If you could talk to Vladimir Putin once again, now, what kind of things would you talk about here?
What kind of questions would you ask?
The following is a conversation with Oliver Stone. He's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time
with three Oscar wins and 11 Oscar nominations. His films tell stories of war and power.
Fearlessly and often controversially, shining a light on the dark parts of American and global
history. His films include Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, Scarface, JFK, Nixon,
Alexander, W, Snowden, and documentaries where he has interviewed some of the most powerful
and consequential people in the world including Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin.
And in this conversation, Oliver and I mostly focus our discussion on Vladimir Putin, Russia,
and the war in Ukraine. My goal with these conversations is to understand the human
being before me, to understand not just what they think, but how they think, to steelman their
ideas, and to steelman the devil's advocate, all in service of understanding, not the origin.
I have done this poorly in the past. I'm still struggling with this,
but I'm working hard to do better. I believe the moment we draw lines between good people
and evil people will lose our ability to see that we're all one people in the most fundamental of
ways, and lose track of the deep truth expressed by the old Solzhenitsyn line that I've returned
to time and time again, that the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.
Oliver Stone has a perspective that he extensively documents in his powerful controversial series
The Untold History of the United States, that imperialism and the military industrial complex
paved the path to absolute power, and thus corrupt the minds of the leaders and institutions that
wield it. From this perspective, the way out of the humanitarian crisis and human suffering in
Ukraine, and the way out from the pull of the beating drums of nuclear war is not simple to
understand, but we must, because all of humanity hangs in the balance. I will talk to many people
who seek to understand the way out of this growing catastrophe, including to historians,
to leaders, and perhaps most importantly, to people on the ground in Ukraine and Russia.
Not just about war and suffering, but about life, friendship, family, love, and hope.
This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now, dear friends, here's Oliver Stone. You're working on a documentary now about nuclear
energy. Yes. So it's interesting to talk about this. Energy is such a big part of the world,
about the geopolitics of the world, about the way the world is. What do you think is the role of
nuclear energy in the 21st century? Good question. First of all, everyone's talking about climate
change, right? So here I wake up to that a few years ago, and clearly we're concerned. I picked
up a book by Josh Goldstein and his co-author who's Swedish. Those two wrote a book called Bright
Future. A Bright Future came out a few years ago, and I lapped it up. It was a book fact-based,
clear, not too long and not too technical. And it was very clear that they were in favor of all
kinds of renewables, renewable energy, yes. They hated, made it very clear how dangerous oil
and gas were, methane, and made it very clear to the layman like me, and at the same time said that
these renewables can work so far. But the gap is enormous as to how much electricity the world
is going to need in 2050 and beyond. Two, three, four times we don't even know the damage, but we
have India, we have China, we have Africa, we have Asia coming on to the scene wanting more and more
electricity. So they address the problem as a global one, not just as often in the United States.
You get the ethnocentric United States point of view that we know we're doing well, blah, blah,
blah. We're not doing well, but we sell that to people that were comfortable. We spend more energy
than anybody in this country, per capita, than anybody. And at the same time, we don't seem to
understand the global picture. So that's what they did, and they made me very aware. So the only way
to close that gap, the only way in their mind is nuclear energy and talking about a gap of building
a huge amount of reactors over the next 30 years and starting now, they make that point over and
over again. So obviously, this country in the United States is not going to go in that direction,
because it just is incapable of having that kind of will, political will, and fear is a huge factor
and still a lot of chivalrous, a lot of myths about nuclear energy have confused and confounded
the landscape. The environmentalists have played a huge role in doing good things, many good things,
but also confusing and confounding the landscape and making accusations against nuclear energy that
were exaggerated. So taking all these things into consideration, we set about making this
documentary, which is about finished now, almost finishing. It's an hour and 40 minutes, and that
was a hard part, getting it down from about three and a half hours to about this something more
manageable. And is it interviews? It's interviews, among others. But essentially, we went to Russia,
we went to France, which is the most perhaps advanced nuclear country in the world, Russia.
And the United States, we went to the Idaho laboratory and talked to the scientists there,
as well as the Department of Energy people that are handling this. Idaho is one of the
experimental labs in the United States, is probably one of the most advanced, and they're
doing a lot of advanced nuclear there. We also, we studied, well, Russia gave us a lot of insight.
We're very cooperative because they have some of the most advanced nuclear, actually,
the prime most advanced nuclear reactor in the world at L.A.R.S.C. at the Ural Mountains.
So we did an investigation there. And in France, they have some very advanced
nuclear reactors in their building. Now they're building again. They had a little,
the Green Party came into power, just not into power, but became a factor in France,
and there was a motion. When Hollande was president, they started to move away from it.
Actually, they were beginning to just abandon, they let not complete their, in other words,
let close down some of the nuclear reactors. There was talk of that, but thank God, France did not
do that. And Mac home came in and recently reversed it, reversed it and they're building
as fast as they can now, especially with the Ukraine war going on. There's an awareness that
Russia will not be providing, may not be providing the energy Europe needs.
So, and then China is the other one too. That's the other factor. I'm talking about the big boys.
They have doing tremendous work and fast, which is very hopeful. But of course,
China is building in all directions at once. They've, coal continues to be huge in China and
methane too. But basically coal, coal in India, in China, the biggest users of coal.
And we know, as you know, Germany went back to coal a few years ago. So all these factors,
it's fascinating picture globally. So we try to achieve a consensus that where nuclear can work
and where it will be working, it will be used more and more. The question is how much carbon
dioxide China and Russia will be putting out. France is the only one that's not putting it out.
The United States has not changed with all the talk and all the nonsense about renewables and
the new lifestyle and all this. It's great for your guilt complex, but it doesn't do anything
for the total accumulation of carbon dioxide in the world.
Who's going to lead the way on nuclear? Do you think you mentioned Russia, France,
China, United States? Who's going to lead? I don't think it's going to be a United Nations
kind of thing because the world doesn't seem capable of uniting. We go to these conferences,
Kyoto, and we talk and we agree, but then we don't actually enforce. I don't think it can happen
that way. I think it's going to be an individual race with countries. They're going to just do it
for their own self interest, like China is doing it. China, the thing is, if it works, and I'm praying
that it will really work on a big scale, China will back away from coal naturally. The same
thing will be true of India. They will see the benefits because if you go to India, you see the
cities, the pollution. You walk around and that stuff and you get, there's no hope in this and
you sense it. People will move in this direction naturally because nuclear is clean energy.
The amount of casualties of nuclear is the lowest on the industrial scale for energy producing
from coal down to oil, everything. The lowest casualty rate, very lowest, 0.002 or something,
is nuclear. Not that many people have died from nuclear, not that many. I think 50 people at
Chernobyl, which was the worst accident, nobody had died at Fukushima. Nobody died at Three Mile
Island and that's what you hear all over and over again, these accidents. The environmentalists have
sold us the idea that they're dangerous and it's a lot of environmentalists, thank God,
of changing it. They've come off that routine and they have saying this, we were wrong. We've done a
lot of good work. Greenpeace did a lot of good work. Whale, saving this, saving that, but they
admit themselves. Not they don't, but people who have been in the organization have said we were
wrong. In 1956, we show the articles in the New York Times that came out. The Rockefeller Foundation,
which of course is a big producer of oil, the Rockefeller family, and the foundation came out
with a study which was weighted. They tipped the scale, put a thumb on the scale, but it was a
scientific expose of radiation in the study that came out in the printed in the New York Times,
because the New York Times published or Salzburger was on their board. He was one of the board members,
so they got a lot of strong publicity condemning radiation from which killed,
started the process of doubting nuclear energy. The radiation levels that they pointed out were
very minor and of course, if you go into a scientific analysis of this now with what we know,
it's just not true, but it tilted the scale back in the 50s, 60s, and started the questioning the
nuclear business. Do you think that was malevolence or incompetence? No, I think it was competition.
I don't think it was conspiracy as much as it was a sense. We don't want this nuclear energy
is going to end the dominance of oil. Absolutely, and it will, and it will anyway, because it's the
only sane way for the world to proceed, but the world will have to learn through adversity.
So in other words, this situation could get worse, much worse, and certain countries are
just going to have to adapt like we always do. When things become too hard, you've got to go,
you have to change your thinking. And humans are pretty good at that. Yes, talking about human
nature, they're very adept at that. Germany, for example, I mean, when the Fukushima happened,
they went out of the nuclear business. That was shocking to me. They just pulled out and they
destroyed several of their nuclear reactors that were still functioning and put up coal or,
yeah, put up coal and oil replaced it. And as a result, Germany drifted into this place next to
France. Their electricity bills went up and France stayed the same. They don't have that.
They have a different system in Europe, but more or less, no question that France was doing a lot
better than Germany. And now, with this Ukraine issue, it's a very interesting fulcrum point,
whether Germany is going, what direction they're going to go now? How can they? How can they keep
going with coal? They just can't. What's the connection between oil, coal, nuclear, and war?
Sort of energy and conflict. When you look at the 21st century, when you were doing this
documentary, were you thinking of nuclear as a way to power the world? But is it also to
avoid conflict over resources? Is there some aspect to energy being a source of conflict
that we're trying to avoid?
I don't have the energy, the history of energy at my fingertips, and it's a very long history here.
But I would say, apparently not. It does seem that individually each country can answer its needs
by building. And up until now, we haven't had conflict accepted in this issue of Russia supplying
Europe. Obviously, the pipeline Nord Stream 2 has been closed, and Nord Stream 1 is also
probably going to be phased out. And the concept of Russia supplying gas to Europe
is now up in the air. And who knows what's going to happen? I just don't see how Europe can get
away from using Russian gas. But Russian gas is not the solution, because it's methane, too.
And it goes up into the atmosphere. Methane is, in a short term, is worse than coal.
Worse. There's all kinds of charts we show in the film. We try not to be too overfactual.
But methane is not the answer. It's a short term answer.
Will countries go to war over energy is a question that I'm trying to think of all
the wars that happened. You could say Germany, of course, during World War II,
needed oil very badly. And it dictated their strategy with Romania, etc., and
getting the oil fields open. But I haven't thought that one through. I'd have to make
a documentary on it to really understand how energy and war interface.
It's always part of the calculation, but it's a question of how much.
Right. That's the question. I just have to ask, because you mentioned your mom was from France.
You've traveled, for this documentary, and you traveled in general throughout the world,
in Russia, Ukraine. What are the defining characteristics of these cultures? Let's go
with Russia. As I told you, I'm half Ukrainian, half Russian. I came from that part of the world.
What are some interesting, beautiful aspects of the culture of Russia and Ukraine?
I can't really speak, honestly, of Ukraine. I was there only in 1983 when I visited the
Soviet Union under the communism, and Kiev was beautiful and was one of the nicer places I went.
But they were very much stultified by the communist system. They all were. The best places to visit
in Russia were always in the south, whether Georgia or the Muslim countries. It was always a better
culture in terms of comfort. But communism was rough, and that was the end of it,
pretty much Brezhnev regime. And then Andropov Gorbachev was in three years in the future
when I was there. So I can't talk about Ukraine, and they've not been friendly to me since,
of course, since I made the Putin interviews. Ukraine has banned me, I believe. They've been
very tough on people who are critical. I think the Russian people have been very special to me.
Perhaps because of my European upbringing, but I enjoy talking to them. I find them very open
and very generous, and they appreciate support. They appreciate people who say, you know, I understand
why your government is doing this or this or this. I've tried to stay open-minded and listen to both
sides. The thing that I have seen as an American is, of course, this American enmity towards Russia
from the very beginning. I grew up in 1940, 46. I was born in the 50s. It was so anti-Russian.
And they were everywhere. They were in our schools. They were in our State Department. They were
spying on us. They were stealing the country from us. That was the way the American
right wing, not even the right wing, I'd say the Republican party, pictured the Russians. They were
actively engaged in infiltrating America and changing our thinking. And television shows
were based on this. It was very much the J. Edgar Hoover mentality that communism was even behind the
student protests of the 1960s. This was the direction in which the FBI and the CIA were thinking.
So I grew up with a prejudice. And it took me many years. My father was a Republican,
and he was a stockbroker, and he was a very intelligent man. But even he, because he was a
World War II soldier, he was a colonel, had fallen under the influence. In order to be
successful in American business in the 1950s, you had to have a very strong anti-Soviet line.
Very strong. You wouldn't get ahead if you expressed any kind of, let's end this Cold War,
any kind of activity of that nature. You'd be cast aside as a Pinko or somebody who was
not completely on the board with the American way of doing business, which was capitalism works,
communism doesn't. And in particular, communism is embodied by the Soviet Union
as the enemy. So hence the narrative behind the Cold War.
That's correct. And it basically lasted. I mean, you saw the ups and downs of it.
When Reagan came in, I was, well, first of all, we had the crisis of 1962 with the Cuban Missile
Crisis. And Kennedy proved himself to be a warrior for peace. He resolved that with Khrushchev.
That was a big moment, huge moment. And people don't give him credit enough for
really saving us from a war that could have affected all of mankind.
But it still didn't avert.
No, because the moment he was killed, honestly, there was a lot of, we can talk about that.
And as you know, I've made a film, J.F.K. Revisited is a documentary we released this year
about the movie I Made in 1991. But the moment he was killed, I would argue
that Lyndon Johnson went back immediately to the old way of thinking, the old way of doing business,
which was the Eisenhower Truman Way, which we had adapted since World War II. That was an interim.
You have to think about it. From Roosevelt dies in 45. Roosevelt has an interim of 15 years,
where he has more of a democratic regime, more liberal. He recognizes the Soviet Union for
the first time since the revolution. And he actually has a relationship with them. He sends
ambassadors who are friendly and he wants, he has a relationship with Stalin, et cetera.
And at Yalta, and Noiteran, rather, that's where he had the relationship.
Do you think if J.F.K. lived, we would not have a Cold War?
No, absolutely not. And we go into great depth on that in the film. And I urge you to see it,
because it goes into all the issues around the world. Kennedy was being very much an anti-imperialist,
it turns out. And many people don't understand that. But you have to look at all his policies in
Middle East with Nasser. He had a relationship with Sukarno in Indonesia,
with Latin America. He made a big effort with the Alliance for Progress.
And when Africa, above all, with Lumumba, he was very shocked at his death and tried to defend
the right, the integrity of the Belgian Congo with Dag Hammershield of the UN. He made a big
effort. Unfortunately, it didn't work out because Dag Hammershield was killed and then Kennedy was
killed. And Congo descended into the chaos of Joseph Mobutu's dictatorship. But Kennedy was
very active in terms of, as an Irishman, not as an Englishman, he was an Irishman. And I say that
because, well, we'll come back to that, because Mr. Joe Biden is an Irishman, but it's a different
kind of an Irishman. They're both Catholic Irish, but Kennedy really made an effort
to change the imperialist mindset that it still was very strong in America and Europe.
Lyndon Johnson changed back to the old policy, and we were never able to really
keep Big Tank going with the Russians. Briefly had it with Carter, but then Brzezinski came in.
Brzezinski was his national security advisor. He was put there by Rockefeller. And Brzezinski was
a Pole. He got revenge from the Poland. Poland has always been attacking Russia, as far as I
remember, back to another century. I mean, the two world wars that occupied Russia. And so tragically,
entry points were always through Poland and Ukraine. So Brzezinski got his revenge and Carter
ended up being an enemy of the Soviet Union. And as Brzezinski took pride in it, he created the
atmosphere of the trap for the Soviets to go into Afghanistan in 79. That trap was set, he says,
he said, in 1978. So there was never except for brief moments of periods of detente with the
Soviets. And I grew up under that. I didn't really know anything of this going on, because I was
learning. I was educating myself as I was going learning movies and trying to be a dramatist
and this and that. So I wasn't thinking about this. Then when Reagan came in, I was worried again,
because it was a beat of the old beat, which was there, the most evil empire. I mean, it does,
it goes on in American history. It doesn't end. Reagan got a lot of points for that.
And of course, when when Gorbachev came in, it was a beautiful moment for the world. It was a
great surprise. It was probably the best years of for America, at least from my point of view,
in terms of this relaxation in the mood. 1986 to 1991 were great years in terms of ability
to believe once again, that there could be a peace dividend. But the world changed again in 1991-92.
There's an internal mechanism who knows you could blame. You can blame the United States,
you could blame Russia for it. Gorbachev was perhaps not the right man to try to administer
that country at that point. He had great visions. He was a man of peace. But it was very difficult
to hold together such a huge empire. So vision is not enough to hold together the Soviet Union?
I think the details are interesting. I followed up on that a little bit, because I was recently in
countries like Kazakhstan, talked about the negotiations that were going on and the breakup
of the Soviet Union. It's a very interesting story because it involves everything, Ukraine,
of course, everything is going on now. Some, what is it, 30 million Russians were left outside of
the Soviet Union when it collapsed. They had no home anymore. They were homes in other countries,
such as in Ukraine. So it's an interesting story and with repercussions today. Kazakhstan is a
good example of keeping a balance, keeping it neutral. He played both sides because Yeltsin
wanted him to join the Russian Confederation in a certain way where he'd be supporting
against Gorbachev. There's a whole inward battle there. I think the Ukraine came along with Yeltsin
as well as, I'm sorry, I don't remember now, but two other regions came with him. And that was a
block that broke up the Soviet Union. It was Yeltsin's plan too. And it wasn't make the Russian
Federation and they did. I would love to return back to JFK eventually, because he's such a
fascinating figure in the history of human civilization. But let me ask you, fast forward,
in 2000, Yeltsin was no longer president and Vladimir Putin became president. You did a
series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, as you mentioned, over a period of two years from 2015
to 2017. Let me ask you the high level question. What was your goal with that conversation?
Oh, came out in 2017. I guess I started them in 2014. At that point, the Snowden affair had
happened. I was working on a movie on Snowden. That happened in 13. Ukraine happened in 14.
And one thing after another, by 14, Putin was enemy number again, becoming a wanted man on
the American list. He was enemy. He was certainly in the top five. But the animosity towards Putin
had been growing since 2007 at Munich. I remember that speech when he made it. It's in my documentary.
That's a four hour documentary, four different conversations. I mean, we talked over two years,
two and a half years. But I remember that image of him at Munich, making a very important speech
about world harmony, about the balance necessary in the world. And I remember the sneer, the sneer
on John McCain's face. He was in Munich, obviously eyeballing Putin and hating him.
And it was so evident that McCain had no belief whatsoever that he was almost treating him like
these are the communists are back. And we know that Putin was not a communist. We know that Putin
is very much a market man. And he made it very clear and tried to keep an open climate,
a new relationship with Europe. But the United States, certain people in the United States
always sell that as a threat, like Putin is trying to take Europe away from us as if we own it,
as if we have the right to own it. But Putin was making the point. It's very important about
sovereignty. And sovereignty for countries is crucial for this new world to have balance.
That's sovereignty for China, sovereignty for Russia, sovereignty for Iran, sovereignty for
Venezuela, sovereignty for Cuba. This is an idea that's crucial to the new world. And I think the
United States has never accepted that. Sovereignty is not an idea that they can allow. You have to be
obedient to the United States idea of so-called democracy and freedom. But
it's much more important is sovereignty for these countries. And the United States has not obeyed
that, has not even acknowledged it. And it never comes up.
