We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Ian Bremmer on Putin and Tucker
What happened when Tucker Carlson met Vladimir Putin? Was it news, propaganda, theatre, or all three? Ian Bremmer breaks down what you need to know now in his latest Quick Take.
Ian weighs in on Tucker Carlson's highly-anticipated interview with Putin and why it revealed what he and all other megalomaniacs have in common. The two-hour sit-down dropped to much fanfare from all sides of the political spectrum. Will there be any fallout from Putin’s first interview with an American since the start of the “special military operation” in Ukraine?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. And a Quick Take, but towards the end of your week. Why? Because a lot of us watched this interview between Vladimir Putin and Tucker Carlson. And isn't there a lot to talk about? And the answer is a little less than all of the hype but still worth discussing.
First, I mean, you know, I will admit to having posted a fair bit about the importance of this interview. Of course, in part, it's because I have a history talking about, studying, covering Russia. But also, because this is now entering almost the third year of war when the Russians have invaded Ukraine, it is increasingly not going very well for the Ukrainians and therefore not very well for the United States and its allies. And that means that the timing of this interview is important, especially in the context of a very heated, very divisive US election, when increasingly support for Ukraine is becoming a matter of political difference. And it wasn't six months ago, but it certainly is becoming so very rapidly now.
Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of interviewing dictators. I think it's important for people to understand what makes everyone tick - friends, adversaries, everyone around the world. The problem is, of course, that dictators usually don't respect free press. And in Russia in particular, the media is, an independent media shut down, and they're imprisoned. They're sometimes assassinated. And certainly, Putin is not someone that has a history of valuing people that ask him independent minded, tough questions.
And of course, that is not why Tucker Carlson was invited to interview Putin. He was invited because he is someone that historically has said that if he's on a side, he's not on the side of Ukraine, he's on the side of Russia, and he's given very favorable interviews with people that are ideologically aligned with Putin, like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, the one European leader of a country that has consistently taken Putin's side more closely than he has the Americans and the Europeans. But having said all of that, even if the interview is not likely to be particularly fair or elucidating, it is important. And it's important because it's 2 hours with one of the most powerful people on the planet so in that regard, we do need to know what's being said.
So, let's talk a little bit about the interview itself. First point, no news was made. Substantively, we learned really nothing new. Putin going on a very long history lesson with tangents, going back to Genghis Khan and the Roman Empire. And maybe we should talk about the fact that the Roman Empire is on Putin's mind, too, just like so many people on Twitter. But that if anything was going to lose a large percentage of your audience, that was almost guaranteed to do so. I remember so many trips to Beijing and you'd meet with Chinese leaders, and the first 20 minutes were about Chinese leadership and rightful place in the world back in the 15th century. That's something you do when you're insecure. As the Chinese were doing better and as they were becoming a larger economy and feeling more comfortable in the rest of the world, and that more countries had to listen to them, they did less of that.
Putin, of course, doing worse. His economy now is smaller than Canada's, despite having the largest geographic landmass of any country in the world. All these important resources, more nuclear weapons even than the United States. But he's clearly not feeling very confident about that. Hence the need to give a huge history lesson to everyone that is willing to listen. And of course, you know, not much Tucker could do there. It's not like he's going to suddenly start interrupting the Russian leader. Really unclear how much of this would appeal to your typical Tucker Carlson audience. I mean, Putin's talk of a multipolar world is something I find fairly interesting. I do think that the global economic order is increasingly multipolar. The security order is not. It's still dominated by the United States. But that doesn't mean the US wants to be the world's policeman. And especially given the divisions inside the United States, it's very difficult for it to do so. And it's failed on many occasions. But I don't think that that's something that's really going to engage a lot of people that are talking about or listening to this interview.
