July 31, 2017
Director Oliver Stone saw his
four-part interviews with Russian President Putin as a way to give Americans a
better understanding of a leader who has been demonized in the mainstream
media, reports Dennis J Bernstein.
By Dennis J Bernstein
Not surprisingly, the U.S.
mainstream media, which has obsessed over the Russia-gate “scandal” for months,
is bashing director Oliver Stone for his four-part series of interviews with
Russian President Vladimir Putin on the grounds that Stone should have been
tougher.
But Stone’s subtle and probing
interviews of Putin — The Putin Interviews airing on Showtime — give
the viewer a revealing inside look at the Russian leader, who is by all
accounts extremely popular among Russians with approval ratings of around 80
percent.
I spoke with Stone at his Los
Angeles offices on July 25th, soon after he was
honored with the Gary Webb Freedom of the Press Award by Consortiumnews.com,
hosted by award-winning investigative reporter, Robert Parry.
Stone also will receive the
Honorary Heart of Sarajevo Award “for his extraordinary contribution to the art
of film” at the 23rd Sarajevo Film Festival in August.
Dennis Bernstein: Oliver
Stone, how important was it for you to win the Gary Webb Freedom of the Press
Award? Gary Webb, for those who don’t know, was the reporter who broke the
story about the CIA’s relationship to drug traffickers.
Oliver Stone: Gary Webb was a
hero of mine, as is Bob Parry. Bob has been with ConsortiumNews for many years.
I met him when he was investigating the Iran-Contra affair back in the early
1990s.
DB: Of course, Gary Webb was
shredded for the way in which he was able to document the end result of the
CIA’s involvement with drug traffickers. For a moment he was lauded, but then
he was very quickly run out of the trade.
OS: The Iran-Contra affair is
a typical example of this country’s hypocrisy. It was a huge story and what
Reagan did was impeachable. The mainstream press didn’t want another shake-up
of the government after Nixon. There was never any proper investigation of that
mess. When you hear this latest Russian hacking business, it makes you even
angrier because the stuff that truly deserves to be is not investigated.
DB: Why did you choose to
interview Putin at this time?
OS: While I was in Moscow
talking to Edward Snowden a couple years back, I met with Mr. Putin and asked
him about Snowden. He was very forthcoming and gave me his very sensible take
on the whole affair. I thought it would be a good idea to continue the
interviews, though I wasn’t sure he would cooperate. We did a series of four
visits over two years, starting in June of 2015 and ending in February 2017. I
am sure that if he had not been optimistic about the project he wouldn’t have
continued. We would be in Moscow for just two or three days and it was
difficult to see him for more than a couple hours at a time.
Of course, at the time, the
2016 election was supposed to be in the bag for Ms. Clinton. We went back in
February to interview Putin about the election results, which became notorious.
Our intention was to make a profile of a world leader who had been villainized
by the United States in an almost cartoon fashion since 2006-2007. The fact
that the election blossomed into this huge issue only added fuel to the fire.
You’ve seen the criticism of the film in the mass media here.
DB: The corporate mainstream
reporting on the Ukraine has been amazing.
OS: It is an historical inaccuracy.
If you read the accounts at the time in the Washington Post and the New York
Times, there was zero coverage from the other side. Reporters were dismissing
these stories as conspiracy theories and this was “on the day of.” It was so
evidently a coup, the Europeans knew it. Yet, in the United States, we seemed,
as we often do, to be blissfully ignorant of the other side of the story.
We are looking for some
justification for restarting the Cold War. It was almost as if we were back to
confronting the Soviet Union again. We have been stalking Putin since he
starting putting the economy back together again. Around 2004 you start to see
the earliest criticism of him as a dictator and an embezzler, and so on.
And talk about meddling in
elections, Putin was understated when he said that the United States was all
over the Russian election in 2012. We have a clip of [Assistant] Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland saying how we were trying to do all this good work in
Russia, etc. We were blatantly interfering in their election. In 1996 we
completely rigged the election for Yeltsin. He was so unpopular after four
years in office that the communists were poised to take back the government. We
arranged for him to get a gigantic loan from the IMF, among other things.
DB: What would you say were
some of the most surprising moments in the Putin interviews?
OS: Well, already in the first
interview we were discussing the very real threat of nuclear war. I asked about
Clinton’s aggressive rhetoric and Putin said, well, we’re used to this from
American political candidates. We heard it from Romney back in 2012. I think
Putin assumed that Clinton was going to win the election. Trump’s name never
came up. You know, Russian diplomats complain that the Americans talk to them
like cowboys, like barbarians. From the perspective of other countries, we
declare wars in our election campaigns.
Putin talked with me at length
about nuclear parity. I don’t think most Americans realize that when Bush
abrogated the non-proliferation treaty in 2001 we were removing one of the principal
cornerstones of our national security. And then we put the ABM [Anti-Ballistic
Missile] in Poland and more recently in Romania.
In 2009 Obama announced that
we would be spending trillions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal, and
now Trump declares that we are going to win the next war. It is frightening as
hell to the Russians. Putin pointed out that they currently have one-tenth of
our military budget. All kinds of horrors could be in store if the United
States tries to press its advantage with nuclear weapons.
DB: Was it your intention in
these interviews to try to humanize Putin, if not for US leaders, at least for
the American people? To give them the sense that there is someone we can deal
with, who we can step back from the brink with?
OS: I am sure that he was
willing to speak to me, to a private citizen, to someone not in a position of
political power, because he wanted to send a message to the American people. I
am sure he was quite surprised that Showtime picked it up and disseminated it
in our country as well as in Europe.
Putin is well aware that the
media in this country never really brings across what he is trying to say. I
have been very impressed with his speeches. For example, the theme of his 2007
Munich [Security Conference] speech
is still very relevant. He saw what was going on in the world, with our
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. That speech was never really reported here
in the United States. It is disgraceful that we cannot take an important
foreign leader seriously and report his own words.
DB: It seems this is the way
you succeed in US journalism, by bashing so-called enemies as opposed to trying
to understand them and articulate their position.
OS: Even in the depths of the
Cold War, Khrushchev and later Brezhnev weren’t ridiculed on a personal level
to the extent that Putin has been.
DB: Clearly we live in
dangerous times, perhaps more dangerous than at the time of Cuban missile
crisis.
OS: We’re seeing Europe begin
to wake up and realize that NATO is not what it was proposed to be and that the
United States is not such a great partner to have. Maybe the US is just
interested in Europe as a buffer state between us and them. Maybe Europe is
beginning to feel more like a hostage than an ally. If the United States cannot
yield its superiority, it is going to be a very rocky road ahead for everyone.
Dennis J Bernstein is a host
of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden
Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment