Lex Fridman Podcast - #286 – Oliver Stone: Vladimir Putin and War in Ukraine

Episode Date: May 17, 2022

Oliver Stone is a filmmaker with 3 Oscar wins and 11 Oscar nominations. His films include Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, Scarface, JFK, Nixon, Alexander, W, Snowden, and documentaries where he has interviewed Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Novo: https://novo.co/lex - Blinkist: https://blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium - SimpliSafe: https://simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX - ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free - NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour EPISODE LINKS: Oliver's Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheOliverStone Chasing the Light (book): https://amzn.to/3ywb3J2 A Bright Future (book): https://amzn.to/3yvuGAX PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (09:35) - Nuclear power (22:33) - Russia and US relations (27:48) - JFK and the Cold War (33:05) - Interviewing Putin (56:44) - Invasion of Ukraine (1:06:01) - Why Putin invaded Ukraine (1:20:25) - Propaganda (1:27:43) - Interviewing Putin in 2022 (1:34:59) - Nuclear war (1:41:09) - Advice on interviewing (1:44:50) - Interviewing Hitler (1:48:11) - Putin interview language barrier (1:49:22) - Love (1:51:17) - Advice to young people (1:54:23) - Mortality (1:55:25) - Regrets (1:57:22) - Meaning of life

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 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 steal man their ideas, and to steal man the devil's advocate, all in service of understanding, not the region. 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 willuestrac of the deep truth expressed by the old soldier Knitz and Lain that I have 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, 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. And now a quick few second mention of eSportser. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast.

We got Novo for banking, Blinkist for nonfiction, Simply say for security, ExpressVPN for privacy, and NetSuite for efficiency. She was wisely my friends. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I hate those, frankly. I try to make these ads here interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.

I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by Novo, which is a business banking app. The process is simple, you sign up, they'll mail you a Novo debit card and you get free ATM use. Who doesn't love free ATM use? And the flip side of that, who doesn't hate ATM fees? Frankly, if there's any industry that needs to be disrupted,

it's the old school banking industry, so I'm really glad that NOVO exists. It needed to be done, it needs to be done. I'm glad somebody's doing it. NOVO is backed by FDIC insurance, that's important. There's no hidden fees, on lecture-ditional banks, no monthly fees or minimum balance requirements. It's easy to use mobile apps, great customer service, free transfers, mail checks and incoming wires, integrates with other small business tools like Stripe, Shopify, QuickBooks and more. Refunds all ATM fees like I said before, get your free business check and account in just 10 minutes at novo.co-slashlex. That's novo.co-slashlex. That's fun to say. You get their small business starter guide, novo.co-slashlex.

This show is also brought to you by Blinkist. My favorite app for learning new things. Blinkist takes the key ideas from thousands of nonfiction books and condenses them down. It is just 15 minutes that you can read or listen to. I can recommend so, so many books on their sapiens, one of the great nonfiction books of all times there. Even greater than that is meditations by Marcus Aurelius, beginning of Infinity by David Doge, probably the most recommended book to me by friends and colleagues and so on. There's a lot more. All the biggest, most impactful nonfiction books are on there.

So if you don't have time to read all of said books, you just want the summary is great. If you already read it and you want to remind yourself as to the key insights, the key ideas, that's also what Blink is great at. Go to Blinkus.com slash Lex to start your free seven day trial and get 25% off of a Blinkus Premium membership. That's Blinkus.com slash Lex spelled B L I N K I S D Blinkus.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by SimplySafe, a home security company designed to be simple and effective. It takes 30 minutes to set up. You can customize the system for your needs on SimplySafe.com slash Lex. I have it set up in my place and I love it. It is, I guess you could say, in the delicious sandwich that is my personal security, it is one of the layers. What is it? What would be one of the, uh, broker patties?

