unsurprised by Carlson's statement, or HO's in your post below, which is the best example of those 3 of what you mean here. HO is 100% grade A partisan political animal, and so he boils this all down to whatever political spin works best for him. Putin is not taking advantage of a "feckless administration". He is executing on a policy to resolve bitterness building for decades over the collapse of the Soviet Union, which has become more urgent for him because of the Ukrainian pro-western administration. A fully Western oriented, well adjusted Ukranian democracy on his border, is a disaster for his goal of holding power, fleecing anything he can, and enriching himself. This isn't new, it is a continuation of actions at least since the annexation of Crimea and initial support for Donbas separatists, and maybe should be traced back to similar moves he took before that in Georgia. Its roots are in his interpretation of the importance of Ukraine to the history and cultural cohesion of the Russian people. Which makes it more urgent that his own people, really subjects at this point, don't have that contrast in such a culturally related society.

But, if this had started during the Trump years, there would be many on the left who would boil it down to simplistic, US-centric political causes, laying it all at Trump's feet because he is a Putin stooge. Many would claim, with or without any evidence, that Trump must be covertly assisting Putin. And you would never talk these people out of that viewpoint.

That too would be a total oversimplification, making the US the center of it. So, I think the answer to your question is that hyper-partisans are going to do what they do, and they are best ignored.

Tucker by the way is a different case. He is the cheerleader in chief for the Orban regime in the US. He is either a committed autocratic nationalist, or he just plays one on TV because of the money in it for him. Either way, I do agree that Putin has a strong US ally in Tucker Carlson.