Well, so from the perspective of the United States, when power centers arise in the world,
you start to oppose those, not because of the ideas, but merely because they have power.
Isn't that at the heart of the doctrine of the neoconservatives? And they packed for the
New American Century, they wrote that in 1997. They said, there shall be no emergence of arrival
power. It was very clear it was about power. And they have, they've stuck to that doctrine,
which is if you start to get dangerous in any way or have power, we're going to knock you out.
Now, that won't work. I don't believe it can work. And that is, fortunately, a policy the
United States is following. And the neoconservatives group, which is very small, but it's very strong
apparently. And their idea has resonated. It was, it was behind the George Bush's invasion of
Iraq. It was part of not only Iraq, but cleaning out the whole world, draining the swamp,
going to Afghanistan first. And then although Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's attack,
going after Iraq. And of course, 60 some other countries that were terrorism had some,
had some signs of wherever America judged would be a dangerous country. We had the right,
you're either with us or against us. Now, that is a disastrous policy. And led to one thing
after another, the Iraq war never learned a lesson. The neoconservatives were never fired,
never thrown out of office. The people who prosecuted that war are still around. Many of
them are still around. And they're, they're obviously guiding America now. Let me return
to this question of power. Don't forget the sneer that I saw there. That emblemized the
United States reaction. Also, there were several other American representatives who were laughing,
kind of mocking Putin. It was very serious. I felt it was a divide there.
So since then, I mean, in a certain sense, the Europe reaction to Putin is crucial.
And they were, they were more with him back then. And a big thing for America was always to keep
NATO, to keep Europe in its pocket as a satellite. And with this recent war, of course, they've
succeeded in all beyond their dreams of the Russians have fulfilled the fantasy of the
United States to finally be this aggressor that they have pictured for years. We can talk about
that later. But at that time, there was Europe had significant support for Putin. And the United
States was sneering at Putin. That's correct. You can say that. And then, so there's this,
it was, there was uncertainty as to the direction as to the future of Russia. And that's
exactly when you interviewed Vladimir Putin. I wanted to know what they thought, because we
couldn't get the, the, the, the information war that the United States was fighting against Russia
was in evidence back then. It was full out the condemnation of Russia on all fronts. I never
saw a positive article about Putin. And although when I traveled in the world, and I traveled a
lot doing documentaries, it was very clear in the Middle East, in Africa, in other, in Asia,
there was respect for him, that he was a man who was getting job, his job done in the interests
of Russia. He was, as I said in the documentary, a son of Russia. Very much so. And in the positive
sense, a son, a son of Russia, not that he's out there trying to destroy the interests of other,
of other countries. No. That he was out there to sell, to provoke the interests of Russia,
but at the same time, keep a balance, keep it, keep it, keep the world into a harmony. This
has always been his picture. Peace was always his idea. In other words, he always referred to
the United States in all these interviews as our partners. And I said, will you stop using that
word? They're not. Well, and he was a little bit slow in waking up to what the United States was
doing. Well, that said, he's one of the most powerful men in the world. He was at that time.
And let me ask you the human question. As the old adage goes, power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts, absolutely. Did you see any corroding effects of power on the man? Forget the political
leader on just the human being that carries that power on his shoulders for so many years.
Keep in mind that he's been on, unlike most modern leaders, he's been an office off and on
because there was a Medvedev was president, and he was not literally in charge. He was,
he took another appointment at that point, but he was still very much involved. But for 20 years,
more or less, he's been at the administrator of the state, the protector of the state. And he's
apparently done a good enough job that the Russian people have kept him there. Because
contrary to what many people think, I really believe that if the Russian people didn't want
him, he would be out. I firmly believe that. I don't think you can let you can go against
the will of the people. Now it expresses itself in many ways at the ballot box and so forth,
but also in other ways in Russia, there's a strong currents of opinion. So contrary to what the
position of him as a dictator, he wouldn't last if he was unpopular. Number one. Number two,
Russia is much more divided than people know. There's other factors in Russia. There's always
tensions around the Kremlin who has power, who doesn't have power. That's been going on for
a hundred years. But the factions in Russia are very much there. So when people refer to Russia
as Putin, they're mistaken. And they do this regularly in the New York papers and all this.
They say, Putin did this, Putin did that, Putin's doing that. But it's Russia that's doing it.
And that's what there's a distinction there that it's changed. In the old days, I would read about
Khrushchev, but it was never Khrushchev personally. It was about the Soviet Union. There was respect
for a country. And when it started to get personal with Putin, it changed. And our thinking changed
in a negative way. We no longer respected it as a country. We were seen as a man. And the man we
had trashed repeatedly, repeatedly as a poisoner, as a murderer, none of which has ever been proven,
but which has always been repeated and repeated to the point at which it becomes
like an Orwell mantra. He is, of course, a bad guy. Can I just ask you as a great
filmmaker, as a human being, what was it like talking to one of the most powerful men in the
world? Honestly, I'm not naive. I've talked to a lot of powerful people. In the movie business,
there are powerful people and many of them are corrupted. I've talked to many people in my life.
I've been in the military. I've had other jobs. I have to say, I found him to be a human being.
I just found him to be reasonable, calm. I never saw him lose his temper. And I mean,
you have to understand that most people in the western way of doing business get emotional.
I don't see that. I saw him as a balanced man, as a man who had studied this like you. There's
a calmness to you that it comes from studying the world and having a rational response to it.
It's interesting, his two daughters, one of them is very scientific and the other one's
doing very well in another profession, but they're thinking family. His wife, too, was.
I can't talk for the new wife because I don't know about it, but he kept his family
with great respect. He's raised his daughter's right. He served Yeltsin the way he looks at it.
He served Yeltsin well, and he never trashed Yeltsin. Certainly a lot of people did, but
I asked him repeatedly, was he an alcoholic or this or that, but he wouldn't even go that far.
He just respects. And this man, Yeltsin, was in many ways ridiculed by the Russians.
He turned over the power because he felt like he was overwhelmed. He turned over the power to
this man because why? How many people had he fired before him? Several prime ministers.
Why did he turn power over to Mr. Putin? Because he respected him for his work ethic
and his balance, his maturity. And that's what I can say is I saw in him a poor person,
a poor family who worked his way up through the KGB. Americans keep saying he's a KGB agent, but
it's like saying George Bush was a CIA agent, but he became a president. You grow. You grow in
your life. And he went from the KGB to this technocratic position. He dealt with many problems,
including the Chechnya war, which was a very difficult situation, as well as the Russian
submarine problems. Several things happened early in his balance that gave him a lot of experience,
and he handled them all pretty well. Do you think he was an honest man? I do. Now, of course,
the question of money, the charge is that he's the richest man in the world. Ludacris certainly
doesn't live like it or act like it. If you're rich, I've been around a lot of rich people in my
life. You'd probably have too. In America, you run into them. So many of them are arrogant.
I'm actually good friends now with the richest man in the world.
Oh, of course. I saw your interview with Mr. Musk, who I appreciate. At least he speaks really.
I'm positive about him owning Twitter because Twitter has become censorship.
CitiS has all the major tech. The censorship that we are now seeing in the United States is so
un-American and shocking to me. And he's a resistance to that. Yeah, I like Musk for that,
just for that only. But I also appreciate his adventure, his nature, and his desire to explore
the world and to ask questions. Yeah, there's certain ways you sound when you speak freely.
There's certain ways you sound. A man sounds when he speaks freely, and he speaks freely.
And it's refreshing. No matter whether you're rich or not, it doesn't matter. When you speak
freely, it's a beautiful thing. Actually, in a major point on going back to nuclear energy,
you know, he never believed in it at first, apparently. He was going for batteries, right?
And he put a lot of money into batteries. He made them bigger and bigger batteries, but
it just, as Bill Gates has said, it's just, it's not going to get us there. Yeah. And now I think
Musk is on another path. He understands the need for nuclear. Yeah, he's a supporter of nuclear.
We're jumping around. Poo never asked for one thing, never. He was in interview,
it was free form. Ask anything you want. No restrictions, no rules.
As with Castro, frankly, Castro did the same thing as de Chavez. So I've had good luck in
interviewing free-ranging subjects, people willing to express themselves. He's much more
guarded than Castro or Chavez, because as you know, he's setting government policy when he
speaks and anything he says is going to be taken out of context. But there was no restrictions
on what to talk about, none of that. Nor any desire to see anything before we published it.
No need to check it with them. It was completely... Do you think he watched the final product?
Yes, I do, but I don't think he made judgments on it. I think he was pleased. He doesn't go
either way. He's pleased. I mean, he went well and he's happy for us. But I don't think he had
great enthusiasm, expressed it to me. He trusted me and you can see the way he dealt with me each
time. He warmed up to me four times. The first time it might have been a little stiff. You're
asking, you don't know who you're dealing with and so forth. I understand that. But he's used to it
now. He's done a lot of press. The worst press he's done, frankly, has been the American press.
Not because of his fault, but because of the way they have treated him. If you look at the
interviews, they're awful. First of all, I noticed one thing as a filmmaker right away,
they use an overdub. They put a Russian speaker for everything he says who's much harsher.
He speaks Russian in a much harsher manner than actually Putin does. On my interview,
I left him in his original language with translator. And I think that's important
because he expresses himself very clearly and calmly. When you listen to the American broadcast,
it's a belligerent person who looks like he's about to bang his shoe on the table.
And secondly, the questions are highly aggressive from the beginning. There's no sense of rapport.
There's no sense of, well, it's why, Mr. Poon, did you poison this person? Why did you kill this
person? Why are you a murderer? It's blunt, negative television.