Would it be the cheese? I don't know, but it's an important layer. It's the first physical layer of protection from my place. I think you want to make sure that that layer is reliable, easy to set up, easy to use, easy to maintain all those kinds of things. And it has good cameras. I mean, just everything is as it should be. Executed wonderfully and it's affordable. Go to simplysave.com slash Lex to customize your system and claim your free indoor security

camera plus 20% off with interactive monitoring. the is the way to take your physical security seriously. This show is also brought to you by ExpressVPN. I use them to protect my privacy on the internet. Speaking of security, this is a good way to protect your digital security. Everybody should have an VPN, every day. And my favorite, the one I use for many, many years is ExpressVPN. I recommend it highly. One of the biggest reasons is it does what it's supposed to do well. It's fast. It works on any device, an operating system, including Linux. It has a simple interface with a big sexy button. You choose the location, you press the button, it's on. You know, it's on, it does this thing, and it does it well, like I said, this is my favorite kinds of programs that just don't try to just overwhelm you with features. They do one

thing and they do it well. That's why for many years I've used and loved the ExpressVPN you can go to expressvpm.com slash Lex pod to get an extra three months free, that's expressvpm.com slash likes pod. This show is also brought to you by NetSuite. NetSuite allows you to manage financials, human resources, inventory, e-commerce, and many more business related details all in one place. Running a company is tough. It's like a factory floor. There's so, so many components that don't involve the sort of brilliant innovation or the cutting edge of the design and the engineering or the

product and the customer fit all those kinds of things that make a business profit, make a business succeed versus fail. But all of that requires that the infrastructure works well. What do I mean by infrastructure? It's all the messy stuff. It's making sure the financials are managed well. It's making sure the human resources, the hiring, all that kind of stuff is managed well. It's making sure that if you're doing inventory, like if you act physical products, or if you're doing e-commerce so selling online all of that is done well. And basically to do this kind of stuff while you should be using the best tools for the job right now. The special financing is back. You can head to Netsuite. That's NETSUITEE.com slash

Lex to get their one-of-a-kind financing program. That's NetSuite.com-slashlex.netSuite.com-slashlex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast, 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 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, I mean, 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 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 laymen like me. And at the same time said that this renewables can work so far. But the gap is enormous as to what how much electricity this country, 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 we're comfortable. We spend more energy than anybody, this country, or a 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

is incapable of having that kind of political will and fear is a huge factor. And still a lot of fear is a huge factor and still a lot of chibolesce, 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 said 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 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. It's 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 probably most advanced nuclear reactor in the world, the Bela Yarsk, the Euron Mountains. So we did an investigation there. And in France they have some very advanced nuclear reactors and they're building. Now they're building again. They had a little, the Green Party came into power, not into power, but became a factor in France. And then there was a motion when Hollande was president, they started to move away from it. Actually, they were beginning to just abandon, not complete.

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 Macomb 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, will 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. The coal continues to be huge in China. And a thing too. But basically coal, or coal in India, in China, the biggest users of coal. And 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 and where 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 is 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 don't, 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. I'm 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 know, you get, it's not, there's no hope in this, a new sense that. So people will move in this direction naturally because nuclear is clean energy. And the round 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. So not that many people have died from nuclear, not that many, I think 50 people at Chernobyl, which is 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. The environmentalists have sold us the idea that they're dangerous. And it's a lot of environmentalists that God have changed. They've come off that routine and they have saying, this, we were wrong. We've done a lot of good work,

green piece, a lot of good work, whale, 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 publisher, Salzburger was on their board. It was one of the met 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.

It's 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, they were, when the Fukushima happened, they went out of the nuclear business. That was shocking to me. They just pulled out and they destroyed Destructed several of their nuclear reactors. It was still functioning and put up coal or Yeah, put up coal and oil Replaced and as a result Germany Drifted into this place next to France. Their electricity

bills went up. And France was staying the same. They don't have that, they have a different system in Europe, but more or less, no question the France was doing a lot better than Germany. And now, with this Ukraine issue, it's a very interesting folk-in-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 are 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 it in my, apparently not. It does seem that it's individually each country can answer its needs by building. And up until now, we haven't had conflict, except in this issue of Russia supplying Europe, the 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's supply and gas to Europe is now up and there. 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 in a short term is just as worse than coal. Worse. There's all kinds of charts we show in the film. methane is in a short term, it's just as 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, et cetera, 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, you know, right? That's the question. You've, 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. So as I told you, I came from a happy Ukrainian, have 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, and when I visited the Soviet Union under the Communism, and I can't have was beautiful. It 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, Regiment, then Andropov, and Gorbachev was 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, you know, 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. I am perhaps because of my European upbringing, but I enjoy talking to them. I find they're very open, 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 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, 1946. I was born in the 50s. It was so anti-Russian.

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,, 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 would be cast aside as a, as a pinco 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 was embodied by the Soviet Union as the enemy. So hence, hence. Yep, that's the way you were 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, a 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 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 with 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 16, 15 years where he has more of a democratic regime, more liberal. He establishes, he recognizes this over here, 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 O not, Tehran, rather, it's where he had the relationship. Do you think if JFK lived, we would not have a Cold War? No, absolutely not. I, 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 Nasir, he had a relationship, with Sukarno and Indonesia, with Latin America, he made a big effort with the Alliance for Progress, and when Africa, above all, with Lemumba, he was very shocked at his death and tried to defend the right, the integrity of the Belgian Congo with Dag Hammersholt of the UN. He made a big effort. Unfortunately, it didn't work out because Dag Hammersholt was killed and then Kennedy was killed. And Congo descended into the chaos of Joseph Mbuthu's dictatorship. and Congo descended into the chaos of Joseph and Boutus 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 isn't 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 right, strong in America and Europe. And Lyndon Johnson changed back to the old policy, and we were never able to really keep

Dayton going with the Russians, briefly had it with Carter, but then Zip Brzezinski came in, Brzezinski was his national security advisor. He was put there by Rockefeller, and Brazinski was a poll. He got revenge for 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, Przyski got his revenge and Carter ended up being an enemy of the Soviet Union and creating as Przyski took pride in it, he created the atmosphere of the trap for the Soviets to go into Afghanistan in 1979. That trap was set, he said, he said in 1978. in 1979. That trap was set, he says, he said in 1978. So there was never except for brief moments, 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 the old beat, which was there, the most evil empire. I mean, it goes on in American history, it doesn't end. Reagan got a lot of points for that. And of course, 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 for my point of view, in terms of this relaxation in the mood. 1986 to 1991 were great years

in terms of ability, out to believe once once again that there could be a piece 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 Globichoff 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

break up of the Soviet Union. It's a very interesting story because it involves everything in Ukraine. Of course, everything is going on now. Some of 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 it is a good example of keeping a balance keeping it neutral Yeah, he played both sides and he because Yeltsin wanted him to join The 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 you'd have to, I'm sorry, I don't remember. Now, but two other regions came with him

that was a block that broke up the uh... the soviet union it was yeltsin's plan to 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 a few minutes of a nation but let me ask you fast forward in 2000 yeltsin It was no longer president and Vladimir Putin became president

you did Series of interviews with Vladimir Putin as you mentioned over a period of two years from 2015 to 2017 Let's let me ask with a 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 snow, no fair had happened. I was working on a movie on snow. 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 to 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 this, that this, he was almost treating him like this, 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 he made it very clear and tried to keep an open climate a new relationship with Europe but the United States always certain people in the United States always saw 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 a country 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 is not a bay that has not even acknowledged it and it never comes up. So from the perspective of the United States when power centers arise in the world, yes, you start to oppose those, not because of the ideas, but because they have,

but merely because they have power. Isn't that at the heart of the doctrine of the Neoconservatives and the new, the pact for the New American Century, they wrote that in 1996, 2007, they said there shall be no emergence of arrival power. It was very clear was it was about power. And they have stuck to that doctrine, which is if you start to get dangerous in any way or have power, we're gonna knock you out.

Now that won't work, but I don't believe it can work. And that is, fortunately, a policy the United States is following. And the Neoconservative Group, which is very small, but it's very strong apparently, and their idea has resonated. 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, at 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 signs of, wherever

America judged would be a dangerous country, we had the right. You're either with us or against us. Now, that a disaster as policy and led to one thing after another, the Iraq war would never learn to lesson. The Neal Conservatives 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 obviously guiding America now. Let me return to this question of power. Don't forget the sneer that I saw there. That emblimides the United States reaction. Also, there were several other American representatives who were laughing, kind of mocking Putin. It was very serious. I felt that 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, beyond their dreams of the Russians have fulfilled the fantasy of the Russians have fulfilled the fantasy of the United States to finally be this aggressor that they have pictured for years. Yeah.

