Triumph of Common Sense: Dissecting the Carlson-Rees-Mogg Interview

“Sir, Rees-Mogg, thank you very much for having us in your home. It’s really pretty. I’m sad to think of it being destroyed in the war you described?” This provocative opener to the interview between Tucker Carlson and British Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg epitomizes the spirit of the conversation that ensued.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. Sir Rees-Mogg, an Etonian, businessman and former Conservative member of parliament, is sitting in a lavish hall of his home. The discussion concerns the UK’s policy toward Russia and Ukraine, but also the more fundamental question of “what is the right thing to do in life?” Carlson approaches it through the lens of relativism, Russian apologism and selective concern for other people’s plight. Rees-Mogg delivers an extensive reality check. Russian apologism and economic ignorance Carlson has long been known as one of the leading American commentators holding Russia-friendly views. In 2024, he traveled to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin, giving the Russian leader ample space to put forward his historical claims and justify his invasion. His interview with Rees-Mogg was no exception. He started by questioning Rees-Mogg’s assertion that the UK must be prepared for war with Russia, given Russia’s extensive acts of hostility. Such a war, Carlson suggested, could destroy the “pretty home.” “There was attempted murder in Salisbury, and there was a murder that took place in London by agents of Putin, that Putin has invaded Ukraine, and he is making threatening noises,” Rees-Mogg said, adding that Russian figures close to the state had discussed the potential for nuclear war. Other Topics of Interest How NATO Plans to Win: ‘Theory of Victory’ Against Russia to be Unveiled in Poland The strategy draws on lessons from Ukraine, emphasizing low-cost drones, AI-enabled targeting and minimally crewed systems to counter Moscow. Carlson’s response was a sarcastic insinuation of the kind he likes to describe as thinking clearly about cause and effect. For Carlson, the “cause” is Britain’s behavior: namely, supporting Ukraine. Only it isn’t. The Salisbury attack occurred in 2018, while Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned in London in 2006. Both took place long before the expansion of British military assistance following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those attacks cannot be explained as a response to that later assistance. The other logical fallacy concerns the “cause” itself. In the chain of events surrounding the full-scale war, Russia threatening the UK over its support for Ukraine is not the starting point. The starting point is Russia’s full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022 – not to mention its initial invasion in 2014. British assistance is a response to Russia’s illegal aggression against its sovereign neighbor. Rees-Mogg, disregarding Carlson’s innuendos, suggests that Putin wishes to reassert Russian power, linking this ambition to the loss of territory and influence following the Soviet Union’s collapse. “In most years, Russia expands, and then you get the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia suddenly shrinks. And it seems to me that that is looked upon by some Russians as a matter of shame and against the historic destiny of Russia. Hence, of course, the reason for activity in Georgia, and more recently in Ukraine,” he says. Carlson’s reasoning then moves from explaining away aggression to confusing different measures of economic strength. He claims that Russia has a larger economy than Britain, insisting that it has more wealth, resources and a larger manufacturing sector. Rees-Mogg counters that Russia’s GDP is smaller, while Carlson replies that GDP is not the only measure of an economy. “It’s a pretty important measure of an economy,” Rees-Mogg says, arguing that Russia has failed to use its resources effectively because it is deeply corrupt. There is a distinction to make here between nominal GDP and purchasing-power comparisons. Neither speaker makes it adequately. Carlson instead moves between economic output, natural resources and national power as though they were interchangeable. Again, they are not. Rees-Mogg points to African countries with extensive natural resources that have nevertheless failed to turn them into prosperity. The existence of something underground does not automatically establish how successfully a country extracts, processes, sells or uses it. Carlson remains unconvinced. But he’ll “grant you.” Everything is relative and no one owes anything If you make an agreement, is that agreement worth anything? For Rees-Mogg, the answer is unequivocally yes. For Carlson, the answer becomes considerably more elusive, as their discussion of international obligations demonstrates. Carlson admits in plain language that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was no concern of his. But his reasoning reveals something deeper: He questions the significance of commitments countries make to each other whenever honoring them might require a cost. The central example is the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weapons on its territory in return for security assurances from Russia, the United States and Britain. Those assurances included commitments to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity. “So you’re saying Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons?” Rees-Mogg asks logically. Carlson replies that there were subsequent arrangements violated on all sides. Which arrangements precisely? He eventually invokes the alleged promise that NATO would not expand toward Russia’s borders. Yet Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, said in a 2014 interview that NATO enlargement had not been discussed during the negotiations surrounding German reunification. Carlson does not explain how his claim cancels the assurances given to Ukraine, or how Ukraine becomes responsible for supposedly violated arrangements between other countries. However, things become clearer as he progresses in his reasoning. “Do you believe in territorial integrity of nation states?” Rees-Mogg asks. “In my own, for sure,” Carlson answers. “I’m not sure that the territorial integrity of someone else’s state is worth risking my life for.” What is a nation state? And sovereignty? Carlson makes a distinction between sovereignty “for yourself “and sovereignty “for everyone else.” Carlson believes in his own country’s territorial integrity “for sure.” Smaller countries, however, are expected to live with whatever their powerful neighbors consider necessary. But if sovereignty is a principle, it cannot apply only to countries powerful enough to enforce it. Otherwise, what Carlson is defending is a hierarchy: some countries are entitled to independence; others are obliged to accept their place. Carlson asks why Britain should concern itself with whether Russia takes Ukraine. Rees-Mogg answers that preserving the integrity of nation states serves both British and American interests. “If all nation states are up for grabs, for whichever country wants to take it, then why shouldn’t China take Taiwan tomorrow?” he asks. Carlson has no good answer. And what about an ally? Carlson challenges Rees-Mogg over Britain’s decision to enter World War I, asking whether protecting Belgium was worth “destroying all of Europe.” Notice who becomes responsible for the deaths. Germany invaded Belgium to reach France, and Britain had guaranteed Belgian neutrality and independence. Yet in Carlson’s formulation, the catastrophe becomes something Britain, as a guarantor, chose to inflict by deciding that protecting another country mattered. Rees-Mogg objects to the premise altogether, despite acknowledging the dreadful cost of World War I. “What I said was that the enemy felt free to invade because we were seen to be weak. That’s not the same as saying it was the right thing to do.” But Carlson’s underlying question remains: why bother with Belgium? Why incur a cost for France or anybody else? When the conversation turns to World War II, Carlson’s reasoning becomes even more revealing and disturbing. He talks of nothing but Hitler’s declarations that he did not want war with Britain and argues, in effect, that the war started because of Hitler’s grievances over territory lost as a result of World War I. Nazi aggression cannot be reduced to territorial grievances following World War I. Hitler’s ambitions admittedly involved a racial empire: conquest for German settlement, the subjugation and displacement of populations deemed inferior, and the pursuit of racial “purity.” War and occupation enabled the regime to escalate persecution into genocide, including the Holocaust. Britain did not enter the war in 1939 with foreknowledge of every atrocity that would follow. But Carlson, assessing that war retrospectively, has no such excuse for reducing the issue to whether Hitler wanted to attack Britain, omitting the atrocities of that period. “I’m very surprised you’re verging on defending Hitler,” Rees-Mogg eventually replies to Carlson’s persistence. “Yeah, I guess I’m just a secret Nazi,” Carlson replies sarcastically. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.