The Biden administration and the US corporate media alike have whipped themselves up into an irrational frenzy over the interview that Russian President Vladimir Putin gave to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has claimed. Earlier, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that professional jealousy had driven the hostile reaction from some of the reporter’s colleagues in the press.
The Former Fox News host became the first American media professional to interview the Russian head of state one-on-one since the Ukraine conflict flared up almost two years ago. The two-hour-long interview, which mostly centered on relations between Moscow and Kiev, garnered more than 46 million views on Carlson’s X account (formerly Twitter) and just under a million views on YouTube in the first hours since its release on Friday.
In a previous post on X earlier this week, Carlson accused Western media outlets of lying to “their readers and viewers” by promoting Kiev’s stance while ignoring Russia’s.
“That’s wrong. Americans have the right to know all they can about a war they are implicated in,” he said.
Speaking to Russia’s Izvestia newspaper on Friday, Zakharova said: “This is phenomenal. Their reaction reveals the mendacity of their approaches so much that, frankly speaking, you can’t believe it.”
According to the spokeswoman, “they’ve had a hysterical fit – the White House, the Department of State, all the mainstream media are shouting at the top of their lungs one thing only: don’t watch [President Putin’s interview], and that an American journalist shouldn’t conduct the interview.”
She added that such behavior takes the wind out of Washington’s sails in its attempts to present itself as a beacon of morality, human rights, democracy and freedom of speech.
During a press briefing on Friday, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov noted that the “high interest [in President Putin’s interview] is unquestionable.” He went on to predict that after the dust has settled, “there will be a deep analysis of this interview” in the West.
Speaking during a press briefing on Thursday ahead of the interview’s release, Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council John Kirby urged his compatriots not to “take at face value anything [President Putin] has to say.”
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the conservative reporter as a “useful idiot.” Other public figures have gone so far as to even call on the US government to bar Carlson from returning to the country.
Palestinians inspect a car hit by an Israeli strike, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, February 10, 2024. (Reuters)
Saudi Arabia has warned of “extremely dangerous repercussions” if Israel launched an offensive towards the southern city of Rafah, in the Gaza Strip, where thousands of Palestinians have sought refuge from the Israel-Hamas war.
The Kingdom’s foreign ministry in a statement Saturday said that “Rafah represents the last refuge for hundreds of thousands of civilians who the brutal Israeli aggression have forced to flee.”
The kingdom said “it stresses it is complete refusal and strong condemnation of the forcible displacement [of Palestinians] and renews calls for an immediate ceasefire.
“The deliberate violations to international and humanitarian laws stresses the need for the United Nations Security Council to meet soon to prevent Israel from causing an imminent humanitarian disaster.”
The UN says about half of Gaza’s 2.4 million people are now sheltering in the city, with many sleeping outside in tents and makeshift shelters, and mounting concern about lack of food, water and sanitation.
On Friday, the head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), Philippe Lazzarini, said a major Israeli offensive in Rafah “can only lead to an additional layer of endless tragedy.”
Netanyahu has ordered military officials to draw up plans for “evacuating” Rafah alongside “destroying” Hamas fighters in the city.
Witnesses reported new strikes on Rafah early Saturday, raising fears among Palestinians of a looming ground invasion.
Hamas said in a statement that any military action would have catastrophic repercussion that “may lead to tens of thousands of martyrs and injured if Rafah... is invaded.”
Israeli strikes on Gaza’s Rafah escalate fears of ground operation
Israeli air strikes killed 17 people in Gaza's Rafah overnight, medics said on Saturday, as over a million Palestinians cramming into the border city await a full-blown offensive with the rest of their enclave in ruins and nowhere left to run.
Unlike in previous Israeli assaults on cities during the war, when the military ordered civilians to flee south, no other relatively unscathed area remains in tiny Gaza and aid agencies have warned that large numbers of civilians could die.
"Any Israeli incursion in Rafah means massacres, means destruction. People are filling every inch of the city and we have nowhere to go," said Rezik Salah, 35, who fled his Gaza City home with his wife and two children for Rafah early in the war.
