Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

So what I fear is that the same thing continues. As the times change, you will see this creeping materialism. In Ukraine, it was amazing to see how effective these NGOs were in selling this approach “join Europe/become rich, materialism works, we want the American way of life.” [107] Background Information: For a good description of how US NGOs, as well as the US government, interfered in Ukraine and helped bring about the 2014 coup, see, “Brokering Power: US Role in Ukraine Coup Hard to Overlook,” RTNews (Feb. 19, 2015). Retrieved at: https://www.rt.com/news/233439-us-meddling-ukraine-crisis/ This is the come-on. And I worry that it would creep into this country as well, with their campaigns and media, social media, all these calls to the good life.

VP:I think there are other things we have to fear. I think that however dependent these countries that you’ve named are on their patron, on the United States, however dependent they are economically, from the point of view of information, politically, from the point of view of security… however great this dependence, however solid it is—still, inside these countries, there is a constant movement towards strengthening their sovereignty. There is this tendency.

Right now a certain strengthening of American influence is being witnessed in Europe, partly due to the Eastern European countries, because they are still living in a different paradigm, in a paradigm of fighting civilization. They are trying to resist a former dominating power of the Soviet Union. Right now it’s mirrored in Russia, but sooner or later this is going to stop. And even within the Western bloc there’s going to be a need to build new relations, relations founded on greater respect for one another, for one’s partners, for the interests of your partners, and for their sovereignty.

And I refer to those countries which housed large-scale American military bases. I’m not saying these are occupation forces, but still, the presence of large-scale military units of another country on the soil of a country is telling on the domestic policy of these countries. And it would be right if they started thinking about how events are going to develop in the near future, when they are building relations right now. But instead, as far as I see, American partners are trying to pull their allies toward them, closer. But not through changing the nature of relations within the Western bloc. They are trying to create an image of a common threat. An outside threat. And such a threat is such that they can only protect themselves by pulling themselves around the United States.

In my view, we can say that American partners have achieved certain tactical success following this path. Through initiating the crisis in the Ukraine, they’ve managed to stimulate such an attitude towards Russia, stimulate viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor. They have prevailed on us to take steps in response to what they did. But very soon everyone is going to understand that there is no threat whatsoever emanating from Russia—either to the Baltic countries, or to East Europe, or to Western Europe. And the stronger this misunderstanding is, the greater the desire is going to be to protect their sovereignty and to fend for their national interests. Right now I’m talking about Europe. But you know, in the East, say the Japanese—they are very sensitive to all outer signs of either respect or disrespect with regard to them. It’s a nation with great dignity, with great self-esteem. So this constant feeling of pressure is, let me assure you, something no one is happy about. Sooner or later this is going to have consequences. This is going to happen. And it’s better if this happens through dialogue. Certainly you can try to use North Korea or some other countries to paint a darker picture, to elevate tensions there. But I think what’s needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm, a new philosophy for building relations among countries.

OS:Good luck, but I don’t—

VP:And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interests of other countries, for the sovereignty of other people, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to shift sooner or later.

OS:One side question, just quickly, is why did Iran give up its—what was their motivation in making the US happy on this nuclear deal?

VP:Well, you have to ask them. They have always maintained that they didn’t seek to create nuclear weapons. But to be honest, if we do not pay enough attention to strengthening the fundamentals of international law which would serve as a guarantee of security, not just for the largest states but also for small countries—if we don’t do that, there are always going to be those who decide to protect themselves at any cost, including through acquiring WMDs. But as to Iran, they have never said that they were trying to get a nuclear bomb. All suspicions on that account were never justified—there was no evidence. And yet there were suspicions. And to alleviate those suspicions, Iran agreed to this nuclear deal, signed an accord, I believe in order to normalize its relations with the United States, with other countries of the world, which were expressing their concerns on that matter. [108] Claim: “All suspicions on that account were never justified—there was no evidence. And yet there were suspicions. And to alleviate those suspicions, Iran agreed to this nuclear deal, signed an accord, I believe in order to normalize its relations with the United States, with other countries of the world, which were expressing their concerns on that matter.” See, “Barack Obama Praises Putin for help clinching Iran deal,” Ibid.

OS:What are you going to do with the uranium you got from them?

VP:We’re going to re-process it. It’s going to be re-processed and converted into nuclear fuel to be used for peaceful purposes.

OS:I know you’re tired, so I’d just like to ask one final question—

VP:I’m not tired, but if it’s the last question it’s got to be a good one.

OS:Just a fun one—what do you think of these candidates in the US election?

VP:I believe that the people of the United States are going to choose the one who deserves it best.

OS:Nah, we want to hear what you think—just as a personal thing—they’re characters. People are fascinated by it.

VP:Well, I don’t know them very well, or some of them I don’t know at all. We see them only on the TV screen. And when a person is embroiled in some combat, especially in the run up to the election during an electoral campaign, they tend to show some of their qualities but not all of those qualities are manifest. Because routine work—both on the domestic, international, and economic fronts—requires some other qualities from the person than participating in debates, meetings, or rallies. We are going to be ready to work with whoever gets elected by the people of the United States. I said that on several occasions and that’s the truth. I believe nothing is going to change, whoever gets elected.

OS:How about Bernie Sanders—would you like that?

VP:Well, it’s not up to us to say. It’s not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say is as follows—I have some experience of communicating—the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It’s immense. And there are many facts that are not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden.