"Democrats and their propagandists in the media are spasming at the prospect of Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin. They feel entitled to the position of gatekeeper and believe they are the ones who tell you what to think and believe. They HATE when someone like Tucker [Carlson] goes «off script», Representative Marjorie Taylor-Green (R-GA) posted on X (former Twitter, blocked in the Russian Federation), though it looks like Kremlin propaganda trumpeting. The Washington swamp’s howl grew prominent even before the most remarkable interview over the past few years was released.

"Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media. They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning. Last month we’re pretty certain they did exactly the same thing once again, but this time we came to Moscow anyway," the journalist’s video message says.

Indeed, one can hardly attribute the harsh criticism of America’s mainstream media to professional envy of "those acrobats of the pen, those virtuosos of farce, those jackals of the rotary press." We deal with a well-coordinated campaign engaging absolutely independent outlets claiming to be high-quality, that is, accurate, objective and unbiased.

And here you are, reading The Washington Post: "Carlson regularly used his show to push back on criticism of Putin. <...> A few days before [the start of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine] Carlson conducted an odd, politically charged rhetorical argument to suggest that Americans had no reason to hate the Russian president."

Or The Wall Street Journal: " He [Tucker] was one of the first and most prominent voices on the right to question U.S. support for Ukraine after Russia invaded, and has helped shape views on Capitol Hill."

Or The New York Times: "Mr. Carlson, like the Republican presidential front-runner, Donald J. Trump, is skeptical of further American support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion, and has embraced Mr. Putin’s efforts to position himself as a global standard-bearer for “traditional values” <…> The interview could inflame political divisions over Ukraine inside the United States, especially if Mr. Putin signals that he is open to a negotiated end to the war".

Indeed, unanimous stigmatization of a journalist by the mainstream media has been giving some intimidation vibes.

Ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, still a bigwig, called Tucker a "useful idiot." This is even beyond insulting him but a term Western intel applies to its objects of influence. And former chief of staff to the vice president Bill Kristol said the United States "need a total and complete shutdown of Tucker Carlson re-entering the United States." This reminds of how Solzhenitsyn was being persecuted. And former Rep. Adam Kinzinger laconically labelled the journalist a traitor. With no threats of physical elimination so far, the rhetoric has become crystal-clear.

Europeans have also joined bullying Carlson as backup singers. The Newsweek magazine reported on his chances of being sanctioned by the EU for interviewing Putin. According to Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian Prime Minister and current member of the European Parliament, the interview with Putin can turn Carlson into a target for the European lawmakers. He called the reporter a "mouthpiece" of former US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. He added that the EU imposes sanctions against anyone who "assists" the Russian leader.

Luis Garicano, a former MEP, agreed with Verhofstadt, claiming that Carlson can no longer be considered a reporter, because he became a "propagandist."

In turn, lawmaker Urmas Paet pointed out when commenting on the interview that "you can end up on the list of sanctions" for propagating Moscow’s stance, and this primarily concerns a travel ban to EU member states.

Practical Europeans do think that truth is good, but a Schengen visa is even better.

But still, what is this howl in the Washington swamp all about, immediately taken up by Europe?

An interview with the Russian president clearly breaks the Western policy to cancel our country, its culture, citizens, leaders or opinions. A policy that has become, along with economic sanctions, the most important psychological lever to them. Orchestrated contempt has ranged from demonstrative shutdown of high-demand stores like Louis Vuitton or Chanel in Russia to witch-hunt against Paralympians. Moscow's arguments have not been just rejected but made sort of non-existent.

Meanwhile, the interview is going to be posted on America’s major social platform X (Twitter), which comes as a breakthrough in the information blockade, giving a shot to impartially apprehend global developments after the war broke out. And the global reach will not be limited to the American audience alone. The West's monopoly on information and its interpretation may not withstand a blow of the kind.

Second, the West is well aware of the Russian president’s polemical capability, as he has accumulated huge expertise in communicating with Western audiences and journalists. For example, Putin wrote the following for The New York Times a decade ago: "I carefully studied his [Obama's] address to the nation on [September 10]. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is «what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.» It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

The Americans do cherish the Bible, but to a lesser extent than their exclusivity. And Putin's words hurt the New York Times audience back then, making the piece one of the three most condemned in 2013, according to the editorial board. And now he also has something to say, even in a tougher way. And there will be certain response after all.

Finally, all the references by the American media to links between Carlson and Trump are scarcely accidental. Also, let's take note of the fact that Elon Musk, X owner and investors’ idol across the globe, promised not to suppress the interview when posted. All of this has indicated that the United States is about to see a real alternative to the "Washington swamp" — a prepotent counter-elite able to challenge the White House and Congress gerontocrats. This is not about newcomer Trump’s random victory in 2016 but a shrewd and tough across-the-board opposition to the current authorities with an eye to winning the power game. This implies that the White House does not need publicity. National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby clearly stated that there is no need for Tucker Carlson to interview President Putin.

We'll see when we get there!