Yeah, it's not just aggressive. So I obviously speak Russian. So I get to appreciate both the
original and the translation. And it's not just aggressive. It's very shallow. They're not looking
to understand. To me, aggression is okay if that's the way you want to approach it. But
it should be, there should be underlying kind of empathy for another human being in order to
be able to understand. And so some of the worst interviews I've ever listened to
is by American press of Vladimir Putin. So NBC and all those kinds of organizations,
it's very painful to watch. And you saw the reception to the Putin interviews in America
was hostile without seeing it. So many people criticized my series without having seen it.
Even, even I went on a show, a television show with this famous Colbert. You know,
he's very famous in America. And I was shocked on the show to find out that he hadn't seen
anything of the four hours. He was just attacking Putin. And he threw me. I was complicit. Therefore,
I was a Putin supporter. And the show, the show was a disaster. It's one of my worst
television shows. I actually, I had to just shut up and get off the air. I mean, at some point,
it was embarrassing because the audience too was clapping for Colbert on anything he said.
Well, as an interviewer in that situation, because between you and Vladimir Putin,
there was camaraderie. There was joking. There was, are you worried? Do you put that into
the calculation when you're making a film with somebody that could be lying to you,
that could be evil? When you talk about Castro, you talk about, so are you worried about how
charisma of a man across the table from you can... No, I take that into account. I absolutely take
that into account. I mean, doing Castro, he's a wonderful speaker. He's charismatic. So is
Chavez. Look at those interviews. I took it into account. But Putin doesn't play that game. He
doesn't charm you. He doesn't try to overwhelm you with his bon ami at all. He just asks your
question. I'll give you my answer straight. Here it is. This is, and he analyzes it. This is the
history of NATO. This is the history of our relationship with the United States. How many
times have we tried to talk to them about such and such and such and such and each time we get
nowhere? In fact, it's a very, I would like to get along with the United States so much. He's
saying it, he's saying it so clearly in all his words. So to play devil's advocate, but he's not
making a big deal about it. But there is a charisma and a calmness. Yes, there is. So like,
let's just calm everything down. It's simple facts. That you can call. So there's like the
Hitler thing, which is screaming, being very loud, charismatic, strong message and so on.
And then there's a Putin style. I'm not comparing those two. There's the Putin style
communication of calmness. And that, at least to me, my personality, that can be very captivating,
is bringing everything down. The facts are simple. But then when you say the facts are simple,
you can now start lying. And you don't know what's true and what's lost. It behooves you to do some
research. Yes. And frankly, when it comes to research, you're going to have a problem because
if you go to the Americanized versions of Russian history, you're going to run into a problem.
And that includes even Wikipedia. They will tell you things that are just not factually
supported. So it was a problem in terms of if you read all the books in the American
library about Putin, there's nothing positive about it. They're awful. They're awful. And a lot
of them, I had a good relationship with Professor Stephen Cohen, who's the most, I think, one of
the most informed men on Russia. He's done a lot of research, all his life. And New Gorbachev very
well. And was very analytical about all these situations that happened before his death in
2019. I'm not quite sure when Stephen died, but I knew him well. And he gave me the best
information I could get. I would go to Stephen and I'd say, I'm confused here. Tell me the history
of this accusation of poisoning against this person and so forth. And he'd explain it to me in,
I think, the clearest ways that I understood. And he said to me once, he said, most of these
people who go to Russia and write this stuff about who are going off the Internet, the Internet
has really been a source of a lot of fractured facts here. He said, pure analysis, you have to go
back to the texts, all the documents, and to really fully understand. But he spoke Russian
and his wife and him, Katarina Van Hoovel, who's an editor, publisher of The Nation magazine,
would go to Russia several times a year and talk to their friend Gorbachev. And Gorbachev's an
interesting character. I talked to him, interviewed him, not interviewed him, but talked to him at
length. And I like him very much. And I saw the divide, as you saw in the Putin interviews between
Gorbachev and Putin early on in the interviews. You sense Putin doesn't particularly care for
Gorbachev because in his point of view, he screwed up the administration of Russia and
is responsible for so much of the disaster of leaving all those people outside the Soviet Union.
So these are problems that continue into the future. But
they see each other at the, or he sees, he knows he's there at the May Day parade, we filmed,
and his attitude is funny. He's very human. He says, you know, he's welcome. He's got his
pension. He's a pensioner. He's done his duty. There's no animus towards it. Even when Gorbachev,
in the early days, you remember, criticized for his manners in terms of democracy. But I don't know
that that becomes a quarrel. But frankly, by the end of the situation, it's very clear that
Gorbachev is now moved closer and closer to the, says Russia is now really under attack. This is,
he sees it. He sees where the United States has made a concerted effort to undermine Putin.
And he does, and he's repeated this several times about Ukraine. I think you've seen what he said.
You can quote it. And Gorbachev is, we have no respect for Gorbachev even, even at this juncture.
When can you see Gorbachev's ideas printed in most American newspapers? Very rarely,
very rarely, and not, and recently not at all. So Gorbachev, who was our hero back in,
an American hero back in 1980s, has now been condemned to the garbage can, so to speak, of
history. Well, in this complicated geopolitical picture you just outlined, can we talk about
the recent invasion of Ukraine? You wrote on Facebook a pretty eloquent analysis. I think on
March 3rd. Let me just read a small section of that just to give context. And maybe we can talk
a little bit more about both Russia and the man, Putin. You wrote, although the United States has
many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn't justify Mr. Putin's aggression in Ukraine.
A dozen wrongs don't make a right. Russia was wrong to invade. It has made too many mistakes.
One, underestimating Ukraine resistance. Two, overestimating the military ability to achieve
its objective. Three, underestimating Europe's reaction, especially Germany, upping its military
contribution to NATO, which they've resisted for some 20 years. Even Switzerland has joined the
cause. Russia will be more isolated than ever from the West. Four, underestimating the enhanced
power of NATO, which will now put more pressure on Russia's borders. Five, probably putting Ukraine
into NATO. Six, underestimating the damage to its own economy, and certainly creating more
internal resistance in Russia. Seven, creating a major readjustment of power in its oligarch class.
Eight, putting cluster and vacuum bombs into play. Nine, and underestimating the power of
social media worldwide. And you go on for a while giving a much broader picture of the history and
the geopolitics of all of this. So now, a little bit later, two months later, what are your thoughts
about the invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's very hard to be honest in this regard because the
West has brought down a curtain here, and anyone who questions the invasion of Ukraine and its
consequences is an enemy of the people. It's become so difficult. I've never seen in my lifetime ever
such a wall of propaganda, as I've seen in the West. And that includes France, too, because I
was there recently in England. England is, of course, really vociferous. It's shocking to
me how quickly Europe moved in this direction. And that includes Germany. I have German friends
who express to me their shock over Ukraine. I have Italian friends, same thing. And Italy,
of course, has been perhaps the most understanding and compassionate of countries. So it's quite
evident that there's a united... And this attests to the power of the United States. And, of course,
you have Finland, which has generally been reasonable jumping and talking about joining NATO
and Sweden, too. Generally, there's been some more restraint in Europe. That's what surprised
me the most, Europe. How quickly they fell into this NATO basket, which is very dangerous for
Europe, very dangerous. This goes back to my idea, what I was saying earlier about sovereignty.
These countries don't really give me a sense that they have sovereignty over their own countries.
They don't feel... To the European nations... I'm obviously intuition here is working. I just don't
feel that they have freedom to say what they really think. And they're scared to say it.
When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, I remember with great, in a sense, satisfaction
that at least France, Chirac, who I had not really know much about, stood up and said,
the United States, we're not going to join you in this expedition, basically into madness.
Schroeder and Germany, same thing. Of course, Putin condemned the invasion. And Putin had been an
ally of the United States since 9-11, if you remember correctly, and had called Bush and
they were getting along. So even Putin said, I won't go, don't go into Iraq. This is not the
solution. He didn't oppose Afghanistan, but he opposed Iraq. So, Chirac and Schroeder stood for
the old Europe. I remember De Gaulle, Charles De Gaulle. He was independent of the United
States. Charles De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO because he saw the dangers of NATO,
which is to say, you have to fight an American war when they say, and they put nuclear weapons on
your territory in England and France and Italy and Germany. When they do that, you're hitched to
this superpower and you have no say in what they're going to do. If they declare war and they use
your territory, you're going to be involved in a major conflict. I'm talking about sovereignty.
Where is that sovereignty? They don't have it. And that has influenced their mindset for years now,
since 1940, since, well, De Gaulle was the 60s. He actually reversed the whole flow. And I think
it was Sarkozy who put France back into NATO. And now it's Macron, I hope because he was talking
to Putin would at least have an independent viewpoint that could be helpful here. So, he
rolled it up. He may have told Putin something else, but within days he had rolled it up and
gone along with the United States position, which was enforced by the United States in a very fierce
way. The propaganda, as I say, I don't know how much time you spent in America, but it was vicious
and everything was anti-Russian. Russia were killing all these people, were shooting down
civilians, although there was no proof of it. There was just, these are the accidents of war,
but all of a sudden there was a campaign of criminality and they were talking about bringing
Putin into war crime trial. Well, why didn't they talk like that when Iraq was going on and
Bush was killing far more people? Or for that matter, why were they not talking about the
killings in Donbas and Lugansk during that 2014 to 2022 period? That is what, it's a crime. There
were so many people that were killed, many of them innocent, many of them innocent.
So, what would be the way for Vladimir Putin to stop the killing in Donbas
without the invasion of Ukraine? Yeah, that's a very good question and I've asked that several
times and I don't have the, I have not talked to him since about two years now.
It's a very good question. What's the mistakes? What the human mistakes and the leadership
mistakes means? It's a very good question. You see, what the American press has not said,
and the Western press has not said, is that on February 24, was it, that was on that day
when they invaded? The day before, if you check the logs of the European organization that was
you supervising, was in the field in Ukraine, these are neutral observers. They were seeing
heavy, heavier and heavier artillery fire going into, into Donbas from the Ukrainian side.
