The Putin Interviews

Trip 4—Day 1—February 10, 2017

OS: Hello gentlemen. So, you are going to sit here, Mr. Putin. I’m going to sit here. You remember Anthony from our first shoot—Anthony Dod Mantle—he’ll be our cinematographer. The plan is for you to walk in and walk in that door.

[Mr. Putin walks in]

OS: I would prefer you to come from back there. I will meet you halfway.

VP: I can descend from the balcony…

OS: I like it better from there. It gives you some depth. In fact, there’s a bar back there if you’d like…. Further back, further back. Good. All right, ready? [smiling] Now, pretend like we don’t know each other—pretend we haven’t seen each other in months. Okay. Action! [pause] Action! Where’s my A.D.? Tell him “action” in Russian. He went into another meeting! Oh no!

Interpreter: He’s bringing you tea.

[Putin comes from the other room carrying two cups of coffee]

VP: Coffee, Mr. Stone?

OS: Thank you.

VP: Black okay?

OS: Fine…

VP: Sugar?

OS: Thank you Mr. President. How’ve you been? It’s been a long time.

OS: There’s been quite a lot of activity the last few months. My country, America, has had an election.

VP: I congratulate you on that.

OS: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and now your fourth one.

VP: Yes, that’s true.

OS: What changes?

VP: Well, almost nothing.

OS: Is that your feeling? In between all of the four presidents or do you think…?

VP: Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world.

OS: The bureaucracy rules the world. In all countries?

VP: In many countries.

OS: You said this to me last time—there was a system, we call it the military industrial security complex in America.

VP: Yes, we’ve got a similar system—such systems exist everywhere.

OS: Some people call it the Deep State.

VP: Well, you can call it different names, but this doesn’t change the essence.

OS: Is there any possibility, a hope of change with Mr. Trump?

VP: There is always hope. Until they are ready to bring us to the cemetery to bury us.

OS: [smiles] Wow, that’s very Russian. Very Dostoyevsky.[164] The election has been heavily criticized and the narrative as written by the West has now become that Russia interfered in this election to the benefit of Mr. Trump.

VP: You know, this is a very silly statement. Certainly, we liked President Trump and we still like him because he publicly said that he was willing, he was ready to restore American-Russian relations. And when journalists from different countries were asking questions about that, they were trying to catch me, so to speak. I was always asking back, “Are you against good relations between the US and Russia?” All journalists were saying, “Yes, we want good relations between these two countries. We support that.” Well, that would simply be ludicrous in Russia not to welcome that, certainly we welcome the re-establishment of relations. And in this sense we are glad that Donald Trump has won. Certainly, we’ve got to wait and see how, in reality, in practice, the relations between our two countries are going to develop. He was talking about a re-establishment of economic ties, of a joint fight against terrorism. Isn’t that a good thing?

OS: Yes, so why did you bother to hack the election then?

VP: We were not hacking the election at all. It would be hard to imagine that any other country—even a country such as Russia—would be capable of seriously influencing the electoral campaign or the outcome of the election. And some hackers indeed revealed problems that existed within the Democratic Party, but I don’t think that it has influenced in any serious manner either the electoral campaign or its outcome. Yes, these unrecognized hackers, they have brought to light the problems that existed, but they didn’t tell any lies, they were not trying to deceive or fool anyone. And the fact that the chairwoman of the executive committee of the Democratic Party has resigned testifies to the fact that she has admitted it’s true—everything that has been said. So hackers are not the ones to blame. These are internal problems of the United States. These people who tried to manipulate public opinion shouldn’t have tried to create an image of an enemy in the face of Russia. They should have apologized to the electorate, but they didn’t do that. But that is not right, that is not the main problem. Judging from everything, the US people have been waiting for some serious change.

I refer in particular to security-related matters, to the fight against unemployment and the need to create new jobs in the country. I refer to the protection of traditional values, because to a great extent, the US is a Puritan nation, to a great extent. Well, at least the hinterland. And Donald Trump and his team have been very wise in running their electoral campaign. They knew, they understood where their voters were located. The states where the concentration of electors was. And they knew what people living in those states required. They knew how to get the majority of electors to win. When I watched his speeches during the electoral campaign, I thought that he went a little bit too far from time to time. But it turned out he was right. He knew the fiber in the souls of the people. He knew how to play to win their hearts. And I think that no one is going to be able to challenge the outcome of this election. Instead, those who’ve been defeated should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn’t have tried to shift the blame on to something outside. And I think that Obama’s outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises that he gave to the people. But in reality, we’re not waiting for anything revolutionary. We are looking forward to the new administration when it’s been completed, when they are willing to launch a dialogue with Russia, with China, with Asia, with all the other countries. So that we can finally understand when the new administration addresses the key issues on the international agenda, and our bilateral agenda as well.

OS: But, you know, even Trump has said the Russians hacked the election—that was a quote.[165]

VP: I do not understand what he means when he says, “Russia has hacked the election.” I’ve heard different statements of his saying that any hacking attacks, given the current level of technologies, can be produced by anyone anywhere, by a person who lies in his bed somewhere and has a laptop.[166] And you can even make it seem as if the hacker attacks are coming from another place, so it’s very difficult to establish the original source of the attack.

OS: Well, this all seems to me still historically enormous—I’ve never seen where the two leading political parties, Democrat and Republican, the intelligence agencies, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the political leadership of NATO believe this story that Russia hacked the election. It’s enormous.

VP: This is not exactly how it is. Well, I think you’ve read the documents related to that, the analysis that have been published.

OS: Have you read the 25 page report?

VP: Yes, I have. One intelligence service says that there is a great probability that Russia has interfered. Another intelligence service says that the probability, the certainty is not that great. They make some conclusions based on the analysis that they have conducted. But there is nothing concrete. Nothing clear-cut. You see? I don’t know if that is proper. It reminds me of an ideology, kind of a hatred for a certain ethnic group like anti-Semitism. If someone doesn’t know how to do something, if someone turns out to be incapable of addressing this or that matter, anti-Semitists always blame the Jews for their own failure. They blame the Jews. Those people have the same attitude towards Russia, they always blame Russia for anything that happens. Because they do not want to recognize their own mistakes and they are trying to find someone to shove the blame on, on our side.

OS: And it seems that Senator McCain, for example, today or yesterday was proposing a veto, a Senate veto against any lifting of sanctions from Trump—in advance.

VP: You know, there are many senators like that in the United States, unfortunately, many senators who think the same. Well, probably not that many but there are still some. Well, honestly, I like him—Senator McCain—to a certain extent.

OS: [laughter] Okay.

VP: And I’m not joking. I like him because of his patriotism, and I can relate to his consistency in fighting for the interests of his own country. You know, in Ancient Rome there was Marcus Porcius Cato, the Elder, who always finished all his speeches with the saying, “One and the same, Carthago delenda est.” [Carthage must be destroyed.] The Romans had grounds to hate Hannibal who approached Rome during the Second Punic War and he was very close to Rome—70 miles or so. We and the US have never been involved in a confrontation such as Carthago and Rome. In the end, Rome emerged victorious from that war. And how did that end? Hannibal, as is known, took his own life. And Rome, in 400 years or so, was destroyed when the barbarians came. And certain conclusions, and certain lessons, can be learned from that. If these cities had not fought one another, if they had agreed on fighting a common enemy, if that had happened, then one [Hannibal] wouldn’t have taken his own life and the others [Roman Empire] would have survived as well. People with such convictions like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old World. And they’re reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast the world is changing. They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past which is always dragging them back.

We’ve been supporting the US fight for independence. We were allies during World War I and World War II. Right now there are common threads we are both facing, like international terrorism. We’ve got to fight poverty across the world, the environmental deterioration which is the real threat to all humanity. After all, we’ve piled up so many nuclear weapons that it has become a threat to the whole world as well. And it would be good for us to give it some thought. There are many issues to address.

