Joe Biden's presidency would be better for Russia than a Donald Trump one, Russian President Vladimir Putin told pro-Kremlin journalist Pavel Zarubin in an on-camera interview Wednesday.
He also said Tucker Carlson is a "dangerous" man who left him dissatisfied in their interview because he didn't pose any tough questions, instead chose a different tactic to preempt tough responses.
Below is the full text transcript of the interview.
Note: This transcript presents what Putin said and as he said - it may contain a selective view of history and information to argue Russia’s case for its invasion of Ukraine.
Zarubin: Your interview with Tucker Carlson has already reached a billion views. There are many different positive reviews. But it is clear what comments are coming from Western leaders. For example, the British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor called, I will quote, “ridiculous and absurd your attempt to explain the reason for the start of the special operation and justify it with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia.” What do you think about such assessments?
Putin: Firstly, it’s good that they watch and listen to what I say. If today, for some reason related to them, we are unable to conduct a direct dialogue, then we should be grateful to Mr. Carlson for the fact that we can do this through him as an intermediary. So what they watch and listen to is good.
But the fact that they distort what I said is bad, and distort the map. Why? Because I didn't say anything like that. I did not say that the start of our special military operation in Ukraine is connected with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia. Where is this in my interview? There is a recording, let them show where exactly I said this.
I was talking about something else, I was talking about the fact that we were constantly deceived from the point of view of NATO’s non-expansion to the east. By the way, this was said primarily through the mouth of the then Secretary General of NATO, and he was a representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was he who said: not an inch to the east. Then five extensions and a complete deception. We, of course, were and are concerned about the possibility of Ukraine being drawn into NATO, since this threatens our security. That's what I said.
But the immediate trigger was the complete refusal of the current Ukrainian authorities to implement the Minsk agreements and the ongoing attacks with numerous casualties on the republics of Donbass that we had not recognized for eight years - the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, which ultimately turned to us with a request for recognition, seeing the futility of resolving issues within the framework of the Minsk agreements. We recognized them, then concluded a well-known treaty of friendship and mutual assistance with them and, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, fulfilled our obligations under this treaty.
As I said, we did not start the war, we are only trying to stop it. At the first stage, we tried to do this through peaceful means - through the Minsk agreements. As it turned out later, we were led by the nose here too, because both the former Chancellor of Germany and the former President of France admitted and directly publicly stated that they did not intend to fulfill these agreements of ours, but were simply gaining time in order to further pump up weapons to the Ukrainian regime, which they successfully did. The only thing we can regret is that we did not begin our active actions earlier, believing that we were dealing with decent people.
Zarubin: After all, Carlson was criticized immediately before the interview, and after the interview he is now accused of allegedly asking few tough questions, allegedly he was too soft with you, and you were very comfortable with him. Do you think you have crushed the American journalist with your authority?
Putin: I think that your Carlson, when I say “your”, I mean that he is a representative of your journalistic community as you are, is a dangerous man. And here's why. Because, to be honest, I thought that he would go aggressively and ask these so-called tough questions.
I was not only ready for this, but I wanted it, because it would give me the opportunity to respond just as sharply, which, in my opinion, would give a certain specificity to our entire conversation. But he chose a different tactic, he tried to interrupt me several times, but still, surprisingly for a Western journalist, he turned out to be patient and listened to my long dialogues, especially those related to history. Didn't give me a reason to do what I was ready for. Therefore, frankly speaking, I did not fully enjoy this interview. But he strictly followed his plan, and he fulfilled his plan. But how meaningful it was in the end is not for me to judge. It is the viewers, listeners, or perhaps readers of the received interview who must draw their own conclusions.
Zarubin: As a result of this interview, calls immediately began to be made to impose sanctions against Tucker Carlson, and in general there was talk that he could almost be arrested there. Is this even possible?
Putin: Assange remains locked up, and almost no one remembers him anymore, only people close to him talk about it. That's all. These are the features of public consciousness: the topic goes away - and that’s it. But, really, Assange was at least accused of giving away some state secrets. It’s difficult for Carlson to “stick” to this because he didn’t touch on any secrets at all. Nevertheless, probably, theoretically, everything is possible in today's America, in today's United States.
From the point of view of Carlson himself, this would be sad, but it was his choice. He knew what he was getting into. But from the point of view of making people all over the world understand what a modern “liberal-democratic” dictatorship, which is supposedly represented in today’s ruling class of the United States, is, it would probably be a good thing, they would then show their true colors.
Zarubin: Carlson said that after the interview... Just to dispel any doubts that have arisen, this is my question. Carlson said that after the interview you had another conversation, now everyone is interested in what.