Witnesses reported new strikes on Rafah early Saturday, after the Israeli military intensified air raids, with fears rising among Palestinians of a coming ground invasion.
“We don’t know where to go,” said Mohammad Al-Jarrah, a Palestinian who was displaced from further north to Rafah.
Hamas on Saturday warned in a statement that any military action would have catastrophic repercussion that “may lead to tens of thousands of martyrs and injured if Rafah... is invaded”.
The Palestinian militant group that controls the Gaza Strip said it would hold "the American administration, international community and the Israeli occupation" responsible if that happened.
The city is the last major population center in the Gaza Strip that Israeli troops have yet to enter and also the main point of entry for desperately needed relief supplies.
Netanyahu told military officials on Friday to “submit to the cabinet a combined plan for evacuating the population and destroying the battalions” of Hamas militants holed up in Rafah, his office said.
The US State Department said it does not support a ground offensive in Rafah, warning that, if not properly planned, such an operation risks “disaster.”
The United States is Israel’s main international backer, providing it with billions of dollars in military aid.
But in a sign of growing frustration, US President Joe Biden issued his strongest criticism of Israel yet, describing the retaliation for Hamas’s October 7 attack as going too far.
“I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza, in the Gaza Strip, has been over the top,” the US president said.
“There are a lot of innocent people who are starving... in trouble and dying, and it’s got to stop.”
Displaced Palestinians have flooded into Rafah, where hundreds of thousands are sleeping in tents pushed up against the Egyptian border.
AFP images showed scenes of devastation, with people queuing for increasingly scarce water.
Rights groups have sounded alarm at the prospect of a ground incursion.
“Israel’s declared ground offensive on Rafah would be catastrophic and must not proceed,” Doctors Without Borders said in a statement. “There is no place that is safe in Gaza and no way for people to leave.”
The Hamas-run territory’s health ministry on Saturday said that at least 110 people were killed in overnight bombardment, including 25 in strikes in Rafah.
The previous day, the Palestinian Red Crescent said that three children were killed in a strike in Rafah.
“We heard the sound of a huge explosion next to our house... we found two children martyred in the street,” said Jaber Al-Bardini, 60.
“There is no safe place in Rafah. If they storm Rafah, we will die in our homes.”
Israeli forces raided Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza’s biggest city, on Friday after a weeks-long siege during which the Palestinian Red Crescent has reported “intense artillery shelling and heavy gunfire.”
The medical organization said Israeli forces had arrested eight of its team members at the hospital, including “four doctors, as well as four wounded individuals and five patients’ companions.”
UN chief Antonio Guterres has said any Israeli push into Rafah “would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare.”
But Netanyahu’s office said it would be “impossible” to achieve the war’s objective of eliminating Hamas while leaving four of the militants’ battalions in Rafah.
Hamas’s unprecedented October 7 attack resulted in the deaths of about 1,160 people in Israel, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.
In response, Israel vowed to eradicate Hamas and launched air strikes and a ground offensive that have killed at least 27,947 people, mostly women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
Militants seized 250 hostages, 132 of whom are still in Gaza, but 29 are presumed dead, Israel has said.
State Department deputy spokesman Vedant Patel said an Israeli ground operation in Rafah was “not something we’d support.”
“To conduct such an operation right now with no planning and little thought... would be a disaster,” Patel warned.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had conveyed Washington’s concerns to Netanyahu directly during talks this week in Jerusalem, he added.
On the ceasefire talks, Blinken said he still saw “space for agreement to be reached” to halt the fighting and bring home Israeli hostages, even after Netanyahu rejected what he labelled Hamas’s “bizarre demands.”
Hamas negotiators left Cairo on Friday after what a Hamas source described as “positive and good discussions” with Egyptian and Qatari mediators.
“The delegation left Cairo tonight (Friday) and is awaiting Israel’s response,” a Hamas official said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak on the issue.
The impact of the war has been felt widely, with violence involving Iran-backed allies of Hamas surging across the Middle East and drawing in US forces among others.
Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah said Friday it had fired dozens of rockets at an army position in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, hours after launching a salvo at northern Israel.
