By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview with Chris Cuomo, Tucker Carlson expressed greater sympathy for Vladimir Putin than Volodymyr Zelensky, citing Russia’s perceived economic strength under Putin’s leadership. Carlson further defended Putin’s rule, downplaying accusations of autocracy. He also reiterated his strong anti-immigration stance, asserting that any crime committed by an undocumented immigrant is unacceptable. This pro-Putin stance aligns with Carlson’s past commentary, which has included a Kremlin-facilitated interview with Putin and aligns with pro-Kremlin sentiment within the MAGA movement.
Read the original article here
Tucker Carlson’s recent statement expressing greater sympathy for Vladimir Putin than for Volodymyr Zelenskyy, based on his assertion that Russia is “thriving,” warrants a closer examination. This claim, at its core, presents a skewed and arguably disingenuous perspective on the current geopolitical reality.
The idea that Russia is thriving under Putin’s leadership in the midst of a protracted and costly war against Ukraine is deeply problematic. Economic sanctions imposed by numerous countries have significantly impacted Russia’s economy, causing substantial hardship for its citizens. Reports of widespread inflation, shortages of goods, and a decline in the value of the ruble hardly align with a narrative of economic prosperity. Furthermore, the massive human cost of the war, with countless lives lost and a significant portion of the Russian military engaged in the conflict, hardly suggests a nation “thriving” in any meaningful sense.
Carlson’s emphasis on a leader’s performance for their country is, while seemingly reasonable in principle, grossly oversimplified in this context. To judge Putin’s performance solely on economic indicators while ignoring the devastating human cost of the war in Ukraine and the flagrant violation of international law is to ignore a crucial aspect of leadership—moral responsibility. A leader’s success cannot be measured solely by superficial economic growth when achieved through aggressive, unlawful military actions and devastating humanitarian consequences.
The claim that Russia’s apparent success justifies greater sympathy for Putin than Zelenskyy fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the conflict. Ukraine is facing an unprovoked invasion, a war of aggression that has inflicted unimaginable suffering on its people and caused widespread destruction. To frame this as a conflict between two equally viable leaders, simply assessing their “performance” for their respective countries without acknowledging the gross disparity in the actions that led to the conflict, is deeply insensitive to the suffering of the Ukrainian people and a betrayal of basic moral principles.
Furthermore, this statement seems to ignore the significant geopolitical implications of a thriving Russia under Putin’s authoritarian rule. A powerful, unchecked Russia poses a serious threat to global stability and international order. Such a perspective overlooks the concerns of numerous countries that see Putin’s regime as a growing threat.
The perception of Russia’s strength may be a deliberately crafted narrative, designed to mask the true economic and social turmoil within the country. Propaganda and carefully controlled information flows within Russia might contribute to a domestic narrative of strength, contrasting sharply with the realities faced by citizens. This carefully cultivated image within Russia and attempts to spread this narrative internationally should be viewed with significant skepticism.
Ultimately, Carlson’s assessment appears to lack depth and nuance. It oversimplifies a complex geopolitical situation, ignoring the moral implications of Russia’s actions and offering a skewed view of Russia’s current state. To express greater sympathy for a leader who is responsible for initiating a brutal, unprovoked war, based on a misrepresentation of their country’s current circumstances, is not merely questionable; it’s deeply troubling. It suggests a deliberate choice to ignore the realities of the situation and potentially promote a narrative that aligns with specific political agendas. This perspective disregards the suffering of the Ukrainian people and minimizes the importance of respecting international law and the peaceful resolution of conflict.