Putin: He went through his plan, as I already said and as I understood, and that’s all, he did not go beyond the scope of this plan. There were some other topics, for example, that I thought were important to talk about. But I did not press further on topics that the journalist did not raise in the conversation with me.
Therefore, the issue of demonization of Russia, connected, say, with the same interethnic events, with the Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire - of course, they should have arisen during such an official part. But one of the topics that we talked about, already when the cameras were turned off, is exactly what the Secretary of State of the United States spoke about, Mr. Blinken spoke about this several times - that his relatives, his great-grandfather fled from Russia from Jewish pogroms.
And in different countries of the world, in Europe, in the States, this topic constantly arises. I repeat, it arises with the goal of demonizing Russia, to show what barbarians are here, what kind of scoundrels and robbers live here. But in fact, if you look at what today’s Secretary of State said, and look not at political slogans, but at the essence of the problems that were occurring, then much becomes clear here.
We have it all in our archives. For example, Mr. Blinken's great-grandfather actually left the Russian Empire. He was born, in my opinion, somewhere in the Poltava province, and then lived and left Kyiv. The question arises: does Mr. Blinken believe that this is primordially Russian territory, Kyiv and the surrounding areas? First.
Secondly, if he says that he fled Russia from Jewish pogroms, then at a minimum, I want to emphasize this, he believes that there was no Ukraine in 1904, namely in 1904, Mr. Blinken’s great-great-grandfather left Kiev for the United States, which means there was no Ukraine there if he says that he fled Russia. Apparently, Mr. Blinken is our man. It’s just in vain that he makes such public statements. This can lead to failure.
Zarubin: The other day, the German media published articles that the grandfather of the current German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was an ardent Nazi. And considering everything that has been happening in relations between our countries in recent years, it turns out that, perhaps, at some genetic level such a “virus” of National Socialism is being transmitted in this country?
Putin: This is also one of the subtypes of extreme nationalism.
By the way, just now it occurred to me about these pogroms - they mainly took place in the Russian Empire in the south, southwest, on the territory of today’s Ukraine. In Kyiv, I said, in 1905. If Mr. Blinken’s ancestor left in 1904, then the first mass pogrom in Kyiv took place in 1905, so his great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather could only have learned about it either from newspapers or from information that came from Kiev at that time. moment.
And so, in principle, these massive negative events arose at the beginning of the 19th century, in my opinion, in 1820, in 1821, the first such massive pogrom. Of course, these crimes took place in Odessa, then in Melitopol, in Zhitomir, in other cities of today’s Ukraine, and in Belarus. There were a couple of events of this kind in Siberia, but the first was associated with the murder of the Greek patriarch in Constantinople, and then the Greeks living there believed that the Jews were somehow involved in the assassination attempt on the patriarch.
But that doesn't matter. And the important thing is that, by the way, these pogroms were opposed by resistance squads, which consisted of Jewish and Russian youth, and the government, even the tsarist government, gave appropriate assessments and tried to prevent these tragic events, including with the help of the army. But, I repeat again, this is a separate topic.
And as for nationalism and Nazism, fascism, you know, I’ll tell you, perhaps, a strange thing. Firstly, the lady herself... what's her name?
Zarubin: Annalena Baerbock.
Putin: Yes, Baerbock, so as not to be mistaken in her last name, she represents the Green Party. Many representatives of this part of the European political spectrum are speculating on people's fears and inciting people's fears about the events that may occur in the world due to climate change. And then, speculating on these fears, which they themselves incite, they pursue their own political line, which is far from what they came to power with. This is what is happening in Germany now. Let's say, coal generation has increased, it was larger than in Russia in the energy structure, and it was larger, and now it has become even larger. So where is this “green” agenda? This is the first thing.
Secondly, people like the German Foreign Minister, they, of course – she in this case – are hostile towards our country, towards Russia. But, in my opinion, she is also hostile to her own country, because it is difficult to imagine that a politician of such rank would treat the economic interests of his country, his people with such disdain. I won’t go into details and details now, but in practice this is exactly what happens, this is what we see.
But the next part of what I want to say may sound dissonant with what I just said. I do not believe that today's generations of Germans should bear full political responsibility for everything that Nazi Germany did. It is impossible to shift responsibility for what Hitler and his henchmen did, not only in Germany, but also in other parts of the world, Europe and so on, onto the people of today's generation. I think that would be unfair. And in general, slapping this label on the entire German people is a dishonest position, it is an abuse of what the people experienced, the peoples of the Soviet Union experienced. It seems to me that this is not fair and there is no point. We must proceed from the realities of today, look at who is actually doing what and what policies they are pursuing.
In this regard, by the way, in my opinion, it would be useful to do this. In my opinion, many right now, in many countries, even in those in which, it would seem, this should not sound like a political leitmotif, but unfortunately it does - what do I mean? Some kind of exclusivity of some peoples over others, some kind of chosenness, and so on. Well, listen, this is where Nazism began! Therefore, if this is so widespread, we should also, in any case, think about building this anti-fascist, anti-Nazi propaganda and work at such a global level. I repeat, at the global level.
And this should not be done at some state level. This will be effective only if it is done at the level of public consciousness and public initiative. And it doesn’t matter in which country in the world this happens.
Zarubin: In the European Union as a whole, a virtual panic began in connection with the possible return of Donald Trump as the President of the United States. And Trump’s recent statements, just the other day, have generally discouraged European leaders, they don’t hide it. Trump said the US should only protect European countries if European countries pay for it. Why, in general, have such relationships developed between Europe, European leaders, politicians and Donald Trump?
Putin: Trump has always been called a non-system politician. He has his own views on how the United States should develop relations with its allies. And it sparked before. Take the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto agreements in the field of ecology - then it also sparked. But the then President of the United States decided that the United States would withdraw from these agreements, despite the attractiveness of the environmental agenda, because he believed that this was harmful to the American economy. That's all. I made a strong-willed decision, and that was the end of it. And no matter how European leaders scolded him, he did it. Yes, I adjusted it later.
How is Trump's position different in this sense? Yes, basically nothing. He wanted to force the Europeans to increase their defense spending, or, as he said, “then let them pay us for protecting them, for opening the atomic umbrella over their heads,” and so on. Well, I don’t know, let them figure it out themselves, that’s their problem. Probably, from his point of view, there is some logic in this. From the point of view of the Europeans, there is no logic, and they would like the United States to continue to carry out, free of charge, some functions that have developed since the formation of NATO. That's their business.
I think that NATO is of no use at all; it makes no sense. There is only one meaning - it is an instrument of US foreign policy. But if the United States believes that it does not need this tool, that is its decision.
Zarubin: And every day the current US President Biden gives more and more reasons for the whole world to discuss the state of his health. This is the President of one of the largest nuclear powers. At the same time, we all actually observe, to put it mildly, extremely specific footage on a daily basis. When you see and hear all this, what do you think about?
Putin: I think that the domestic political campaign, the election campaign, is gaining momentum in the United States. It takes on more and more acute forms. And it is incorrect, in my opinion, for us to interfere in this process.
Listen, when I met with Biden in Switzerland, it was, however, several years ago, three years, but even then they were already saying that he was incompetent. I didn't see anything like it. Well, yes, he looked at his piece of paper. To be honest, I looked at mine. There is nothing special about this. But the fact that somewhere, getting out of the helicopter, he hit his head on this helicopter - well, who among us hasn’t hit his head somewhere? Let him be the first to throw a stone at him.
In general, this is in my opinion... I am not a doctor and do not consider myself to have the right to give any comments on this matter. That's not what we should be looking at. We have to look at the political position. I believe that the position of the current administration is extremely harmful and erroneous. And I told President Biden about this at one time.
Zarubin: Then the question that was raised four years ago, and now, it turns out, is becoming relevant again. Who is better for us: Biden or Trump?
Putin: Biden. He is a more experienced person, he is predictable, he is a politician of the old formation. But we will work with any US leader who the American people have confidence in.
Zarubin: I wanted to return to your interview with Tucker Carlson. We recalled the statements of the current leaders of Germany and Great Britain. But the one about whom you said in an interview with Carlson: “And where is this Johnson now?” It was he, as follows from Arakhamia’s confessional statements, who ordered Kyiv not to negotiate with Moscow, but to fight. If the Kyiv authorities had not then listened to these, let’s say, advice, how could events have developed further?
Putin: That’s what Mr. Arakhamia said about it himself. He's... Look at the synchronicity. We didn’t pull his tongue. He said what he thought. Why he said this, I don’t know. Such a frank person. He said that if we had fulfilled those agreements, if we had fully implemented the agreements that arose in Istanbul, the war would have stopped a year and a half ago. He said so. When there is an interview with Mr. Carlson, it seems to me that it is necessary to give a synchronized interview with Mr. Arakhamia. Why did the West take this position? I say, it is the West and, above all, the Anglo-Saxon world, since the former Prime Minister Mr. Johnson could not come on his own, on his own initiative, without consulting with Washington on this matter. Surely such consultations not only took place, but I think that he simply went on a business trip at the expense of the American administration, they paid him travel allowances for this. So there he laid out his position that it was necessary to fight with Russia until the last Ukrainian - this was in parentheses, of course - but to the bitter end and inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Apparently, they were counting on such a result. But as I told Mr. Carlson, I can repeat it to you: if they see that the result is not working, apparently adjustments need to be made. But this is already a question of the art of politics, because politics, as we know, is the art of compromise.
