{"id":205063,"date":"2022-02-14T12:00:38","date_gmt":"2022-02-14T12:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=205063"},"modified":"2022-02-13T08:51:36","modified_gmt":"2022-02-13T08:51:36","slug":"oliver-stone-american-exceptionalism-is-on-deadly-display-in-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/02\/oliver-stone-american-exceptionalism-is-on-deadly-display-in-ukraine\/","title":{"rendered":"Oliver Stone: American Exceptionalism Is on Deadly Display in Ukraine"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
The creator of the Showtime documentary series \u201c<\/em>The Putin Diaries\u201d speaks to Robert Scheer about the escalating crisis in Ukraine.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>

Director Oliver Stone<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

11 Feb 2022 – <\/em>\u201cThe crisis over Ukraine grows simultaneously more dangerous and more absurd,\u201d Katrina\u00a0vanden\u00a0Heuvel recently wrote in The Nation<\/a>. Rather than help de-escalate the growing conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the Donbas region, it seems like the Biden administration and U.S. corporate media have been beating the war drums. The result of any war, needless to say, would\u00a0be catastrophic for all involved and would have pernicious repercussions the world over.U.S. reports, according to \u201cScheer Intelligence\u201d host Robert Scheer, have failed thus far to understand the perspective of Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin, and do so to the detriment of everything and everyone at stake. Film director Oliver Stone, however, offers a unique insight into the crisis given his experience interviewing the Russian leader a dozen times over two years for Stone\u2019s Showtime series \u201cThe Putin Diaries<\/a>.\u201d The Oscar winner and Vietnam War veteran joins Scheer on this week\u2019s show to discuss the critical nuances Americans are missing in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one really knows what\u2019s going on in the actual sense of being in Russia\u2019s mind,\u201d Stone tells Scheer,\u00a0\u201cbut\u00a0I do think, from the beginning, this has been a defensive maneuver from the Russian side. The United States and its allies in NATO have been provoking Russia [and] have been using Ukraine as bait, as a temperature-taker of that region [since 2014]. Now we\u2019ve reached this place where they have threatened the Russians so much that they had to react, because I don\u2019t think Putin could have stayed in office if he had not reacted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Scheer argues that one of the most toxic elements at play in this international brinkmanship is nationalism, a force he\u00a0warns against, especially in the form of American exceptionalism that views and\u00a0pursues \u00a0the\u00a0country\u2019s interests as \u201cglobal interests.\u201d Oliver and Scheer also examine a\u00a0recent joint statement from Russia and China<\/a>\u00a0that they believe marks a paradigm shift in global politics. Listen to the full conversation between Oliver and Scheer as they thoughtfully discuss how U.S. nationalism requires crises like the one brewing in Ukraine to sustain its national narratives.<\/p>\n

**<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence, where the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case, Oliver Stone. And I\u2019m going to say, on the subject I want to talk about\u2014Vladimir Putin, Russia, and what\u2019s going on with the Ukraine, what\u2019s going on with the world\u2014I\u2019m going to say it right here, I think Oliver Stone has a viewpoint about Putin, knows about Putin in a way, I don\u2019t know if there\u2019s anybody else I could be calling right now.<\/p>\n

He did the Putin interviews for Showtime; I thought it was an incredible documentary. The New York Times, which, you know, got a very angry Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9 to attack it, Masha Gessen\u2014but I have looked at this thing over and over, and I think it\u2019s an incredible insight into another government leader that we have to do business with. And Oliver did a dozen interviews over a two-year period with Putin; I found it a candid look, and I just want to praise it as a work of journalism, which obviously the New York Times didn\u2019t do.<\/p>\n

But whether we like Putin or hate Putin, we\u2019ve got to figure out what he\u2019s doing now. And with the recent declaration between Xi, the Chinese leader, and this Russian leader, that they have a common view of the Western alliance being, really, basically another way of describing U.S. hegemony, using NATO to really push people around. And that they have now an agreement to withstand it, means you just can\u2019t easily say you\u2019re going to just cut people off economically and so forth. That represents a pretty powerful coalition.<\/p>\n

So let me just begin with that. You know, what the hell is going on? You\u2019re a guy who fought communism in Vietnam, you got the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, everything else. We would have thought this many years later we still wouldn\u2019t be screwing around with some kind of Cold War scenario, but we are.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>Yeah. Well, Bob, I thank you for your comments, very nice of you. You actually are one of the few people in the United States who looked at the Putin interviews, and looked at it, as opposed to criticized it without seeing it, which is what often happened. So I\u2019ve known you a long time, and I think you and I pretty much agree on the United States\u2019 position in the world, and what\u2019s going on.<\/p>\n