We can talk about that later. But at that time, there was Europe had significant support for Putin. Yes. And United States was sneering at Putin. That's correct. You can say that. And then so there's this, um, it was, it was, um, 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 Asia there was respect for him that he was a man who was It was very clear in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, there was respect for him, that he was a man who was getting his job done in the interests of Russia. He was, as I said in the documentary, a son of Russia, very much so.

In the positive sense, a son of Russia, not that he's out there trying to destroy the interests 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 the world into a harmony. This has always been his picture. Peace was always his idea in hours. He always referred to the United States in all these interviews as our partners. And I said, well, 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, I'm just the human being that carries that power on the shoulders for so many years. Keep in mind that he's been, unlike most modern leaders, he's been in office off and on because there was a Medvedev president and he was not literally in charge. He was

he took another appointment at that point and 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, color graded 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 go against the world of 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. He is, there are 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 it. But it's Russia that's doing it. And that's what there's a distinction there that I, it's changed. In the old days, I would read about Khrushchev, but it was never a 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 the art-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 poisonous, a murderer, and none of which is ever improving, but which has always been repeated and repeated to the point at which it becomes like an or well mantra, it becomes like he is, of course, a bad guy. Can I just ask you as a great filmmaker and as a human being, what was it like

talking to one of the most powerful men in the world? like talking to one of the most powerful men in the world. For honestly, and I'm not naive, I've just 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 seen, I've had other jobs. I have to say I found them to be a human being.

I just found them to be reasonable, calm. I never saw him loose his temper. And I mean, you have to understand that most people and the 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 had.

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 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's he kept his family with great respect. He's raised his daughters right. the new wife because I don't know about it, but he kept his family with great respect. His race, his daughter's right. He served Jeltsin the way he looked at it.

He served Jeltsin well, and he never trashed Jeltsin. Certainly a lot of people did, but I asked him repeatedly, was he an alcoholic? This had happened. He wouldn't even go that far. He just respect. And this man, the Eltsin, was in, it was in many ways ridiculed, but in by the Russians. And 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, several prime ministers, this why did he turn power over the Eltsin to Mr. Putin? Because he respected him for his work, Several prime ministers this that why did he turn power over to 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 poor from a poor family who worked his way up

Through the KGB of Americans keeps a knee as a KGB agent, but it's like saying George Bush was a CIA agent, but he became a... you grow, you grow in your life, and he went from this KGB to this technocratic position. He dealt with many problems, including the Chechnya war, which is a very difficult situation, as well as the Russian submarine probably several things happened early in that 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, ludicrous 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 two in America. You run into them. So many of them are American.

I'm actually good friends now with the richest man in the world. Of course. I saw your interview with Mr. Mosque who I appreciate at least he speaks really. I I'm positive about him owning Twitter because Twitter has become censorship. Citi has all the major tech. I mean, 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, I like Musk for that, just for that only, but I also appreciate him, his adventure, some, his nature and his desire to,

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. 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, a major point on going back to nuclear energy, he never believed in it at first, apparently. He was going for batteries, right? He did put a lot of money into batteries. He made them bigger, bigger batteries, but it just, as Bill Gates has said, it's just, it's not going to get us there. And now I think Musk who's on another path, he understands the need for nuclear.

Yeah, he's a supporter of nuclear. We're jumping around. Poon never asked for one thing. Never. He was an interviewer. It was free form. I ask anything you want. No restrictions, no rules. As with Castro,

the Castro did the same thing as the Chevés, 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 can be taken out of context. But there was no restrictions on what to talk about. No, none of that. No, and he desired to see anything before we published it. No need to check it with him.

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 I might have been a little stiff, you're asking,

you don't know what, 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 and not because of his fault, but because of the way they have treated him. If you look at the interviews, they're awful. They put, first of all, I noticed one thing as a filmmaker right away, they use a dub, 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, who's very, 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 on you about

the bang issue 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. Boone, did you poison this, it's why mr. Poon did you poison this person? Why mr. Poon did you kill this person? Why are you a murderer? I mean, it's blunt 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 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 there should be underlying 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 Boon interviews in America, it was hostile without seeing it. So many people criticized my series without having seen it. 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 through me, I was complicit, therefore I was a Putin supporter. And the show was just a hester. 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 COVID 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? You talk about Castro. You talk about this.

