A “peace-loving” dictator and an “independent” propagandist: a fact check of Putin's latest lies

The Kremlin's propaganda machine continues to spread its narratives in various ways to justify the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and war crimes.

Russia's disinformation campaign is aimed not only at domestic consumers and undermining the Ukrainian information field, but also at spreading propaganda around the world. Even in the United States, which the Kremlin perceives as its greatest enemy, there are plenty of well-known supporters of Vladimir Putin, or at least those willing to negotiate with him bypassing Ukraine.

Tucker Carlson, a well-known blogger and recently a top-rated TV host, announced this week an “unbiased” and “truthful” interview with Putin. The blogger was only right about one thing: the time of the interview. It was indeed published on the evening of February 8, US time, but it was biased and untruthful. The VoxCheck team listened carefully to the conversation and shares its key observations.

“Our duty is to (dis)inform people”

Tucker Carlson is a political commentator and former star of the American TV channel Fox News. This is not the first time he has been caught spreading disinformation. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he repeatedly denied the need for quarantine measures and talked about “immune suppression” due to vaccination.

Carlson has repeatedly spread conspiracy theories: that it was the United States that secretly developed the coronavirus in Ukraine and China. Subsequently, in episodes of his show, the propagandist justified Russian aggression, spread fakes about “biolabs in Ukraine” and emphasized that supporting Ukraine harms the West. Expectedly, these statements made the host popular in Russia. His Russian-translated episodes received hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube, and Russian media often quoted his statements. Eventually, in April 2023, Carlson was fired from Fox News, so he launched his own video blog.

Earlier, VoxCheck refuted the fakes that Tucker Carlson spread in his first video blog. In particular, he accused Ukraine of blowing up the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant.

Later, the media personality met with Viktor Orban, right-wing radical politicians, and conspiracy theorists, but all this was just a warm-up for Carlson's main “achievement” — an exclusive interview with the most famous dictator of the 21st century.

The day before, the blogger explained why he decided to talk to Putin: “Our duty is to inform people.” The propagandist hinted that none of the Western journalists had interviewed Putin, and in general, the media do not give a word to the “Russian side”, so people in the West “have no real idea” about the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The blogger seems to be talking about thousands of dead but does not mention who is responsible for fomenting the war. In this case, he uses a classic tactic of fake news makers and conspiracy theorists: a false balance, when both sides are given the floor, despite the fact that only one of the positions is supported by facts. The right to speak is given to both the victim and the perpetrator. Or a medical expert and an opponent of vaccines. A scientist and a conspiracy theorist. However, Carlson goes even further: he does not listen to the Ukrainian position but simply provides Russia with another channel for broadcasting propaganda.

The interview with Putin lasted more than 2 hours. And although the Russian president answered each question with almost a separate lecture, the blogger had the opportunity to ask critical questions. But he did not do so. Perhaps the only hint of criticism was a question not about Ukraine, but about the American journalist Evan Gershkovich, who was arrested in Russia. But even here, Carlson rather asks Putin to “pardon” the American, and does not really argue with his arguments.

“Obviously, this staff has happened for centuries: one country catches a spy within its borders, trades him for one of its own intel guys in another country. It’s not my business, but what makes this different is that this guy is obviously not a spy – he is a kid. And maybe he was breaking your laws in some way but he’s not a super spy. So maybe he is in a different category. Maybe it’s not fair to ask for somebody else in exchange for letting him out.”

Is there a hint of criticism of the regime here? The question is rhetorical.

In other parts of the conversation, Carlson either simply gives Putin a free microphone or openly repeats Kremlin talking points, such as “Ukrainian puppets” and Ukraine's “unwillingness” to negotiate: “Do you think Zelenskyy has the freedom to negotiate a settlement to this conflict?”

Here is another example: “It’s been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Biden administration. That’s why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.”

Imbalance, partiality, unreliability — these are the standards of Tucker Carlson's “honest journalist”. At the same time, Putin's standards are the Russian (or Soviet?) history textbook and KGB-era manuals.

“A short reference to history”

In the interview, Vladimir Putin talked a lot about history. And he immediately started with a lie — he promised to give a short historical reference for “30 seconds or one minute”, but instead manipulated history almost half the time. However, his historical “knowledge” turned out to be very poor. For example, he decided to tell how the baptism of Russia took place under Vladimir the Great and thus allegedly began the strengthening of the Russian state:

“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 the 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.”

