Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:It’s a tough time.

VP:But on the whole, we did manage to live up to the expectations.

OS:Right. But, I remember in the West it was scary. And obviously they were bringing up the spectre again—because the private banks misbehaved—they were bringing up the spectre of “you’ve got to diversify your economy.”

VP:I cannot agree with you that someone was not satisfied with the behavior of our private banks. There were great concerns that those banks suffered from margin calls, which were due to economic changes. They had an obligation to pay their credits back to Western banks. And so our enterprises were concerned that they would not be able to. Everyone was asking the government to lend a hand to our private banks and our enterprises that had borrowed money from foreign banks. And that’s exactly what we did—we lent a hand—through different tools, like direct funding, quasi-state financial institutions. We prevented all mistakes—in hindsight I can say that there were no serious mistakes made. Moreover, we didn’t change the structure of the Russian economy for the worse. You need these conditions in Russia, in the United States and others in the developed countries. There is a great temptation to expand the state-run sector of the economy. We didn’t do that. In spite of the fact that certain private companies’ owners came to me as chairman of the government and they suggested that the government should purchase their companies at a minimum level—one Ruble—that’s the price they offered, because they wanted us to assume the responsibility to pay back their debts and to maintain a certain number of jobs.

OS:Were those the auto companies?

VP:These were different companies. But we didn’t do that. We didn’t take this path. We decided to support the private sector, and to a certain extent we have saved a great number of private enterprises. The fact is that the business community itself showed great maturity in their judgment. And to me, that was quite a surprise to be honest. Indeed, they were willing to risk their private capital, their money, to assume responsibility. They were ready to fight for their enterprises, and in the end, out of this situation we have emerged without new losses. Moreover, this government used all these measures, providing support to the banking sector, and even made money on that. The government not only helped the private sector, it also got money from that. And this gives me grounds to believe that the plans and consequences had turned out to be quite efficient.

OS:Would it be mistaken of me to say that by 2008 your courtship with the West was reaching an end? That’s the period when you could be seen with Sharon Stone and seen as pro-American. You had come to a new beginning, and a new phase? [149] Background Information: See, “Vladimir Putin finds his thrill on ‘Blueberry Hill,’” Shaun Walker, Independent (December 13, 2010). Retrieved at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-finds-his-thrill-on-blueberry-hill-2158697.html

VP:We have never adhered to a pro-American position, per-se. We have always assumed a position aimed at ensuring our national interests. Back then, we thought it was necessary to forge good relations with the United States. And I still think that. I didn’t change my position in this regard. Our partners have to change their attitude towards us. We have to understand that there are not just their interests, there are also our interests. And in order to develop these relations harmoniously we have to treat each other with respect. Right now, you recalled the 2008 crisis. Apart from supporting the national business and lending a hand to the banking system, the Government provided this support to everyone without exception. Including to foreign shareholders and financial institutions in Russia with 100 percent capital of foreign origin, despite the fact that in certain countries, when they were fighting the crisis, they accepted from those who weren’t entitled to get government support from Russian enterprises. And what’s more important, we didn’t take the path of restricting the flow of capital even amid financial constraints. We could have restricted the flow of capital—there are many restrictive instruments like that, but we didn’t use any of those instruments. And in the end I think that was the right call, because that brings trust from investors in the government actions.

OS:Okay, let me put it another way. Would you say that in a sense you were being courted by Wall Street before 2008. You were, in a sense, a junior partner of the American century—in their view—and then all of a sudden this happens, as many of us in the West began to doubt the foundations of Wall Street, the foundations of the West. We’re not thinking about Russia. We’re thinking about the whole economic system—global system. Does it make sense? Were you naïve in other words, to believe in that system?

VP:I’m not going to talk about Wall Street, about what they think, and how they act and how they used to act and think. Wall Street is suffering itself from the faulty, erroneous actions the US administration takes in foreign policy. I’m talking about Wall Street in the broader sense of the term, not just about the financial component of the American economy. I can say that many more American enterprises would still be willing, with great pleasure, to work in Russia—and they want to do that. But their activities are restricted. And in my view that is a great mistake the US administration is making. We have an expression which says that if a place is free, then surely someone will come grab it. And indeed, these places are going to be grabbed by rivals. And business people from Wall Street understand that full well. And we have many friends and allies there—that’s why I have to defend and protect them from your accusations. [laughter]

OS:Well, I’m looking for a change in your thinking but it doesn’t seem like you admit to it now, so let’s move on.

VP:You know, there is one thing I have to say where we agree—the certain naiveté with regards to our relations with our partners—it was there. We thought that our country had changed drastically. We had voluntarily taken due political actions of great importance. We had prevented violent actions from happening when the Soviet Union dissolved. We had opened up to our Western partners. Suffice it to say to remind you that the former head of the KGB had opened to the US partners the whole system of surveillance in the American Embassy in Moscow. [150] Claim: “the former head of the KGB had opened to the US partners the whole system of surveillance in the American Embassy in Moscow” Supporting: In December 1991, Vadim Bakatin, head of the KGB, turned over blueprints and bugging devices used to bug the US Embassy in Moscow. See, “KGB Gives US Devices and Plans Used to Bug Embassy,” Los Angeles Times (December 14, 1991). Retrieved at: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-14/news/mn-197_1_eavesdropping-devices He told them everything about that thinking that the US was ready to do the same, with the Embassy of Russia in the United States. And that was not the most well-thought-through decision, because there was nothing in response from the United States.

OS:Well, a lot of the neoconservative historians misinterpreted a lot of the files to favor their point of view in history. So there were a lot of arguments about the old Cold War files that came out of the Kremlin, as well as people who were looking for the JFK assassination papers. There was all kinds of stuff going on—it was quite a commotion in the mid-’90s, as I remember.