So I\u2019m going to take it from there, and just tell you what I think is going on right now. No one really knows what\u2019s going on in the actual sense of being in Russia\u2019s mind, but I do think, from the beginning, this has been a defensive maneuver from the Russian side. The United States and its allies in NATO have been provoking Russia for, since two years now\u2014actually three years over the Ukraine; more. I mean, they started this in 2014.<\/p>\n

But they have been using Ukraine as bait, as a temperature-taker of that region. And now we\u2019ve reached this place where they have threatened the Russians so much that they had to react, because I don\u2019t think Putin could have stayed in office if he had not reacted. So this is a game that\u2019s somewhat like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962; Russia is concerned, very tense; and the United States and its allies don\u2019t seem to be listening to its concerns, don\u2019t seem to care about its concerns about NATO, and specifically Ukraine.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s not just Ukraine. It\u2019s also the Baltic; it\u2019s the constant war exercises in the Baltic region, it\u2019s the pressure from Europe, it\u2019s the United States\u2014in the air, we send our bombers close to the border [unclear]. So we\u2019re constantly provoking them, going into their territory. If we can think of it as Canada and the United States\u2014if Canada were doing that, and sending warnings to us like this, we would be freaking out. I would think Canada is somewhat like\u2014Ukraine is to the Russians like Canada is to the United States. In other words\u2014yeah, go ahead.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Well, let me just push this a little bit, because I say it in the intro. You actually talked to Putin. And, you know, this guy has been demonized. Because, you know, if you go back to Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four<\/em>, his great fear that he discussed was the need of the new empire\u2014whatever it was, and America fits the bill now, with its 800 bases\u2014to constantly have an enemy.<\/p>\n

And the whole contradiction with Russia\u2014at least with China, which we get along with a lot better than we do with Russia, because we need them. China took us through the pandemic; China made Jeff Bezos the richest man in the world because most of the goods that we\u2019re consuming to get through are from China. So whether they\u2019re communist or not communist, they\u2019re very good capitalists, and we need China. And China has 1.4 billion people; Russia has 140 million people, it\u2019s got a military, it\u2019s got a big land mass.<\/p>\n

But the big contradiction, whereas at least the Chinese still have a communist party in power, Vladimir Putin was picked by the United States; he was picked by Yeltsin, who was the guy that the United States liked more than Gorbachev. And Putin was brought into power, basically, because Yeltsin was a hopeless drunk, and Putin at least represented sobriety and some kind of conservative, Russian Orthodox nationalism. Clearly he had broken with any communist past.<\/p>\n

So the inconvenience here is we are demonizing a guy who got elected by defeating the remnants of the old Russian communist system. And yet it doesn\u2019t matter; logic doesn\u2019t matter, facts don\u2019t matter. We need an enemy. That\u2019s the way I see it. And Putin is the enemy. So tell us about this enemy, because he\u2019s clearly not a communist ideologue; he clearly doesn\u2019t quote Marx extensively, and he\u2019s actually a conservative, what, at best a Peter the Great, czar-type figure.<\/p>\n

And you\u2019ve met him; I mean, it\u2019s no small thing. It\u2019s very interesting to dismiss someone of your worldwide experience\u2014you\u2019ve interviewed a lot of people, you\u2019ve seen war, you\u2019ve seen the world; and yet somehow your two years of trying to figure out Putin, and your dozen interviews, which I think is a real important reservoir of information, gets ignored. And all these people in journalism and everywhere, they\u2019re talking about Putin, Putin, Putin, as if he\u2019s Stalin or something.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>I know. I know.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>It\u2019s nutty! It\u2019s nutty, is what it is.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>And it\u2019s scary. Last week I was looking at the American news, and I could not believe how bloodthirsty the journalists were. CNN and Fox both were demanding, almost demanding our leaders to take on, to get tough with the Russians, because we have taken enough [unclear] from them. As if Putin had pushed all our buttons; as if he was the aggressive one. I saw young women with no experience [unclear] in their thirties, talking about the need to really go after Russia. And then they would cut to some general in civilian clothes, or some guy from a think tank who was going to tell them what they want to hear.<\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t see one person on television who was talking for peace, talking to understand Russia; I really didn\u2019t. And it\u2019s very, as you say, these people like Masha Gessen, who is to the right on most things Russia, are telling us what the Russian point of view is, but it\u2019s just not true. The Russian point of view has always been consistent, and Mr. Putin has always been consistent in what he says. And he says, basically, the argument is, OK\u2014well, first of all, I wouldn\u2019t say that he got in to power because of us. I do think that Yeltsin, who was not as drunk and hopeless as you think\u2014but I do think Yeltsin chose him. But the United States came down on Putin after his speech in Munich in 2007, when he said there has to be a line, and\u2014<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Yeah, but that was seven years after he got elected with our blessing, and he defeated the communist party candidate. He was the anti-communist when he got elected.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>Absolutely, and he has no fondness for the old empire, as many of these Russia thinkers say. It\u2019s nonsense; he has no desire to return to that; he is looking for security. Security is the mother word here. He\u2019s a son of Russia. The Russian people demand security; they do not want to be all the time threatened by a Western power that is telling them you have to do this and you have to do that.<\/p>\n