Russia has long distorted the history of the baptism of Rus. They introduced a holiday on this occasion (after it happened in Ukraine), erected a monument to Volodymyr the Great near the Kremlin, and on the anniversary of the baptism in 2013, the services in Kyiv were led by Moscow Patriarch Kirill.

Putin also constantly manipulates the terms “Rus” and “Russian land” that were used concerning the territories that are part of modern Ukraine. Russia is constantly trying to present itself as the successor of Rus, but it has nothing to do with it. This happened after the renaming of the Moscow kingdom into the Russian Empire — the task was to justify the continuity of the name “Russian” from princely Rus. Catherine II “perfectly” coped with this task, and on her instructions, all ancient primary sources were revised, rewritten, or destroyed. In this way, Russia “asserted” the right to the political and cultural heritage of Rus, and in fact, desecrated our history.

Putin does not forget about the uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1648-1657. Here, he talks about how Warsaw refused the hetman, and he was allegedly forced to go to Moscow:

"In 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian land, addressed Warsaw, demanding that they send them the rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them and in fact rejected these demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away.”

Firstly, the Zaporozhian Army and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were in opposition at the time, so it is unclear how and whom Khmelnytsky demanded to be sent from Warsaw.

Second, the fact that a large number of people (over 100,000) took the oath of allegiance to the Moscow delegation is known only from Russian sources. The March Articles (an agreement formed after the Pereiaslav Agreement of 1654) were not ratified by the Cossack Rada. In addition, the agreement was not supported by the Bratslav, Poltava, and Uman regiments, the Zaporizhzhia Sich, the clergy led by Bishop Sylvester Kosov, and a significant number of Cossack officers, including Ivan Bohun, Petro Doroshenko, and Ivan Sirko.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky himself never planned to unite with the “brotherly” people. Such an alliance was not unusual at the time; at the time of signing the agreement, Khmelnytsky sought a military and political protectorate over the Hetmanate. However, in no case did he want to transfer Ukrainian lands to tsarist rule. Vasyl Pavlov, an employee of the Institute of National Memory of Ukraine, reported that the signed treaty preserved the autonomy of the Cossack state (the rights and freedoms of the Cossacks). Thus, at least until the 1750s, there was a state border between the Zaporozhian Army and the Moscow state (later the Russian Empire), and customs operated on the border.

Moreover, after signing the agreement, the Cossacks received a tsarist guarantee of the preservation of the Hetmanate's state rights, which the Russian side soon violated, and the signing of further agreements led to a significant reduction in the autonomy of the Zaporozhian Army.

Furthermore, the modern Russian dictator once again recalled the role of Lenin and Stalin in the alleged formation of Ukrainian statehood: “In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.”

The Russian president also recalled his favorite narrative: that Ukraine is a state artificially created by the communists. However, while Putin used to call Vladimir Lenin the “creator” of Ukraine, the Russian leader has now passed this “title” to Stalin. In reality, however, neither of the “leaders of the proletariat” had anything to do with the creation of Ukraine.

Ukrainian statehood dates back to the ninth century, to the formation of Kievan Rus. At the same time, Yuri Dolgorukiy founded Moscow only in the 12th century. The word “Ukraine” was first mentioned in written in 1187 in the Kyiv Chronicle. Initially, this word could be used to mean borderland, but later it acquired the meaning of “land, state”.

Ukraine was also depicted on maps. For example, in 1648, French military engineer Guillaume de Beauplan drew up the General Map of Ukraine. It depicts almost all the territories of modern Ukraine, except for the southwestern border and most of Crimea. Another map, created by Guillaume Sanson in 1674, bears the inscription “Vkraine ou Pays des Cosaques” (“Ukraine or the Country of the Cossacks”).

Throughout history, Ukraine has existed under different names: The Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, the Cossack state (an autonomous state within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), the Ukrainian state led by Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky, the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR), and the West Ukrainian People's Republic (WUPR).

In 1921, Soviet troops defeated the UPR, destroying Ukrainian statehood and turning Ukraine into one of the republics of the Soviet Union. However, the existence of the Ukrainian SSR does not prove that Ukraine as a state emerged in the 1920s at the behest of communist leaders. Ukraine has a long history, one of the pages of which is the Soviet occupation. During Ukraine's 70 years as a part of the Soviet Union, Russian officials created many myths of Ukrainian history that Russia, as the successor to the Soviets, continues to support.