OS: Well, Russia has been accused of enormous treachery now. Now this is a major charge and the media repeats it and repeats it, and it seems to have entered into the lexicon in the United States—it’s just taken for granted. You can say Russia hacked the election, and many people say Trump is in the Kremlin’s pocket, has a debt to the Kremlin. So, you see where this leads. It makes it impossible to correct relations with Russia. Very difficult for Mr. Trump if indeed he intends to do so, to reset relations.

VP: As I said, and I can say that again—any talk about our influencing the outcome of the election in the United States, all these are lies. But we that see this campaign of manipulating the information has a number of goals. First, they are trying to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump. Second, they are trying to create conditions that preclude us from normalizing our relations with the US. Third, they want to create additional weapons to wage an internal political war. And the Russia-US relations in this context are a mere instrument, a weapon in the internal political fight in the US.

OS: But many people are frustrated—and I can say this from talking to people in America who agree that this hacking charge is nonsense. It’s fraudulent. Many people agree with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who said that the leaks that were given to him from the DNC were from a non-state actor. And he swore to that, and his record has been solid. To my knowledge—he has been extremely forthright in his methods of operation since 2006 when he formed WikiLeaks. That’s my prelude, but I’ll ask the question now. The question is—many Americans are frustrated that Russia has not really made an effort, a bigger effort, to defend itself, to come out on the public relations front, for example, taking the 25-page report and technically shredding it and dealing with all the inaccuracies in it, as best it can, and making a bigger public response and objection to the accusations thrown at it. Why haven’t you done that?

VP: You see, it’s internal politicking inside the United States and we do not want to get mired in that. Many in the US think that all these claims about hacker attacks are fraudulent and we are glad that there are people like that. However there are people who promote this idea and express this is an insane notion because they want to use it as an instrument of political attack, and our refutation is not going to stop them from doing that. They are only going to use our refutations in order to continue this war using new instruments. We know all their tricks.

OS: Well it seems to me that if you know their tricks you could make some kind of statement about cyber warfare and give specifics of why this was not possible, why there should have been a trace, I mean there are so many different avenues you can explore. It seems as if Russia doesn’t care about defending itself against these accusations. Many accusations fly by but Russia treats it as if it’s business as usual.

VP: Well, yes, you are right. We do not particularly care about those accusations because we’re not concerned about that. This is an internal issue for the United States. I’d like to say once again—I want to be heard—whoever those hackers are, they couldn’t have made any serious difference in the course of that electoral campaign. And if they have revealed something, they have brought to light the real problems of American political life. They have not lied. They have not made up anything. The political forces have to handle these issues themselves, instead of trying to put the blame on the hackers who have only shed light on the problems that exist. It doesn’t matter where these hackers come from—from Russia, from Latin America, from Asia, maybe they’re from Africa.

OS: Well, is there any evidence in cyber space that Russia can present in its defense?

VP: There is no evidence that we are the ones to blame. And that is the greatest proof, the greatest defense we’ve got. Those reports that you mentioned from the NSA and the CIA, they’ve got no concrete facts. All they have are some promptings and also some suppositions, allegations.

OS: Yeah, I just think there is a more effective response that could have been made. And I understand how difficult it is, but it just seems like there’s an energy lacking in the Russian response, not to be upset and angry at this. To take the adult position and try to say something that would resonate with people in the American populace so they would understand Russia’s point of view, that has not come across to me.

VP: Yes, and that’s exactly what I’m doing, I’m saying these things.

OS: Well, I wish there was more of it. So right now you’re waiting it out, and at the same time, you know, Mr. Trump has called for, on more than one occasion, for another massive US military build-up, in both nuclear and conventional arms, which makes no sense to me. How can America spend more than it’s already spending? But that’s what they’re talking about—increasing the military budget.

VP: I think we talked about that. The US spends more on defense than all the other countries in the world combined spend on their defense—more than six hundred billion US dollars.[167]

OS: Aren’t you worried that Mr. Trump, in calling for more, is infantile in his demands?

VP: We’re always concerned about any build-up in military expenditure of other countries, including the United States. We always have to analyze how this is going to impact our own security. But I think the American taxpayers have to think about that as well. How efficient are these expenses going to be? How it’s going to correlate with the current economic situation, because apart from military expenditure, there are other things to spend money on, like healthcare, education, pension systems.

There are many other issues—social issues to address, servicing the public debt which is almost 20 trillion US dollars. All those are issues that have to be handled. But the military is always discontent with the money it gets from the state. It always wants more. Trust me, we’ve got the same disputes between the civilian departments, the defense ministry, the finance ministry. This is the same everywhere.

OS: Do you have any hopes of a meeting sometime in the coming months with Mr. Trump or not?

VP: I think we’re going to meet some time. But we’re not trying to rush. The American administration is still being built and they are still drafting their position on the key issues. We understand full well that, together with his allies and his partners, President Trump is going to come up with his own position on the most important issues. He’ll have to work with the intelligence services, with the State Department, the military. He’ll have to work with the Republicans and with the Democrats and will have to consider. There are many elements to consider. So once the administration is ready to get down to some practical work, we’re going to respond.

OS: And how is he going to work with the intelligence agencies if the intelligence agencies are telling him that Russia hacked the election? It’s a dead end.

VP: No, it’s not a dead end. This is a question of human personnel.

OS: If Mr. Trump wanted to declassify or see the files on Ukraine—all the files—all the files on Syria and see the origins of these problems. Is there a possibility of that, that he might change some of his thinking?

VP: I think that is possible. But I’d like to reiterate, he’ll have to work in a certain framework. We’re adults and we understand what’s happening. Well, I do hope that once he has grasped the crux of the matter, he’ll come up with a vision of his own of what is happening.

OS: I hope you’re right.

VP: So do I. I do hope that we’ll find some common ground and reach mutual understanding.

OS: When is the next G20 meeting?

VP: I think in summer—in July.

OS: In July, so that would be the first you see each other, if you did?

VP: Yes, maybe.

OS: I gather you’ve had two phone calls with him?

VP: Yes. One telephone conversation took place before his inauguration, and the other one afterwards.

OS: And I gather some of the talk may have been about terrorism.

VP: We’ve talked about the fight against terrorism, we’ve touched upon North Korea, we’ve talked about nuclear disarmament. And we’ve touched upon Ukraine. And we certainly agreed that we’ve got to open a new page in Russia-US relations.

OS: On terrorism, it seems like again the intelligence agencies of the United States will not agree with the Russian position on terrorism. It seems like, fundamentally, the US intelligence has been politicized.

VP: You know, indeed, with the Obama administration we almost reached an agreement on working jointly in Syria.

OS: Almost?

VP: Yes, almost. We had talked about coordinating the matters related to the security and safety of our aircraft flying over, but unfortunately this is all that we did. We didn’t go further. We were willing to agree on joint activity, that would have implied designating on the ground, in accordance with our data and their data, the location of terrorist groups. I believe that we should have designated targets to fight against. And we also would have agreed on the strikes to be performed jointly. And we were very close to achieving this agreement. But at the last moment, I think due to some political reasons, our American partners abandoned this project.

OS: Well, Mr. Trump has talked very tough about Iran. And this is an example, fundamentally, if many Americans believe in the official policy that Iran is the number one terrorist organization in the world, you, Mr. Putin would not agree. And many people would say that the number one terrorist organization is the Saudi Arabian government. Now, that becomes a Shia/Sunni split. So many Americans are fighting pro-Sunni and anti-Shia and many other people feel that the source of the problems is Sunni and the allegiances should change. But Saudi Arabia and Israel have very solid American support and, unless that changes, there is a basic, fundamental contradiction in this and in the Russian and American positions.

