Oliver Stone - The Putin Interviews

Right now I’m concerned not by oligarchs, who we are going to keep in place where they are supposed to be. We do not have the oligarchic system that used to exist in Russia. In 2008, I said that many entrepreneurs with whom I had not been acquainted before, to my surprise they showed great qualities, they assumed great responsibility for the state of our enterprises, for keeping their employees, they were even willing to risk their capital. I’m hopeful that in compliance with the legislation we’re going to continue to develop our private businesses. But as of now, the issue of oligarchs and power is not as acute as it used to be in the 1990s. But we have a greater task right now, and that task is about the gap in income between the rich and those people who have a low level of income. This gap, this divide, is where the injustice lies and the legitimate grievances of people against the current state of affairs in this hemisphere. In this regard, ahead of us lies the task of reducing the number of people who live below the poverty line. Unfortunately, amid the crisis in our economy it is difficult for us to accomplish this task. Even though the number of those who lived below the poverty line between 2000 and right now has decreased by almost 50 percent. Back in 2000, we had around 40 million people living in poverty. Right now the figure is still high, but it’s almost halved.

So as for the oligarchs, I do not pursue it as a problem anymore. Large businesses know their place, they know the tasks that are ahead of them, and we treat the captains of our industry with respect. Any issues we discuss within the government before taking decisions, are also discussed in a forum with entrepreneurs, but this is done transparently and openly. Not behind closed doors with the view toward making decisions in the interest of this or that industrial or financial group. Even though, yes, I admit there are groups that lobby in their interests—sometimes we witness that and know it’s happening—but we fight that and will continue to fight that.

OS:So there is no oligarchic state capitalism. How would you describe it, then—the economy?

VP:I think that we have a market economy. No doubt about that. Otherwise I do not think we would have been able to exceed WTO standards. But there are certain issues related to the large role the state plays in the economy. Indubitably, we will follow the path of gradually decreasing the state share in certain sectors of our economy. But we’re going to tread cautiously, bearing in mind that certain economic sectors are very monopolized all across the world, in general. Just as an example—the energy sector, the electricity sector, railroads, space exploration, aviation—certain countries have their own forms of these industries and their development. But these sectors are monopolized everywhere. And everywhere there are direct ties to the government and there is government support. We see that and understand that full well. And we are going to improve the structure of our economy to prevent the destruction and dissolution of large enterprises and large industries.

OS:So, there are no bank accounts in Cypress?

VP:No, and never have been. That’s just nonsense. If that were the case, then we would have had to face it a long time ago?

OS:What did you think of the Panama Papers when they came out? [163] Background Information: On June 7, 2016, 11.5 millions documents were leaked, detailing how Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm, effectively aided over 14,000 clients to create offshore businesses and bank accounts to avoid, dodge, or completely conceal taxes. These “papers” highlight how the world’s rich and famous secure and hide their wealth. See, https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html They named you in the headlines.

VP:We had known they were going to be published. We knew that in advance. We didn’t know the details, so it was with interest that we were expecting their appearance. But the thing is, my name is not in those papers, the names of my friends and acquaintances, yes, but those people are not in the government. And the thing is they had not violated any laws—either Russian laws or the legislation of other countries. Well, I knew that they would make a connection with my name, everything else would remain in the shadows and my name would be in the headlines. This is just an attempt at using this instrument to influence the internal politics of Russia. Russian citizens are quite literate and intelligent enough to sort it all out—I have no doubt about that. People see who is doing what and who is pursuing what interests. And I’m grateful to our citizens because they see the attempts I and my colleagues are making with a view to reinforcing our economy, our social sphere, and also the defense capabilities of our country.

OS:Well, I have to say, from personal observation, I would have a hell of a lot more fun if I was rich.

VP:You know, I don’t think that is what brings great happiness. And with this crisis you would be thinking what to do with your assets, how to save them, where to place them. It would only bring you headaches. You are far wealthier than those who have great amounts of money in their accounts. You have an opinion of your own, you have talent, you have the chance to show this talent, and you also have the chance to leave a great legacy afterwards. Money doesn’t bring this kind of happiness. Because when you are in a coffin you don’t have any pockets to take your money to the grave with you.

OS:If you run again in 2018 and you win, you will be in power for another six years until 2024. You would have been in power as president and prime minister for 24 years—longer than Roosevelt, who was 15 years, less than Castro, who was close to 50 years, and close to Stalin who was give-or-take 30 years… Mao, 27 years. Does that not scare you? Do you not get used to power? Does it not distort your point of view? Do you feel that Russia needs you that badly or can there not be a healthy competition for successors inside the system? The Chinese one-party system being an example of competition within the party—the successors are checked out over many years as party members in different provinces.

VP:The Soviet Union also tested those people for many years and yet it collapsed.

OS:That’s true.

VP:So the question is not about selection. The question you had formulated about whether Russia needs anyone that bad—it’s up to Russia itself to decide. No one from outside can enforce this choice, and influencing this choice is very difficult. People in Russia have felt that they have a chance to make a decision of their own, and no one will take away this right from them. As for this alteration of power, it has to exist. Indubitably there needs to be a healthy competition in these processes. But this competition should be among our people who have in mind the interests of the nation. We have to think about the interests of the Russian people. In the end, let me reiterate, the citizens of Russia are going to make the final decision concerning the 2018 elections. First, I’d like to say that for four years I was not president. I was the chairman of the government, whereas Mr. Medvedev was the president. And what was being said by his political opponents and my political opponents about his not being independent, that’s not true. He was the real president of the Russian Federation. It was not difficult for him to stay in power after he came in after me. And yet he lived up to high standards. So counting all of these years as my being in power, that’s not the correct thing to do. As to what is going to happen during the 2018 elections, I’d like to say there are things about which there should be some intrigue, some mystery. So I’m not going to answer this part of your question.