So, they had, apparently Ukraine had 110,000 troops on the border. They were about to invade
Donbas. That was the plan. That's what I think. Russia as a, as a, because of the buildup on the
border of Donbas brought 130, they say 130,000 troops to the area near Donbas, right? So, you have
buildup of forces on both sides, but you wouldn't know that from reading the press in the West.
You would be, you'd believe that the Russians suddenly put all these men into, into the situation
with the, with the idea of invading Ukraine, not only Donbas, but invading all of Ukraine
and getting rid of the, decapitating the government there, which is all assumption.
We don't know what they would intend it to do.
But you at the time, as did a lot of people, thought that the, all the talk of the invasion,
Russian invasion of Ukraine is just propaganda. It's no, it's not going to happen. It's very
unlikely to happen. Well, we thought, I think many of us thought that the United States is building
this up into an invasion. In other words, that is the nature of false flag operations. When you,
you create this propaganda, they are going to invade, they are going to invade. And then
when they invaded, they were, the United States was completely ready and all their allies were
completely ready for the invasion, correct? So why did Putin do that? He fell into this,
theoretically, into this trap set by the United States. Here you're telling all your allies
across the board, they're going to invade, but you, why do you think he did it? So here,
is it madness or is it not strategic calculation? Perhaps this one, I cannot answer you faithfully,
because first of all, we don't know what he was told. If he was indeed getting the right
intelligence estimates from what I said earlier in that, in that, in that essay I wrote,
you would think he was not well informed, perhaps, about the degree of cooperation he would get from
the Russian, the Ukrainian Russians in, in, in, in Ukraine. That would be one factor that he
wasn't, he didn't assess the operation correctly. Remember this, Mr. Putin has had this cancer,
and he's, I think he's licked it, but he's also been isolated because of COVID. And some people
would argue that the isolation from normal activity, which he was, he was meeting people
face to face, but all of a sudden he was meeting people across the table 100 yards away or whatever,
10 yards away. It was very hard to, perhaps he lost touch with, contact with people.
So it's not just power, it's the very simple fact that you're just,
I say I'm speculating, I don't know. I see that. And I also, perhaps he thought in his mind that
there would be a, a faster resolution that the Ukrainian, because the evidence had been that
the Ukrainian Russians, the Ukrainian army had folded so many times in the, and that they were
only backed up and they were stiffened by the resistance of the Nazi or, or Nazi-oriented
Azov battalions. That was a factor, of course. And that is a big factor for the Russians because
these people are very tough. They rush. See, what people don't understand is that Ukraine,
since 2014, has been a terrorist state. They've been run. Anytime a Ukrainian has expressed any,
any understanding of a Russian, of the Russian Ukrainian position, they've been threatened
by the state. From 2014 to 2022, there's been a set of hideous murders that people don't even
know about in the West. Journalists, people who speak out, liberals, people who I, I interviewed
Viktor Medvedev, who they make out to be some kind of horrible person. But Medvedev was a,
was a very important figure in the administration of Kushma, the first Ukrainian prime minister
in the 1990s. And he did a great job on the economy. He was a very thoughtful man. If you'll
see my interview, it's called Ukraine Revealed. He's very thoughtful about the future of Ukraine.
He doesn't want to go back and join Russia. He wants it to be an independent country.
Ukraine is independent. And he wants it to be a functioning economic democracy, more or less,
a democracy, if you can get that, but between, that exists in a neutral state, neutral state,
which Ukraine used to be before 2014. It was neutral from 90, 91 to 2014, neutral, very important.
And under Poroshenko, it just immediately went into an anti-Soviet Cold War position
as an ally of the United States. And my point was that it was a very dangerous place in Ukraine.
People were being killed. Death squads were out there. Medvedev, they stripped him of his
television stations. Very suddenly, this is Zelensky, the new president, said he, Zelensky was
elected on a peace platform. Remember that. 70% of the country was for him to make peace with Russia.
He, did he ever have even tried to make peace with Russia? Did he attend any of the Minsk
two agreements? Did he visit? Did he pay any attention to Putin? Did he go to Russia? No,
not at all. The moment he got into office, I'm convinced that the militant,
the militant sector of the right sector, parties of the Ukraine, let him know that you will not
make a deal with Russia. There'll be no concessions to Russia. This is very dangerous. This is where
this attitude, this very, very hostile to Russia has hurt us. The whole world is being hurt by this.
And no one calls them out. No one calls them out. Zelensky backed off from his platform as
running for president. And as president has been ineffective, did nothing to promote. On the
contrary, went the other way and seemed to support the Ukrainian aggression.
Well, he found his support in this war. You've revealed through your work some of the most
honest and dark aspects of war. Nevertheless, this is a war and there's a humanitarian crisis.
There's millions of people, refugees escaping Ukraine. What do you think about the human cost
of this war initiated by whoever, just as you write, whatever the context, whatever NATO,
whatever pressure, as you wrote, Russia was wrong to invade.
Okay. Yeah. Let's get back to the original question. You said, what was he thinking at
that time? We never answered that. Now, by the way, among those people who have been
ruined by this war, you have to include the 2014 to 2022. Ukrainian Russians, 14,000
were killed, some of them by maybe accident and this and that, but certainly a large number of
that is responsible to the Ukrainian military and the Nazi related battalions who have done a good
job of desk squatting that whole area. And remember, I did a film about Salvador. I know a little bit
about desk squads and how they work. And I know about paramilitaries because in South America,
they're all over the place. America supports, hates Venezuela, goes on about Venezuela. But
do they tell you anything about Colombia? It's next door neighbor. Colombia for years has been
plagued by paramilitaries that are right wing. And the United States has said nothing about them,
except occasionally there's a newspaper report now. So this support of desk squads by the United
States is all over the world. It's not just in South America and Central America, where we see
plenty of evidence of it. It's here too. And this is what's horrible about this whole thing,
this hypocrisy of America, that they can support such evil, such evil. Now, going back to your
larger question about, yes, it's a terrible refugee disaster. But again, we'd have to
get the numbers. Let's get the numbers and get the evidence because I would ask you,
I'm not sure at this point whether more civilians were killed before 2022 in Donbas than have been
killed in this latest. So we can't talk about this without, we can't talk about the invasion
Ukraine without considering the full war between Russian Ukraine since 2014.
That's correct. Absolutely. And take the toll on both sides. And I mean, you might be surprised
by the result. I think the Russian military, of course, I'm not there. And I'm not,
this could be this speculation, the Russian military has slowed down. And part of that
reason is not to keep the civilian corridors open. And I think that the Ukrainian military has made
it more difficult on purpose, especially some of these battalions that are desk squad battalions
have gone out of their way to keep the civilians locked into these cities in danger, because it's
in their interest to do so. So there's no reason why Ukrainian military, who have killed Ukrainian
civilians for years, would change their policies. They would have no compunctions about wiping out,
for example, people with white armbands in Bukha. Okay. As to what Putin was thinking at the time,
I wondered this. I still do. I said, okay, so Putin can say, let's say the Ukrainian government
wants to now invade Donbas. This is on February 23. And they have artillery, they're peppering the
whole place, they're going to go in, and they're going to get Donbas back. What do you do? And
you have Russian separatists who are Russian Ukrainians, who are on, who are going to fight.
How far do you go in supporting them? Can Russia at this point say, well, we can't help you,
you have to get along, you have to somehow, you have to be absorbed by the Kiev, you're going
to be absorbed by them, and they're going to be, they're not going to give you autonomy, and you
have to live with them. And there's going to be a price to pay. You could do that. And you can also
say, well, we open our borders to Donbas. You can come into our country, you can leave, and we will
help you to, to resettle. And that's, that would be a reasonable approach. So you take it to the
next stage, as Putin's thinking, you take it to the next stage, you, you stall, it harder for your
people. Of course, you have this pressure on Putin from inside his own government to say,
what are you going to do? I mean, you can't do this. There's a lot of nationalists in Russia.
They would certainly bring, he would be to his, they'd say Putin is weak. And that's the biggest
rap you can ever give a Russian leader is you're weak, you can't get anything done. So there would
have been some damage. But let's say he goes with that. And he says, okay, we know what the
United States intention is. It's to get rid of me regime change, and to get another Yeltsin in,
that's what they want. And they will go to any ends, they will destroy Ukraine if necessary,
but they want regime change in Russia. And then after they do that, of course, they'll go after
China. But that's the ultimate policy of the United States. This is a country that has no
compunctions about going all the way. And it will use hypocrisy and all the news propaganda in the
world to get what it wants. This is the equivalent, frankly, of Germany's goals in World War Two,
world domination. There's no question in my mind. But we're going about it in our way,
as opposed to Hitler's way. So just to finish your thought, where do they go? What's stage two?
Okay, let's say they take Ukraine takes back Donbas. Let's say people get killed in large
quantities. So we now to the next stage, we're finished with the Minsk two agreements that
were never adhered to. So what does Russia do? They wait for the next aggression,
which is going to come in one form or another. Perhaps in Georgia, I don't know what happened,
what the US is thinking. But the US cannot say Russia has done anything. They have not
used violence to stop Donbas from belonging back to Ukraine, right? So you're in a new
setup now. It's a whole thing rearranges. Now you have, but you still have nuclear weapons.
And you still have a Russian nuclear weapons and they're serious weapons. They're very well
developed crude, but not as refined as the American nuclear force, but powerful. That becomes another
game. Then you open another chessboard and know what you still haven't been condemned. The sanctions
haven't been imposed. That's a new, it's a new game. Could he have done? Could he have lived with
that? That's the question I asked myself. So you see ultimately Ukraine today as a battleground
for the proxy war between Russia and the United States. The United States would have
then NATO-ized Ukraine or certainly put more weapons in, you know, the United States has
already done a lot in Ukraine with intelligence, with training advisors. The intelligence aspect
of the Ukrainian army has been raised enormously by the United States' contribution.