These narratives, as well as the claims about “one nation” and Ukrainian nationalists who were allegedly Nazis during World War II, are “evergreen” topics that Russian officials repeat in almost every interview. They do this for a reason because the more often you repeat an idea, the greater the chance that it will eventually be remembered and accepted.

Historical myths are one of Putin's favorite topics. VoxCheck has already refuted the Kremlin's fakes in the dictator's article “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”.

“You tricked us...”

Obviously, the dictator is still holding on to a thirty-year-old grudge and feels offended that his ultimatums are not taken seriously by the world. Not only Western community “dared” not to let Russia join it in the 1990s, but Russia was also misled by the promise that NATO would not approach the Russian border:

“You tricked us. I don’t mean you when 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.”

To begin with, the Kremlin rejected the possibility of rapprochement with the West on its own, perhaps realizing that it did not meet the criteria for NATO membership, the main one being a willingness to maintain security in the North Atlantic region rather than destroy it.

Guarantees about the limits of NATO's expansion are one of the main myths that Putin repeats in almost every message. This refers to the events of 1990, when the last head of the USSR, Gorbachev, was allegedly given guarantees that NATO would not expand east of Germany. However, Gorbachev himself has repeatedly admitted that he neither asked for nor received any promises of further expansion of the Alliance.

Russia also tries to argue that NATO's non-enlargement was tied to the agreements on German reunification in 1990. But in fact, Western officials were referring to the non-deployment of NATO troops in East Germany. The 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany also contains no commitments by NATO countries to not expand into Eastern Europe. The very idea of discussing this issue before the collapse of the Soviet bloc is absurd.

Thus, NATO had no legal obligations to Russia regarding non-expansion in Eastern Europe, and the Alliance's “open door” policy has not changed over the entire period of the organization's existence.

Ukraine, on the other hand, as a sovereign independent state, is an independent player in the international arena and has the right to choose its foreign policy path without instructions. However, the Kremlin flatly refuses to accept a different path from the Russian one.

Putin's memories of Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic aspirations are not lost on him, and, according to him, they have led to changes in his views on cooperation with NATO: “Ukraine gained its independence as a result of declaration of independence. And by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state. And in 2008, suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were opened to it. Oh come on. This is not how we agreed.”

And since the “younger brother” is unable to dare to commit such an outright betrayal on his own, it is necessary to find another culprit. It was found quickly — predictably, in the face of the United States.

And finally, the Revolution of Dignity was the "last straw" for Putin's Russia. “The CIA did its job to complete the coup. One of the deputy secretaries of state said that they cost a large sum of money. Almost five billion [dollars — ed.]. But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without the losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan.”

Russia decided to go to war regardless of the outcome of the Revolution of Dignity. For example, the operation to annex Crimea began on February 20, 2014, a few days before Yanukovych fled. The Kremlin was just waiting for a reason to attack Ukraine. And even before 2014, Russia had been trying to seize Ukrainian territory — we can recall attempts to seize the island of Tuzla in the Kerch Strait in 2003 and support for pro-Russian separatists in Crimea in the 1990s.

In terms of funding, in 2014, the then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland did confirm that the United States regularly helped Ukraine implement key reforms and that this assistance has reached about $5 billion since 1991 in various areas of the country's development. However, support for reforms does not mean an attempt to organize a “coup d'etat”. Moreover, the US side has implemented similar projects concerning Russia, and their total funding was higher — $18 billion since 1991. But Putin did not mention this figure in the interview as this was inconvenient.

Instead, he recalled an old narrative about the “oppression” of Russians in Ukraine. He said that Ukrainians had specifically passed a law that deprived Russians of the title of “titular nation”. This is how he once again justified his army's invasion of Ukraine.

Putin did not ignore President Zelenskyy's recent decision to launch a movement to protect Ukrainians in Russia and cooperate with enslaved indigenous peoples:

"Ukraine announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality, while passing the laws that limit the rights of non-titular nationalities in Ukraine. Ukraine, having received all the southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality in that territory. Is that normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.”

The myth of the “titular” nationality refers to Putin's propaganda about Russia's alleged “establishing” of Ukraine. In reality, it is Ukrainians who are the titular nationality, that is, the one that formed the state.