VP: You know, there is no world religion that is a source of evil. Islam has many denominations, many streams, and the main movements are the Shia and the Sunni. Indeed we see there are some deep divides between these two factions, but I think this divide will sooner or later have to be bridged. We’ve got very good friendly relations with all Islamic states. Moreover, we are an observer at the Organization of the Islamic Conference since 2003. Because around 15 percent of Russian citizens profess Islam—they’re Muslim. And I once attended the summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. We know that our attempts at helping Syria, supporting its legitimate government, some hope will lead to a contradiction, to disputes with the Sunni. But this is not what is happening. I can go in greater detail. As far as the difference of approach to the Iranian nuclear issue is concerned, I can say that, in order to understand if there is any difference in our approaches, we need to talk substance with the US at the State Department level, or at the intelligence services level, and also at the National Security Council level. Because public statements are not sufficient either from our side, or from the American side. We want to hear the arguments that the American side can produce for us, not the arguments that can be voiced publicly. We want to have a constructive professional dialogue with them. We want our position to be heard as well. We managed to arrive at many agreements on these matters with the previous administration. And I do not rule out that with the new administration, we are also going to be able to find common ground. To that end, we need a concrete dialogue on the substance of the matter.

OS: Right, I understand. Was there US interference in the 2012 election in Russia?

VP: In 2000 and in 2012, there has always been some interference. But in 2012 this interference was particularly aggressive.[168]

OS: Can you describe some of that?

VP: I’m not going to go into detail, but just to site an example, our American partners know that and we said that. I told that to Obama and John Kerry. We could hardly imagine diplomatic workers who were in a country, well in that particular case in Russia, would be so aggressive in interfering in the electoral campaign that was going on in Russia. They rallied the opposition forces. They funded rallies and the opposition. Diplomats have to do different things. The diplomatic service is supposed to foster good relations between countries. NGOs can pursue different avenues regardless of their nationality or origin. But very often NGOs are funded through a number of structures set up either by the State Department or controlled indirectly.

OS: Like the Ukraine situation?

VP: Not just in Ukraine, all across the post-Soviet space in Eastern Europe and in many other countries in Africa in Latin America as well, we see the same thing.

OS: Yes.

OS: Was there cyber interference in the 2012 election?

VP: To be honest, I don’t pay particular attention to that matter. We’ve got an agenda of our own which we have to address. I think many partners of ours live in a world of their own, and very often they’re out of touch with what is happening in other countries in reality, including Russia.

OS: Well, let’s clarify, because cyber warfare is here with us. We started down that road a few years ago. The United States will not admit it, but it’s known that in 2010 we succeeded in planting the Stuxnet virus in Iran.[169]

VP: We know that, we know how the NSA is working. We know that after Snowden’s confessions. And I’d like to say that what we know from Mr. Snowden, we know from the media as well. Because what he thinks necessary, he passes to the media. He uses the Internet to deliver that information. So we are witnessing that all across the world. We know about surveillance of private lives and the private lives of political leaders, which I believe is a very bad practice.

OS: But cyber warfare is not surveillance. But it’s with us, as pervasively as surveillance. In my film Snowden[170] he told me this story, he was in Japan stationed in 2007/2008 and the NSA asked the Japanese to spy on their population. The Japanese said “no” and we spied anyway.

Not only that but we went on once we knew their communication systems to plant malware in their civilian infrastructure in the event that Japan would no longer be an ally.

Snowden also described similar situations in Brazil, Mexico, and many countries in Europe. It’s quite surprising that we would do this to our allies.

VP: Well, you see, Americans have much to attend to—there are many things they’ve got to look after. And they’ve got to work everywhere. Six hundred billion US dollars spent by the Pentagon is not all the money that is spent on security and defense.

OS: No, I mean come on, this is a serious… You’re acting innocent, but Russia must be aware of the power of cyber warfare and what the Americans can do. If I’m saying that they’re planting malware in Japanese infrastructure to destroy power stations, railroads, close the country down, black it out, the Russians are miles ahead of me, they must realize the dangers here and they must have been working on them for some time to prevent such a situation from happening to Russia. Because they are one of the obvious enemies of the United States.

VP: Well, you will probably not believe me, but I’m going to say something strange. Since the early 1990s, we have assumed that the Cold War is over. Russia has become a democratic state. Of its own accord, Russia has decided to help build the statehood of former Soviet republics. Russia has been the one that initiated this process. We proposed that sovereignty should be granted to former Soviet republics. We thought there was no need to take any additional protective measures because we viewed ourselves as an integral part of the world community. Our companies, our state institutions and administrative departments, they were buying everything—hardware and software. And we’ve got much equipment from the US, from Europe, and we use that equipment, it’s used by the intelligence services and by the defense ministry. But recently we certainly have become aware of the threat that all of that poses. Only during recent years, have we started to think about how we can ensure technological independence, as well as security. Certainly we give it much thought and we take appropriate measures.

OS: Well, if Snowden is saying the US is doing this to an ally in 2007 in Japan, 2008—if they’re planting malware in allies, do you understand what I’m saying? What are they doing in places like China, Russia, Iran, and so forth? I mean, you understand my point is that Russia had to be aware as early as 2007 that the US was planting malware. Were there attacks on Russia as early as 2007, ’06, ’05?

VP: You know, we didn’t pay attention to it back then. Our nuclear plants, the plants that produce nuclear weapons, they had American observers stationed at those factories and plants.

OS: As late as what year?

VP: I think it was as late as 2006. But I don’t remember exactly. So the trust and openness of Russia, they were unprecedented.

OS: Yes. And then what happens?

VP: Unfortunately, they didn’t recognize that. They didn’t want to take note of that and appreciate it.

OS: When did Russia build up its cyber capabilities?

VP: This process has been a long one. We had to catch up. We’ve got a very good foundation. We have a very high education level and very good school of mathematics. Many Russian scientists work in the United States achieving illustrious results. Some of our companies, three or four years ago, they started from scratch. And right now they get seven billion dollars or so yearly. They’ve become competitive in the software market. And they’re also quite active in pursuing hardware. We see supercomputers being built. So this field is undergoing rapid development, not just for the sake of defense and security. This is also for the sake of science and economy.

OS: But Snowden is describing a situation where they’re basically doing cyber attacks on China. This is in 2009/’08, in that era. I would imagine he never knew about the Russian side of the cyber equation, but I would imagine Russia is having an ongoing battle with the United States. An ongoing battle, secret battle, with cyber warfare. I would just imagine that. I would imagine the United States is trying to do things to Russia. And Russia was trying to defend itself and do things to the United States. I would just imagine that as practical—I’m not making it up. That seems to me obvious.

VP: Maybe when there is an action there is always a counter action.

OS: You’re acting funny about this story, like a fox that just got out of the hen house. [laughter]

VP: There were no hens in the hen house, unfortunately.

OS: A few weeks ago on RT, I saw a report—it was not followed up on, it disappeared after a day or two, but in that report, 20-plus countries were reported as being part of a Botnet attack on the banking system in Russia—six major banks.[171] I saw the RT report. This seems to be of such a magnitude that it points to a possible US attack—this was after the election. It points to a possible US attack on Russia’s banking system, which would make sense to me. But because the story disappeared, I’m sure that you’re aware of it, but what happened to that story, if it was true?

VP: No, the story didn’t disappear. Indeed, there were reports that such an attack was being prepared. We were not 100 percent sure that this was going to happen, but just to be on the safe side, the banking community, they addressed the media. And they informed their clients, the citizens, that such attacks were possible, they were imminent. And they called on the citizens not to get nervous, not to get confused, not to rush to the banks to get their money, from their deposits. They said they had everything under control. There were no grounds to be anxious and they wanted people to know that if this were to happen, then they should know that it was a hacking attack in order to destabilize the financial system of Russia. We are not claiming that the US is to blame for that. We do not have evidence to support that claim.

