Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:Even with the missile shield?

VP:As of now the shield of missiles wouldn’t protect the territory of the United States. Just remember the current State Secretary John Kerry once spoke against the so-called Star Wars program which was put forward by Ronald Reagan. [70] Background Information: Putin is indeed correct that John Kerry, as Senator, was highly critical of Reagan’s proposed “Star Wars” missile defense program, calling it a “cancer on our nation.” See, “Kerry Says Star Wars ‘Based on Illusion,’” Lawrence L. Knutson, Associated Press (June 4, 1985). Retrieved at: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Kerry-Says-Star-Wars-Based-on-Illusion-/id-959d3c5dace13d1264c5c18833522d2e

OS:Right.

VP:And why was he speaking against it? You can ask him. Back then, this attempt at protecting so large a territory as the United States from potential military strikes was impossible. And today, despite the modern weaponry, despite the new generation of technologies—information technologies, space technologies, radars, and interception means, information systems—despite all that, I think that as of now, and in the midterm, strategic anti-ballistic missiles will not be efficient enough. And I think there is an element of threat to that. And the threat consists of the fact that there might be the illusion of being protected. And this might lead to more aggressive behavior. And in that sense, we believe that there are more problems than advantages with that, apart from everything else. We are developing systems capable of surmounting these anti-ballistic missile defense systems. And these systems, they bring down the possibilities of antiballistic missile protection even further. And that’s why this attempt at unilaterally creating a protective shield, as I believe, is both inefficient and dangerous. And besides, this ABM system is not just a protective system, it is an element of strategic forces which can only be efficient if it works together with offensive weapons systems. And that’s why the philosophy behind the use is quite simple—especially given the fact that there are now precision-guided munitions. First you have to make the first strike against the command and control system, then you make a strike at strategic facilities. You protect your own territory as far as it’s possible. You can even combine weapons, both strategic and ballistic weapons systems and use other weapons systems. You also use cruise missiles. This all increases the defense capabilities of a country. But at the same time it is no guarantee of security.

OS:Can I ask you also just briefly—space warfare. I know the United States has been working very hard to develop space as a weapon.

VP:Yes, certainly. We know about that as well. That’s why it is so important to prevent unilateral actions. That’s why we proposed that we should work jointly on the ABM system. What would that mean? That would mean that we would establish the missile dangers and where they emanated from. We would have equitable access to the control system of these systems. And we would also search jointly for solutions to other operational issues related to technological development. I believe such an approach of working together in order to find solutions to these existing challenges and threats would create a far more stable condition, and the world would be a safer place.

OS:This was originally proposed, you know, by John Kennedy with Nikita Khrushchev in 1963. [71] Background Information: It appears that it was the Johnson Administration that first floated the idea with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to engage in joint talks about limitations on Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems, though this idea had been in consideration for years by the United States, including in the Kennedy Administration. See, “Cold War International History Conference: Paper by David S. Patterson” (1998). Retrieved at: https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/cold-war/conference/patterson.html

VP:If you are getting back to the past now, let me remind you from whence the Cuban Missile Crisis started. I’m not an admirer of Khrushchev, but placing Soviet missiles on Cuba was prompted by the stationing of American missiles in Turkey, from the territory of which those missiles could easily reach the Soviet Union. And that’s why Khrushchev responded by stationing missiles in Cuba. Cuba was not the one who initiated the Cuban missile crisis. [72] Background Information: Indeed, there is evidence that Khrushchev’s decision to place missiles in Cuba was a predictable result of the US’s stationing of Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey—a provocative move which seemed aimed at giving the US first strike capability against the USSR. As an article in The Atlantic explains: “The Jupiter’s’ destabilizing effect was widely recognized among defense experts within and outside the US government and even by congressional leaders. For instance, Senator Albert Gore Sr., an ally of the administration, told Secretary of State Dean Rusk that they were a “provocation” in a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 1961 (more than a year and a half before the missile crisis), adding, “I wonder what our attitude would be” if the Soviets deployed nuclear-armed missiles to Cuba. Senator Claiborne Pell raised an identical argument in a memo passed on to Kennedy in May 1961. Given America’s powerful nuclear superiority, as well as the deployment of the Jupiter missiles, Moscow suspected that Washington viewed a nuclear first strike as an attractive option. They were right to be suspicious. The archives reveal that in fact the Kennedy administration had strongly considered this option during the Berlin crisis in 1961.” See, “The Real Cuban Missile Crisis,” Benjamin Schwarz, The Atlantic (Jan/Feb. 2013). Retrieved at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/

OS:No, I know. It was a crazy time. Stanley Kubrick, a filmmaker I much admire, made a wonderful film called Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb . [73] Background Information: Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999), American film director, screenwriter, and producer regarded as one of the most influential directors in modern cinema. Most notable films: The Shining ; 2001 : A Space Odyssey ; A Clockwork Orange ; Dr. Strangelove ; and Full Metal Jacket , which examines the dehumanizing effects of the Vietnam War on soldiers. The film was released just one year after Oliver Stone’s Platoon . See, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000040/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm Kubrick’s 1964 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb satirizes Cold War hysteria over nuclear conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. See, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012 Have you seen it?

VP:No.

OS:Oh, you must see it. Really, it’s well worth it—a classic. Because Mr. Kennedy was dealing with the military’s system that had been growing and growing since World War II and the generals, at that point, knew that the Soviet Union did not have the capacity to match them. And many of them said, “This is a time to hit the Soviet Union.” So there was a desire for a unilateral strike against Russia. [74] Background Information: See, “The Real Cuban Missile Crisis,” Ibid. Kennedy said, “You’re crazy,” and then as other situations developed in Berlin and Cuba it became more dangerous. But honestly, there was a desire to strike first. I fear that still in the United States. I fear the neo-conservative element as being so hungry, pro-war, to make their point, to win their case, that it’s dangerous.