Is it possible for you to steal man, to play devil's advocate against yourself,
and say that Vladimir Zelensky is fighting for the sovereignty of his nation,
and in a way against Russia, but also against the United States, it just happens that for now
the United States is a useful ally. But ultimately the man, the leader, is fighting for the sovereignty
of his nation. I would think he thinks so. Yes, and he could say that, but he's not acknowledging
that the sovereignty of his nation was stolen in 2014 with the coup d'etat that brought this
sector, this right sector into power. And they have controlled the country since then. It's
thuggery what they've done. The Medvedev case is a case in point. They just take what they need.
They go to a house and they have a, how many people have been killed? Serious people,
journalists killed by these battalions. That's what people don't realize. In other words,
you can't speak out. A person like me would have been on the death list on day five.
You don't, there's no opposition to Zelensky. So he doesn't have a real sovereignty.
It was a stolen sovereignty. Do you think President Zelensky would accept an interview with you
today? Actually, since I made Ukraine on Fire documentary, which perhaps you've seen, which
records the incidents of 2014 and the Maidan demonstrations and shows you the dishonesty
behind it. No, I think that they've been very negative and they would kill me if I was in Ukraine.
I mean, they don't have any, these people are very tough. These are as rough as they come,
in my opinion. And I've seen rough in my life. I mean, these guys are not playing with fair at
all. These are death squads. No, I don't think, and Zelensky would have nothing to do with it,
but of course, it would be dangerous for me. And they've been very hostile in their,
in their policies to any, any Ukrainians abroad are also threatened. In other words,
you could be in Paris, but if you're, if you speak out too much, you, I think
Ukrainians know that they're going to be targeted. And I think that's part of the reason they don't
talk. A lot of them, you know, you have to take the anti-Russian line, but I think a lot of them
are divided. So you think you would be killed as Zelensky wouldn't even know about it. So there is.
Well, I don't think, I don't, if I was killed, certainly abroad. No, they wouldn't kill me abroad.
I think they figure out a way. No, no, no, no, no. If you travel to Ukraine,
I mean, I wouldn't get in, I wouldn't get in, except through Donbass. I'd come. There are some
Americans in Donbass who are reporting on the war there. And I read their reports, actually,
they're pretty interesting because they show you the cruelty of what's going on, but never
mentioned in the West, never. That's what's so strange about this. This, this is a modern world
that we're living in. And yet that's information is not coming out to the mass of the people.
And on the contrary, the United States has closed down all the, all the property, all the RT,
all the, all the information centers that are possible alternative news getting to the American
people. They've seriously made an effort. And the BBC, English and France, I was shocked when
France closed RT now because RT is actually pretty good. They, yes, they may, you could call, there
are distortions, but you know as well as I do, because you hear, you speak that RT has done a
very brave job of putting correspondents into the field in very dangerous positions. And they've
gotten great footage of some of the violence that's going on. Well, given the wall of propaganda in
the West, I also see the wall of propaganda in Russia. The wall of propaganda in China,
the wall of propaganda in India. What do we do with these walls of propaganda? I talked to,
Let's talk about Russia because I, you, and you would know more about it. But my last experience
there, newspapers, it was more interesting. There's, put it this way, when I went to Venezuela, the
United States was saying back then that Chavez controlled the press. I get to Venezuela and
there's nothing but criticism of Chavez in the press. It was owned by the oligarchs of
Venezuela and who hated him. So it was across the board. That's why Chavez opened the state
television, spent more money on it and advertised his point of view through state television.
But in Russia, there is, what I saw was criticism. I met with a publisher who got the Nobel Prize of
that famous newspaper. And his point of view at that time when I spoke to him a few years ago was,
we're operating, there is criticism of him, but you can't call for the overthrow of the government
nor in Venezuela, nor in the United States for that matter. If you call for the overthrow of
the government of the United States, you're going to be in deep trouble.
Well, all right. So to push back on that, it's interesting. It's so interesting because
we mentioned Elon Musk and there's a way that people sound when they speak freely.
When I speak to a family in Ukraine, a family in Russia, when I speak to people in Russia,
let's put my family aside, when I speak to people in Russia, I think there's fear.
I think they don't, sometimes when you call for the overthrow of government, that's important,
not because you necessarily believe for the overthrow of the government, but you just need to
test, test the power centers and make sure they're responsive to the people. And I feel like there's
a mix of fear and apathy that has a different texture than it does in the United States.
That worries me because I would like to see the flourishing of a people in all places.
As I said, my impression was that there's far more freedom in the press than was pictured by the
West. And that means different points of view because the Russians are always arguing with
themselves. I've never seen a country that's so contentious. There's more intellectuals in Moscow
and the cities than you can believe. And you know the Russian people there. They've been fighting
government for years. Back from the 1870s, the Tsarist times, they always plotting against the
government. And the intelligentsia has known through history as being contentious and anti-government
in many ways. And we see the same thing, educated people turning against Russia. I don't appreciate
those people because I think they're very spoiled and they don't understand some of the stuff that's
going on in the West. But we have a lot of Russians in the Europe and America that attack
Russia and sometimes don't understand that they are under pressure from the United States and
they don't understand the size of the pressure. And that's why Putin connects with the people
because he represents more the common man who's saying to you, your interests are threatened.
Russia is threatened. We are representing only the interests of Russia. We're not an empire.
We're not going to expand. He has no empire intentions, although the West paints it as empire.
I see no evidence of it. Why didn't he do something in all these years? Nothing. He did
nothing except defend the country in Georgia and in Chechnya. So the imperialist imperative is coming
more from the West. It's the imperialist agenda. Going back to, I'm sorry, where we left our
discussion off, I mean, I was going to go on with America not only being censored, closed down now,
closed down. And you say it's not fear. Well, it is fear. I am scared because if you get your
Facebook page suspended or your Twitter account thrown off, a lot of good people are getting
there thrown off. You can't say it. You can't speak out. It affects your business. It goes
back to the 1950s when my father's world, when you could not express any sympathy for a Soviet
Union without endangering your job, without basically being not trusted, you had to be
part of the program to get along, to go along. Same thing when United Kingdom. I mean, for all
their talk, this Boris Johnson is an idiot. But all their talk about, do you remember their
policies with the IRA in Ireland when Ireland was threatening them? They cut off the IRA completely.
Jerry Adams, who was a wonderful guy, met him, was not allowed to even be heard in Britain
during certain years. In France, all constantly through the Algerian war, the Algerians were
not allowed to be heard. Algerian war for independence divided France greatly. You could
not even show paths of glory. World War I film in France for, I don't know, 20 years after it came out.
Censorship is a way of life when democracies also feel threatened. They are much more fragile
than they pretend to be. A healthy democracy would take all the criticism in the world and
shrug it off and say, okay, that's what's good about our country. Well, I'd like to see that in
America. There are times that it's been like that, but it's so scary now. So it is scary. That's
what I was trying to say. It's not unscary to me. In China, I would say to you, yes, it's much
scarier to me because there is the internet wall that they cut off. And I got into problems in
China too, because I said something in years ago about, you have to discover your own history.
You have to be honest about Mao. You have to go back and let's make a movie about Mao.
That upset them and show his negatives. So China has been much more sensitive than Russia
about criticism, much more. And it is a source of problems. But on the other hand, China has
a lot of grievances, a lot of going back to the 19th century and the British imperialism of that
era and the American imperialism. If you could talk to Vladimir Putin once again now,
what kind of things would you talk about here? What kind of questions would you ask?
Well, one thing I would certainly ask is what you were thinking on February 23.
And I would ask him to reply to my question about what if you took this to phase two. You
surrendered in Donbass. You know no ego about it. You just surrendered. It's in your interest
to your country. And you invited all the refugees from Donbass into Russia as much as they can.
What would you do now? What's the U.S. next move? And in your opinion, how are you going to,
okay, where are we going to go? That would be the key question because it's,
but he didn't go that way. He chose to take the sanctions and to go this way. Why he did that
is a key question for our time. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps it was his judgment. Perhaps,
as I said, but I don't, knowing the man I did, I don't think so. I think it was calculated.
Now this is projection and speculation, but there's something different about him in the past
several months. It could be the COVID thing, the isolation that you mentioned. I listened to a lot
of interviews and speeches in Russian and there's, there's something about power over time that can
change you, that can isolate you. Well, when I was there, no, he'd been in office for already 15
years. He had power. He didn't misuse it in my opinion. He was very even. I saw him go on television
and talk to his fellows the same way he always talked to them. He grew with it. He grew in
intelligence and knowledge because he had dealings with the whole world now. People had come to him.
He was very well known in Africa and Middle East, certainly Syria. And I just never saw misuse
of his power. I saw humility in him actually. So perhaps there was a calculation and he
calculated wrong in terms of what happens if he doesn't invade. Perhaps there was a calculation.
Perhaps he had a calm and clear mind and he calculated wrong.
Well, he also made the point that the talk of Zelensky saying, well, nuclear weapons were
going to come into Ukraine. There was talk about that right before the invasion too. And certainly
that would have set off alarms. You know, the United States is already kind of doing that
by not only putting its intelligence and its heavy weaponry into Ukraine, but you've got to
deal with the next question that comes up. The most immediate question is, is the United States
going to start? And I'm saying this. They're making a lot of noise in the United States
to press about Russia using nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. That's a lot of noise.
Again, going back to my analogy, when the United States starts that, it starts the
conversation going. It's in the interest of the United States for Russia to be pinned
with any kind of chemical or nuclear incident. For example, it would be very, not simple,
but it would be possible to explode a nuclear device in Donbas and kill thousands of people.
