Where would conservatives be without Tucker Carlson?
Though clearly a man of the right, he takes on conventional political wisdom espoused by all sides. He's pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-God, a deadly enemy of the cultural left.
Every week he takes on the Leviathan, causing federal bureaucrats to quake. And he's outspoken against those who seem eager to involve us in useless foreign wars. It's hard to think of a crusade Tucker pursues that most conservatives don't endorse, or, at the very least, take seriously.
Still, many of his loyal fans aren't happy with how he has dealt with the Ukrainian issue. His opposition to sending American troops to "save Ukraine" is what the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens believe. (And Ukraine's leaders assure us aren't needed.)
But Tucker frequently teams up with Fox News contributor Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii's Democrat former House member, to verbally abuse any and all who think military or economic aid should be given to the Ukrainian resistance.
As Tucker would have it, we are hurtling toward a nuclear war with Russia becauseof such provocative assistance, money we could use to fight fentanyl, control the border, or reduce the deficit.
He portrays Putin not as a dangerously aggressive dictator whose brutal actions could plunge the U.S. and Europe into a tragic, cataclysmic conflict but as a regional bully who is using force to rectify a few Russian border problems with a corrupt and undemocratic regime.
He has also painted NATO as a provocative relic of the Cold War that needlessly distresses Putin, rather than, as many thoughtful foreign policy experts believe, the most successful alliance against Soviet imperialism produced in the Western world.
NATO played a critical role in ending the Soviet threat. Who denies that? And it is playing a crucial role in undermining Putin's determination to swallow free nations that once stuffed the Russian Empire.
The anti-interventionist wing of the GOP — of which Tucker is now an important part — thinks war with Russia can be avoided by basically ignoring Putin's predatory conduct. But those distinguished military and diplomatic experts who know Putin best aren't buying.
They think a major victory for Russia's aspiring new Tsar will just whet his prodigious appetite for securing former Soviet satellites now under NATO's military shield. They believe this pledge of protection would also make Putin far more likely to resolve an easily negotiable dispute between the warring parties. (Negotiable if Putin weren't adamantly set on taking every square inch of Ukrainian soil.)
Henry Kissinger certainly doesn't accept Tucker's almost benign view of the Russian oligarch. Addressing the Davos conference in Switzerland recently, Kissinger said he had been opposed to Ukrainian membership in NATO because, like Tucker, he thought it might have provoked Putin into launching the war that is now well underway.
But in light of Putin's actions, he now thinks NATO membership would be an "appropriate outcome." He says that the U.S. should continue to support — and if required — intensify its military assistance.
He also expressed admiration for President Zelenskyy and "the heroic conduct of the Ukrainian people." He called for sanctions and other pressures against Moscow until a final settlement is reached. But he also stressed we should keep negotiating with the Russian leader and "avoid the perception" that the conflict is directed against Russia itself.
That sounds like a reasonable response, even a somewhat soft response, to Putin's assault. Hardly the ranting tones of someone who is eager for a shoot-out.
Numerous other highly respected students of Putin are in the Kissinger camp. They think his invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine indisputably revealed his determination to make Russia a world power again, strong enough to threaten the survival of NATO-protected nations that Putin has long sought to reconquer.
Retired four-star Army General Jack Keane is an astute observer of Putin. Quoting the Russian leader's own words, he revealed his grand design "to bring back under the umbrella of Russia the former Soviet Republics that are now in NATO, and that is largely the Baltics, particularly Poland [and to] a lesser degree Romania." (Ramzan Kadryov, the Kremlin appointed leader of Chechnya and a key Putin ally, has openly called for the invasion of Poland as soon as Ukraine is defeated).
Kadyrov's declaration should hardly be comforting to the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP that thinks Putin has limited war aims. Nor is Gen. Keane alone in thinking that the ex-KGB chief is hell-bent on returning former Soviet satellites to the motherland.
Condeleeza Rice, former secretary of state under George W. Bush, and Robert Gates, secretary of defense under Barack Obama, have stated they got to know Putin pretty well in their service to this country.
In a jointly signed article in The Washington Post, they said he "remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or, failing that, destroying it as a viable country."
They remain convinced, again from both his threatening words and bloody deeds, that his "messianic mission" is to "re-establish the Russian Empire," with Ukraine's conquest essential to that mission.
General Keane says that NATO has the military power to rescue the world from a far worse conflict than exists today. From his wealth of historical knowledge and military experience, he concludes the current amount of our aid has already put Putin on the defensive.
Yes, Keane notes, we've invested $66 billion in these brave people this year but it's only a fraction of our six trillion dollar budget and has been extremely effective. For $66 billion, the Ukrainians, not Americans, are dying for their country.
They are "literally destroying the Russian army on the battlefield, which would set them back for years and deny them the ability to ever accomplish under Putin any of his ambitions in terms of taking back some of the Soviet Republics. By the way, if that would happen that would mean war between NATO and Russia. The scale of that [war] would be much greater than what it is right now."
Putin used to be an anti-interventionist himself. In 1994, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom signed the famous Budapest Manifesto. In exchange for relinquishing nuclear weapons placed in Ukraine when it was under Soviet control, these three nations pledged "to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing border of Ukraine."
The memo reaffirmed their obligation to "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine."
The signatories also committed to "seek immediate" UN Security Council action "to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of aggression."
At the time, Putin was a major figure in the Russian leadership. Tucker's caution about going into war is appreciated by conservatives, especially since there are those on the right who seem willing to involve us in military conflict with anyone who gives offense.
But Tucker has failed to make the case against those like Kissinger, Keane, Rice, Gates and many, many others who have compiled overwhelming evidence that Putin is obsessed with not only subduing Ukraine but returning former Soviet satellites now under the NATO shield.
Indeed, Putin is provoking NATO, not the other way around, as he keeps saying. His massive — and needless —invasion has prompted NATO members to substantially rebuild their military. Even the historically non-aligned nations of Finland and Sweden sought NATO protection for the first time ever in May of last year.
They were so concerned about the Russian dictator's murderous behavior they collectively sent well over $1 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and welcomed tens of thousands of displaced Ukrainians into their communities. (Will Tucker and Tulsi call them warmongers, too?).
There are now 30 nations in NATO, the legendary defense alliance which has prevented a major war in Europe since its birth. That's a record that can't be ignored by serious people.
Using the logic of our raging anti-interventionists on how to achieve peace with Putin, they will, one assumes, soon call for undoing our strong alliances in Asia to avoid war with a nuclear-armed and increasingly belligerent China. (President Xi, our own military leaders have informed us, has already drawn up plans to invade Taiwan, an obsession similar to Putin's desire to annex Ukraine permanently).
Tucker is surely right to fear that the U.S. may be involved in a war with Putin and Xi no matter what we do to confront them. But he has to ask himself this question honestly: Can any credible historian point to a single time in history that any nation that dismantled its military arsenal and abandoned its military alliances while two of its most deadly, brutal, and expansionary foes were on the march?
Allan Ryskind is a former Capitol Hill editor and co-owner of the national conservative weekly Human Events.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.