So are you worried about how charisma of a man across the table from you can on don't take that into account? I absolutely take that. And I know I mean, doing Castro is a he's a wonderful speaker. He's charismatic. So is Chavez. I think 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 bonami at all. He just asked your question. I'll give you my answer straight. Here it is. Any 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 on 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 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 in the calmness. Yes, there is. So like, let's just calm everything down. It's simple facts that you can, yes, you can, you can call. Um, so there's like the Hitler thing, which is screaming, being very loud, charismatic, strong messages and so on.

And then there's a Putin style. I'm not comparing those two. 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 in the library about food and there's nothing positive about it They 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.

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 explained 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, he, he, he spoke Russian. And his wife and him, uh,

Katerina, uh, Katerina Van Hoval, who's a editor, publisher of, uh, the Nation magazine would go to Russia several times a year and talk to their friend, Gorbachev. And Gorbachev's an interesting character. I've talked to him, interviewed him, not interviewed him, but talked to him at length. And I like him very much. And I saw that 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 Gowrchoff 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 he, they see each other at the, or he sees, he knows he's there at the Mayday parade. I, we filmed and he is, he, his attitude is funny. It's very human. He says, you know, he's welcome. He's got his, he's got his pension, he's a pensioner. He's done his duty. There's no, there's no animus towards it.

Even when Gorbachev and 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, it says Russia is now really under attack. This is, 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 at this juncture. When can you see Gorbachev's we have no respect for Gorbachev even at this juncture. When can you see Gorbachev's ideas printed in most American newspapers? Very rarely, and recently not at all. So Gorbachev, who was our hero back in the American hero back in 1980s, has now been condemned to the garbage can, so to speak of history. Well, in this complicated geopolitical picture, just outlined, can we talk about the recent invasion of Ukraine? So 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 a subjective. 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 Algar 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, anyone who questions the invasion of Ukraine and its consequences is an enemy of the people but it's it's become so difficult We 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. 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 the power of the United States. And of course you have Finland and 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 be a nation. 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, Shirak, 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, shroder 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, I don't go into Iraq. This is not the solution. He didn't oppose Afghanistan, but he opposed Iraq. So, Shrota stood for the old Europe. I remember the Gaw, Charles the Gaw, he was independent of the United States. Charles the Gaw 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 1940s, since, well, DeGaule was the 60s. He was, he actually reversed the whole flow. And he was, I think it was Sarkozy who put France back into NATO. And now it's macro. I hope because he was talking to Putin would at least have

an independent viewpoint that could be helpful here, but he so he rolled it up. He may have told Putin something else, but within days he'd 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, we're killing all these people, we're shooting down civilians, although there was no proof of it, there was just these are the accidents of war, but all of a sudden it 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 Donbass and Lugansk during that 2014 to 2022 period? That is what is 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 Dombas without the invasion of Ukraine? Yeah, that's a very good question. And I've asked that several times, and 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 I've got 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 what 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 heavier and heavier artillery fire going into Donbass

from the Ukrainian side. So they had apparently Ukraine had 110,000 troops on the border. They were about to invade Donbass. That was the plan. That's what I think. Russia, as a, because of the buildup on the border of Donbass, brought 130, they say 130,000 troops to the area near Donbass, 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 believe that the Russians suddenly put all these men into, into the situation with the

idea of invading Ukraine, not only Donbass, 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 to do. But you at the time, as a lot of people thought that all the talk of the invasion, Russian invasion, Ukraine, it's just propaganda, it's not going to happen. It's very like it happened. Well, 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 create this propaganda, they are going to invade. They are going to invade. And then when they invaded, they were in 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? Did it so here is it madness or is it no? No, it's 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 essay I wrote, he would think he was not well informed perhaps about the degree of cooperation he would get from the Ukrainian Russians in Ukraine. That would be one factor. He didn't assess the operation correctly. Remember this, Mr. Putin has had this cancer, and 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 meeting people face to face,

but all of a sudden he was meeting people across the table a hundred 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'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 that and that they were only backed up and they were stiffened by the resistance of the Nazi Or not the oriented as-off battalions. That was what 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 understanding