It was interesting that Putin said that he hasn't talked to Biden since before the war. He said, “I can't remember the last time I talked to him.” I think the last time that they certainly last time they met in person was about six months before the war. I think it was in Geneva, it was 3 hours when Biden met with Putin and I mean, Biden, you know, he talks a lot about how he's spent a lot of time with Xi Jinping when they were both vice presidents, when they're both presidents, something he's proud of, this great man theory of politics that when you know someone and you engage with them, you can usually figure things out. He doesn't actually know Putin well. He's never really liked him. He doesn't respect him. It's obviously mutual. And clearly Putin finds the fact that Biden has not reached out to him personally as opposed to, say, Emmanuel Macron or other, let's say a Recep Erdogan from Turkey. That's something that the peaks that irritates him. He sees himself as leader of a great power.
And of course, the Americans at the highest level should be engaging. You know, I can see how a lot of what Putin had to say is interesting because it is the Russian perspective as engaged by a leader that we don't hear a lot from. But the biggest problem and it is a real problem in Putin's worldview is not on this stuff. That's all wrong. I mean, it is true. There are things he said that absolutely I am sympathetic to. NATO expansion is a challenge for Russia. How could it not be? But it's that he, like many great power types, like Kissinger, for example, consistently forgets about, intentionally forgets, about not even part of his worldview, one critical thing, and that is the agency of the countries involved: the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Czechs, the Latvians, none of them, none of these little countries have any agency at all in Putin's story.
These are countries that all wanted to join NATO. Why? Why did they want to join NATO? It's because they were worried about a Russia that behaves exactly as it has for the past 15 years in Georgia and in Ukraine and in so many other countries around the world. It's the idea that a great power gets to do whatever it wants and that human rights and war crimes, and those are for the little people. And, you know, the Americans have a hard time with a lot of this because the US is also not a signatory of the International Court of Justice. The Americans, you know, frequently ignore human rights when it's not of interest to them. And there's a lot of charges of hypocrisy in the way the Americans support the Ukrainians, but don't care so much about the Palestinians. And those are fair points. But you cannot compare the United States to what Russia has been doing precisely because even given the power, the unchecked power of the United States and the hypocrisy and the human rights violations and all the challenges, the Russians have been consistent in their complete abrogation of any interest of human rights, of basic legal rights of their people, of all of their neighbors, and of the ability of other countries to make up their own mind.
And ultimately, the reason why Ukraine wanted to join NATO is not because the Americans entice them, but because the Ukrainians wanted out of Russian orbit. And fundamentally, even though the United States have given up on and have lost a lot of the values that made America great, you know, the end of World War II for example, still the United States, Americans at base think that people of the world have the right to decide their future. They have the right to self-determination. Even the Chinese, who are much closer friends of the Russians than they are the Americans or the Ukrainians, have consistently said that the Ukrainians have the right to self-determination. Yes, that even includes Crimea, according to the Chinese. Why would they say that? And because they do think that ultimately, they are a part of an international order that needs to be stable and needs to engage with other countries around the world, not only by dint of power.
They've got plenty of hypocrisy, too, but the Russians have given up on all of that. They've become chaos actors, and they want the destruction of the international order. I don't think that Tucker Carlson has done a great disservice with the interview that's been put forward. I don't think it matters very much. And I don’t think Elon Musk has done a great disservice in putting a couple of hours out. I don't think it matters all that much, but I do think it's important for people that watch this interview to recognize that the key thing that Putin does not care about is any rights of any other countries that aren't powerful. Other than the Russians to get things done. And that's something he should care about because, you know, part of the reason the Russians are so screwed right now compared to the United States and their allies is precisely because they're not all that powerful.
And you would think that if that's the philosophy that Putin takes to the bank, that he would understand the way it applies to his country, too. Of course, dictators, narcissists, megalomaniacs, they never think that the rules that should apply to them actually do when things don't go their way. They're all sort of great at what should work for them and not when things are more challenging. Not a surprise that that is the way a dictator responds. This interview was on his territory. It was his time, and he got his message out the way he wanted to. And ultimately, none of us are going to care all that much.
