Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

OS:Okay, I’d like to skip forward from 2008 into the Ukraine crisis. We’ve had this discussion before on my first visit, on the terrace, and I’ve listened to it and realized there are things I didn’t ask. And I want to go over it, just to be really clear, because this will be very important to the people who will be watching the documentary or reading this transcript.

VP:Certainly. Indeed, it requires a great deal of effort to clarify all that. Because your colleagues, your Western journalists are very talented people. They are capable of convincing people that black is white and vice versa. Just as an example—the tragic events, the assault against South Ossetia—Mr. Saakashvili publicly announced that he ordered his troops to commence that action. One of his dignitaries even spoke on television saying the same thing. I didn’t believe it when I heard it, when the media was accusing Russia of this attack. And millions of TV viewers believed that all across the world. This is just astounding, this capacity that your American and European journalists can have. You’re all very talented. But when our journalists try to protect Russian national interests, when they take a stance, they are declared immediately the mouthpiece of Kremlin propaganda—much to my chagrin.

OS:It’s a double standard. I would love to see a debate—a meeting between Mr. Saakashvili and you—it would be great to see the two of you in a room.

VP:We met on many occasions.

OS:Are you convinced he’s still mad?

VP:I have never said that.

OS:I thought you said he was mad?

VP:No, I was told by my Western counterparts that he was mad. And I could never afford to say anything like that to my counterpart, either the incumbent or the previous ones.

OS:When’s the last time you saw him?

VP:I do not remember. Certainly before the crisis in South Ossetia.

OS:Not after the war, though?

VP:No, but on many occasions I said to him, “Mikheil Nikolaevich, please do everything to prevent bloodshed. If you want to restore relations with these parts of Georgia, you have to be very cautious.” These fictions, these divergences, they had a reason a long time ago—not hundreds of years of ago—but back in 1919 when the Russian empire was splitting up. Those parts of Georgia, which incidentally had been part of the Russian Empire as independent states before Georgia became part of the Russian empire. Back then, those parts declared that they were ready, that they wanted to still be part of Russia. And back then very harsh actions, military measures were employed against them. Local populations still view those actions as genocide and mass elimination of people. In order to surmount all these difficulties, patience was required, as well as certain diplomatic art.

OS:Yeah, I understand.

VP:And that was lacking apparently. That’s what the Georgian leadership back then was lacking. Moreover, the current Georgian leadership believe that this action Saakashvili performed was a terrible crime against the Georgian people in the first place, because it has led to very grave consequences.

OS:I was shocked when Shevardnadze—hard name to pronounce—I was shocked because I really respected him as a foreign minister with Gorbachev. You may not agree, but I was shocked when he wanted to join NATO and he became corrupt, I heard. [153] Background Information: During his ten years as president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze was plagued with accusations of running a corrupt government and economy, while at the same time he expressed a desire for Georgia to join NATO. See, “Shevardnadze Resigns as Georgian President” Fox News (November 24, 2003). Retrieved at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/11/24/shevardnadze-resigns-as-georgian-president.html He was a very respected figure in the 1980s.

VP:Well, everything passes, everything changes.

OS:That’s true. But just quickly—Obama’s in office now, take it from 2008 to the Ukraine crisis and how this… nothing really major, dramatic happened, as I remember, except for the Snowden affair in 2013. [154] Background Information: The US was not pleased with Russia’s decision to offer Edward Snowden temporary asylum after he leaked classified information. See, “Defiant Russia Grants Snowden Year’s Asylum,” Steven Lee Myers, Andrew E. Kramer, the New York Times (August 1, 2013). Retrieved at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/world/europe/edward-snowden-russia.html He was offered asylum here in Russia and that upset America. But was there anything else in that period that you remember, between you and the US that was exacerbated, was argued about?

VP:Well, how can you say that nothing major happened? When President Kuchma’s term came to an end—I do not remember exactly the year—presidential elections took place in Ukraine.

And Mr. Yanukovych won that presidential election, but the opposition didn’t like that. And mass riots erupted. These riots were fueled quiet actively by the United States. And a third round of elections was announced—in violation of the country’s constitution. Per se, this can be perceived as a coup d’état. And pro-Western politicians arrived in power after that—Mr. Yushchenko and Timoshenko. I cannot say that I welcomed this way of changing the government. Nowhere is that proper, but in the post-Soviet space, especially, constitutions cannot be broken. Luckily no bloodshed took place there.

OS:Did you have a phone call with Obama about this issue?

VP:That was before Obama came to office, and yet we maintained cooperation with the Ukrainian leadership of Mr. Yushchenko and Timoshenko. I went to Kiev, they came back to Moscow. We met in third party countries. And we implemented all our plans of cooperation, but their policy, it was not well-liked by the Ukrainian people. That is why after the presidential term of President Yushchenko ended, Mr. Yanukovych won the election once again and everyone acknowledged that. It was recognized by everyone. But apparently this was not the best form of government either. Economic difficulties, together with social difficulties, to a great extent had undermined the trust in the new leadership as well. What needed to be done in order to rectify the situation? They should have organized another election. And they should have chosen people with different economic and social views. These people should have made another attempt at arriving back in power. But certainly they should have prevented any escalation to bloodshed, and what’s absolutely certain is that no one should have supported these bloody events.

OS:But you’re talking about 2014—you’re jumping ahead.

VP:Yes, in 2014.

OS:But between ’08 and ’14, there was this one election you’re talking about which is in 2012, I think?

VP:I do not remember

OS:There were so many, I mean, the Ukraine to us—we were not paying attention.

VP; Yes, well you personally might not have been paying attention, but the CIA was paying a great deal of attention.

OS:I know. It was very confusing. There was a guy with a poisoned face earlier in the century.

VP:Yes, you’re talking about Yushchenko—he said that he’d been poisoned during the election campaign. [155] Claim: Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko repeatedly asserted that he had been poisoned by political rivals. Supporting: See, “Yushchenko Poisoned, Doctors Say” Deutsche Welle (December 12, 2004). Retrieved at: http://www.dw.com/en/yushchenko-poisoned-doctors-say/a-1425561 And yet he was elected to office. And he worked and I met with him on many occasions. Why did they need to resort to violence? That’s something I cannot quite understand. Moreover, I talked about that repeatedly and the 2014 President Yanukovych was in office and he signed an agreement with the opposition. He agreed to all the requirements that they had set forth.