion started in 2022.
Critics like Christiane Amanpour were quick to point out that they’d been asking for interviews for years. The Kremlin admitted they picked Tucker because his stance was "different" and "pro-American" rather than the traditional "Anglo-Saxon" media perspective.
✨ Don't miss: Senator Joseph McCarthy Explained: What Most People Get Wrong
You’ve probably seen the clips of Tucker at the Russian grocery store or the subway station. He seemed blown away by the bread and the lack of graffiti. It was clear the Kremlin wanted to show off a "civilized" Russia to a Western audience that’s mostly seen headlines about sanctions and trench warfare.
Why did Putin agree to it?
He wasn't talking to you. Not really.
Putin was talking to a very specific slice of the American public—the ones skeptical of sending more billions to Ukraine. He kept saying things like, "Don't you have better things to do? You have a border crisis. You have a national debt."
It was a classic "mind your own business" pitch.
He even mentioned Elon Musk and brain chips. He talked about AI and genetic engineering, comparing the future of tech to the invention of gunpowder. It was a strange mix of 9th-century grievances and 21st-century sci-fi.
The Nord Stream and the CIA
One of the tensest moments came when Tucker asked who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
Putin’s response? "You, for sure."
Tucker laughed and said he was busy that day, but Putin wasn't joking. He flat-out blamed the CIA. When asked for evidence, he basically said, "Look at who benefits and who has the capability." He didn't provide a smoking gun, but he didn't have to. He was planting seeds of doubt.
What Most People Get Wrong
People think this interview changed the war. It didn't.
But it did show us how Putin thinks. He’s not a modern politician; he’s a man obsessed with a specific version of history. He told Tucker that the war could be over "within a few weeks" if the U.S. just stopped sending weapons.
💡 You might also like: What Really Happened During the First Intifada: A History of the Stone Uprising
It’s a simple argument that ignores a lot of context, but it's one that resonates with a lot of people tired of foreign entanglements.
The fallout you might have missed
- Evan Gershkovich: Putin actually hinted at a deal for the jailed Wall Street Journal reporter. He mentioned a "person" (widely believed to be assassin Vadim Krasikov) held in a U.S.-allied country.
- The "Useful Idiot" Label: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't hold back, calling Tucker exactly that.
- The Follow-up: A few days later, Putin actually mocked Tucker, saying he expected the questions to be "sharper" and that he didn't get much "pleasure" from the interview because Tucker was too soft.
Actionable Takeaways From the Interview
If you're trying to make sense of the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin a year or two later, here is what you should actually do to stay informed:
1. Fact-check the history. Don't take Putin's 30-minute monologue as gospel. Look up the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement. You’ll find that "unity" was often a lot more complicated (and violent) than he portrayed it.
2. Watch the body language. There are parts where Tucker tries to interrupt and Putin just shuts him down with a look. It tells you everything you need to know about the power dynamic in that room.
3. Understand the "Active Measures" strategy. This wasn't just a Q&A. It was a strategic communication move designed to influence the U.S. election and the debate over military aid.
4. Compare it to other Russian media. If you want to see the real "Boss," as RT's Margarita Simonyan calls him, look at how he talks to his own people versus how he talked to Tucker. The tone is completely different.
The interview remains a landmark moment in modern media because it bypassed every traditional gatekeeper. Whether it was "real journalism" or "state-sanctioned PR" is still being debated in coffee shops and newsrooms everywhere. But one thing is for sure: we’re still talking about it.
To get the full picture, you really have to look at the primary sources—read the transcript of the 1654 letters he mentioned and then read the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. The truth usually sits somewhere in the messy middle of those documents.