But NATO is also a huge threat, because we\u2019ve seen NATO expand since 1989 by 13 countries. And now there\u2019s talk of course with Ukraine joining NATO and all that stuff. But the truth is, NATO is seen by the Russian people as an enemy. They bombed Yugoslavia in the 1990s, if you remember; they attacked Libya. NATO has turned from a defensive organization into a very aggressive organization. They were in Iraq; we\u2019ve seen their activities in Afghanistan. NATO continues to be an arm of the United States to bring offensive operations.<\/p>\n

And this is\u2014it\u2019s not working, and what Putin is saying in general is: lay off; back away. You cannot run war exercises all the time on our borders; you cannot talk this language of calling us the aggressor. And that\u2019s what\u2019s very interesting to me, is the United States media always say\u2014every day I see it in the newspaper or this or that\u2014the Russian invasion, the coming Russian invasion of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Now, this is outrageous, because first of all, they have no proof that Russia intends to invade Ukraine; I doubt that they would. I think Russia is concerned only with the Donbass region. The Donbass region being the eastern sector where the Russian-speaking people are threatened by the Ukrainian government. Why? Because, we saw back in 2014, they were killing them. There was quite a bit of murder going on, and the Ukrainian government did not want to recognize the historic autonomy of the eastern Ukraine, of the people who speak Russian. In fact, Russian language was banned in Ukraine, if you remember correctly.<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s been a general strong, almost nationalistic attack on Russia from those years. And we know about the old Nazis, the Nazis from World War II, their inheritors are in Ukraine; there\u2019s quite a few fascist people there who are working and putting pressure on the government to attack Donbass. You saw what happened, if you remember correctly, in Odessa, when the Russian-speaking natives were surrounded in a building and the Ukrainian nationalists burned them alive. That was a horrible moment, and what was it, 20 or 30 dead. And it was shocking to the world, and gave us the intention, showed us the intention of the Ukrainian government.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Well, the real issue here\u2014and it\u2019s interesting. I want to talk about one of my favorite Oliver Stone movies, which doesn\u2019t get the respect\u2014I mean, you\u2019ve won all these Academy Awards, I mean, three I think, and all sorts of honors. But I liked your movie on Alexander. And what I liked about it, and what I like about the whole question of Alexander, really goes to the central tension in human history: what is the role of partisanship, of patriotism, of nationalism?<\/p>\n

And something has happened. It was interesting, in the dispute\u2014you know, Aristotle, of course you know, was Alexander\u2019s teacher, and then advisor. And Aristotle betrayed, in really the pursuit of ethics, when he advised Alexander to be an imperialist, really. And in regard to the Persians, he said, you know, treat the Greeks, all of the Greek cities and so forth, as your family, as your friends. But treat the non-Greeks\u2014that was the Persians then, basically\u2014as beasts and vegetables, and they have no rights.<\/p>\n

And Alexander, because he was out there the way Oliver Stone was out there, but you were a grunt and he was leading it, and you were in Vietnam and you saw the humanity of the Vietnamese; my understanding is Alexander said, hey, these are people; they\u2019ve got brains; maybe they could cooperate with us and so forth. It was an interesting moment.<\/p>\n

The U.S. is kind of in that position. We as a culture only accept our own legitimacy, our own nationalism, but we don\u2019t call it nationalism; we call it internationalism. And anybody else in the world who has nationalist concerns\u2014beginning with the Chinese and Russians, but it extends to anyone else\u2014their nationalism is always threatening, is always illegitimate.<\/p>\n

And to my mind, that\u2019s the issue here. Not to\u2014I don\u2019t want to tear down Ukrainian nationalism, and I don\u2019t want to overly boost Russian nationalism. But you have, as you point out, in Ukraine you have people there who think that they are identifying with Russia. And you have to worry about what happens to them, and you have a clash of nationalisms. And the basic U.S. position is that we are not nationalists; everything we believe in is universal. It\u2019s the definition of freedom and the good life.<\/p>\n

