Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:Now, but not then?

VP:Back then I believe there was this understanding that Russia would not be able to do that.

OS:Can I ask—this is a technical question: Did Russia back then have any ability to monitor the US systems, or could the US have cheated anyway?

VP:We had these capabilities and we still have them. First we agreed on reductions. Both we and the American partners followed them and stuck to those agreements. There is a reservation on these agreements—if one of the parties decides that this treaty goes contrary to their national interests, then any party to the treaty has the right to withdraw from it unilaterally. So you see there has been a great deal of discussions on this matter. I just do not think that I have the right to talk about certain things because they are of a confidential nature. But sometimes I found those discussions just ludicrous, because everyone understood everything. First they feigned not to understand something and when everything was sorted out, they’ve gone through all the details, they recognized our concerns, but they proposed that we should remove our concerns this way or that way and then they withdrew even that proposal. By the way, the whole ABM system—the very idea of an ABM system—is based on the following. It’s based on the idea of nuclear threat emanating from Iran. Right now we are coming to an agreement with Iran. We are placing under outside control all of its nuclear program. There are even talks about lifting sanctions from Iran. What does this mean? It means that we are all admitting that there is no threat, missile or nuclear, whatsoever emanating from Iran. So it has to be done right now? All these ABM programs have to be cancelled?

OS:Cancelled?

VP:Yes, so why do that? If the whole idea of an ABM system is based on a threat from Iran and now this threat is gone, are there any reasons to continue with this program?

OS:Correct me if I’m wrong—I had the impression that the Russians were ahead technically in creating an anti-ballistic missile program.

VP:Not entirely like that. We have more sophisticated air defense systems. But as to anti-ballistic defense, the thing is we have to talk about protecting ourselves from ballistic missiles and ballistic missile strikes with a cosmic velocity. And another type of system is required to counter this threat. These anti-ballistic missiles are just a part of a greater anti-ballistic missile system, and these missiles are usually placed on the periphery of the country. This system is very complicated, very large, it requires information support, space support. But to Russia two threats exist—the first threat is the placement of these anti-ballistic missiles in the vicinity of our borders. In Eastern European countries, these count as part of our missile compounds which are located in the European part of the country. And the second threat is that the launching pads of these anti-ballistic missiles can be transformed within a few hours for offensive weapons to be placed in those launching shafts. And both these threats are quite real. And we now have a situation—if these ballistic missiles are placed in Romania or Poland, if those missiles are also placed on the water using ships patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and the Northern seas, and in Alaska—where Russian territory is encircled by these systems. So, as you can see, that is yet another great strategic mistake made by our partners. [32] Background Information: “Putin Warns Romania, Poland Over Implementing US missile Shield,” Fox News (May 28, 2016). Retrieved at: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/28/putin-warns-romania-poland-over-implementing-us-missile-shield.html Because all these actions are going to be answered by Russia adequately. And this means nothing else but a new cycle of an arms race. And our response is going to be much cheaper than the antiballistic missile system. Well, of course our response can be rougher, not so sophisticated, but our systems which we’re going to build are going to be efficient. And we’re going to preserve the so-called strategic parity. And I think that not just the citizens of Russia and the United States are interested in that—the whole world is interested in that. Balance is of the utmost importance.

OS:Right.

VP:You remember how the nuclear project developed? When the United States created the nuclear bomb and the Soviet Union entered the race and started to actively develop the nuclear program. Russia had both Russian scientists working, and foreign scientists, Germans primarily. But our intelligence also received a whole bunch of information from the United States. Suffice it to remember the Rosenberg spouses who were electrocuted—they were American citizens… [33] Background Information: As tension from the Cold War peaked, and paranoia of Communism spread throughout America grew, husband and wife Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, former members of the Communist party, were sentenced to death under the Espionage Act of 1917 for suspicion of sending nuclear information from the United States to Russia. Despite public outcry and demand for their clemency, both Presidents Truman and Eisenhower refused to pardon them. Until their last days at Sing-Sing Prison in New York, the couple maintained their innocence. They were executed by electric chair on June 19, 1953. See, http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/TheRosenbergTrial.asp The Rosenbergs didn’t acquire that information—they were just transferring that information. But who acquired it?

OS:Klaus Fuchs. [34] Background Information: For more on the fascinating story of Klaus Fuchs who shared atomic secrets with the Soviet Union out of his ideological commitment to Communism, see, the description in PBS’s “American Experience,” at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh//amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX54.html

VP:The scientists themselves—those who developed the atomic bomb. Why did they do that? Because they understood the dangers. They let the genie out of the bottle and now the genie cannot be put back. And this international team of scientists, I think they were more intelligent than the politicians. They provided this information to the Soviet Union of their own volition to restore the nuclear balance in the world. And what are we doing right now? We’re trying to destroy this balance. And that’s a great mistake.

OS:So stop referring to them as partners—“our partners”—you’ve said that too much. You’re being euphemistic. They’re no longer partners.

VP:But dialogue has to be pursued further.

OS:Yes, but “partners” is a euphemism. “At one point… ” you could say that. Yeah, sometimes understatement doesn’t work. But in this period, the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the invasion of Iraq, expansion of NATO…. It must be clear that your view of US intentions has to have become more suspicious certainly and that Russian policy has to change. And in 2007 in Munich you made a statement that there was indeed a new attitude in Russia. [35] Background Information: See, “Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy,” Washington Post (Feb. 12, 2007). Retrieved at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html

VP:I didn’t want to say that the policy would be different. I was just saying that I thought it was unacceptable what the United States was doing. And I said we saw what was happening and that we had to take measures. I was saying that we would not let ourselves be dragged to the slaughter house and applaud that at the same time.