of the Russian-Ukrain 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 interviewed, Victor Medvedev, who they make out to be some kind of horrible person. But Medvedev was a, was 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 1991 to 2014 neutral very important 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 Ukraine I you 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, 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 will 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. Just let's keep backed off from his platform as a running for president. And as president has been ineffective, did nothing to promote. On the contrary, what the other way and seem 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 millions of people as refugees escaping Ukraine. What do you think about the human cost of this war initiated by it's horrible? Whoever just as you write Whatever the context, whatever NATO, whatever pressure as you wrote, Russia was wrong to invade. Okay. Yeah. Well, let's get back to the original question. You said, what was he thinking

at that time? We never answered that. Yeah. Now, by the way, among those people who have been ruined by this war, you have to include the 4 2014 to 2022 Ukrainian Russians, 14,000 were killed, not necessarily by 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-wading that whole area. And remember, I did a film about Salvador. I know a little bit about desk-wars and how they work, and I know about paramilitaries, because in South America, they're all over the place.

America supports hates Venezuela. It 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 is a support of desquads 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 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 Donbass than have been killed in this latest. So we can't talk about this without, we can't talk about the invasion of Ukraine without considering the full war between Russia and Ukraine since 2014. That's correct, absolutely. And take the toll on both sides, and you might be surprised by the result. I think the Russian military, of course I'm not there, and this speculation, the Russian military has slowed down and part of that reason is not to keep the civilian corridors open,

and I think the Ukrainian military has made it more difficult on purpose, especially some of these battalions that are desquad 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 Ukrainians of millions for years, would change their policies. They would have no compunctions about wiping out, for example, people with white arm bands in Bukka. Okay. As to what Putin was thinking at the time, I wondered this, and I still do. I said, okay, so Putin can say, let's say the Ukrainian government wants to now invade Donbass. This is on February 23, and they have artillery that's peppering the whole place.

They're going to go in, and they're going to get Donbass 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 kev. 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 Donbass. You can come into our country. You can leave. And we will help you to resettle. And that would be a reasonable approach. So you take it to the next stage, as Putin is thinking, you take it to the next stage. You stall harder for the 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 to our, 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 never give a Russian leader is your weak. You can't get anything done. So they 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 in all the news propaganda in the world to get what it wants. This is the equivalent, frankly, of Germany's goals in World War II, world domination. There's no question in War II, 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 the stage two? Okay, let's say they take. Ukraine takes back Donbass. Let's say people get killed in large quantities. So we now to the next stage, stage were 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 would happen, what the US is thinking. But they would have, the US cannot say Russia has done anything. They have not used violence to stop Don Bass 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 chess board 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 you have done, could you 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 NATOized NATOized Ukraine or Certainly put more weapons and you know the United States has already done a lot in Ukraine with intelligence with training advisors The the intelligence aspect of the Ukrainian army has been raised How much is the respect 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 is just happens that for now the United States is a useful ally. 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 so Yes, and he could be he could say that but he's not acknowledging that the sovereignty of his nation was stolen but in 2014 when the with the coup d'état that brought That brought this second 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, how many people have been killed? Aren't serious people, journalists killed by these battalions, that's what people don't realize. In other words, you can't speak out You can't a person like me would have been on the death list on day five You don't you there's no opposition to Zolensky so he doesn't have a real sovereignty It was a stolen sovereignty. Do you think

President Zolensky would accept an interview with you Today actually from 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 incidence of 2014 and the My Dad 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. They, they, these are desquads. No, I don't think, and Zelensky would have nothing to do with it, but of course, they would be dangerous for me and they've been very hostile in their policies to any Ukrainians abroad are also threatened. In other words, you could be in Paris, but if you speak out too much, 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 have to take the anti-Russian line, but I think a lot of them are divided. So you think you would be killed as the Lensky wouldn't even know about it. So there is... Well, I'd be... I don't think...

If I was killed, certainly abroad, no. They wouldn't kill me abroad. I think they... If I'd figure out a way... 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 the modern world 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 property, all the RT, all the information centers that are possible alternative news getting to the American people. They've seriously met an effort and the BBC, English, and France, I was shocked when France closed RT down because RT is actually pretty good.