And we would not know right away who did it, but of course the blame would go right to Russia,
right to Russia, even if it didn't make sense, if there was no motivation for it. It would just
be blamed on Russia. The United States might well be the one who does that false flag operation.
It would not be beyond them. It would be a very dramatic solution to sealing this war off
as a major victory for the United States. That's terrifying. No, but it can happen.
It can happen. One kiloton device, low yield. It's possible. So when you walk across that line,
you can potentially never walk back. Well, I think the United States is calculating that
it's a dangerous, yes, I agree, but I think the neoconservative arrogance is such that they
really believe they can push their advantage to the max now because of all these propaganda
successes up to now. The Ukrainian army could be wiped out for all we know. There's all that's left
as a neo-Nazi brigades, but they're being advised very well by US. And they're sending the weapons
in our huge amounts of weapons. What about American budget? No one talks about how much money
we're giving to Ukraine. It's a billion dollars already in weaponry, and not most of it just
poured in. What about the Russian budget is, defense budget is 60 some billion dollars a year.
It's nothing compared to the United States, one-fifteenth of it. But yet we've put so much
weaponry into Ukraine. The money we've spent on Ukraine is all equivalent almost to what we've
spent on COVID in our own country. It's astounding the distortion of our priorities.
There's also chemical. Don't forget, chemical is probably the easier way to go. But in Syria,
there was far too many incidents of America in its quest to demonize Assad and the Russians
of all these chemical attacks that were happening that they were vowing came from Russia. And
in spite of the fact that Russia just pulled out of the, signed the agreement on chemical
arms and apparently destroyed its stock several years ago, it's strange that the strangest
incidents happened in Syria. You go back to them, trace everyone, good journalism was done,
the White Helmets got a lot of fame, but they were corrupted. And many good journalists tried to
point out the inconsistencies in the American accusations. Robert Perry among them, who was
one of my mentors at Consortium Press, a lot of good journal. You'd have to go back, but trace
each, like you would trace each time, they made an accusation against Putin of murder.
You need that same kind of Sherlock Holmes intensity investigation. And they don't do it because the
United Nations or the chemical, not the United Nations as much as the chemical people, the
organization has been tampered with. If you remember correctly, there was accusations
that the chemical, chemical investigative unit, I don't know the name of it, was tampered with.
And people quit, people who are working on that commission quit and said that this is not legit.
But it's very interesting that Syria story is wacko. So the United States is willing to use
chemical in Syria freely. It did it three, four times. If you remember correctly, Trump was
challenged that he did not attack after a chemical incident in Syria. All these newscasters in the
United States, the most heaviest of them were saying, well, President Putin is President Trump is
now finally acting like a real president when he attacks, when he drops missiles in Syria.
They actually said that. In other words, they wanted Trump to go to war on Syria, but he didn't.
Chemical weapons, chemical and nuclear. Nuclear is really terrifying. Do you think,
now, combine this with the fascinating choice in your interviews with Vladimir Putin to watch
Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strange Love or How I Learned to Stop Warring and Love the Bomb,
in given the fact that you did that, now looking at the fact that the word nuclear,
and it feels like the world hangs on the brink of nuclear war. Do you think that that's overstating
the case? No. That's what worried me from the beginning. And that's probably why I got involved
in all this stuff, because I go back to the 60s when we were so close to nuclear war.
I lived through that period, and I thought, as many people did, that this was going to come now.
So I've lived through that. And I didn't sense the period in 83 when Reagan took us to the edge.
If you remember correctly, Abel Archer was an exercise that almost brought us to,
because the Russians were really paranoid at that point, and they were responding to our
military exercise on Abel Archer. There was also the Korean airliner. They went down. There were
numerous incidents in the 80s, but I never felt the fear. I thought Reagan was testing the limits,
but perhaps if I'd been younger, I would have felt it. But anyway, no, we come close. The United
States has risked this several times. If I told you, it would be hard for you to believe if I could
set a scene for you in a drama in 1962, when Kennedy has a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the CIA, and they talk about a plan, the military plan, to first strike the Soviet Union
and China. It was an Eisenhower plan that had been put into potential operation in early 60s
or late 50s, SIO P62. This was an attack on the Soviet Union, first strike. That's why
the United States has never given up the concept of first strike. It's interesting that the Russian
nuclear policy posture is more defensive than the American one, which leaves options open.
The same options that are open, a neoconservative agreement that we see from the late 90s, where
they say the emergence of a rival power will not be tolerated. That's a very broad statement
and allows you to do a lot, including nuclear. So you have to understand, the United States is
always, first of all, it breaks so many treaties. We know that from the Putin story about
the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002, and then the INF Treaty. They broke that one. That was
the intermediate missile. That was 2019. I don't know when they broke it off, but the United States
has not been very faithful on its nuclear agreements. And so I don't know that we can even deal with
the United States diplomatically. It seems to be impossible. Now, it brings me to Biden.
Yes, another Irishman. This is the opposite of Kennedy. Kennedy was a Catholic Irish
anti-imperialist. Biden seems to be the opposite. He seems to be a get along, go along guy who's been
not only old, but he's also gone along with this program, which I voted for Biden because I feared
Trump. But I thought Biden at a certain age would mellow. I really did. He's not mellowed,
apparently. He's still listening to these people and he believes them. And it seems that his,
that horrible woman, Victoria Nuland, who was under Secretary of State, appointed her to this
sector of the world. She's very influential. And she's been one of the worst people on Ukraine.
She obviously was behind the coup. She was the one who boasted that we got our man in,
Yatsenuk. And also, remember, the famous statement, fuck the EU, all these things.
But she's back and she said the other day about, if the Soviets, if the Russians use nuclear weaponry
of any kind, there's going to be a horrible price to pay. She was out of the blue. I said,
what the hell is she doing? She's talking nuclear all of a sudden. And then since that day,
everybody in the US press, all the shows have gone, talked nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.
Secretary of State has done it, blinking. It scares you. If you think about it, the United
States scares me. So that's the military industrial complex machine fully functional,
fully operational behind this whole thing. Is that, is that what's the blame?
Certainly is. That's why I showed him strange love, because I wanted him to show him.
I wanted Mr. Putin to say, look at this film. You never saw it. How can you not say, you know,
it's a seminal film in American history to those people who care. And it shows you the
Kubrick had a pacifist, thank God, anti-war mentality, which he showed in
Bars of Glory, as well as strange love. And it's such a dire, well done scenario that
I wanted Mr. Putin to be aware of the way the United States thinks.
Yeah. The absurdity of escalation, the absurdity of war at the largest scale,
the absurdity of nuclear war, especially. Can we walk back from the brink of nuclear war?
Can we? Can we? Yes. Yes. What's the path to walk back?
Reason. Reason and diplomacy. There's no reason. I mean, talk to the guy.
Like, Mr. Biden, why don't you calm down and go and talk to Mr. Putin in Moscow?
Why don't you just sit across the table from him and try to have a discussion without
falling into ideologies and stuff like that?
Can I ask you for advice? You did some of the most difficult interviews ever. Do you have advice
that you can give to someone like me or anyone hoping to understand something about
a human being sitting across from them about what it takes to do a good interview?
You're doing one.
Well, no, but there's a, listen, there's levels to this game. And interviewing somebody like
Vladimir Putin, also language barrier, sit across from the man, try to keep an open mind,
try to also ask challenging questions, but not challenging with an agenda, but seeking to understand
and understand deeply. How do you do that? Seeking the truth. It's very simple. Seeking
the truth. Being a questioner like you are, you want to know what is really going on. I could
not get anywhere with Biden or Bush or for that matter, Obama. They'd be opaque with me. There's
no interview possible with the president of the United States because he's got to stand for all
the stuff that they stand for, which is imperialism, which is control of the world. How can you defend
that? No one's going to come out and say that. They're always going to blame the enemy. They're
going to blame Iran. They're going to blame China. So some people, it may not be possible to break
through the opaqueness. You can't. Have you ever seen an interview with the president besides being
personable where he actually discussed American policy? Yeah. I mean, not really, but maybe after
their president. I could see Obama being able to do such an interview. I could see George W
being able to do such an interview, or are they not able to reflect at all?
George W hasn't shown much conscience in terms of thinking about what he's done. You've seen that.
Have you ever seen my movie W? I think that's one of my best movies because it shows a man who's just
out of his depth and has no, he has a conscience at the end of the movie. If you remember correctly,
he talks to his wife and he says, I don't get it. I'm trying to do good in the world. I've done,
I believe in good and right. And why do people not understand it? You know, that kind of complaint
as if he can't get outside himself to understand the way other people think. Empathies, walking,
like a dramatist is what I do. You walk in the footsteps of other people. When I did a movie
about Richard Nixon, it wasn't because I liked him. It was because I wanted to, I think I understood
a part of him because of my father and I think I wanted to walk in his footsteps. That's not to
say I sympathize with him because I didn't. I don't think he helped the American cause at all,
but it was empathize as opposed to sympathize. Same thing with Bush. People were shocked when I did
the Bush movie. They said, how can you be in any way, any way receptive to this guy? I said,
that's wrong. Dramatists don't have political positions. They walk in the shoes of, that's
why Bush movie perhaps was surprising to me and many people didn't care for it. Maybe that's,
but that's, you've got to go there. No, if you did a movie about a villain, you have to go there.
You have to walk in their shoes. Yes. So see them because they usually, villains usually see
themselves as the hero. Yes. So you have to consider what is it like to live in a world where
this person is the hero? Yes. Is that a burden? Is that hard? Not for George W. Bush. He's
bitching because they didn't understand him, but he had a good vision. He's out of democracy and,
you know, democracy forgives a lot of sins. Can I ask you a hard question on that? Yes, sure.
