How Megyn Kelly Helped Russia

Political scientist Edward Lozansky talks about the reaction of American society to Vladimir Putin’s interview with NBC

If we were to briefly analyze and evaluate the results of the interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin by well-known American NBC host Megyn Kelly, I would say that it was extremely interesting and well-timed. Moreover, as the end result, not only did both of its participants benefit from it, but also supporters of the idea that political dialogue between the two countries should begin soon.

Kelly will most likely increase the ratings of her Sunday show, which had been steadily declining, and thus at least partially justify her $23 million contract with NBC. Meanwhile, Putin received a rare opportunity to directly address the American people. The Russian president provided precise and clear counterarguments to standard anti-Russian accusations and, almost like a school teacher, repeated many times that it is very important to urgently find a way out of the most dangerous crisis in relations between the two countries with the help of negotiations at the highest level.

Putin addressed Americans in September 2013 in a sensational article published in The New York Times. At the time, his main goal was to prevent the bombing of Syria that Barack Obama was planning. Obviously, we cannot state that this article made Obama change his mind, but it is what it is. Shortly before, the Pentagon had confirmed its full readiness, and the attack on Syria seemed inevitable. Despite that, the crisis recovery plan proposed by Russia was accepted almost at the last minute, and Obama canceled the bombing.

Nowadays, stakes are even higher. Anti-Russian rhetoric has reached such a high level of tension that the alleged interference of 13 Russian bloggers in the U.S. presidential elections is being compared to the attack by Japanese aircraft on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the destruction of the twin towers in New York on 9/11. It should be noted that these kinds of comparisons were not made in the tabloid press, they were put forward by members of Congress, current and retired politicians and mass media journalists.

But if this is so, consider that after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entered World War II, ultimately carrying out the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that after 9/11 it invaded Afghanistan, where it has been fighting for 17 years since. What should it do now?

It is clear that due to the fact that Russia has nuclear weapons, even the most odious figures in the Washington swamp are not calling for declaring war. For now, they insist on increasing pressure for tougher sanctions and, just as importantly for them, that Trump start using the same tough rhetoric toward Putin that they use.

Trump resists, which irritates his opponents even more and multiplies their efforts in search of new pretexts for impeachment.

Due to the fact that no proof of Trump’s collusion with Putin was found, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has started looking into Trump’s financial interests in Russia. Kelly tried to help the prosecutor by asking Putin a few questions about the subject. Although her attempts led nowhere, Kelly still thinks that she at least managed to convict Trump of lying. Trump has stated several times that he met with Putin before the start of presidential election campaign, but Putin denied it. Let’s set the record straight, there is not that much in it and it is unlikely to help Mueller, but I’ll repeat that this interview was mostly important and useful for those who want to find the way out of this lingering crisis.

Interestingly enough, this interview came out right after four American senators, Democrats Jeff Merkley, Dianne Feinstein, Ed Markey and independent politician Bernie Sanders, appealed to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to begin a dialogue with Moscow.

Although their message talked only about arms control and was provoked by Putin’s remarks mentioning which several new types of nuclear weapon, the essence of the matter does not change the intention because we have to start somewhere.

It is interesting that up until now, the senators’ appeal was practically ignored by the mass media, where any attempt to start a dialogue with Russia is usually viewed as an act of betrayal.

That makes the interview discussed here even more important, and especially the conclusion of the interview, when Kelly asked a question about how to get out of the current difficult situation, Putin again offered a natural solution, to sit down at the negotiating table.

This letter from the senators to Tillerson is the first movement in the right direction but it is still not enough. Washington’s foreign policy establishment is not ready for serious dialogue yet, and Trump’s options are considerably limited, since Congress has practically deprived him of his authority to seek compromise with Russia.

Under these conditions, the only remaining thing is to appeal directly to the American public with a call for prudence. We are very grateful that Kelly, perhaps not wanting to do so herself, helped to do this.