Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:That was a different time.

VP:Yes. The hostilities in the Caucasus started once again back then. And that was because there was an attack from the Chechen Republic against Dagestan by international gangs of terrorists. And I have to draw attention to the fact that we didn’t attack anyone, that we suffered an attack. [95] Background Information For a good description of the origins of the war in the Caucasus, see, “Chechnya, Russia and 20 years of Conflict,” Ibid. “Miscalculations Paved Path to Chechen War,” Ibid. And hostilities started once again. And at that moment there was the question of whether to stop paying interest on our loans with the IMF. Back then I was Chairman of the Russian government and the IMF were very clear—they said: stop the hostilities in the Caucasus and we’ll accommodate you. [96] Background Information: It is true, as Putin claims, that both the IMF and World Bank eventually decided to give loans to Russia based upon the humanitarian issues related to the war in Chechnya. See, Retrieved at: “Chechnya Conflict: Recent Developments,” CRS Report for Congress (May 3, 2000). https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=451457 . It is also true, as Putin claims, that it is generally the case that the IMF does not generally take political/human rights issues into account in deciding whether to give loans. “Russia: Partisan War in Chechnya On the Eve of WWII Commemoration,” Human Rights Watch (May, 1995). Retrieved at: https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Russiaa.htm If you don’t stop the hostilities, we’re not going to compromise. Our response back then was: how can you ask the question in this manner? We’ve always heard that the IMF was above politics. That was the first argument I made. Secondly, I was telling them that we were defending ourselves, we didn’t attack anyone—we suffered an attack. But my counterparts were intransigent because they had their instructions as far as I understand and they were simply formulating this. But it doesn’t exclude the fact that after we paid back all our debts to the IMF, we still managed to maintain business-like relations. And we highly value these expert assessments that the IMF provides us with.

Incidentally, Russia not only paid back its debt to the IMF, we also paid back the debts of all the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine’s debt, which was 16 billion US dollars. [97] Background Information: It is undisputed that Russia has paid off all of the debts of the former Soviet Union as Putin claims. See, “Russia to pay off Soviet debt with $125 mln for Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Reuters (March 21, 2017). Retrieved at: http://www.reuters.com/article/russia-bosnia-debt-idUSR4N1F102X We’ve always had very good relations with the World Bank. Personally, I have very good business and personal relations with the predecessor of the current head of the World Bank, Mr. Wilson. The World Bank has implemented a great number of very good, very useful projects including in some regions of the Russian Federation. Regrettably, right now these relations have been suspended. I do not see that we are too much interested in that, nor do I see that we cannot live without them. We do hope that these relations are going to be rebuilt and that we will be able to work together as fruitfully as we used to.

OS:Well, that was a different time, in the sense that was way before the Munich speech in 2007. In 2007, you said something to the effect that, “They—the United States—bring us to the abyss of one conflict after another. Political solutions are becoming impossible.” [98] Background Information: For full transcript of Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich, See, “Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy,” Ibid. Which raises the broader question of: What is the US policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?

VP:Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail—but only once I retire.

OS:Well, I can state it for you and you can argue with me. I could say I think, or many people think, many learned people think the US strategy right now is to destroy the Russian economy, bring it to its feet, back to 1990’s levels, and change the leadership of Russia—make a new ally out of Russia for the United States to basically dominate Russia as they once did. And perhaps they feel they did not go far enough and take your new arsenal away.

VP:This train of thought is quite possible. If that is the case, then I believe this is an erroneous policy. Exactly because such a view of relations with Russia is not oriented towards the future. People who believe like that, they do not see 25 to 50 years to the future. And if they had a look then they would probably go about building relations with Russia differently, in a different frame. And they wouldn’t try to make Russia their vassal. They would try to make Russia their ally—or at least a partner—to address common issues and to surmount threats in which everyone is interested. And probably that would be more efficient than fruitless attempts at turning Russia into a satellite of theirs.

OS:Yes, absolutely. That’s idealistic. But as you know, the United States needs enemies.

VP:Yes, maybe. I believe they need partners and allies more. Philosophy can be changed entirely. Certainly you can try to live and act in a different paradigm. Once a great compatriot of ours, Leo Tolstoy, said—I do not think I can reproduce the quote entirely—but, “There is the realm of possibility and the limit of what is unacceptable. Within this realm of possibilities, one has to build most secure relations—seek relations that are as little dangerous as possible. But that is the minimum of what is required.” I only wish we could act in this paradigm, but certainly it would be far better to search for domains in which combining our capacities, our efforts, would yield the best results for everyone who could participate in this process. Let us take the following example—efforts in fighting poverty, protecting the environment, and in fighting the spread of WMDs, in combating terrorism… Regrettably, so far we have failed to secure efficient joint initiatives in these fields—almost all of them.

OS:Which brings us back to the realities, which are much more difficult. We have the US elections this year and none of these issues—the environment, fixing our alliances—has even been discussed one time. Everything in the election… Rhetoric has been “get tough and tougher.” Build up our military again. And that goes for both sides, including Hillary Clinton, who’s most definitely become a neo-conservative—a hawk. Strong policies against Russia. She was against Obama’s nuclear deal in Iran, she was certainly for the Syrian intervention, and so forth. So there’s very little hope for change in that direction. In addition to that, the Pentagon has announced recently—this new general has announced that Russia is the number one threat to the United States. He’s been very forceful in those statements. [99] Background Information: So many US military leaders have referred to Russia as the number one threat to the US that it’s hard to know who Putin is referring to here. In any case, Retired General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, now Secretary of Defense, has recently reiterated this claim. See, “Trump’s Pentagon nominee says Russia is No. 1 security threat to US,” Associated Press (Jan. 12, 2017). Retrieved at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pompeo-mattis-confirmation-hearings-1.3932152

VP:Yes, we know about that. And certainly we cannot welcome that. Contrariwise, we’re always open to dialogue in almost every field. Just an example—even amid these conditions right now, knowing about this rhetoric in the run up to the elections, I know that our women’s organizations have extended an invitation to Hillary Clinton to come to Russia. To pay a visit. I do not know whether she is going to accept this invitation or not. But during an election campaign, unfortunately it has become a fashion in the United States to speculate, to even abuse the Russian issue, so to speak. Afterwards, they tell us: “Please do not pay too much attention to that. You have to understand,” they say to us, “this is just election campaign rhetoric. Afterwards we are going to arrive at a deal with you.” But sacrificing intergovernmental, interstate relations in the name of current political processes is a great mistake, I believe.