This post may contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through these links, I earn a small commission at no cost to you. I do not promote anything I do not believe in or stand behind.
I watched Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin because several of my friends asked about my opinion of it. Another reason for which I watched it with interest is because I am a Romanian citizen who lives in Romania—a country that neighbors Ukraine and Ukraine’s war with Russia (or Russia’s war with Ukraine).
In my post I will also share some of my personal understandings about Ukraine and the war there—or the way Putin calls it: a special military operation. However, I will try to focus on the interview and what the interview reveals about the war and about Putin and his religion.
You can listen to the interview here.
The first part of The Vladimir Putin Interview
In the first part of the interview, Putin goes back in history trying to explain the historical roots of Ukraine as a country and a nation that was once part of Russia. Now, if the intended audience of the interview was America, I believe, that was irrelevant for Americans, as I am not sure who cares.
Europeans care about history as every country in Europe has similar issues with the neighboring countries. Romania has historical problems with Hungary as Hungary has with Romania (over Transylvania), Ukraine, Serbia and I am sure other countries. If you look closer, you see that history matters for Europe, but perhaps not so much for America. In this respect, Putin’s historical speech lacked inspiration.
Nevertheless, Putin went on and on with his crash-course in Russian-Ukrainian history. Putin’s argument was something like this: if Ukraine is actually Russia, then Russia has a historical claim over Ukraine. And Putin tries to prove Ukraine is part of the historical Russia. Therefore, Russia has the right to take that territory and people back into her arms (that is what I think was Putin’s logic). Putin even brought historical documents into discussion—that’s how seriously he believes he’s possessing the right understanding of history.
Historical motivations bring legitimization and justification for a war. However, historical arguments could also bring Putin support for his war from both his country and from outside of his country. I am convinced that these types of arguments possess immense power for Europeans or at least could add weight to the overall story.
The roots of the conflict with Ukraine
In his interview, Putin (again) explains his motives and concerns for starting the war with Ukraine—NATO’s expansion in Europe to include countries from the former Soviet bloc. Countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic in 1999, and then Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 2004. However, NATO (should I say America?) did not stop—Albania and Croatia joined NATO in 2009.
Russia warned the West not to expand NATO to its border because Russia will interpret this as a strategic threat. Nevertheless, the highlight of NATO’s expansion came in April 2008 at the Bucharest summit when NATO promised membership to Georgia and Ukraine. Actually, in his interview, Putin calls the Bucharest summit as “the main point.” Nobody listened to Putin back then or today.
(Don’t get me wrong. I am happy my country, Romania, is part of NATO. It gives me a false sense of security, at least. A sweet illusion that all will be well with Romania if Russia attacks my country)
Putin mentioned other reasons he had to start his special military operation: the persecution of the Russians in Donbas, the de-Nazification of Ukraine and the coup d’État orchestrated by America in 2013-2014 when President Viktor Yanukovych was destitute from power—it is also known as the Maidan Revolution. After this coup d’État Putin took Crimea.
However, Putin had to wait until 2022 to attack Ukraine. First, he had to prepare Russia with a modern army and with a better economy in order to absorb the impact of the expected sanctions from the West.
There is so much information in the interview. One could write a post only about BRICS, the de-dollarization and the China-Russia relationship or about the way the West got involved in the war.
Putin and his Christian faith
I will only touch on Putin’s theology in connection to the war. Throughout his interview, Putin used theological Christian words like baptism (“the baptism of Russia”), Orthodox faith, and Christianity. By using these words and concepts, Putin wants to highlight his values (and Russia’s values) and his country’s spiritual identity. Moreover, Putin points to the official shared faith of the entire Russia (Ukraine included), even though within the territories of Russia are other faith groups, like the Muslim.
It was interesting for me to understand what does it means for Putin to be a Christian. When Carlson asked Putin, what does it mean for him to be Orthodox and a Christian Orthodox leader, Putin basically went back into Russia’s history and pointed to the baptism of Prince Vladimir as following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga.
It makes me think that for Putin to be Orthodox is a matter of respecting and emulating the Russian tradition. In other words, to be Russian is to be Christian Orthodox—that is, to be baptized according to the rites of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is, more or less, a form of tradition.
Even if I share a different faith/religion than the Christian Orthodox, I live in a country where the majority of people identify themselves as Christian Orthodox. And I can say I prefer the Christian Orthodox Church’s values than the Catholic Church’s values.