OS: Right. It’s a gigantic piece of business. I mean, you have Mr. Biden, first of all, saying, “We will attack Russia in the same manner as they attacked us in this election.”[172] We will attack Russia in the same manner, at the time of our choosing”—something of that nature. And Mr. Obama seconded that and said that we will respond to the election hack or whatever he called it—the attack. This is an outrageous conversation. But those are big words from the vice president and then from the president. They’re serious people. So something happened before Inauguration Day.

VP: Certainly there is nothing good about that when such claims come from such a high level. Indeed you’re right, it was said that it would happen “at a time of their choosing.” There were two reasons. First, they wanted to challenge the outcome of the elections. They said a time of their choosing, but certainly the administration back then didn’t have any time left. To be honest, I do not want to offend or insult anyone, but what we’ve seen happen in recent days, it reminds me of what the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was doing at the beginning, especially when they awarded orders to each other. That was very funny.

OS: I don’t understand the analogy.

VP: We’ve seen President Obama give an award to his vice president. Yes he gave him some kind of a medal, and it reminded me of the members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They gave orders and stars and medals to one another. So back then I understood that the administration had run out of time for any serious decisions.

OS: Well, you’re making light of it but in view of how much money we have invested in cyber warfare and our cyber command, it seems like a serious threat to me. I have the feeling that you’re playing it down because something did happen and you don’t want to reveal it because of sensitive relations.

VP: You are disappointed because the US failed to do something? Or do you just regret the money of the American taxpayers that has been spent on that cyber warfare?

OS: No, I believe that cyber warfare can lead to a hot war. I really believe that because of the past. You know, the Stuxnet virus came very close to creating chaos in the world. I think this is very dangerous, very dangerous, and I think we’re playing with fire.

VP: That is very dangerous.

OS: I know. Well, you’re obviously sitting on some information and you may not want to make it public.

VP: Yes. That’s a great secret. Top secret.

OS: [laughter] I know. But are we going to be able to handle the capabilities of this? It seems to me that what happened in Iran could be as serious in its way as what happened in 1945 at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That was the beginning of a new age.

VP: The weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it opened a tragic page in the history of humanity, because they released a terrible genie from the bottle. Our military specialists believe that there was no military sense behind using nuclear, atomic weapons against Japan which had already been put to rout. But I think this comparison between Stuxnet and the nuclear weapons is too overreaching. But should we fail to agree on a certain code of conduct in this field, and I agree with you on that one, the consequences of this spiral of action, they can be very grave and even tragic.

OS: It seems to me a secret war, but no one knows who started it. No one knows if it was a proxy country, if it was North Korea that hacked Sony—you know, these rumors go around. But if all the lights go out in Russia, and let’s say some of the grid in Russia were to close down overnight, there would be tremendous fear in Russia, as there would be the United States and people wouldn’t know who did it. Secret War.

VP: It is almost impossible to sow fear among the Russian citizens.

OS: [laughter] Ohhh!

VP: That is the first thing I wanted to say. And secondly, the economies that are more sophisticated, in technological terms, they are more vulnerable to this types of attacks. But in any case, this is a very dangerous trend. A very dangerous avenue to pursue for competition in and we need some rules to be guide us all.

OS: A treaty.

VP: I don’t want to say that, but you are simply drawing this information from me. You make me say that. One and a half years ago, in autumn 2015, we came up with a proposal that was submitted to our American counterparts. We suggested that we should work these issues through and arrive at a treaty, an agreement on the rules to be followed in this field. We came up with a similar proposal at the United Nations. The Americans didn’t respond, they kept silent, they didn’t give us any reply. Only at the very end of the Obama administration, the State Department, we called and they said they were willing to get back to talking about this matter. Our Foreign Ministry said that we would have to talk to the new administration because there was no time left. And this is one of the very important topics that we’re going to have to explore in the near future.

OS: Perhaps this is something that Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin can really open up and it could become a gigantic success.

VP: This is just one of the issues that we’ve got to address together. It is very important and I agree with you on that one. But I’d like to reiterate, the proposal is on the table but so far our American partners have not said anything about it. This proposal was submitted to them before the active phase of the electoral campaign.

[After a break, at 11 p.m., Mr. Putin and Mr. Stone walk the corridors of the Kremlin with the interpreter.]

OS: You know this is a pretty big place you’ve got here. How do you heat it?… Don’t tell me.

VP: Yes, you should have asked something simpler. Somehow it just happens. But I can assure you that we do not use firewood to heat it.

OS: To close out the cyber warfare thing—just a few weeks ago here, in Moscow, they arrested the chief of detectives. They escorted him out of the office with a bag over his head.

VP: It was one of the hacker groups.

OS: But he was an official. An official of the government.

VP: No, no, no. He is a private person. A hacker.

OS: Three people were accused, and the rumor that I heard was that they were colluding possibly with the Americans.

VP: I don’t know about that. I know that there was a hacker group. They were perpetrating attacks against financial accounts of private persons and companies, they were taking money from people.

OS: So you think it’s a private affair. It’s not involved with this American-Russian situation?

… You ever walk down these long corridors to get exercise?

VP: No, I’ve got a small gym here.

OS: You’re never lonely at night when you walk the corridors?

VP: During the night, I don’t walk through these corridors.

OS: When I last saw you, we talked about mass surveillance. And you agreed that it didn’t make sense. It was ineffective. And since then, a new law has been passed. And I think you’ve signed it. In Russia, it’s called the Big Brother Law.[173] And it provides exactly the kind of surveillance that you deplored about the United States method.

VP: Well, it’s not exactly like that—I’m going to tell you about it. It’s no secret, to be honest.

OS: Well, last time we talked about surveillance, mass surveillance—I had the impression you were against it and that you deplored the American technique. It was ineffective against terrorism, and as our “Snowden” movie pointed out, it was selective targeting that would work best on terrorists. And since that conversation there is a new law in Russia and you signed it. And I’m surprised. And Snowden has condemned it here in Russia. So I’m surprised. I mean, what is your feeling about this?

VP: Well, as for the law that you’ve just mentioned, this law doesn’t authorize surveillance all across the world—surveillance of people no matter who they are. It doesn’t authorize that at all. This law is about something entirely different. You mentioned Mr. Snowden. He revealed that there was surveillance performed by the NSA and the CIA of citizens all across the world, of political leaders and their allies. Whereas the law that we have adopted says that data, information has to be preserved for a longer period of time. The information should be preserved by the companies that provide internet services and telecom services. But private information, essential information, can only be obtained by special services, or by law enforcement agencies, but only if the court so decides. If there are grounds provided to the court, if the judge decides whether personal information should be provided to the law enforcement agencies or to the special services, or not. This information cannot be obtained by special services automatically from private companies. And such a law is in place in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, and in a great number of other countries. And I think that is justified and that is necessary in the fight against terrorism. Because if this data is simply deleted, then all opportunities vanish to pursue the suspects, the criminal suspects.

OS: But why? Why are you doing this? I didn’t see that there was any great terrorist threat in Russia. It seems like a dragnet on all Russian citizens.