In the early hours of Saturday, Israeli strikes targeted the outskirts of the Syrian capital Damascus, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the official Syrian press agency, which reported “material” damage.
Due to the ongoing war and risk of wider consequences, the US ratings agency Moody’s downgraded Israel’s credit rating on Friday, and also lowered its outlook for Israel’s debt to “negative” due to “the risk of an escalation” with Hezbollah.
Israel’s former finance minister turned opposition MP Avigdor Lieberman attributed the downgrading to the Netanyahu government’s “populist” measures.
“The government of destruction continues to degenerate us into an economic disaster just as it brought us into a security disaster,” he wrote on social media platform X.
On February 9, American journalist Tucker Carlson released his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Sputnik media brings you the full interview of the Russian president Vladimir Putin to American journalist Tucker Carlson.
On February 22, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country”. And to American ears that sounds paranoid.
Tucker Carlson: Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?
Vladimir Putin: It's not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia, I didn't say so. Are we having a talk show or serious conversation?
Tucker Carlson: That was a good quote. Thank you, it’s formidably serious!
Vladimir Putin: You were initially trained in history, as far as I know?
Carlson: Yes.
Vladimir Putin: So if you don’t mind I will take only 30 seconds or one minute of your time for giving you a little historical background.
Tucker Carlson: Please.
Vladimir Putin: Let’s look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where does Ukraine come from?
The Russian state started to exist as a centralized state in 862. This is considered to be the year of creation of the Russian state because this year the townspeople of Novgorod (a city in the North-West of the country) invited Rurik, a Varangian prince from Scandinavia, to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000th anniversary of its statehood, and in Novgorod there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the country.
In 882, Rurik's successor Prince Oleg, who was, actually, playing the role of regent at Rurik's young son because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted two brothers who, apparently, had once been members of Rurik's squad. So, Russia began to develop with two centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod.
The next, very significant date in the history of Russia, was 988. This was the Baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of a single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language and, after the Baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince. The centralized Russian state began to take shape.
Back in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to the throne, but after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it, the same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely, Batu Khan, came to Rus, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the Horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its centre in Moscow.
The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another ”magnet“ – the centre that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian-Russian Duchy, because Russians were a significant part of its population. They spoke the Old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere. Some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Thus, these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.
During decades, the Poles were engaged in the ”Polonization“ of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were “Ukrainians”. Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.
So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned here, including to Kiev…
Tucker Carlson: I beg your pardon, can you tell us what period… I am losing track of where in history we are?
Vladimir Putin: It was in the 13th century.
Now I will tell what happened later and give the dates so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands, addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding their rights be observed that they send to them rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away.
So that you don't think that I am inventing things… I'll give you these documents…
Tucker Carlson: It doesn’t sound like you are inventing it, but I am not sure why it’s relevant to what’s happened two years ago.
Vladimir Putin: But still, these are documents from the archives, copies. Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.
Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Pan-Russian Assembly of top Clergy and Landowners headed by the Tsar (Zemsky Sobor), which was the representative body of power of the Old Russian state, decided to include a part of the Old Russian lands into the Moscow Kingdom.
As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then in 1654, a truce was concluded. And 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland, which they called ”eternal peace,“ was signed. And these lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, went to Russia, and the whole right bank of the Dnieper remained in Poland.
Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution. Before World War I, Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War I they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favourable conditions in the border area. So the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian General Staff.
As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917 Revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the Civil War began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed, and under that treaty, the right bank of the Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland.
In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler — it did collaborate with Hitler, you know —Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship and alliance (we have all the relevant documents in the archives), demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War I this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused. Still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.
Tucker Carlson: May I ask… You are making the case that Ukraine, certain parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, in fact, has been Russia for hundreds of years, why wouldn’t you just take it when you became President 24 years ago? Your have nuclear weapons, they don’t. It’s actually your land. Why did you wait so long?
Vladimir Putin: I’ll tell you. I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.
Tucker Carlson: It’s not boring.