And anybody who disagrees\u2014and that\u2019s really what that Chinese-Russian statement was all about. These two countries\u2014which by the way are closer now than they were under communism. There was a Sino-Soviet dispute when they were both ostensibly communist, but in their declaration last week of their common concern about the Western, NATO-led alliance, they\u2019re saying that this hegemonic power of the United States, using NATO, is an enormous threat. And I think that\u2019s something people don\u2019t want to address. They think, oh no, we\u2019re just pursuing human rights, which is nonsense.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>Yeah, absolutely. One thing that comes through in the interviews with Mr. Putin was he constantly refers to sovereignty\u2014the sovereignty of Russia, the sovereignty of any country. It\u2019s very important to the Russian nation. They have interests, they have national interests; everyone is allowed to have their national interests. We have never recognized their interests. On the contrary, we\u2019ve done our best to spoil their interests, with our sanctions and our encouragement of the coup, and our financing of the coup in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve tried to do the same thing in Georgia, and they fought a small war against the Georgians. And we\u2019ve tried to do it repeatedly, possibly even in Kazakhstan recently. The United States is always looking to cause tension. That is the key: tension, call it a revolution, any of these things; raise the temperature and make it possible for a coup or a regime change, which is the objective of people like Victoria Nuland, who\u2019s an undersecretary in the department of state.<\/p>\n

So I think that, you know\u2014we don\u2019t recognize it, and we go and we play dirty games, very dirty games, to get what we want\u2014which is, we want regime change in Russia. We\u2019ve been referring to Putin as if he is Russia. If you look at all the news stories, they don\u2019t even bother to say \u201cRussia\u201d; they say \u201cPutin,\u201d as if he is Russia, but that\u2019s not quite the case. He has tensions from within, too. He has much pressure. There are factions in Russia. I know about that, and I think people underestimate the degree of difficulty in ruling a country as big as Russia.<\/p>\n

If Putin does not act in certain ways, they will take him down. People will not abide by it if the Russians are embarrassed in Donbass. They will not. And I think America doesn\u2019t understand that. They think that Putin makes up all these decisions himself, he sits there and he\u2019s like a king, a monarch. But he\u2019s not. He works with people. He has pressures. We have to understand that.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Well, I think it really goes back to a basic arrogance which you as a young person had to confront. I mean, after all, you volunteered for combat in Vietnam; you\u2019d been a schoolteacher there after you left Yale, and then before you went back, and then you left again. But the story of your life is really going between a notion of American innocence and virtue, and then being a soldier out there and seeing the killing of innocent people elsewhere. What Martin Luther King\u2014here we are in Black History Month; we just celebrated Martin Luther King\u2019s birthday. And most people, and certainly young people\u2014you never hear it mentioned that Martin Luther King condemned the United States, at the time of his death and before that, as the major purveyor of violence in the world today. The major purveyor of violence in the world today, his government, the United States.<\/p>\n

Now, what we had with Gorbachev\u2014the reason I say we liked Putin, because Putin was not with Gorbachev, he was with Yeltsin; and Gorbachev was the na\u00efve one, and Reagan promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand. The whole reason of NATO was supposed to be a Cold War organization. Gorbachev thought he was ending the Cold War; he was very proud of this. And Reagan seemed to accept that. And instead, this Cold War organization of NATO has grown; it\u2019s unwieldy, because it includes Turkey, it includes all kinds of countries that you suddenly find you\u2019re not in agreement with, and a couple of them are closer to Russia in this respect. And you know, it\u2019s hard to organize\u2014it\u2019s like organizing cats or something.<\/p>\n

But the fact of the matter is, NATO was no longer supposed to be this vital organizing\u2014what happened to the UN? In the joint Russia-Chinese statement, even though the Chinese had bad experience with the UN in the Korean War, they fought Korean troops and so forth\u2014nonetheless, in that joint statement that Putin and Xi signed, they say: What happened to the UN? What is this NATO thing? What is this Western military alliance that is coming to our door? I think that\u2019s the big issue of our time. And unfortunately, it\u2019s only older people seem to have any memory of what the Cold War was supposed to be about, and what is it doing now.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>[Laughs] You\u2019re very funny, Bob. That\u2019s great, you have a lot of passion. I think NATO, as you say, has taken the place of the UN in many people\u2019s minds. But it shouldn\u2019t, because it\u2019s an alliance with people from the West who seem to have one interest, one blinkered interest in taking over and changing things. In Libya, as I said earlier; in Iraq; in Afghanistan. They are interfering everywhere in the world, and Russia and China both recognize that and are worried about it.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s a destabilization that we keep putting out into the world. It\u2019s what I call a strategy of tension. The concept, for example, of saying in our immediate, day by day\u2014since October it\u2019s been a crescendo of imminent invasion of Ukraine by the Russians. Russian invasion, invasion\u2014the word \u201cinvasion.\u201d This is not an accurate word. Russia was not interested in invading Ukraine at all. What they are interested in doing is protecting the people of Donbass. That\u2019s where this thing comes.<\/p>\n