VP: Let me say once again—the law enforcement agencies and special services can only get information if there is a decision taken by the court. This law introduces a responsibility for private companies—telecom and internet providers—to preserve data for longer. But this law doesn’t give an automatic authorization to our special services to get this kind of information. Nor should private companies provide this information to special services. Why is this law so important? Just have a look—we talked about Syria, you and I. Right now, regrettably, in Syria there are 4,500 Russian citizens aligned with Daesh, with other terrorist organizations fighting there. And another 5,000 citizens from Central Asian countries, former Soviet republics. And they’ve got connections of their own in Russia. And they prepare terrorist attacks.[174] Last year, our special services thwarted 45 terrorist attacks. So luckily we are not seeing any serious terrorist activities, but this is not because terrorists are not fighting against us, but simply because, luckily, so far our special services have been successful in thwarting the terrorist’s activities. But Russia has been attacked by terrorists on many occasions, and people know that full well. And we have suffered very great losses and we’ve got to protect our population, our citizens.

OS: Does this have anything to do with the way Google operates, or fear or paranoia about Google, let’s say its omnipresence in Europe?

VP: I’m not sure about this paranoia. But I know that terrorists do use these channels for communication. Sometimes they use closed channels of communication.

OS: Well, I heard it was also very financially punitive for the companies that have to store the information because it costs quite a bit.

VP: This is an over-exaggeration. It’s going to be worth several trillion rubles. But to be honest, experts say that if the government thinks it all through—all the actions that need to be taken—then these costs can be reduced to one hundred billion rubles.

OS: Phew!

VP: As far as this law is concerned, when I signed it, I instructed the government to come up with a set of measures with a view to reducing the financial consequences for the companies.

OS: Yeah, that’d be good.

OS: The US and China have had some serious issues in the South China Seas, maritime issues. This must be of concern to Russia. Have you had any conversations with the Chinese premier?

VP: No, maybe we’ve touched upon it but only in general terms. Our position on that matter is well-known and it consists of the following. All regional disputes, problems, have to be addressed in the course of consultations by the countries of the region. Any interference from outside is always counterproductive. As far as I know, China is engaged in this kind of dialogue with the regional powers.

OS: Except the regional powers feel like they’re small, and they go to the United States for their nuclear umbrella.

VP: I’m not so sure about that. I think that the Philippines no longer thinks that.

OS: Yes. You have a different point of view.

VP: But you know that this dispute has even been elevated to the level of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. And it was started from the Philippines.

OS: Okay. So is that a solution?

VP: I don’t think so. I’m going to tell you why. The thing is, for such a decision to be recognized, several conditions have to be met. First, all the parties to a dispute have to apply to this court. And China has not applied to this court. And the second condition is that the court has to listen to all the parties to the dispute. But China has not been called to that court and its position has not been heard. So I think this court ruling can hardly be recognized as valid. But let me reiterate, the current leadership of the Philippines didn’t insist on this court ruling. We see right now the Philippines champion a dialogue with China on this matter, and I think this is the best avenue to pursue.

OS: Japan and South Korea are two gigantic countries—very Western, very capitalist in a sense…. Very capitalistic economies and Japan has the second most US bases in the world, and South Korea has many bases. Some of these are US bases, and obviously because of the US bases it becomes a US issue.

VP: If they think so. Let me say once again that the best way is not to add fuel to these disputes, to these contradictions. These disputes should not be tried, shouldn’t be used to secure someone’s position in the region. On the contrary they have to push forward in normal, positive, constructive dialogue with a view to finding solutions to the outstanding issues.

OS: In Russia, in every country there are reactionaries and hardliners. America, Russia, all the countries of the world. In Russia, would you say that you were getting pressure from nationalists, hardliners, for Russia to take a harder position on all these matters?

VP: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I feel any pressure, but we’ve got people of different points of view. Some of them quite influential—they are influential with regard to public opinion. And I certainly have to take their position into consideration. Just as I should take into account the position of more liberally-minded people. That is my job. I’ve got to consider different positions and arrive at an acceptable solution.

OS: What’s this?

VP: This is one of the working offices where my colleagues and I organize video conferences. We can organize video conferences with different regions of Russia, with different agencies, government ministries. We can hold conferences here without making people come here in person. To save time.

OS: 10 or 11 time zones?

VP: I think 11.

OS: Can we talk? I think I’ll sit on this side, it might look nicer. I love this map. So, this is a situation-type room?

VP: Yes, indeed so.

OS: This is commando raids and stuff?

VP: No, are you talking about my functions as Commander in Chief and from where I perform those functions? Well, we can do that from here, we’ve got the necessary means of communications, we’ve got a direct link to the Ministry of Defense. Incidentally, have a look at those time zones—you can see them. The westernmost point, Kaliningrad—on the left. And the easternmost point. Everyone calls Japan the country of the Rising Sun. But New Zealand is to the east from Japan. And eastwards from New Zealand is Chukotka. It’s one of the Russian regions. And before Chukotka, between Chukotka and Alaska, the Bering Strait, is just 60 miles. So once again Chukotka is the easternmost part of Eurasia. I would call Chukotka the country of the rising sun.

OS: Okay, so in conventional military terms your budget, as you said the American budget is six hundred billion and your annual budget is 66 according to Russian statistics—66. That’s about a tenth of American spending. The Chinese are 215 billion. Saudi Arabia is at 87. Saudi Arabia, again… which leaves Russia in fourth place at 66. Is this an accurate figure?

VP: Yes, it’s roughly just as you said.

OS: So Saudi Arabia’s spending more money than you are.

VP: Well, it turns out they do spend more than we do.

OS: How do you do it? I mean, you have quite an army, quite an intelligence service. But what’s the trick? I mean, you don’t have lobbies that cost a lot of money? There’s no graft, no corruption in this thing?

VP: Well, certainly just as in any other country we’ve got all of that. But we’ve got this understanding that the most important thing is that the country is a well-functioning, well-performing economy. So we’ve got to coordinate our ambitions and our needs and our opportunities in the military field. In defense, we’ve got certain traditions—traditions that have been established by our predecessors. One of our prominent commanders, Suvorov, used to say, “It is not with numbers that you’ve got to fight, it is with your skills.” The armed forces have to be compact, but very modern and efficient. We spend enough. What I mean is that the ratio to our GDP—our military expenditure amounts to more than three percent of our GDP. And for Russia, that is quite a lot. This year, we have managed to economize when drafting our budget thanks to bringing down our military expenditure. So step by step we’re going to bring our military expenditure to 2.7/2.8 percent of our GDP in the coming three years.

OS: The US makes a lot out of building up—they keep talking about its anti-missile systems. Is there any reason to believe there’s been some kind of breakthrough in their technology?

VP: So far there has been no breakthrough. But this is possible. And we certainly have to take that into account. And we’re working to ensure our security in the mid-term and in the long term.

OS: But they have a plan, they’re doing something to gain first strike capability. I feel that they are really working. They feel they can get an advantage, if they can break through that ABM missile system.

VP: Certainly that is exactly the case.

I think pulling out of the ABM treaty was a mistake. They’re trying to build an umbrella to protect themselves. But in reality, this sparks an arms race. New suspicions pop up. To cite an example, deploying this ABM system in Romania,[175] let’s do the following—they deploy a ground system which can be used to station cruise missiles of intermediate range that are sea-launched. And the US has such missiles and they are not prohibited by the existing treaties. And these missiles can be stationed there and deployed there. We’re not going to see that. It is only going to take several hours to reconfigure the computer program. And that’s that. Yeah. And apart from that, should this system become fully operational, we’ll have to think about how we can penetrate the system. We can overcome it and we can relocate our ground-based nuclear weapons. We’re lucky, you see, because we would have to re-equip to change and modernize our ground systems anyways. Because the time has come that from the technological point of view they have to be modernized. And we’re going to do exactly that given the situation that we see. And given the ABM system deployed by the Americans.

OS: Any more news developments that you can reveal on the US/NATO exercises on the Russian borders in their war games? Has there been any change of strategy, for example, in Poland?

VP: Well, I would say no. This has more of a psychological effect than a military effect per se. Militarily this is of no concern to us. But it undermines trust in the political process that would allow us to work together, certainly that is not a good thing that we’re seeing—this is doing damage to our relations.