Vladimir Putin: Good. Good. I am so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you.
So before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.
By the way, the USSR — I have read some archive documents — behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.
After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally being German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland). Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic sea, and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed.
In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.
Tucker Carlson: Right.
Vladimir Putin: Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.
Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to the Russian Empire, that territory was the size of three to four regions of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.
Tucker Carlson: In 1654?
Vladimir Putin: Exactly.
Tucker Carlson: You have, I see, encyclopedic knowledge of this region. But why didn’t you make this case for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?
Vladimir Putin: The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.
After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (today known as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.
Tucker Carlson: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take back its land from Ukraine? And that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?
Vladimir Putin: I am not sure whether they should go back to the 1654 borders, but given Stalin’s time, so-called Stalin’s regime — which as many claim saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states – one may say that they could claim back those lands of theirs, while having no right to do that, it is at least understandable…
Tucker Carlson: Have you told Viktor Orbán that he can have a part of Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin: Never. I have never told him. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to get back to their historical land.
Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you, I'll digress, it's a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80's, I went on a road trip on a car from then-Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoye, and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in a language I didn't understand – in Hungarian . In Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian – in Russian and in Hungarian.
I was driving through some kind of a village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, ”Are they some kind of entertainers?“ I was told, ”No, they're not entertainers. They're Hungarians. ‘I said, ‘What are they doing here?’ — ‘What do you mean? This is their land, they live here.’ This was during the Soviet time, in the 1980’s. They preserve the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement….
Tucker Carlson: And there’s a lot of that though, I think. Many nations feel upset about — there are Transylvanians as well as you, others, you know — but many nations feel frustrated by their re-drawn borders after the wars of the 20th century, and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mention, but the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain a great length that you thought a physical threat from the West and NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?
Vladimir Putin: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: ”Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?“ You said — a serious talk. So bear with me please.
We are coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was ”dragged away“ by the latter.
I'm coming to a very important point of today's agenda. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.
First, I think that the then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were: in fact, a common language — more than 90 percent of the population there spoke Russian; family ties — every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties; common culture; common history; finally, common faith; co-existence within a single state for centuries; and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relations inevitable.
The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so-called (now in scare quotes) ”civilized West“ as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.
There were smart people, including in Germany. Egon Bahr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should also be established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said: if NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once (we have a record of this conversation in our archives): ”If, he said, you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow once again.“ He was frustrated with the Soviet leadership. He was right, everything happened just as he had said.
Tucker Carlson: Well, of course, it did come true, and you’ve mentioned it many times. I think, it’s a fair point. And many in America thought that relations between Russia and United States would be fine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, at the core. But the opposite happened. But have never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China that the West doesn’t seem to be very afraid of. What about Russia, what do you think convinced the policymakers to take it down?
Vladimir Putin: The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds — over five percent a year, it used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismark once put it, potentials are most important. China's potential is enormous — it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip.
Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of ”civilized nations,“ nothing like this happened. You tricked us (I don't mean you personally when I say ”you“, of course, I'm talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: ”Please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate.“ Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let's look at Yeltsin's times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: ”God bless America“. Everything he said were signals — let us in.
Remember the developments in Yugoslavia, before that Yeltsin was lavished with praise, as soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there, I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture and so on. It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the UN Charter it started bombing Belgrade.
It was the United States that let the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything was outdated, everything had to be changed.
Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed, it's true, but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.
Well, I became President in 2000. I thought: okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I've said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him, ” Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?“ Suddenly he said: ”You know, it's interesting, I think so.“ But in the evening, when we had dinner, he said, ”You know, I've talked to my team, no-no, it's not possible now.“ You can ask him, I think he will watch our interview, he'll confirm it. I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened. Okay, well, it's impossible now.
Tucker Carlson: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?
Vladimir Putin: Look, I asked the question, ”Is it possible or not?“ And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership's position was…
Tucker Carlson: But if he would say yes, would you have joined NATO?
Vladimir Putin: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the side of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no, okay, fine.
Tucker Carlson: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you’re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?
Vladimir Putin: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay, fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States – I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.