That is where we are, and I hope that that was interesting and useful. Be well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
WNBA star Brittany Griner in a Russian prison cell
Russian court sentences Griner to 9 years
A Russian court has found American WNBA star Brittney Griner guilty and sentenced her to nine years in a penal colony for carrying cannabis oil into the country. Last month, Griner pleaded guilty to the charges. The US State Department says the 31-year-old Phoenix Mercury player, who was arrested in February at Moscow airport, has been wrongfully detained and used as a political pawn amid Russia’s deteriorating relations with the West. In recent weeks, the Biden administration reportedly offered to exchange Viktor Bout — a Russian arms dealer known as “the Merchant of Death” currently serving a 25-year sentence in the US — in exchange for the release of Griner and Paul Whelan, a former US marine who has been locked up in Russia since 2018 for alleged spying. After the verdict was handed down, President Biden said that his “administration will continue to work tirelessly and pursue every possible avenue to bring Brittney and Paul Whelan home safely.” Talks have been going on behind the scenes about the possible swap, but Putin has so far remained mum on whether he’ll accept the deal.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni walk during their meeting in Entebbe.
Russia and the West battle it out in Africa
Russia’s brutal military offensive may be taking place in Europe, but the battle to shore up support for its cause is now playing out in … Africa.
Russia’s top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, is currently on a tour to reassure African allies of Moscow’s commitment to alleviating the global food crisis.
But Lavrov is not to be outdone by French President Emmanuel Macron, who is also on a three-nation tour in Central and West Africa. Washington, meanwhile, has sent an envoy to Ethiopia and Egypt.
Russia, the EU, and US have long tried to court developing countries in bids to expand their respective spheres of influence. But as war rages on in Europe, why the intense focus on Africa now?
Who’s going where?
Lavrov started his African tour in Egypt, where he sought to assure a jittery President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi that Russia is taking the global grain shortage seriously. (Egypt is the world’s largest wheat importer.) Russia’s top diplomat doubled down on the Kremlin’s talking point that a Western-backed Ukraine is responsible for the blockade in the Black Sea that’s pummeling import-reliant Cairo. (The Egyptians, who have strong security ties with the US but rely on Russia for grain, have so far refused to pick a side in the war.)
This week's itinerary for Lavrov also had stops in Uganda, the Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia. The latter could be a tougher sell because Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is seeking a rapprochement with the US after Washington imposed sanctions on Ethiopian officials over the brutal war in Tigray.
The French president is visiting Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, and Benin to reiterate France’s postcolonial commitment to African prosperity and security. Food supply issues will be on the agenda, too.
Meanwhile, the US special envoy to the Horn of Africa is holding a series of talks in Ethiopia and Egypt to discuss the ongoing Grand Ethiopian Dam dispute that has pitted Addis Ababa against Khartoum and Cairo. Washington says it will also discuss ways to mitigate the global food crisis.
Why Africa?
Moscow has been boosting its investment in African countries for years to gain a strategic foothold on a continent where it once yielded great influence during the Cold War. As part of this effort, it’s been sending mercenaries to support counterinsurgencies in West Africa and Libya, and flooding some African states with weapons.
What does Russia get out of it? Metals, diamonds, gold, and other commodities. Indeed, Russia has been leveraging relations with weak and corrupt African governments to secure lucrative mining deals. (Moscow uses some of the metals it extracts to make weapons that it then sells … back to Africa.) What’s more, Russia’s trade with African states has doubled since 2015 to around $20 billion a year, and it has signed arms deals with more than 20 African states.
Crucially, while the European Union remains Africa’s largest trade partner, many African countries have long resented the bloc’s strings-attached approach to cooperation. (The EU, for instance, has previously conditioned aid and investment on Africa cracking down on migration to the bloc.)
The war in Ukraine is also being waged on the diplomatic front. Though its enforcement powers are limited, the United Nations is a powerful arbiter of international norms, and the 55-member African Union is the largest voting bloc in the UN. Indeed, it was a boon for the Kremlin that 17 African states refrained from taking a side when Russia’s aggression in Ukraine came up for a vote at the UN in March.