Even though for Putin to be Christian Orthodox is (perhaps) only a Russian tradition and about following certain Christian Orthodox values (like the traditional definition of family as a marriage between a man and a woman), I like the fact that he appreciates religion and has a certain openness to God.
Carlson quotes the Bible
After letting Putin share about his faith and the Orthodoxy of Russia, Carlson gets straight to his point. Near the end of his interview, Carlson asked Putin (01:44:32):
Can I say that the one way in which the religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion? Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek. Don’t kill.” How can a leader who has to kill of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?
First, I have no problem in labelling Christianity a religion. I know many have a problem with that, but I do not. I believe Christianity is more than a religion (it is about living in a covenant relationship with God), but it is nothing less than a religion.
Second, Carlson intentionally describes Christianity as a non-violent religion. Of course, non-violent against other people, but violent against sin. Indeed, Jesus never asked His Church to commit acts of violence even though the Church in general has her hands stained with blood—I refer to the Catholic Church and the Inquisition or the Nazis who (many of them) were nominal German Christians. However, one can build a solid case if they indeed were genuine Christians.
Third, Carlson quotes the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:39 (TLV)
But I tell you, do not resist an evildoer. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other.
The issue I take with Carlson quoting this verse is basically about his application or misapplication of Jesus’s words. In the context of Matthew 5:39, Jesus does not refer to a country defending from another country or to a country attacking another country.
Just think about Israel not defending herself from her enemies, like Hamas or Iran. A country (Christian or not) by not defending herself will be an easy prey and will be in danger of annihilation.
Fourth, Jesus never said “don’t’ kill.” In the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5: 21-22 (TLV), Jesus says:
“You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca’ shall be subject to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be subject to fiery Gehenna.
In certain cases, God commands taking the life of a person, like in Genesis 9:6 (TLV):
The one who sheds human blood, by a human will his blood be shed, for in God’s image He made humanity.
Perhaps Carlson refers to the words of God in Exodus 20:13 (TLV)
Do not murder.
The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus by Nahum M. Sarna says about Exodus 20:13 the following:
The Hebrew stem r-ts-ḥ…applies only to illegal killing and, unlike other verbs for the taking of life, is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Also, it is never employed when the subject of the action is God or an angel. This command, therefore, cannot be used to justify either pacifism or the abolition of the death penalty, both of which would have to be argued on other grounds.
Now, the discussion can be long. I will leave it here and I will get back to Carlson’s question and Putin’s answer.
Basically, Carlson indirectly asks Putin: If you say you are a Christian, why do you attack Ukraine? And Carlson misuse the words of Jesus to endorse his point. In a way, Carlson’s point is about Putin being a hypocrite or a false Christian who does not obey the words of Jesus.
Putin answered Carlson’s questions by pointing that he is not attacking Ukraine (thus Jesus’s words do not apply in this case), but defending his country—because, for Putin, Ukraine is Russia, a Russia that has “one soul” (a personification of Russia).
The expression “one soul” in Russian literature has the meaning of unity, solidarity and a shared national spirit or identity. It is the basic idea of interconnectedness and collective consciousness of the Russian people.
Nevertheless, the word “soul” in itself is a theological or religious word as well. In theology, one’s soul/spirit is a person’s immortal nature that is different from the physical body. A body without its spirit is dead (James 2:26).
Putin sees Christian Orthodoxy as Russia’s soul—without religion, there is no Russia, according to him. Christian Orthodoxy makes the “Russian people think more about the eternal…moral values,” Putin says.
In a way, Putin is like a Messiah-type of person who tries to save the Russian (Ukraine included) “soul” from NATO and the West’s touch. From this perspective, Putin looks at his special operation as a special operation of curing Russia and Ukraine from the non-eternal and immoral values coming for the West/America.
I will end my post by calling all my readers to pray for Russia and for Ukraine.
P.S. I highly recommend David Johnson’s Russia List.
I am a blogger, writer, pastor, Director of Zion Romania Bible School, husband to Olguta, a father and, most importantly, a child of God. I also completed my studies at the King’s University where I earned a B.A. in Theology with a concentration in Messianic Jewish Studies. I love Israel and I love the ‘Jewishness’ of the Bible.
Leave a Reply