I will give you another example now, concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now, I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it's being discussed, I’m not going to open a secret to you, say anything new. Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner.
I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But they continued to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus.
I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the United States. He says, ”It’s impossible! Do you have proof?“ I said, ”Yes.“ I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it and, you know what he said? I apologise, but that's what happened, I'll quote. He says, ”Well, I’m gonna kick their ass“. We waited and waited for some response – there was no reply.
I said to the FSB Director: ”Write to the CIA. What is the result of the conversation with the President?“ He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied: ”We have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.“ Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realised that it was out of the question.
Tucker Carlson: Forces in opposition to you? Do you think the CIA is trying to overthrow your government?
Vladimir Putin: Of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That's who they called the opposition. This is the second point.
.
The third moment, a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense (ABM) system was created. The beginning. We persuaded for a long time not to do it in the United States. Moreover, after I was invited by Bush Jr.'s father, Bush Sr. to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I proposed that the United States, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that, we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security, despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together – Russia, the United States, and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, ”Are you serious?“ I said, “Absolutely”.
Tucker Carlson: May I ask what year was this?
Vladimir Putin: I don't remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet, when I was in the USA at the invitation of Bush Sr. It is even easier to learn from someone, I’m going to tell you about.
I was told it was very interesting. I said, ”Just imagine if we could tackle such a global, strategic security challenge together. The world would change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.“ He says, ”Yes.“ And asks: ”Are you serious?“. I said, ”Of course.“ ”We need to think about it,“ I'm told. I said, ”Go ahead, please.“
Mohammed Abdulsalam, above, the chief negotiator and spokesperson of the Houthis, has called Saudi Arabia officials his ‘brothers’. (AFP file photo)
Mohammed Abdulsalam, chief negotiator and spokesperson of the Houthis, says that the recent meeting of the Sanaa delegation with Saudi Arabia officials has “resulted in overcoming the most important obstacles facing the roadmap” to peace.
These solutions were in line with those championed by the UN envoy to Yemen, Hans Grundberg, said Abdulsalam in a wide-ranging interview with Asharq Al-Awsat on Thursday.
Abdulsalam had previously called Saudi Arabia officials his “brothers” in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat in January. He did so again on Thursday, and answered questions about peace initiatives, attacks in the Red Sea and regional and international relations.
Abdulsalam said the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea would only stop if Tel Aviv ended their assault on the Palestinian people.
Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Yemen Mohammed Al-Jaber shakes hands with the political leader of the Houthis, Mahdi Al-Mashat in Sanaa. (X: @mohdsalj)
Abdulsalam believes that efforts at finding peace in Yemen “is going well, both since the start of the UN truce in April 2022, corresponding to the month of Ramadan at that time, and also through discussions with the Saudi side under Omani sponsorship, which are going well so far.”
Asked about the extent of the Houthis’ willingness to begin political negotiations that include power sharing, elections, and a new constitution, Abdulsalam said “the roadmap included everyone’s concerns, and highlighted the urgent humanitarian situation that the Yemeni people are suffering from.”
In a previous statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, Abdulsalam said that the Houthis’ Red Sea operations would not impact the peace initiatives. He said it was “necessary to respond to the urgent situation in Palestine, which represents a risk for regional, Arab and Islamic security
Prince Khalid bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi Minister of Defense, meets with a delegation from Sanaa during their visit in Riyadh in September 2023. (SPA)
“It will affect us in Yemen if Israel dominates, eliminates or weakens the Palestinian people and its resistance. This will reflect negatively on everyone, aside from the religious and moral position towards this issue. Therefore, we consider that it is separate from the peace process so far and think that the statements of the West come as part of an attempt to pressure us to back down.”
Abdulsalam added: “The military operations in the Red Sea, which target Israeli ships as well as ships heading towards Israel, will continue until the aggression against the Gaza Strip ends and the siege is lifted by bringing food assistance into the north and south of the strip.
He said the Houthis were open to talks with Western powers on the Red Sea situation, under the “auspices of our brothers in the Sultanate of Oman.”