So because empathy is so important to a great interview, let's ask the most challenging version
of empathy, which is when you're sitting across from a man on the brink of war that leads to
tens of millions of deaths, which is Hitler. So if you could interview Hitler in 1939,
as the drums of war start to beat or 1941, when they're already full on war, but there's still
a lot of pacifists, there's still a lot of people unsure what are the motivations behind
what Hitler is doing, how would you do that interview? What depends when you do it. If you do
it in 1938, I certainly would have, no, you have to, if you sit down across from Hitler,
you empathize. What is your beef? What do you, where have you been? What is your consciousness?
Why do you hate Jewish people? Why, why, what is, you know, all these questions that come up,
his sense of grievance as a result of World War I, there's justifications there, etc. But if I,
and by the way, Churchill was trying to make a deal with him in 38. That's a fact that people
don't know is Churchill himself. And, you know, there was still the desire in England to make peace
with Germany. And he was seen as a possible, what Churchill really wanted was Hitler to go
against Russia and anything to destroy the Bolsheviks. So he was using Hitler as much as he could
to go after Russia. But Hitler was too elusive to get, to pin him down. But if you remember,
Hitler was very kind at the end, kind is not the right word, was, did not go after the British
Empire when he had France. And he could have. He had another objective, which was obviously the East.
So, Hitler's goal, I think, he always had an admiration for England. It's an interesting
story, always. And the Empire. Yes. And certainly Churchill, we have no doubts now from history,
revisionism, that Churchill's interest, main interest, was not Germany. It was the British
Empire. And to preserve it to India, the road to India and all that. And Middle East, Churchill
fought the entire war with the concept of preserving the British Empire. All his goals,
he sent America on a goose chase into Italy, you could argue, instead of establishing a
sincere second front in Western Europe. Interesting man. So I would have tried to get,
you know, I think I would approach it the same way. In 1939, it would have been a different story,
because at that point, he'd attacked Poland in 1940 France. So it's another ballgame.
But certainly, at whatever point you talk to him, I would try to understand his point. So I'm not
judging you, Hitler. I'm saying to you, tell me what you're thinking. Why are you invading Russia?
What's your thought? That's all an interviewer should do. He shouldn't be expressing his contempt
for Hitler, which is like an American journalist interviewing Putin. I'm getting brownie points
for expressing my contempt for you. That doesn't wash with me. That's ugly.
Yeah, seek to understand. Yes.
This is a technical question, but was language a barrier as an interviewer?
To some degree, it's very hard to learn Russian. But I had very, they have excellent translators
in the Kremlin. Excellent. They are people who are trained very seriously for months or years
before they, these people are young and they're very bright. I was very impressed with the Russian
translator. It's interesting. I mean, I'm impressed as well, but there's a humor that's lost.
There's a wit, a dry wit. There's stuff said between the lines. That's not actually have much
content, but it's more kind of the things that make communication more frictionless. It's the,
the, there's a, there's a kind of sadness to a Russian humor that permeates all things.
And that sometimes is lost in translation. The translation is a little bit colder,
meaning it's just conveys the facts. Would you call it Sardonic humor?
I would say so. Yeah. And so it's interesting, but I think you could see that from facial
expressions when you're sitting across from the person and you can, you can feel it.
Let me ask you in general, what's the role of love in the human condition in your life,
in life in general? You've talked, you looked at some of the darkest aspect of human nature.
What's the role of this, one of the more beautiful aspects of human nature?
I think without love, I wouldn't, I don't think I'd be able to carry on. I think that love is my,
my love is the greatest, the ability to love is the greatest virtue you can have.
It's, it's, it's the ability to share with another, with your family, with your children,
with your wife, with your lover, your partner. It's an ability to extend yourself into the world
and it brings empathy with it. If you love well, I think you expand it to the human race too.
And I, it's, it's the strength behind the great novelists, the great artists of our time. I think
a part of the reason I suppose we're scared of science sometimes is because the scientists
sometimes don't express that clearly. You can lose that when you focus on the facts,
on empirical data, on the science of things. You can lose this, the humanity that's between
the lines. I'm often struck by when I talk to scientists and I've talked to a few
at how arrogant they can be about, they don't talk to you if, if you don't understand their world
and they talk to each other and there's an arrogance, a closed circle kind of thing.
Oh, he's not at my level. I can't, there's no discussion to be had with this person. He's a
human being. That arrogance is terrifying to me because it's, it's next door neighbor to close
mindedness, which then can be used by charismatic leaders as it was in Nazi Germany to commit
some of the worst atrocities. The scientists can be used as pawns in a very, in a very cruel game.
What advice would you give to young people? You've done, first of all, some of the greatest
films ever. You've, you've, you've lived a heck of a life. You've were fearless and bold in asking
some really difficult questions of this world. What advice would you give to young people today,
high school, college, about career? How to have a career they can be proud of or how to have a life
they can be proud of? Well, I have three children. So obviously I'm not necessarily the best,
best advisor in the world. I, and they, I do find that the children, I've raised them with a sense
of freedom and they do what they want. In the end, it's their life, their destiny, their character.
That's what comes out. You can try to influence it, but you, you can try to get your daughter to
wake up at a certain hour in the day, but it never works, you know. So I, I long ago gave up on that
and my children are all grown now. But aside from that, I think if I was a teacher in a school and
teaching film, I'd say to the students, get an education. You can't just look at film.
Because it's not a full education. It's not the spectrum. I don't think you should teach
film as a, I think you need a base in other, in other worlds. One of the greatest courses I took
at NYU was, and I was a war veteran on the GI Bill. So I was older than the other students.
One of the great, I took a class outside the film school in Greek classics because I hadn't had much
history or, and I wanted to know more about the world of Homer and so forth. And the teacher
opened my eyes to so much in that class. And I wrote about it in my memoir. It's called Chasing
the Light about Professor Leahy and what he did to me. He just, he gave me the concepts clearly
of consciousness, which is the Homeric theme for, of Odysseus and, and also Lethe, L-A-T-H-E,
L-L-E-T-H-E, which is sleep and how most of the crew, Odysseus' crew were experiencing Lethe
and how unnecessary it was to stay awake. So it's not just film. It's just, you have to
learn the world as much as you can when you're young. And so that I think is the basis of
a good education and a classic one is important, a basis. I think then you go on and you can learn
computer if you want, but that's specialization, you know. If you're a computer geek, is that a
life? Does that give you enough satisfaction? Do you get the joy out of, out of people?
No, just like filmmaking is a skill. You need to have the broad
background to understand the world, literature, history. Absolutely.
So one of the things about being human is life is finite. It ends. Do you think about your death?
Are you afraid of your death? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. You have to come to terms with
death. And that's a tough one for many people. It's always there. I'm older than you, obviously.
And I'm getting closer to it. It couldn't happen any day, actually, you know. When you get to a
certain age, you can't assume that you're going to be alive tomorrow. So I try to deal with that.
Are you afraid of it? Much less so than I was when I was younger. Remember, I was in Vietnam,
but I thought I dealt with it there. But when I came back, I realized that I wanted to live.
So, yes, I've learned over time to get more and more used to it and get ready for it.
What's a good answer to the question of why live? So the realization that you wanted to live,
what was the reason to live? Because it was better than being one of those corpses that I saw in
the jungle. I saw how finite death is. Are there things in your life you regret?
Oh, sure. Too many.
Is there something you wish you could have done differently? Like if you could go back
to do one thing differently or that regrets all of it?
Do you think that's much less? I'm curious. What do you say?
Offline all the time. No, no. You'd be curious to know.
And he's an engineer too, and engineers really value mistakes. Engineers value mistakes and
errors because that's an opportunity to learn. I mean, this is what you do with systems,
is you test them, you test them, you test them, and errors is just information. He did that with
the rockets. Well, the same thing is true in its way of filmmaking. There are certain things you
learn as you build films and you make mistakes. It's like putting an engine together and you,
oh, the film is flawed in that way. You know it. Other people may or may not see it, but the car
runs or made money or it didn't make money. It can be good and it didn't make money,
but the point is that everything is a build. Every film is a construction. Same thing as
he goes through on a Tesla. We go through on each film.
But films are art. It's a little tricky. Yeah, the thing is one film does not lead to a
lifetime guarantee of copyright. Well, yeah, you have the movie game, as you've called it.
Yeah. It's a complicated and cruel game. But it takes an enormous amount of work,
enormous amount of work to make a film. People underestimate that. It's extremely complicated
to have something be successful because it has so many elements of luck involved and
reception and so forth. What do you think, I apologize for the absurd question,
but what do you think is the meaning of life? Why are we here? The why? I think to realize
ourselves, to realize more of what you are, to realize what life is, to appreciate it, to grow,
to honor our life, to honor the concept of life and to understand how precious life is,
the preciousness of life as the Buddhists say. And of course, the immediacy of death
all around us. The causes of death are all around us. And our life is like, as they say,
is like a lantern in a strong breeze among the existing, among the causes of death.
So life is so precious. And at the same time, with immediacy of death, and then of course,
the continuation of life in whatever form it's going to take.
But in this life, to wake up to the preciousness of it, to the preciousness.
Yeah, that's a wonderful thing. By the way, I didn't have that when I was young. I took it for granted.
Oliver, like I said, I'm a huge fan. You're an incredible human being, one of the greatest
artists ever. So it's a huge honor that you sit with me and talk so deeply and honestly about
some very difficult topics. Again, you're an inspiration and it's an honor that you will
spend your valuable time with me. Thank you very much. Thanks for talking to me. Fun being here.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Oliver Stone. To support this podcast,
please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from
Oliver Stone in the untold history of the United States. To fail is not tragic. To be human is.
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.