OS: Interesting.

OS: Can we quickly get back—in the matter of Syria, it seems to have quieted down. The showing of Aleppo was much-played-up in the Western media as barbaric. And I’ve seen the RT reports from a different perspective about what was happening there in West Aleppo—a different sense of, where the US media was not reporting some of the atrocities that were happening in Aleppo.

VP: You know, this is all part of an information confrontation. Certainly the media are used. If they present lopsided information, they discredit themselves in the end. In any case, when a question arises inevitably, if people are taken hostage by terrorists does it mean that we have to stop fighting terrorists? Should we just give them a blank check to do whatever they please? The question always arises—is the source of this evil the ones who fight terrorists or the terrorists themselves? Just have a look—there has been much talk about the need to provide immediate humanitarian aid to Aleppo. Right now, Aleppo has been liberated of terrorists. And no one talks right now about the need to provide humanitarian aid to Aleppo, even though security and safety have been ensured there. Many partners of mine, my colleagues were telling me that they were willing, they were ready to provide that kind of humanitarian aid, but so far nothing has happened. There were always those who said that we would be in conflict with the Sunni world sooner or later. I think this is, to me, a provocation. Many in the Arab world, and in Turkey, they do understand what our intentions are. There are those who disagree with that. But our position is clear. Our goal is to support the legitimate authorities, to prevent a disintegration of the Syrian statehood, otherwise this territory is going to be yet another Libya or worse. Or another Somalia. Secondly, our goal is to fight terrorism. And this is no less important to us. Just as I said, according to our data, 4,500 people from Russia and around 5,000 citizens from Central Asian countries—the former Soviet republics—are fighting there. And our task is to prevent them from coming home. Nonetheless, it is with respect that we treat the concerns of our partners from Turkey and from the Arab countries. What did it result in? First, at the final stage of the fight for liberating Aleppo, this stage didn’t end with hostilities. No, it ended with separating the forces. And we helped part of the armed opposition to evacuate from Aleppo. And we were the ones to facilitate this process. We were the ones to organize all of that. But everyone just made it look like they didn’t see what was happening. Secondly there were talks that once Aleppo was liberated, ethnic or religious cleansings would take place there. Do you know what decision I took? I decided to dispatch a battalion of Russia military police to Aleppo, from the Northern Caucasus, mostly from the Chechen Republic[176] and a number of other republics in the Northern Caucasus. Incidentally, all of them are Sunni.

OS: [laughter] I see.

VP: And the local population gave them a very warm welcome. They see them as their protectors. Certainly we did that with the concern and with the support of President Assad. He said he was interested in fostering a dialogue between different religious groups. Do you know what it led to? I’m going to tell you something that no one is aware of so far, but probably they are going to learn that before your film appears. The representatives of the armed opposition in one of the suburbs of Aleppo asked us to increase the number of our military policemen. They want us to bring this number to a great number in the regions they control.

A week ago I decided to dispatch another battalion of military police there. But this is not all there is to it. Together with our military police, a Mufti from the Chechen Republic has appeared there.

He is also a Sunni. He talks to our military, to the local population. We’re not interested in adding fuel to this conflict. Quite the contrary, we are interested in fostering dialogue, so as to preserve the territorial integrity of this country which is a very complicated matter. I’m particularly concerned about what we are witnessing. We see some sort of a divide of different religious groups. People are moving from one part of Syria to another. These religious groups are isolating themselves and separating, and this is very dangerous because it might result in a split. But I’ve got to tell you that we are successful because we’ve got the direct support of the Turkish leadership, as well as the leadership of Iran. This is a very difficult matter and it’s not always easy to find consensus. But direct contacts are being upheld with the Iranian partners and the Turkish partners, and this is what gives us hope and that is why we achieve success. What you’ve said about Syria quieting down, that is true. Indeed, hostilities have all but ceased between the armed opposition and the armed forces of the government. But hostilities are still ongoing against Daesh, the Islamic State.

OS: What would you say is the result of the Russian military intervention—in a few words?

VP: I can sum that up very easily. First, we’ve stabilized the legitimate authorities. Secondly, we have achieved a reconciliation and we’ve managed to bring to one negotiating table both the Armed opposition and the government. And we’ve managed to foster a dialogue in a trilateral format which engages both Turkey and Iran. We need the support of the United States as well as the support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt. We’re going to tread very cautiously. So that each step secures what has been achieved at the previous step instead of undermining it.

OS: Again, what was the distance between Damascus and Moscow. You told me once it was kilometers…

VP: Well I never counted. I think 3,000. 2,000 to Sochi, another thousand to Istanbul. 3,500 or 4,000 kilometers.[177]

OS: Okay. And one quick question. I mean, I definitely get the feeling from what you said that Mr. Erdogan in Turkey feels that the US CIA was involved in the coup d’état against him recently.

VP: Did he tell you that?

OS: No. He said things that hinted at it—in that direction.

VP: I don’t know anything about that. But I can see the rationale behind what he said. Mr. Gülen, whom he suspects of organizing this coup d’état, is living in Pennsylvania[178] and he’s lived there for more than nine years.

OS: And Mr. Erdogan never said anything to you, he never whispered…?

VP: No, he told me that he suspected Gülen and his organization, his movement, of organizing that coup d’état. He has never told me anything about the role of the United States. But I can see his logic—you can guess it. If indeed Mr. Gülen had taken part in this coup d’état attempt—of which I have no idea—it would be very hard to imagine that at least the intelligence services of the US would be unaware of what was happening. That’s the first thing. Secondly, the Air Force stationed at the Incirlik Air Base has been active in this coup d’état attempt. And that is exactly the air base where the main part of the American Air Force that is stationed in Turkey is located.

We are a little bit concerned. And why is that? The thing is, tactical nuclear weapons are deployed in Turkey, US nuclear weapons. And when such dramatic events occur, the question arises as to what might happen to the nuclear warheads.

OS: Well, if the army is loyal to Erdogan, then I’m not sure. A lot of them are involved with the United States.

VP: Well, probably you know better than I do.

OS: Well, he rounded up a lot of military people.

VP: You know, Mr. Erdogan was one step from being assassinated. He moved from the hotel where he was staying. Some of his security officers were staying there. And one of the Special Forces, a commando from the armed forces came to him, there was a clash with his security officers and his security officers were killed. I think we can say that if Erdogan had stayed there than he would have been assassinated. These are just bare facts from which I infer no conclusions whatsoever. But this is what happened. I do not want either to analyze or give an assessment to what he did afterwards. But we know the historical role that the armed forces have been playing in Turkey. They’ve been the grantor of a secular avenue of development in the country. We’ve got this Golden Rule which we stick to—we never interfere within the domestic affairs of any country.

OS: Not even the US election?

VP: No, never. It’s up to the people of the country.

OS: I believe you.

VP: You know, even earlier, sometimes half as a joke, half on a serious note, we were saying that the American Constitution was not perfect.

OS: The Electoral College.

VP: Yes, absolutely right. Because the elections are not that direct. There was this electoral college that you mentioned. But their response was always, “This is none of your business. We’re going to sort it out ourselves.” So we do not interfere, either within the domestic affairs of the US or any other country. We have not interfered in Turkey.

OS: How close were you to a war—the United States said to Syria you crossed the red line in 2013 and General Shoygu, your Defense Minister said the Syrians were about to launch a massive attack of 624 cruise missiles within 24 hours. And it probably would have ended the sovereignty of the Syrian state at that point, when Obama said they crossed a red line, and you were involved with that, in stopping that and in removing the gases, the chemical weapons from Syria. How close was it? And were you worried about a US strike on Damascus?