When the Crimean situation\u2014if you look at the film I worked on, Ukraine on Fire, it\u2019s very interesting; you see the people of Crimea at the hottest moment of the crisis. And you know what was happening? The nationalists, the Nazi groups, were coming into Crimea in order to cause trouble. And they saw them coming and they cut them off at the roads. We show it, how acute, how perceptive the Crimeans were. They knew who the enemy was. They stopped them from coming into Crimea.<\/p>\n

And you know what the Ukrainian army that was stationed in Crimea did? The United States never tells you this in the press. They stayed in their barracks; they stayed in their barracks in Crimea. There was no violence at all. Not one person was killed. There was no gunfire. Crimea went into the referendum at peace. And the referendum, as you know, to rejoin Russia, carried by a huge amount, by ninety-some, ninety-seven, eight percent.<\/p>\n

So why was there no violence? If it was an unhappy situation, and these people truly wanted to join the Ukraine, why was there no violence? That is a very interesting point, and people don\u2019t recognize. Same thing is true about Donbass. People don\u2019t recognize the murders that happened in Donbass, the artillery and the shelling, and the Ukrainian army moving in.<\/p>\n

The whole situation last year\u2014the only reason the Russian invasion has been hyped by the Western press is because the Ukrainian army upped its troop numbers and its armaments on the border of Donbass. So it looked like they were about to make a move on Donbass. They were getting javelin missiles from the United States, they were getting other weapons, and they were adding soldiers. They were trained by American advisors who are there, American\u2014all kinds of specialists are in the country. Green Berets, Special Forces\u2014it\u2019s an operation. The United States has put more, has put a heavy amount of investment of our energy and time into destabilizing Donbass.<\/p>\n

And that was supposed to be the move, I think, and I think it\u2019s still a possibility. There was supposed to be a move in the winter, this winter, into Donbass. If they had done that, think about it, that would have been\u2014that\u2019s why the Russian troops were brought\u2014actually the Russian troops were not brought to the border; that\u2019s another lie. The Russian troops were where they were, in their barracks. Close to the border, but not on the border.<\/p>\n

So when\u2014follow my thinking here\u2014when William Burns, the CIA chief, goes to Europe in October, he takes with him these satellite photographs, which he shows to the Europeans in the belief that they would follow us in our plan. The satellite photos were completely false. Again, they transposed the satellite photos to look as if they were on the border of Ukraine. And that was the aggression charge, that the Russian troops were about to invade\u2014which was just simply not true; they were in their barracks. They were in their bases in Russia at that point. So you have this buildup of a fake invasion, a false flag invasion, and yet you keep hearing that; that\u2019s what concerns me.<\/p>\n

So think about it. If the Ukrainians go in\u2014oh, that\u2019s another thing they said. They said the Russians are planning a false flag operation in Ukraine to show that the Ukrainians are moving into Donbass. To show all the destruction. And that will be the reason for the Russian, quote, invasion. OK\u2014so this is all staged. This is all staged, like an action, frankly, in Syria. We did this several times in Syria to blame the Russians for using poison gas. Same thing is true in Ukraine. They were looking\u2014the reason the United States put that information out there that the Russians were creating a false flag and were going to invade, was because we were going to do it. We were going to support the nationalists to go into Donbass to attack the separatists. And if that had been the case, then Russia would have reacted.<\/p>\n

But we were preparing the world to condemn Russia for that. We were preparing the world through our propaganda, which was extensive and worldwide, that Russia was the bad guy for having come in, tried to defend the Donbass people. It was a very disgusting but typical CIA operation. Typical of them, to put\u2014in other words, they did the same thing numerous times now; they keep doing it. It\u2019s annoying, because people don\u2019t see the pattern. They did it with Julian Assange. They\u2019re doing it with\u2014they create this flags that they are doing, and they say, \u201che did it.\u201d Do you understand what I\u2019m saying?<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Oh, I understand it all too well. And I do want to bring up another, a book that you wrote\u2014I forget your coauthor, but he was a well-known historian on the history of the Cold War. Help me here. Hello?<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>Peter Kuznick.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Yeah. And what is so interesting\u2014I mean, look, you know, we\u2019re older guys; I\u2019m older than you. But the fact of the matter is, the notion of American innocence and exceptionalism has reasserted itself. And once again with the Democrats\u2014they\u2019re much better at this than the Republicans. The Republicans seem out for markets and business and so forth; the Democrats always have this fake idealism. And what you documented in that book was a history of false flag operations on both sides.<\/p>\n