They, yes, they may, they may call their art distortions, but you know as well as I do, because you hear, you speak that RT has done a very brave job of putting correspondence 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 you. I talked to you about Russia, because you would know more about it, but my last experience there, newspapers, there was some more interesting, there's, put it this way, when I went to Venezuela, the United States was saying back then that Chevez controlled the press. I get to Venezuela,

and there's nothing but criticism of Chevez in the press. It was owned by the oligarchs of Venezuela and who hated them. So it was across the board. That's why Chevez opened the state television, spent more money on it and advertised his point of view through state television. But in Russia, there is, when I saw it 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 there is criticism of him, but you know, 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 gonna 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 my family in Ukraine And family in Russia. You know, 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 the power centers and make sure they're responsive to the people. And I feel like there's a mix of fear and apathy, uh, that it has a different texture than it does in the United States. That worries me because I, 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, and then you can believe. And you know the Russian people there. They've been fighting government for years back from the 1870s, Zara's times. They always plotting against the government. The intelligentsia has known through history as being contentious and anti-government in many ways. 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 the common 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 all the West Point bangs 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. The imperialist, 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, as it 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 YouTube, your Twitter

account thrown off, a lot of good people are getting there, thrown off. You can't say, you can't speak out of the fix 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 with their policies with the IRA, when Ireland was threatening them, they cut off the IRA completely.

Jerry Adams, who was a wonderful guy, I 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 during certain years. In France, all constantly through the Algerian war, the Algerians were not allowed to be heard. The Algerian war for independence divided France greatly. You could not even show paths of glory. We're one 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 be, you have to go back and let's make

a movie about Mao. That upset them and you know, 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 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? Huh.

Well, one thing I 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 US next move? And in Europe, how are you gonna,, 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 is something different about him in the past several months. It could be the COVID thing, the isolation that you mentioned. Yeah. I listened to a lot of interviews and speeches in Russian and 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 miss use it in my opinion. He was very even. I saw him go on television and talk to his fellow, 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. 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 he had the talk of Zelensky saying, well, nuclear weapons were going to come into Ukraine. It 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 question. The next question that comes up, the most immediate question is, is the United States going to start? And I'm saying this is good. They're making a lot of noise in the United States. The 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, 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. It's, for example, it'd be very not simple, but it would be possible to explode a nuclear device in Donbass, in Donbass,

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. They would, it would be a very dramatic solution to sealing this war off as a major victory for the United States. That's terrifying. No, it can happen. It can happen. And one kill it on 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 Neal conservative 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 this left is our neon, not zebra gaze, but they're being advised very well by US. And they're sending the weapons in or a huge amounts of weapons.

What about American budget? No one talks about how much money we're giving to Ukraine. We're getting, it's a billion dollars already in weaponry. And not most of it just poured in. What about, you know, 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 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, it signed the agreement on chemical arms and not, 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, 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 are 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 investigation, if you know 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.

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 the Trump to go to war on Syria, but he didn't.

Chemical weapons, 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 worrying and love the bomb and given the fact that that you did, 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 I was so close to nuclear war. I lived through that period, and I thought as many people did that it 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 a political Russians was really paranoid at that point and they they were responding to our military exercise on Abel Archer. There was also the Korean airline or 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've 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

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. Okay, it was called, it was an Eisenhower plan that had been put into potential operation in early 60 or 50s or late 50s SIOP 62. 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 policy, nuclear policy posture is more defensive than the American one, which leaves options open.

The same options are open, a Neil conservative agreement that we see from the late 90s where they say, the emergence of arrival power will not be tolerated. That's a very broad statement, and it 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 of the break. They broke that one. That was the intermediate missiles. 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 brings me to Biden. Yes. And that's is another Irish man. This is the opposite of Kennedy. Kennedy was a Catholic Irish 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 be 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 Sadie, appointed her to this sector of the world, she's very influential. And she's been one of the

worst people on Ukraine. Obviously, she's behind the coup. She was the one who boasted that and she obviously was behind the coup. She was the one who boasted that, we got our man in, Yats, whatever is Yatsanuk. 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 Russians use nuclear weaponry of any kind, there's gonna be a horrible price to pay.