In July 2021, the law “On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine” came into force. However, Putin distorted it and classified Russians as indigenous peoples. Although indigenous peoples are an autochthonous ethnic community that has formed on the territory of Ukraine, is a carrier of an original language and culture, constitutes an ethnic minority within its population, and does not have its own state outside of Ukraine. Among the indigenous peoples, the ones that were formed in Crimea are Crimean Tatars, Karaites, and Krymchaks.

However, Russians do not fall under this definition. They are merely an ethnic minority, as they have their own state formed outside the territory of Ukraine. The narrative of Russians being “oppressed” is also false. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees equality for all citizens and the development of all ethnic minorities in the country, including Russians.

“We have never refused negotiations!”

Of course, the standard blame game was not without its share of spin: it is Ukraine that does not want to talk, and Russia is ready to negotiate. The only thing is that “negotiations” in his understanding are Ukraine's capitulation.

“Can they return to this or not? The question is, do they want it or not? Further on, the President of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel this decree. And that's it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time: is Russia ready? We have not refused. It was them who publicly refused. Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations. We have never refused.”

In fact, Ukraine has long prepared a “peace formula” whose ultimate goal is to invite Russia to negotiate on Ukraine's terms. President Zelenskyy proposed it in September 2022 at a session of the UN General Assembly. At the end of December 2023, it was already supported by more than 80 countries. Ukraine's proposals include, in particular:

• radiation, nuclear, food, and energy security;
• release of all prisoners and deportees;
• implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity;
• withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities;
• overcoming the consequences of ecocide;
• preventing future escalation and fixing the end of the war.

Russia rejected this plan, as it envisaged the actual implementation of the agreements reached during the negotiations. Between 2014 and 2022, Ukraine held about 200 rounds of negotiations with Russia, accompanied by several ceasefire agreements, all of which were violated and did not prevent Russia from launching a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022.

And this is how the dictator talks about the failure of the Turkish-mediated talks:

“We negotiated with Ukraine in Istanbul. We agreed. He was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the president in the Rada. He still heads the presidential faction in the Rada, the country's parliament. He still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I'm telling you about. But then he publicly stated to the whole world: ‘We were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed with this proposal.’ Look, his statement has been published.”

For the first time, the words of David Arakhamia were quoted by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova. However, she and Putin took the quote out of context to emphasize that Ukraine is being “governed” by the West or the United States.

In the interview, Arakhamia said that during the meeting in Istanbul, the Russian delegation insisted on signing a document under which Ukraine would have to abandon its intentions to join NATO. Ukraine would also be obliged to adhere to its neutral status and limit its troops. However, the Ukrainian side did not agree to the Russians' conditions, which would have meant the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty.

According to Arakhamia, Western countries did not interfere in the negotiations in Istanbul. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson later explained that after the talks in Istanbul, he was “somewhat concerned” about a possible agreement between Ukraine and Russia. However, he emphasized that the UK would support Ukraine in any case. And Johnson called his “ban” on signing a “peace agreement” with Russia nothing more than Russian propaganda.

It is important to note that during these talks documents that Zelenskyy and Putin could sign after the summit were only prepared. Some issues — for example, the affiliation of the occupied Crimea and Donbas — were left for discussion exclusively by the countries' leaders. In other words, there was no talk of directly resolving the issues of war and peace at all, only preparations for possible negotiations.

In addition, negotiations were also impossible due to Russian war crimes in the Kyiv region, which became known in early April 2022. In total, since the beginning of the large-scale invasion, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine has recorded more than 124,500 Russian war crimes.

Conclusions

The list of myths surrounding Ukraine has not changed significantly in Putin's speeches over the past 10 years. Similarly, the rhetoric of “independent” Carlson is in line with the best traditions of the Solovyov and Skabeeva eras. This is precisely the peculiarity of propaganda — it does not have to be too complex and original to influence people. It only needs to be repetitive: the more often, persistently, and intensely the same ideas are broadcast, the better they are fixed in the mind.

This is known as the effect of the illusion of truth or the effect of repetition — people tend to accept information as true if they have heard it several times. Even if the statement itself is unlikely or has already been refuted. There are many more speeches just like Carlson and Putin had ahead for Ukraine. In addition, the former Fox News host is only part of a large network of pro-Kremlin speakers, as VoxCheck has previously reported. Therefore, fact-checkers and journalists have no choice but to increase the media literacy of the audience and respond to these fakes by making the voice of truth louder and stronger than propaganda.

Authors: VoxCheck team