I want to reiterate this: I had hoped at this point in our history that nationalism would have receded; that people would not be dying over nationalism. And nationalism is always betrayed, until some big emperor comes up, and then they say, we\u2019re not nationalists, we\u2019re a civilization. But I mean, the Kurds didn\u2019t get anything from U.S. manipulation of the Kurds in Iraq and Syria; they\u2019re not getting a state. And nationalism was played within the old Yugoslavia, and where is the benefit there? Where is the benefit in Iraq?<\/p>\n

So in the name of nationalism, whether we\u2014now we claim we care about the Ukrainians. Do we really? Does the U.S. really care about\u2014you know, it\u2019s interesting. The only reason I\u2019m in the United States, [Laughs] or at least part of me, is my mother was a refugee from the Russian revolution. She left after the revolution; she was a Lithuanian. And you know what? She trusted the Russian communists, more than she did the Lithuanian nationalists or the Ukrainian nationalists, to care about the Jews. Because they certainly didn\u2019t care about the Jews before, and a very significant number of concentration camp guards and everything were drawn from the anti-Soviet nationalists in the Ukraine and Estonia, Latvia and so forth.<\/p>\n

And so nationalism is always played; you\u2019ll always find virtue on different sides. And I\u2019m not here to celebrate Putin or Xi\u2019s Chinese nationalism or anything else. I thought nationalism would decline. But as I see it, the main force in the world\u2019s nationalist preoccupation is the United States. They are the ones saying, you know, we are not nationalists; we represent civilization, democracy, and freedom. But we\u2019re going to back\u2014you know, we\u2019re going to back the Shiites against the Sunnis, because we think they\u2019ll be better. Well, they weren\u2019t better, and they also happened to be close to Iran. Or we\u2019re going to back this faction against that faction. And nothing has\u2014<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>ISIS, too.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Yeah, and nothing has to do with really giving voice to people. Giving voice to their concerns. They are just pawns. And I think, you know, we should really talk about the Democrats a little bit, because we drank from this Kool-Aid that somehow if we could just get these enlightened Democrats back in, we\u2019d be in better shape. Well, the enlightened Democrats gave us the Vietnam War that you, Oliver Stone, got a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for, you know. And saw what folly that war was; that was a Democrat war. And then they went out with the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover, with the support of Lyndon Johnson, to get Martin Luther King to kill himself because he dared oppose that war, and said it was wrong. You know, so he was going to be expendable. As long as we\u2019re in Black History Month, let\u2019s bring that up.<\/p>\n