That was out of the blue, I's going to be a horrible price to pay. That was out, 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, talk nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, or secretary of state has done it. Blinken, this, 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 what's the blame? Certainly. 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 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 Paz of Glory, as well as Strangelove. 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 from the brink of the nuclear war? Can we? Yes. What's the path to walk back? Reason. Between who? Reason and diplomacy.

There's no reason. I mean, talk to the guy. Mr. Biden, why don't you calm down and go and talk to Mr. Boone in Moscow. Why don't you just sit across a table for a, and try to have a discussion without falling into ideologies and stuff like that. Kasky for advice, you did some of the most difficult interviews ever. 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 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 a 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. 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 old papers. I mean, have you ever seen an interview with a president besides being personable?

Were 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 on the George W hasn't shown much conscience in terms of thinking about what he's done. You've seen that. It was you ever see 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 and 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. Empathy's 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 empathized 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 receptive to this guy? That's wrong. Dramatists don't have political positions. They walk in the shoes of that's why Bush moving perhaps was surprising to make and maybe people didn't care for it. Maybe that's what 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 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. That a burden. Is that hard? Not for George W. Bush. He's bitching because they didn't understand them. But he had a good vision, he said, 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 38, I certainly would have, no, you have to,

if you sit down across from Hitler, you empathize. What is your beef? What are you, where have you been? What is your consciousness? Why do you hate Jewish people? Why, why, all these questions have come up, the his sense of grievance as a result of World War One. There's justifications there, et cetera. 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, as Churchill himself, and 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 he, 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. It 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 Hildler's goal, I think, he always had an admiration for England. It's 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 preserved 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 and in 1940 France.

So it's another ballgame. But certainly at whatever, at whatever point you talk to him, I would try to understand his point. So I would, 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 like an American journalist interviewing Putin. It's, I'm getting brownie points from expressing my contempt for you. That doesn't wash with me. That's ugly. Seek to understand. Yes. This is a technical question, but was language barrier as an

interviewer? Just 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 for months or years before they these people are young and they're very bright I was very impressed with the Russian dress. 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 how much content, but it's more kind of the thing that make communication more frictionless. 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 Sardona, 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 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? I think without love, I wouldn't, I don't think I'd be able to carry on. I think that love is my

love is the greatest. The ability to love is the greatest virtue you can have. 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. or 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 it's the strength behind the great novelists, the great artists of our time. I think part of the reason I suppose we're scared of science sometimes is because society just sometimes don't express that clearly. 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 the humanity that's between the lines. I'm often struck by when I talk to scientists and I've talked to a few, and how arrogant they can be about, they don't talk to you if you don't understand their world, and they talk to each other, and there's an arrogance, a close circle kind of thing. Oh, he's not at my level. There's no discussion to be had with this person. He's a human being.

That arrogance is terrifying to me because 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 Ponds 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 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 that can be proud of, or how to have a career that can be proud of or how to have a life that can be proud of. Well, I have three children. So obviously, I'm not necessarily the best best advisor in the world. 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 can try to get your daughter to wake up at a certain hour in the day, but it never works. 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 a 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 worlds. One of the greatest courses I took at NYU was, and I was a war veteran on the GI Bill. 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 the Professor Lehi and what

he did to me. He just, he gave-T-A-G, which is sleep. And how most of the crew, Odysseus' crew, were experiencing Lethae and how necessary 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 I think is the basis of an good education and a classic one is important. A basis.

I think then you go on and you can learn computer if you want to. 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. Yes, you need to have the broad Yes, back on to understand the world literature. Yes 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. Couldn't happen any day, actually. When you get to a certain age, you can't assume that you're gonna be alive tomorrow. So I try to deal with that. I am 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 the 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. You know, I saw how finite death is.

Other things in your life, you regret. Oh, sure. Is there something you wish you could have done differently, like if you could go back to do one thing differently, or that it regrets all of you has most of this I'm curious. What do you say off off line 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. They, I mean, this is what you do with systems is you test them, the test them, the test them and errors is just information. He did the same thing. 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 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, is a complicated and cruel game. But it takes 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 is 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 a, 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, we immediately have 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 of it.

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, both some very difficult topics. Again, your inspiration is an honor that you will spend your valuable time with me thank you very much thanks for talking to me and you

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. you