Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:I think you are right. I think there might be some confusion but I do believe that there are many officers in the military who are very smart and I know this, and I think there is a divide between the hardcore, let’s call it the old regime Pentagon and I think there’s a new regime Pentagon that could be borne out of reality and necessity.

VP:Well, it’s up to you to tell because you are American. We act from the assumption of what is going on in reality, in practice… just have a look: the need for deploying ABM systems in Europe was based on the argument that there was a need to counteract the nuclear missile threat from Iran. Right now, thanks to President Obama’s policies, with our support, the nuclear threat of Iran has been removed from the international agenda. [104] Background Information As Putin alludes, he and Obama worked together to finalize a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear capability. See, “Barack Obama Praises Putin for help clinching Iran deal,” Roland Oliphant, The Telegraph (July 15, 2015). Retrieved at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11740700/Barack-Obama-praises-Putin-for-help-clinching-Iran-deal.html And without any exaggeration, it is a great accomplishment of President Obama’s administration and his personal victory as well—whatever his critics say abroad and domestically.

There are very many advantages to this accomplishment. More advantages than disadvantages to this nuclear deal. But now that the nuclear threat from Iran has been moved, why is there a need to continue deploying an ABM system in Europe? But the deployment continues.

OS:Yeah, it’s shocking.

VP:The question arises, were our partners sincere at least on this matter with us or not?

OS:It’s a strange story—Alice in Wonderland, if you know that story. One could argue that the United States doesn’t really worry about the threat to Europe. They worry about Russian existence. The bigger issue is not Europe. The bigger issue is US and Russia. And to take out Russia, requires the United States to keep the European Union going. They need to do everything to make NATO feel as if they have some power and say in this matter. But I think the US has its own force and that’s the force that matters.

So I think, I return to—the policy of the United States has been from the beginning—from the 1917 revolution on, has been a policy that was born on Wall Street, to destroy communism, to destroy the power of the idea of the working class having control over society. And remember, in 1917, Wall Street was equally powerful with the government, if not more so. The government got more power with Roosevelt.

VP:Well, you didn’t ask a question—you simply stated what you think. I’d like to agree with you on the whole. But I’d like to disagree on one matter if I understood you correctly—with regard to the power of the working class. We have to be candid. The working class was not the ruling class in the Soviet Union.

OS:I was saying in the United States. They were concerned about the United States. And they made the Soviet Union a convenient enemy. As we became a war economy. You realize World War I was the first war, but with the Second World War, we became a military industrial complex. We needed an enemy to build all these weapons.

VP:Yes, I think it’s not so much about ideological motives. It’s more about geopolitical rivalry. To this day, I believe, the mistake is that our partners in the United States still treat Russia as if it were their main geopolitical rival. We have many fields of activities in which joint work would no doubt yield positive results both for Russia, for the United States, and for the whole world.

OS:Yes, but we talked about the possibility of mistake, error, perception. We’ve talked about—we don’t realize perhaps, the power Russia has in its nuclear arsenal. So we are interested first in destroying this economy. And then I think some people in my country think that once that country can be destroyed, the leadership is changed, which means you, Mr. Putin, are gone and a softer leader is around. They will take over Russia and they will basically destroy the nuclear industry here or else co-opt it in some way.

VP:Maybe someone does think like that. And it’s understandable there’s probably many who seek exactly that. And yet I believe there is a lack of understanding of our country. And this lack of understanding consists in the fact that probably much depends on certain persons and certain people and on the present. And yet, the most important thing about Russia is the Russian people, and its self-consciousness. The inner state of the Russian people, the inability of the Russian people to exist without sovereignty, to exist outside its own sovereign country. And this understanding, and not the threat of a nuclear war, should make our partners choose to build longstanding relations with Russia. And in that case they won’t have to spend so much money on their defense sectors. Just have a look—last year, in dollars, we allocated $40 billion US dollars to defense, whereas the United States allocated more than $460 billion US dollars. So it’s more than 10 fold. And this year, in 2016, the US is going to allocate more than $600 billion US dollars to defense. It’s just too much—more than the total defense expenditure of all the other countries of the world. [105] Claim: “And this year, in 2016, the US is going to allocate more than $600 billion US dollars to defense. It’s just too much—more than the total defense expenditure of all the other countries of the world.” The numbers don’t add up: US military budget is indeed six hundred billion dollars, but this is much less than the total amount of defense spending by the rest of the world combined. See, “Here’s how US defense spending stacks up against the rest of the world,” John W. Schoen, CNBC (May 2, 2017). Retrieved at: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/how-us-defense-spending-stacks-up-against-the-rest-of-the-world.html

OS:Yes. I wholly agree with you. In The Untold History of the United States documentary we did a large part of that story—the soul of the Russian people in World War II. And I understand that Russia will not give up—they will go to the end on this economy and they will… Under Stalin, in those times, they gave their jewelry, their personal possessions down to their last dollar to support the government against the Nazis.

VP:It’s not about the last dollar, it’s about life itself. Our people were fighting until their last breath—for their life.

OS:But times change, and I think what America may think is that you have to recognize that Britain, France, and Germany were powerful countries—they had huge histories, imperial countries. France, my mother’s homeland, I grew up there partly. Britain, imperial great, and Germany—what happened?

VP:It’s the result of the First World War and the second one, so it’s quite understandable.

OS:Yes, but my point is materialism works because after World War II, these countries basically became American satellites. And they do what America wants now in the world. I’m shocked at this—this is what I’ve seen in my lifetime. If you remember, in 1960, Charles de Gaulle said “no” to the American expansion in Europe. He took France out of NATO. [106] Background Information: It is true as Oliver Stone claims, that Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO in 1967. France would return decades later. See, “1967: De Gaulle pulls France out of NATO’s integrated military structure,” Dr. Jamie Shea, NATO (March 3, 2009) Retrieved at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_139272.htm He wanted to get rid of the United States in France. Very strong position. When have we seen anything like that in Europe since then? Mrs. Merkel seems to do what the Americans want, as did Mr. Adenauer, back when, and England basically takes our commands. I don’t see any independence in any of these countries—that worries me.