VP: Honestly, I don’t know—I think you’ve got to ask the Obama administration about that, about how close they were to the brink of war, to making that decision. Another decision finally was made, luckily.

OS: You were involved in it.

VP: Yes, I was, when the G20 Summit took place in St. Petersburg, President Obama and I, we talked about this topic. And we agreed to try to take steps to eliminate the remains of chemical weapons in Syria.

OS: You sound very casual. It doesn’t sound right. I mean, if Shoygu said 24 hours, you guys have to be worried about it. This is your ally.

VP: Well, it’s all about the subjunctive mood, so to speak. Be that as it may, both I and President Obama agreed to work together back then, and luckily our joint work resulted in success.

OS: Well, you make it sound casual, but weren’t you worried that your ally would disappear and maybe ISIS was going to get all the way to Damascus right then and there? Didn’t you see all the implications of this?

VP: Yes, certainly we were concerned. And that’s why we talked about how we could address that matter with other means and we were successful in doing that.

OS: You seem very cool about it, but I would imagine in that time period it might have been much tenser.

VP: Look, what happened back then happened back then. And right now we have a very well-organized and well-performing system of air defense deployed there.

OS: Ah!

VP: —We have the S-400, with a range of more than 300 kilometers, S-300, also with a range of 300. The DEBO system with a range of 60 kilometers. And there are other systems that are more efficient in the shorter range. So we’ve got a multi-tier plan for air defense. And there are also the ships stationed off the coast that all also have this system of air defense.

OS: So you could have prevented it?

VP: And the most sophisticated air defense systems with a range of 300 kilometers.

OS: Well that’s some conversation you’re having with Obama—you’re saying Russian weapons are going to shoot down US weapons and you’ll have an international crisis. It’ll be quite a situation. The Pentagon is going to go wild, no? You know, this is close to war.

VP: Back then, we didn’t have those missiles in Syria.

OS: Oh, I thought you did.

VP: Our missiles were not active in Syria back then.

OS: Well, you had a long-term alliance with them since the early 1970s?

VP: Yes, but we didn’t take any part in what was happening there. We were just providing medical and technical military assistance to them, financial assistance.

OS: So, in other words, if the Assad regime had been, let’s say, weakened, would Russia have come to help it against an ISIS move towards Damascus?

VP: This once again depends on the subjunctive mood, and it’s difficult to talk about, because it’s all about myriads of factors that have to be taken into account.

OS: Let’s talk about another war situation since we’re in the Situation Room. More recent. In the Crimea, when the referendum was coming up, the US destroyer Donald Cook was moving towards the Black Sea with Tomahawk missiles. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I saw a documentary… Well, first of all, NATO announced military drills in the Black Sea and the Russian naval commander was talking about how close—in this documentary—was talking about how close Russia came to using its missile system for coastal defense. The US ship Donald Cook was apparently coming right into the Black Sea when it made a U-turn and didn’t carry through its mission.[179] It seems like it was similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis when the same thing happened, where a ship was coming towards the demarcation line and made a U-turn because it had been threatened by the US Navy back in 1962. So where were you at this time when this Donald Cook situation was happening and were you nervous about his?

VP: Remember how the Ukrainian crisis unfolded. [We’ve discussed it.] The three foreign ministers of European countries were acting as guarantors of an agreement between the opposition and President Yanukovych. Everyone agreed to that. President Yanukovych even agreed to hold early elections. At that time, at the initiative of the United States of America, they told us, ‘We ask you to prevent President Yanukovych from using the armed forces.’ And they promised in their term they were going to do everything for the opposition to clear the squares and the administrative buildings. We said, ‘Very well that is a good proposal. We are going to work on it.’ And as you, know President Yanukovych didn’t resort to the armed forces. But the very next day the coup d’état took place during the night. We didn’t have a telephone conversation, we didn’t get a call, we simply saw them [the Americans] actively support those who perpetrated the coup d’état. And we could only shrug our shoulders. Such conduct, the way the Americans acted, even among individuals is absolutely unacceptable. They should have at least told us afterwards that the situation had spun out of control. They should have told us that they would do everything to put them back on a constitutional track. No, they didn’t do that. They started to come up with lies saying that Yanukovych had fled. And they supported those who performed that coup d’état. How can we trust such partners?

OS: Question—is this when Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State, had that conversation with the American ambassador and said, “Fuck the EU”?[180]

VP: Well, it doesn’t matter, honestly. It was on February 21st. Or maybe the 20th. The coup d’état took place the next day. So now that Crimea has become a full fledged part of the Russian Federation, our attitude towards it changed drastically. If we see a threat to our territory, just as any other country, we will have to protect it by all means at our disposal. I wouldn’t draw an analogy with the Cuban Missile Crisis, because back then the world was on the brink of a nuclear apocalypse. Thankfully, the situation didn’t go as far this time, even though we did indeed deploy our most sophisticated, our cutting-edge systems, for coastal defense.

OS: But the Bastion is a big missile and the destroyer, the Donald Cook, has Tomahawk missiles.

VP: Yes, certainly—against such missiles as the ones we’ve deployed in Crimea—such a ship, destroyer as Donald Cook is simply defenseless.

OS: Yes, that’s probably why they turned around?

VP: I think this captain was smart and also a responsible person. This doesn’t mean he’s weak…

OS: No, no.

VP: —He simply understood what he was dealing with. He decided not to continue.

OS: But your commander had the authority to fire?

VP: Our commanders always have the authorization to use the necessary means for the defense of the Russian Federation.

OS: Still, it’s a big incident potentially.

VP: Yes, certainly. It would have been very bad.

OS: Were you notified?

VP: Yes, certainly. Where is that ship stationed usually—the Donald Cook? Where is the base?[181]

OS: The Mediterranean, I presume.

VP: Yes. But I think that the mother port is somewhere in the United States—the place it’s registered. So, thousands and thousands of kilometers from…. And even if the port is somewhere in the Mediterranean, somewhere in Spain, it is still thousands of kilometers from the Black Sea. And we are determined to protect our territory.

OS: I understand. But were you available, were you—

VP: Who was trying to provoke whom? What was that destroyer doing so close to our land?

OS: I understand, but were you contacted at the time? In what timeframe did all of this take place, this challenge?

VP: I think it was real time. Once the destroyer was located and detected, they saw that there was a threat, and the ship itself saw that it was the target of the missile systems. I don’t know who the captain was. But he showed much restraint. I think he is a responsible man and a courageous officer to boot. I think it was the right decision that he made. He decided not to escalate the situation. It doesn’t at all mean that he would have been attacked by our missiles. But we had to show them that our coast was protected by the missile systems.

OS: Was there a warning sent out to him?

VP: The captain sees right away that his ship has become the target of missile systems—there is special equipment. He has special equipment to detect such situations.

OS: And all of this takes place in two minutes, 30 minutes, 50 minutes?

VP: I don’t know—the experts can give you the answer. Seconds, mere seconds, I think.

OS: I mean, does this happen all the time? You sound very cool.

VP: It sometimes happens. And that’s why our American counterparts have suggested we should build a system for exchanging information about the aircraft that are flying over, so as to avoid any kind of incident. Because when an aircraft is targeted, is eradiated by another aircraft this is considered a serious incident.

OS: I’d say.

VP: And this is always a very serious incident.

OS: So there have been others—there have been other incidents we don’t know about?

VP: I don’t know. NATO aircraft are flying over the Baltic Sea without transponders—the systems that are used to identify them—and our aircraft have started to fly without our transponders as well. And once our aircraft have started to do that, there’s been so much ruckus saying that we do not use transponders, but when I publicly declared that the number of our flights is many-fold fewer than the number of NATO flights the ruckus has quieted down. The president of Finland has proposed that we should make a decision making it obligatory for everyone to use these transponders, to detect them, to identify and we suggested right away that this should be done, but our NATO partners have refused. You see we need a dialogue all the time, we do not need new provocations.