But the fact of the matter is, there\u2019s been no accountability. And the people who claim they are wise and believe in peace and democracy\u2014no. They\u2019re quite cynical. And to take somebody like Victoria Nuland, who was involved in the machinations that overthrew a Ukrainian leader who happened to get along with Russia\u2014that was his crime. You know, he had other crimes and what have you\u2014that wasn\u2019t why he was overthrown. And the whole meddling, and the assumption that somehow you are on the side of virtue because you are the United States\u2014you\u2019ve lived your whole life with that, Oliver. You carried a gun for that, that hypocrisy.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>I know. I know, and listen, the behavior of the United States in all these instances that you mentioned has been reprehensible. And it\u2019s hard for me to say it, but it\u2019s our country, Bob. And we continue to question it for these reasons, and it seems that we keep going in this direction. We\u2019re really blundering, blundering into a possible disaster, I\u2019m talking about World War I-level, where because of our naivety\u2014you know, they always say god protects puppies and innocent people and the United States of America. But, just, we\u2019re blundering in a bad way.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>We\u2019re not na\u00efve. What are you talking about? The people may be caught up in what Huxley, the other dystopian writer, you know, in consumerism and they don\u2019t give a damn about the world, and they don\u2019t understand it very well. But our leaders are not na\u00efve, they\u2019re cynical. They\u2019re deeply cynical. They know there was no Russiagate, and they know this is all machinations and everything. And they\u2019re not interested, I don\u2019t think for a second\u2014I mean, Biden supported every irrational war. I don\u2019t think for a second he has a greater compassion about the needs of people around the world than Republican hawks. I mean, what, the neocons, they started out as Democrats, then they became Republicans, then they became Democrats again. And they\u2019re the same people in the State Department, and what they like is mischief. They think it\u2019s virtuous. And it has to do with their careers, it has to do with power. I know it\u2019s not na\u00efve; they know darn well they\u2019re not building a democracy there. And by the way, if you want peace and you want democracy, you\u2019ve got to go against nationalism. You\u2019ve got to contain it. And that\u2019s true for Putin as well. If Putin keeps stoking nationalist feelings, that\u2019s going to destroy Russia. And I must say, I thought this joint statement of the Chinese and the Russians was a game-changer. Because what they really said is, if we keep going down, the world goes down that road of nationalist division and stoking them and inventing them, you\u2019re going to have disaster. And that\u2019s what we\u2019re talking about now, we\u2019re talking about making not only Russia but China an enemy. You know, when the fact is the Chinese and the Russians would like to\u2014because they\u2019re conservative, basically, the Putin leadership\u2014they want to follow the Chinese model. They want to produce stuff, they want to be in this market global economy, right? And that\u2019s a vision based in trade, based on producing things, that one would hope would represent progress. Instead, we\u2019re back in the darkest days of the Cold War because there\u2019s a military-industrial complex, there are careerists, and they want war. They live off war.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>I can guarantee you that Mr. Putin is not at all interested in nationalism. He doesn\u2019t see nationalism the way you\u2019re seeing it. He sees national interests for Russia. And those interests are in the sphere of that area around Russia, which is [unclear] violated constantly by air exercises and land exercises, gigantic operations in the north and in the Black Sea, of Western allies, to warn Russia not to invade. The word \u201cinvasion\u201d\u2014it\u2019s unbelievable, in my lifetime I remember Vietnam and I remember the New York Times writing about how dangerous Vietnam was because of the communists. But I\u2019ve never seen the word \u201cinvasion\u201d every day in the New York Times. Russian aggression, invasion\u2014they did it like an Orwellian propaganda word, and they use it over and over, so that if there comes to be a fight, you will automatically register \u201cRussian invasion.\u201d That will be the first reaction, rather than \u201cUkrainian invasion of Donbass.\u201d It\u2019s a very sick game, and [unclear] It\u2019s called the great game. It\u2019s what these people do for a living; they play the great game. They raise the strategic tension wherever they can, the pot boils, and they take advantage of it.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Well, I agree with that. The point I was trying to make about nationalism is that this will always be a force in the world. People find reasons to celebrate their own interests, their own culture, and attack others. The point of wisdom is to try to see past that, and to try to find common interests. And I do want to say\u2014I want to end this by talking about your Putin interviews, because I hope anyone listening to this will watch that Showtime, four-part series, or will get the book based on it. And full disclosure, by the way\u2014I wrote and introduction to your book, you might not remember I did. But I want to say, how\u2014if we are thinking about war here, and what does this guy Putin want, and people ask me that all the time\u2014you would at least have the obligation to take this work that you did, where you engaged this guy. And it\u2019s absolute bull to say you don\u2019t ask tough questions; that\u2019s a lot of crap, you know. These were very good interviews. And to put somebody, this Masha Gessen who now writes for the New Yorker and is in the Ukraine kind of stoking this whole thing\u2014for the New York Times to really, dare I say it, just pee on your work\u2014it was just awful. And not, by the way, telling; there was no great revelation there. But the idea that we don\u2019t have to\u2014like reading this declaration. Any serious person should read the Chinese-Russia declaration. You may disagree with all of it, but you\u2019ve got to read it. Five thousand words. What are they talking about? How did these two very different countries\u2014which by the way had racial tensions historically, didn\u2019t get along even in the heyday of communism, were shooting at each other. I happened to go from Russia to China, I was there during the Cultural Revolution, I know how they were at their border and everything else, I was in Vietnam as well. So somehow or other, they\u2019re alarmed about us. They\u2019re alarmed about American hegemony. And you know, one is a communist country\u2014China, still; one is an anti-communist country, Russia, I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any question; Putin does not want a return to any kind of communist state of any sort. And yet this is a cry for reason, this statement saying, what are you guys doing? What is this Western alliance? Do you still think you can control the world and not pay attention to what we\u2019re concerned about? And it\u2019s not going to work, for that reason. You can\u2019t blackmail them now.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>Yeah, thank god. But you know, objectively speaking, the United States\u2014think about it, it\u2019s just more secure from external danger than at any time since before World War I. We don\u2019t have any enemies capable or desirable of using military force against us, our territory [unclear]. You know, China is not Japan, and Russia is not Germany in those years.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>Yeah, but Russia still has a very formidable nuclear force. And one of the things\u2014remember, I wrote a book called With Enough Shovels<\/em> about Reagan\u2019s, the delusion during the Reagan administration about winning a nuclear war. And our indifference to something Putin talks a lot about in your interviews: the need for arms control, the need for stability. That concerns the Chinese as well. And all this Victoria Nuland stuff, and all this, you know, let\u2019s bait \u2018em, let\u2019s bait \u2018em, let\u2019s stick our finger in the eye of the Russian bear\u2014all that ignores the element of irrationality.<\/p>\n

