Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:I can understand you insisting on visas, but I don’t understand why you cut off, in this very tough time, the Turkish trade—the new trade with Turkey. It was one of the times when I thought you were the most emotional in your reaction to the shooting down of the jet.

VP:That’s very profitable to Russian producers. It can have an impact on pricing. Only in the short term, but it helps the agricultural producers increase their production volume. It creates new jobs, new salaries, new tech. And it also creates tax revenue.

OS:I’m still saying it’s a problem because your principle is that there should be no sanctions—you made that very clear.

VP:Yes, sanctions do not work with regard to another country, but this is a country which is already active in our market. And this country creates certain difficulties for our own agricultural producers. And that’s why we can pay more attention to issues related to security.

OS:But you can set price controls, the government can do that. I think Glazyev has suggested stuff like that—temporary price controls.

VP:We are pursuing a liberal economic policy and we try to influence pricing, not through administrative measures but through granting support to vulnerable economic groups.

OS:Last question—last night when we were talking and I said something about the 1917 revolution and the fears of Wall Street and the working class getting control of the United States and the richest ones losing control of the country and I talked about that fear and you said yes, but you said also that there is strong geopolitical interest in this area of the world. My question to you is—this is the most geopolitical area where the resources are in the Middle East and the Near East. This is the richest place in the world. Cheney, years ago—Dick Cheney, vice president—said in a meeting that the Middle East and the Near East are the “keys to the kingdom.” [133] Claim: “Dick Cheney, vice president—said in his meeting we… about the Middle East and the Near East being the “keys to the kingdom.” Unverifiable claim.

VP:Are you a communist?

OS:No, I’m a capitalist! So when you come to this area we’re talking about, the Middle East, oil comes up and I always hear that oil makes wars and oil is the reason we go to Iraq, oil is the reason we are now in Syria and Iran and this and that. And Russia, of course, is a big player in oil. So how does oil figure in this? Is it really true that oil is a determinate motive for all this chaos we see?

VP:It absolutely is true that oil is one of the elements which are very important not just for this region but for the whole world. I believe that as the world transitions to a new technological structure, as alternative sources of energy are expanding, the significance of oil is going to decrease. As far as I can remember, one of the oil ministers of Saudi Arabia once said—a thing I agree with—he said that the Stone Age didn’t end because the stones ran out, [134] Background Information: Quote attributed to Sheikh Zaki Yamani, Saudi Arabian Oil Minister from 1962 to 1986. “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” See, “The end of the Oil Age” The Economist (October 23, 2003). Retrieved at: http://www.economist.com/node/2155717 but because mankind transitioned to a new technological level, to new instruments of production. The same thing is going to happen to oil. Coal used to be one of the most important energy sources, then oil came into the picture and then gas, nuclear energy. Probably then hydrogen-based energy is going to be a driving force. But as of today, oil is no doubt one of the most important elements of world politics in the world economy. And oil will eventually lose the role it now plays. I don’t know when that is going to happen, but yes—new sources of energy are appearing. But they are too costly, as of now. And they do not allow certain economies to transition entirely to new sources of energy because, if they do, then their competitive advantage is going to vanish. But technologies do develop.

OS:You said “oil is one of”—but what is the second?

VP:The second factor is the geopolitical position of the region, the controversies in the region which reflect on the whole context of international relations. Let’s take the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It reflects on the whole range of international relations and ties.

OS:Did the United States go into Iraq because of the oil, and/or because of geopolitical considerations?

VP:[laughter] You have to ask yourself because you are American, not I.

OS:You have to be a world statesman. This is a statesman issue—you’re not just a president, you are an international statesman and you’ve contributed to peace. You’re playing a gigantic role.

VP:Let’s have a look at the most expensive, the largest contract in Iraq. Who has those? I believe that American companies do. And I think to a certain degree that answers your question. But whatever the motives of our American partners, I believe this path is still erroneous. To use force to address any issues, be they geopolitical or economic ones, to start with because the economy of the country was destroyed. The very country is collapsing. If we have a look at Iraqi, has the situation improved or not? Let me remind you, Iraq used to have no terrorists at all. And in this sense, that Iraq was more in the interest of the world, and at least Europe, than the Iraq of today. It’s evident that Saddam Hussein was a dictator. And probably support should have been granted to those who wanted to create within the country a more democratic regime.

OS:I agree.

VP:But this should have been done very cautiously from inside, not from outside. And finally the economy—do you know that now Iraq lacks money even though it is an oil-producing country?

And I think the United States has to support Iraq, including financially. And are the American taxpayers used to sending their money to Iraq? I don’t think so. That is the reason we urge the international community to elevate the status of the United Nations charter, international law. We urge them to coordinate how the most important issues have to be tackled. We urge them to find compromises, however much someone wants to act unilaterally. And as for the region itself, it is a very complicated situation and we all share the burden of resolving it.

OS:And let me throw out a twister for you—just you think on this and we’ll talk next time. You know, my accountant who watches Fox News—he’s right-wing. He’s a typical American and he thinks the Saudi Arabians are going after the American oil producers. He thinks that the whole thing from Saudi Arabia is dictated by the growth of the American oil business through shale fracking. And many of these companies in fact I think are going bankrupt—Texas is completely devastated and so forth. So isn’t this a major kind of geopolitical interest in the United States right now? Do they not want to rethink their relationship with Saudi Arabia, realign it and say who is our partner here, who’s helping us?

VP:I believe that is the philosophy behind the policy the United States is pursuing. I believe that, for the administrative structures of the United States, it doesn’t matter who supplies fuel to the American market. The most important thing is for this fuel to be at the lowest price possible. And if, as of today, the American national producers who produce oil using this shale fracking, if their oil is too expensive, too costly to produce, and if there is another supplier who can get the same product to market but at a lower price, then the latter has all the rights. Because in the end that has a favorable influence upon the American economy as the whole. Because the consumers of oil have an opportunity to get it at a lower price, whereas those who have invested money into a more costly product, they were free to take this risk. And that’s why they have to suffer the consequences.