OS: I understand, it’s very scary. At that time, you made a strong speech, I thought, addressing NATO. You said, “This is our historic territory. These are Russian people. They are in danger now. We can’t leave them alone. It wasn’t us who staged the coup. It was done by nationalists and people with far-right views. You supported them, but where do you live—5,000 miles away. But we live here and it is our land. What do you want to fight for there? You don’t know, do you? But we do know. And we are ready for it.”

VP: Yes indeed we were brought to the brink, so to speak.

OS: To the brink—you admit to the brink?

VP: Yes, certainly. We had to respond somehow.

OS: Well, finally you’re admitting it.

VP: Yes, we were open to positive dialogue. We did everything to achieve a political settlement. But they had to give their support to this unconstitutional seizure of power. I still wonder why they had to do that. Incidentally, that was a first step to further destabilization of the country. And this happens still. So, first the power is seized and right now these forces that have seized power are trying to make those who disagree with that accept this as a fact. This is what is happening to the south and eastern part of Ukraine. Instead of engaging in a political dialogue, which is quite possible, that is what they’re doing.

OS: Well, you have to get your story out there. Your side of the story—not only on RT, but hopefully with some intelligence releases, some shots, some images that would tell the story. You have to tell this story, you have to somehow get your raw intelligence into the system.

VP: You see, that’s quite impossible, because this point of view that we present is ignored by the world media. And if it’s ignored, not on equal footing with the other perspectives, then almost no one hears it. So a narrative is being constructed of some evil Russia—

OS: —I wouldn’t give up on that, I wouldn’t give up. You have to fight back. And you’re doing a great job but more, better.

VP: I’ll bear that in mind, but I think this critique is justified.

OS: [teasing] No, Dmitry’s done a lousy job on that. [Putin’s press secretary and confidant]

VP: Well, this is not up to him. This is not the task he’s supposed to do.

OS: I know.

VP: His task is to provide information and support to my everyday functions…. It’s my job and I’m not doing a very good job of it.

OS: You’re doing a great job, but you work too hard—you’ve got to relax. I think you should take a vacation. Go to Palm Beach, relax, sit on the beach, play some golf, talk.

VP: I understand the hint. Well, I envy him.

OS: In closing, you inherited a Russian state that was collapsing at the end of the last century. You came to office accidentally and people were in great misery. There was no sense of a central power and the point is that I think Russia had to be rebuilt so that it wouldn’t collapse again. Mr. Gorbachev’s ideal of restructuring didn’t happen. The West, in a sense, supported disorder. A vision which, you said, Russia must never again embrace. Then you said sovereignty is the key. Sovereignty is the key. I believe you said one time that a state in order to exist and have sovereignty has, amongst its obligations, to pay the pensions of older people. Yes?

VP: Yes, certainly. In general, and especially right now, a country can only ensure its sovereignty if it secures a good economic growth rate—not just the economic growth rate, you’ve got to secure economic development. And in this sense, despite the good assessment you’ve given to my job, I think both myself and my colleagues could have done an even better job. Even though that would have been immensely hard, because we were always facing a dilemma. We had to choose between a bad decision and an even worse decision. But that happens all the time everywhere. You are always faced with a choice. And you’ve got to make it. Liberally-minded people think that we should have taken harsher, tougher measures. I thought that the harshness had to correlate to the standard of living to help people. We had to go step by step in improving the lives of our people.

Back then, in 2000, more than 40 percent of our citizens were living below the poverty line, the system of social security was in ruin, let alone the armed forces which all but ceased to exist. Separatism was holding sway. I’m not going to elaborate on that, but I’m going to say that the Russian constitution didn’t apply all throughout our territory and the Caucasus was seeing a war that was raging—a civil war, which was fueled by radical elements from abroad. And in the end that civil war degenerated into terrorism. The situation was very difficult. But the Russian people and all the peoples of Russia, they’ve got a very important quality and that is love for their own nation, for their country. The sense of danger, the sense of compassion as well as the willingness to make sacrifices for the interests of their country. And thanks to these qualities of the Russian people and other peoples of Russia, we have managed to get through that difficult period. But we cannot exploit these qualities endlessly. We want our people to have better lives. Liberal-minded economists say we should have economized more or we shouldn’t have increased the wages, the salaries, the pensions. But you see our people still have a very, very modest standard of living. I want rank and file citizens, families to see that our country is recovering. Anyhow, we are trying to pursue a very restrained, reserved economic policy.

OS: Getting back to sovereignty.

VP: We are trying to use the revenues from oil and gas. We will save this money, but we try to spend what we get from other sectors. For us that is a very difficult task. As you can see we have increased the real income of our population by a magnitude of several times. Last year, because of high inflation, real income was reduced a little bit. But at the end of last year we saw a pickup of that real income. Last year we managed to reduce the inflation rate to a historical record low—it was 5.4 percent or so. Even though our target was 6.2 percent. And we’re going to target inflation and I do hope that we’ll be able to bring it down to four percent. We’ve got a relatively low unemployment rate at around 5.4 percent. In spite of all the political restrictions, we’ve managed to keep our reserves, to stabilize our economy. I’m confident that this year we’re going to witness more economic growth, albeit modest.[182] Our monetary policy is very well-balanced. It’s being implemented by the Central Bank and by the government.

OS: You should thank Obama—sanctions were good for you.

VP: Our agricultural producers have to thank the Obama administration. Due to the measures we’ve introduced to counter the sanctions against us. These countermeasures are mostly related to closing our market to agricultural produce. And thanks to these measures, the agricultural producers have managed to increase annually their production by more than three percent. Last year we saw record crops of wheat and other grains. And I know you love Russia, so it gives me great pleasure to tell you that Russia ranks first in the world in terms of wheat export.

OS: I like bread—the black bread is my favorite.

VP: We used to buy grains and wheat.

OS: From Canada, yeah.

VP: Right now we produce less than the US or Canada or China. But these countries have larger consumption rates. And as far as per capita production is concerned, it’s very good.

OS: I believe you. Sovereignty is not just economic though. I just want to tell you a quick story—last night… I mean the Russian people have guts. And last night there was a TV series on television Channel 1, I think it was. I saw it—prime time, 8 p.m. It was about the Germans and the Russians. And it was a very interesting story. It was in Russian. I didn’t understand much. But I got a sense of it. In that story, the Russians again behaved very courageously, very courageous and were very good fighters, and outwitted the Nazis. And you know, TV stuff, but it was damn good. It was well-made. The actors were really terrific.

It was kind of ugly in a way, but in a good way—gritty. Very impressed and I remembered when I was here during the Brezhnev era, when they used to show all the old black and white Soviet films on TV, I saw the same kind of movie where the Soviets were taking on the Nazis again. And I made the connection. This is 34 years later, and I say the Russian people have a certain quality of courage which manifests itself time and again and they never forget. And by watching these old movies and remembering the tradition, remembering history, you go a long way towards keeping that sovereignty.

VP: Yes. That is very important. But no less important than this rigid framework of tradition is to be willing to accept new things, novelties, and to advance.

OS: Like cyber warfare! I’m not going to bug you anymore. I’ve got my hands full, 25–30 hours to cut. No more questions! Promise. A handshake across the countries. I wish I wish I wish. You did a great job, you did a good job.

VP: [a warm handshake] If they’re going to beat you for this, you can come back here to Russia and we’ll help heal you.

OS: We’ll see. I’m proud of the film. You got to tell your side of the story and that’s all I can do.

VP: I don’t know if anyone is going to be interested in that.

OS: That’s also possible. Goodnight, Mr. Putin.