Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:Someone told me that two days ago there was some US training going on in Georgia—the US were training troops, I’m not sure what kind—were they NATO troops?

VP:Yes, that’s possible. Because on our borders, either there or in some other place, we’re always witnessing some intensification of military activity. I spoke in public about these matters and I also talked about that directly to my counterparts, and that is why I can tell you exactly what my attitude is to what NATO is doing. I think that NATO is a rudimentary organism left to us from the Cold War period. NATO was set up when there was a confrontation between the Eastern Bloc and the Western Bloc. And right now the Warsaw Treaty has faded into oblivion—there is no Soviet Union, no Eastern Bloc. [136] Background Information: “The Warsaw Pact was an organization of Central and Eastern European communist states. It was established on May 1, 1955, in Warsaw, Poland to counter the perceived threat from the creation of the NATO alliance, specifically the prospect of the integration of a ‘re-militarized’ West Germany into NATO, which took place on May 9, 1955, via ratification of the Paris Peace Treaties. The communist states of Central and Eastern Europe were signatories except Yugoslavia. The members of the Warsaw Pact pledged to defend each other if one or more of the members were attacked. The pact lasted throughout the Cold War. It began to fall apart in 1989, following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and political changes in the Soviet Union.” New World Encyclopedia See, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Warsaw_Pact And the question begs itself—why does NATO exist? And right now I have the impression that in order to justify their existence, NATO is in constant search of an external foe. And that is why there are some provocations to name someone as an adversary. [As I’ve told you before,] I remember in one of my last meetings with President Clinton. I told him that I didn’t rule out the possibility of Russia joining NATO and Clinton said, “Why not!” But the delegation of the United States was very nervous. Why? Because they need an external foe, and if Russia were to join NATO, then there would be no external foe and no reason for NATO to exist.

OS:Have you applied?

VP:Let me explain to you why the American delegation was so nervous about the possibility of Russia joining NATO. First, if that happened, then Russia would have a vote, and have to be taken into account when a decision was made. Apart from that, the very point of the existence of NATO would simply disappear.

OS:Can you join NATO and keep an independent force?

VP:Certainly. Right now the armed forces of NATO countries are not entirely integrated.

OS:It would be a good public relations coup for Russia to announce that it has applied for NATO membership.

VP:Our American friends would not even consider that. I think that in the current world, the current status quo, we have to follow a different path. We have to leave behind the Bloc versus Bloc mentality. We shouldn’t go about building up new blocs—the Eastern Bloc, the Western Bloc, NATO, the Warsaw Treaty organization. Security should be based on an international basis and also on equal footing

OS:So tell me—I mean, all these incidents like in Georgia where the US troops were there training advisors… Do you hear about them?

VP:Certainly we’re aware of what’s going on. So a certain country is demonstrating that they’re supporting a neighboring country of ours. But in order to build conditions favorable to establishing security, we need something else—not what’s going on right now. We do not need military exercises, we need to build up an atmosphere of trust. Just an example—Mr. Saakashvili, who incidentally has shamelessly renounced his nationality—right now he’s governor of Odessa [137] Background Information: Renouncing his Georgian citizenship to avoid “guaranteed imprisonment” Saakashvili was granted Ukrainian citizenship and appointed governor of Odessa. See, “Georgia ex-leader Saakashvili gives up citizenship for Ukraine,” BBC (June 1, 2015). Retrieved at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32969052 —which in my view is absolutely absurd. But he decided to take a chance and act opportunely and he attacked. He should’ve been dissuaded from taking this step. On many occasions, on the whole, we had a normal relationship back when he was president. On many occasions I told him that I understood how difficult it was to rebuild relations, but I told him that he had to have patience and that he should never take this terrible step of escalating the situation into a military conflict. And he responded, “yes”—he understood that, and said he would never take this step, and yet he did. When the United States talked about that a hundred times and I told them that we had to prevent a military conflict, and that we also had to rectify the situation and also rebuild relations. But they didn’t listen to us and what happened, happened. And we had to respond, because one of the first actions they took was to kill our peacekeepers from our peacekeeping battalion, [138] Claim: “And we had to respond, because one of the first actions they took was to kill our peacekeepers from our peacekeeping battalion…” Supporting: When Georgian forces launched their assault on South Ossetia, they did in fact kill and injure a number of Russian peacekeepers. See. “Russian troops and tanks pour into South Ossetia” Helen Womack, Tom Parfitt, Ian Black, The Guardian (August 8, 2008). Retrieved at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/09/russia.georgia and that’s why we had to react. If this had not happened, then we wouldn’t need any provocations or military exercises at all.