You brought up the missile crisis, and what John Kennedy learned was hey, it could all go kaput in a matter of minutes. And that\u2019s the world we\u2019re playing with now. And that\u2019s why I bring up other people\u2019s nationalism, and the pressure from their community. Don\u2019t forget, it was Khrushchev, who was a Ukrainian, that gave Crimea supposedly to the Ukrainian state, which was like, you know, taking something from New Jersey and giving it to New York. They\u2019re supposed to be part of the same country. It was Stalin who was a Georgian, right, who thought Georgia should be incorporated into greater Russia.<\/p>\n

You know, so we just\u2014look, I was in the Ukraine because a year after Chernobyl I was at the plant and I could not for the life of me tell who was Russian and who was Ukrainian. You know, and they had joint responsibility for creating and for mishandling this mess, OK? And it wasn\u2019t like, oh, they\u2019re the good guys over there, they\u2019re actually more born in Kiev and not near the Russian\u2014it was all garbage. They were all talking Russian, they all had the same power structure that they were part of. And so yes, it is largely an invention.<\/p>\n

But what I\u2019m saying is\u2014again, let this be a positive part of this interview, and I want to end by talking about Alexander. Because I think it\u2019s one of your great works, and it applies here. Because Alexander was the idea that maybe there could be a good emperor. But there can\u2019t be. It\u2019s a contradiction in terms. You can be enlightened with the best of Greek philosophy; you can have the best intentions; you can have the widest-open eyes. But at the end of the day, whether you\u2019re the Roman emperor, whether you\u2019re Alexander, or whether you\u2019re the U.S. hegemony over the world, your stated intentions have nothing to do with your capacity to contain evil. It\u2019s just the opposite. And that was the message from Orwell, invoking about the use of the enemy, and we ought to take it seriously.<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>I agree. I think that\u2019s very well said, Bob.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>All right. Well, thanks for doing this, Oliver. And again, can they still see the Showtime interview on Putin? Is it still up there?<\/p>\n

OS: <\/strong>You can go to Amazon, you know, just regular Amazon, and you can rent it there. I\u2019m sure you can rent it on iTunes and all the other platforms. It\u2019s on Showtime also, but some people don\u2019t have Showtime. Definitely widely available.<\/p>\n

RS: <\/strong>All right. The Putin Interviews, and it\u2019s a dozen interviews done over a two-year period. And I defy anybody to watch that. I watched it very carefully before I wrote an intro to the print version of this, you know; very carefully. I think I watched it six or seven times before I wrote a word there. I think it\u2019s a marvelous piece of journalism. I really do. I think it\u2019s a very important insight into a guy who, whether you like it or not, has power, has to be dealt with, has to be dealt with seriously. It doesn\u2019t mean you cave or you give in or nothing matters. But the fact of the matter is, you won\u2019t be able to just dismiss Putin in some simplistic terms if you watch this movie openly.<\/p>\n

So let\u2019s leave it at that. That\u2019s it for this edition of Scheer Intelligence. Christopher Ho posts these at KCRW. Joshua Scheer is our executive producer. Natasha Hakimi Zapata writes the introduction. Lucy Berbeo does the transcription. See you next week with another edition of Scheer Intelligence.<\/p>\n

______________________________________________________<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Oliver Stone \u2013 Academy Award-winning director, screenwriter and producer. www.oliverstone.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Robert Scheer is the editor-in-chief of <\/em>ScheerPost.com. He has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his nearly 60 years as a journalist. His columns appear in newspapers across the country, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. Between 1964 and 1969 he was Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor in chief of <\/em>Ramparts magazine. From 1976 to 1993 Scheer served as a national correspondent for the <\/em>Los Angeles Times, writing on diverse topics such as the Soviet Union, arms control, national politics and the military. In 1993 he launched a nationally syndicated column based at the <\/em>Los Angeles Times, where he was named a contributing editor. Scheer has written eight books, including\u00a0two this decade:<\/em>T<\/a>he Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street while Mugging Main Street<\/a>, and his newest book<\/em> is\u00a0They Know Everything about You: How Data-Collecting Corporations and Snooping Government Agencies Are Destroying Democracy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Go to Original – scheerpost.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

11 Feb 2022 – The creator of the Showtime documentary series \u201cThe Putin Diaries\u201d speaks to Robert Scheer about the escalating crisis in Ukraine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":91891,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[225],"tags":[2197,1035,1268,1284,2092,818,253,278,961,70,92],"class_list":["post-205063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-spotlight","tag-biden","tag-eastern-europe","tag-european-union","tag-false-flag","tag-oliver-stone","tag-proxy-war","tag-putin","tag-russia","tag-ukraine","tag-usa","tag-violent-conflict"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205063","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205063\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/91891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}