The view from Africa. For many African states, relations with Russia offer an appealing alternative to China, the EU, and the US, which have historically had the resources to make inroads throughout the continent.
Beijing, for its part, has promised Africa prosperity and innovation … but in the process saddled dozens of African countries with debt. And though many states – particularly in sub-Saharan Africa – rely on Western aid, they also have come to resent Europe’s imperialist legacy and Washington’s preachiness on human rights.
Russia, on the other hand, has managed to foster a lot of goodwill among numerous African states by not lecturing them about human rights or burdening them with shady loans. Indeed, some African states believe Russia is cultivating a partnership of equals.
Still, Eurasia Group Africa expert Tochi Eni-Kalu says that although the Russians have had some success with their recent diplomatic outreach, there are limits to how far this will take them.
“Russia has few dependable allies in Africa,” he says, adding that “most African states would detest the idea of being seen as being too close to Russia, even if their nonaligned orientation might see them vote in line with Russia (or abstain) on certain resolutions.” Plainly, they don’t see themselves as having to make a binary choice between Russia and the West.
To be sure, Putin knows Russia is no match for Beijing’s financial prowess or Washington’s military might.
“Though Russia is a key arms exporter to numerous African states, the Kremlin lacks the resources that the US, EU, or China can draw on in negotiating political concessions on the global stage,” Eni-Kalu says, noting that this is especially true for Africa's biggest economies.
So what’s Russia trying to do then? As we’ve written before, Moscow is seeking “discrete pressure points where, with minimal expenditure, it can win friends and influence people in ways that directly benefit the Russian state or affiliated cronies.”
After years of deprioritizing the continent, the US is (sort of) interested again. The Biden administration recently announced that it will host more than 50 African leaders at a US-Africa summit this December. The event, according to the White House, will focus on deepening economic engagement and tackling the global food crisis. Washington has also doled out cash to help the continent weather the food crisis.
Still, “Western engagement with Africa has been more rhetoric than action for several years now,” Eni-Kalu says, noting that there is little indication that the current geopolitical situation will result in any new concrete commitments from the West.
US President Joe Biden announces actions to lower gas prices
What We're Watching: Biden moves on oil, US-Russia info wars, Costa Rica's vote
Major oil drama
President Joe Biden on Thursday ordered the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to release 1 million oil barrels per day for the next six months in order to bring down soaring gasoline prices over the war in Ukraine. Technically, more American oil on the global market would help lower prices, but Biden's move was met by a collective shrug by the OPEC+ group of oil-exporting countries, which announced they can’t do much to stop rising prices and signed off on a modest increase in production. Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, announced that Moscow will indeed demand payment in rubles for Russian oil from now on. Those who don’t comply could face being cut off. France and Germany said no way, but there's a loophole: oil buyers can still deal with Gazprombank, a Russian bank that hasn't been sanctioned yet (and is conveniently run by the state-owned energy giant Gazprom). What does this all mean? Oil prices will keep rising, but they won’t skyrocket just yet.
Russia, the West, and information warfare
In recent days, the Biden administration and the Kremlin have been locked in a war of words. First, the White House said that US intelligence showed that President Vladimir Putin felt misled by his military leaders, who have avoided telling the Russian leader details about the bungled invasion. (British intelligence agencies then backed up this assessment.) The Kremlin hit back on Thursday, saying that the West has a “complete misunderstanding” of the goings on in Moscow and warning, ominously, that such claims could have “bad consequences.” It is unclear what intelligence the US and UK have or whether the Pentagon’s claims are true. But recent events seem to indicate the White House’s willingness to leak declassified material to rattle the Kremlin or call Putin’s bluff. Indeed, in early February, the White House preemptively released details of the Kremlin’s plan to invade Ukraine to try to throw Putin off his game.
