Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:Yes I understand. And the administration of Obama may be reassuring you, but Obama himself, with the Pentagon, has escalated recklessly, recklessly, the NATO involvement on the borders of Russia. By the expenditure, they’re spending—four times more has been spent in Eastern Europe in this year than before. [100] Background Information: It is true, as Oliver Stone claims, that Obama quadrupled US military spending for Europe, and that this increase was largely directed towards Eastern Europe. See, “US ‘to quadruple defense budget for Europe,’” BBC (Feb. 2, 2016). Retrieved at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35476180 Not since Hitler’s days has there been such a build-up on the borders of Russia, which is very surprising with Obama in office.

VP:That is true and that is a source of concern to us. But that is what I was talking about in Munich in 2007. Just recently, I have been told about the discussions that were going on before the reunification of Germany, and a German politician Aaron Barr—one of the leaders of the Democratic Party in Germany—expatiated his view of what the future of Europe would look like, in his conversations with the then-Soviet leadership. And I thought his train of thought was very interesting, his ideas fascinating. He was saying that NATO should not be extended eastward. He was talking about the need to establish a new military block in Central and Eastern Europe, a military alliance which comprised both the United States and Russia. A new bloc. And within the framework of this alliance, all countries in Central Europe and Eastern Europe would feel safe. But that alliance would also include the Soviet Union and the United States. And he was saying that if that didn’t happen, that in the end Russia would be isolated. And that new dividing lines would appear in Europe. He was absolutely right, as history has demonstrated to us. The Soviet leadership have lost this historic chance, and that German politician once said a very interesting thing. He said, “It’s very strange for me that so late and so old, I protect more the interests of the Soviet Union than the Soviet leadership themselves. But I’m doing that consciously so that in the future, a stable environment would appear for the development of Europe—without dividing lines and without conflict. And, moreover, he said, “If you don’t listen to what I say, if you go on ceding your positions, then there is going to be no need for me to come to Moscow ever again. And I’m not going to come here ever again.”

OS:Well, that sounds idealistic again—that was 1991, 25 years ago, and here we are. We’re still in that position where the Pentagon, as I said, is putting something like $3.4 billion into NATO in Eastern Europe this year. Last year it was $789 million, so it’s four times as much. [101] Ibid. Which is going to force Russia to put heavy weapons and nuclear tactical weapons, again closer to the border of Poland and the Baltic states, and Ukraine I would imagine. So it’s escalation—whatever you call it, it’s escalation.

VP:Further escalation is already happening because the United States is deploying its antiballistic missile system in Eastern Europe and we on many occasions proposed real variants, real scenarios for cooperation. [102] Claim: “Further escalation is already happening because the United States is deploying its antiballistic missile system in Eastern Europe and we on many occasions proposed real variants, real scenarios for cooperation.” See, “US Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted,” Ibid. And there was a moment when we thought that our American partners were really thinking about how to put into practice those proposals of ours. Personally, I talked about these proposals when I was visiting, I think it was the forty-first president of the United States. I was talking to George W. Bush in his house outside the city, and I elaborated on our proposals. The response was, “Yes that’s very interesting,” but afterwards it didn’t lead to anything. The United States chose their own path, decided to unilaterally implement this program. Right now there are ABM systems in Romania and we hear they’re going to appear in Poland and in the Mediterranean they’re also going to be deployed. So it’s a separate issue which no doubt is going to require a response from Russia.

OS:Do you think the United States knows—really knows and understands the power that Russia has in nuclear weapons?

VP:I don’t think so. I believe our partners thought at one time that Russia would not be capable of responding to these challenges they’re putting before us because of our economy, because of certain industries that we have—state industries—and due to the underfunding of scientific research. And due to a number of other considerations. But in my view, today everyone can see for themselves that Russia is not only capable of responding to this challenge, Russia is no doubt going to do that.

OS:Well, the United States is very smart. They have great technical help, great computers… How could they not understand the risks that they’re taking? Or do they think that they could out-bluff Russia?

VP:I would like to reiterate that they had a perception saying that the defense industry of Russia was on the verge of collapse and some dignitaries in the United States were even saying that all the Russian nuclear missiles would soon turn to rust. That was what they were saying.

OS:That was then, what about now?

VP:Right now the program has already been launched. They say the program is very difficult to stop right now. To work together on such a sensitive matter, our partners, well they’re simply not willing to do that—not ready to do that. Let me remind you what that signifies. Working together means that you have to work together to detect potential directions from whence missiles can go, it means to create a Joint Center for making decisions, and it also means developing a mechanism for making such decisions. Certainly if we were to pursue this path then we would no doubt have to exchange some technologies. That is what our proposal consisted of—just the outline of our proposal. This proposal was left unanswered.

OS:This is very strange time. And we talked about this last time. I mentioned the 1960 period when the United States felt that they had a large superiority over the Soviet Union and they thought this is the time now. And I compared that to Dr. Strangelove , and you said you had never seen the movie and so forth. But the point is, here we are—the United States has a lot of information on Russia. They can’t be that stupid to not realize that since you’ve been in power, there’s been a great improvement in Russian nuclear technology—not only anti-ballistic, but also airplanes, and ICBMs—including the one that’s so fast it can hit New York in 24 minutes apparently.

VP:That is not everything we have at our disposal and certainly our partners are aware of all of that. But they believe, as far as it seems, that the current level of science, of technologies, the current level of the defense industry of the United States are so high that it gives them grounds to believe that they will be able to make such a breakthrough that no one is going to be able to catch up with them. Just right now, at this very moment, there are ongoing discussions at the International Committee of Armaments Control. This committee was established within the United Nations back in the 1950s and it’s still working, still functional. This international committee is working in Russia and has brought up the issue of preventing the militarization of outer space. Unfortunately, our American partners have blocked this proposal. [103] Background Information: It is true, as Putin claims, that the US has rejected both Russia’s and China’s proposals to ban the militarization of space. “US Opposes New Draft Treaty from China and Russia Banning Space Weapons,” Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon (June 19, 2014). Retrieved at: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-opposes-new-draft-treaty-from-china-and-russia-banning-space-weapons/ What does it tell us? Apparently, our partners are intending to use outer space for military purposes directly—not just for intelligence purposes, but also for other purposes. We do understand what direction this string of events is leading towards. There are other dimensions of high technology, which according to our partners, are their monopoly. But they are wrong.