OS:Where is most of the activity? Are most of Russia’s defense/security forces in the north or the south?

VP:We have more or less equal distribution of armed forces all across Russia.

OS:Except in the Russian Far East.

VP:Yes, a little bit less in the Russian Far East, but right now it’s not really that important where they are stationed, because the modern weaponry doesn’t need military on the front lines. It’s not really important where, during peacetime, military forces are located and stationed. What’s important is the means of waging war—how defensive and offensive capabilities are employed, how the military responds. We’re even going to implement a new reform of stationing our armed forces so as to create more favorable conditions—not just for the military, but also the members of their families—so that their children could go to school on a normal basis, so that they live in civilized conditions.

OS:Quick updates on Syria and Ukraine—I’m talking about security on the borders of Russia. I was very impressed with the classical music symphony in Palmyra, [139] Background Information: The St. Petersburg Marrinski Theatre Orchestra, led by acclaimed conductor Valery Gergiev, held a concert dedicated to the victims of terrorist groups at the ancient ruins of Palmyra in Syria. See, “Russian orchestra plays concert in ancient Syrian ruins of Palmyra,” Fred Pleitgen, CNN (May 6, 2016). Retrieved at: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/middleeast/syria-palmyra-russia-concert/ but can you give me a quick update on Syria as it concerns Russian security and Ukraine?

VP:As far as Ukraine is concerned, I think you know what is going on. They have this crisis which, in a slackened form, is still going on. I think that the most important component of the Minsk Agreement [140] Background Information: After the collapse of a previous Minsk Protocol to stop the fighting in Donbass region of Ukraine, new peace negotiations were held on February 11, 2015 in eastern Ukraine in the Belarusian capital Minsk. Points of the Minsk Agreement ranged from immediate and full bilateral ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides, effective monitoring and verification, begin a dialogue on the holding of local elections, pardon and amnesty by banning prosecution of figures involved in the Donetsk and Luhansk conflict, release of all hostages and other illegally detained people, unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, restoration of full social and economic links, full Ukrainian government control restored, withdrawal of foreign armed groups, weapons and mercenaries, and constitutional reform in Ukraine, with adoption of a new constitution by the end of 2015. See, “Ukraine ceasefire: New Minsk agreement key points,” BBC (February 12, 2015). Retrieved at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31436513 is the political settlement, but regrettably it is up to the Kiev authorities to implement this part of the agreement, and so far they are not doing that. They should have amended the Constitution in accordance with the Minsk Agreement, and that should have been done before the end of 2015. But they didn’t do that. They were supposed to pass a bill, a law on amnesty. This law was adopted by the parliament, but it was not signed by the president, nor has it entered into force yet. There is another law that should be adopted and that should enter into force—that is the law on the special status of these unrecognized republics. The current Ukrainian leadership says the following: they say that since, at the line of conflict, there are still clashes, there is still violence, then they say the conditions are not yet in place to implement this political settlement. But in my view, this is only a hollow pretext because you can easily create a clash somewhere at the line of contact and then this is going to go on ad infinitum. The most important thing right now is to achieve a political settlement. Then there is a second course which explains why this is being done according to the Ukrainian counterparts. The Ukrainian leadership insisting that the Russian-Ukrainian border where the unrecognized republics are located, should be closed. And indeed the Minsk Agreements presuppose the closing of the Russian border by the Ukrainian frontier offices, but only after the key political decisions have been taken.