Costa Rica goes to the polls
The Central American nation of 5 million will pick a president on Sunday in a runoff vote between current Finance Minister Rodrigo Chaves, who has positioned himself as a combative populist upstart, and former president Jose Maria Figueres, a centrist who was in power in the 1990s. In the latest polling, Chaves leads with about 41% of support, against Figueres’ 38%. Chaves has taken aim at the corruption of the political class, and says he would rule using referendums to skirt institutional red tape. But he also points to his decades of service at the World Bank to argue that he’s the right guy to help revitalize Costa Rica’s economy after a pandemic-induced recession. Figueres, meanwhile, styles himself as the safer pair of hands — after all, he already knows the job. With party affiliations generally very fluid in Costa Rica, the runoff will largely come down to whether voters in this historically moderate, stable country want familiarity or to shake things up a bit.
US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin
To Russia, with love: Why has diplomacy failed?
By all reasonable measures, there’s little love between Russia and the US this Valentine’s Day. The recent flurry of diplomacy between Russia and the West has been a failure with a series of recent high-profile meetings only leading to further stagnation and reports that Putin is moving closer towards military intervention.
Over the weekend: A call on Saturday between Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin — the American leader warned of “severe costs” if Russia invades — appeared to fall flat. This followed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s chat with UK Foreign Sec. Liz Truss, which he characterized as a conversation between “the mute with the deaf.” Meanwhile, France’s Emmanuel Macron, who has tried to position himself as Europe’s chief interlocutor, made little progress in a weekend call with the Kremlin, and an earlier meeting of the Normandy Four – Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France – failed to even agree on language for a joint statement.
So, why is diplomacy floundering?
Russia and the West don’t speak the same love language.
As Russia has bolstered its military capabilities across Eastern Europe in recent weeks, American and European leaders have drawn on Western values to try and change the Kremlin’s behavior.
Biden says an invasion will make Moscow an international pariah, and Truss recently said London had “made clear that Russia needed to live up to the international commitments it had entered into.” But such rhetoric about the rules-based international order is no way to woo Russia: Putin — whose politics are centered on restoring control over Central and Eastern Europe — does not care much for the US-led international order, and he’s unlikely to be swayed by bleeding-heart appeals to post-World War II norms and values.
Some believe the Kremlin is ready to go head to head with the West. “Putin has been preparing the country, including the economy, for some sort of long-term standoff with the West,” says Joshua Yaffa, a Moscow-based correspondent for the New Yorker. He points to the accumulation of the $630 billion reserve fund, “which could be used to cushion the ruble from exchange rate shocks” if Washington sanctions Russian financial institutions.
Is the West all bark and no bite?
Biden has repeatedly said he will not send US troops to defend Ukraine. For months, the White House has been sounding the alarm on the urgency of the Russian threat, while at the same time highlighting the limits of what it’s willing to do about it. This dynamic — not unlike a jilted lover whining about betrayal but never heading for the door — has emboldened Putin to increase military deployments around Ukraine rather than pull back.
To be sure, Biden has threatened Russia with new economic sanctions if Moscow ups the ante in Ukraine. But discord between the US and its European partners over how to respond to Russian aggression has only reinforced Putin’s view of Western weakness. The Kremlin knows that competing interests — including some European states’ heavy reliance on Russian commodities — is making it very difficult for the West to coordinate a united response.
Considering the apparent reluctance from some Western allies to further confront Russia, can the US go it alone? Given Washington's dominance over the international financial system, Yaffa believes the Biden administration has access to some “nuclear options” that could inflict serious harm on the Russian economy. But “to the extent that the Western response is credible and durable over the long term,” he adds, “[Washington] does need to be united” with other European capitals.
Enter Olaf. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visits Ukraine and Russia on Monday and Tuesday, respectively. Given what’s at stake in German-Russia relations — particularly the future of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline — Putin may be inclined to try and find some common ground with the German leader. Can the two find some love for Russia and the West? Whatever happens, Scholz’s shot at diplomacy will shine a light on the likelihood of a diplomatic breakthrough — or breakup — in the days ahead.