We support all the political forces, including the opposition forces, and we’re going to continue to do that.
– CIA (1)
Regrettably, the general principle in some countries is to support people who have extreme views to get help fighting people who are seemingly their enemies. The radicals understand that the intelligence services want to use them to fight for their own interests and they get money, they get support, they get arms, and then they deal a heavy blow to their benefactors.
Let me say once again that the best way is not to add fuel to these disputes, to these contradictions. These disputes should not be tried, shouldn’t be used to secure someone’s position in the region. – Putin (2) (3)
Author: Oliver Stone (1946-)
Publisher: Hot Books
(US, January 1, 2017)
This book is recommended for understanding Putin and cross-ideological manipulation by intelligence agencies of today because it can provide insightful knowledge and viewpoints to the themes. The latter as a common media phenomenon is the critically important today on international politics. In other words, it is essentially about media literacy and rampant influencer marketing (commercial star system).
The foreign ministry blames Tokyo for “unacceptable rhetoric towards the Russian Federation, including defamation and direct threats,” which are “repeated by public figures, experts and representatives of the Japanese media, and completely subjected to the Western bias” towards the country. (4)
For instance, on May 4, 2022, Russia’s Foreign Ministry blacklisted 63 Japanese ruling figures. Among them are ‘opposition’, ‘leftist’, ‘liberal’, ‘pro-independence’, ‘anti-imperialist’ stars like Japanese Communist Party’s Kazuo Shii 志位和夫 (1954-) and ‘Ozawa Children’ The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan‘s Yuko Mori 森裕子 (1956-) etc.. It seems that Japanese sheeple in the opposition camp got confused yet it indicates that Japan’s ruling parties and opposition parties are just CIA parties. And unanimously participated in the “unprecedented anti-Russian campaign” led by Kishida’s administration (in fact, the US government). People should distinguish that opposition is part of the establishment not dissidents at all. No dissidents are part of neither governing structures nor media. In the establishment, so called ‘influencers’ are plants to promote ruling parties’ agendas or maintain vested interests or contain dissidents.
One of typical Japanese features in politics is that they have no consistency in ideologies thus an pro-Russia public figure could be anti-China. In other words, the ‘anti-US imperialist’ yakuza group like Issuikai (一水会; https://baike.baidu.hk/item/一水會/9649136 ) is very supportive of US-backed anti-China colour revolutions and Hong Kong separatists against China simultaneously while posing as ‘pro-Russia’. There is no consistency in their political stance thus it is only for personal benefits to exploit Russia in their own internal battles. Unfortunately so called ideological purity totally disappeared from today’s atmosphere. Instead, cross-ideological manipulation is standard and dominant. For instance:
【新唐人2010年3月7日訊】3月6日，日本「一水會」的代表木村三浩，在東京觀看神韻演出後向記者表示，神韻包含著強大的神的訊息，而中共懼怕這樣充滿真實和美的聲音。On March 6, 2010, Mikihiro Kimura, a representative of Japan's Issuikai, told reporters after watching a Shenyun (Falun Gong) performance in Tokyo that Shenyun contains a powerful message of God, and that the Chinese Communist Party fears such a voice full of truth and beauty. (5)
Again, opposition is part of establishment. And opposition stars are ‘influencers’ with different colours for the establishment itself. The main function of the opposition figures is to contain real dissidents. People should realize the difference between oppositionists and dissidents. True dissidents are independent and totally out of the establishment including media. Dissidents act purely for social causes without commercial interests while opposition pubic figures are making money and reputation out of social issues and tragedies.
For readers, Oliver’s book is helpful to realize the mechanism of the ruling system, especially about the narrative control.
Q1 On the collapse of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev’s Perestroika:
[Socialist ideas] These are not ideas of Gorbachev. These ideas were put forward by the French socialist Utopians, so Gorbachev has nothing to do with these ideas. Gorbachev was responding to the circumstances. I reiterate – his merit is that he felt this need for changes. And he tried to change the system. Not even change, he tried to renovate it, to overhaul it. But the problem is, this system was not efficient at its roots. And how can you radically change the system while preserving the country? That’s something no one back then knew – including Gorbachev. And they pushed the country towards collapse. (6)
Well, I told you that Gorbachev didn’t understand what had to be done, what the objectives were and how to reach them. And yet he was the first to make a step towards giving the country its freedom, and that was a historical breakthrough. Quite an evident fact – and the same thing goes for Yeltsin. Just as any one of us, he had his problems, but he also had his strong side and one of those advantages was that he never tried to avoid, to shirk responsibility, personal responsibility. He knew how to assume responsibility. Even though certainly he had his demons. (7)
Comment: This is a wholistic view on the collapse of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev. And the point is that Putin himself does not think that the USSR was collapsed by the US. Obviously, it was mainly due to internal causes of Russia itself.
Q2 On privatization and the oligarchic system:
I didn’t stop privatization. I just wanted to make it more equitable, fairer. I did everything so that state property was not sold for free. We put an end to some schemes – manipulation schemes – which led to the creation of oligarchs. These schemes that allowed some people become billionaires in the blink of an eye. With all due respect to Wassily Leontief, the American of Russian origin and Nobel Prize winner in economics. And when he was alive, I met him, and I attended his lectures and I listened to him talk. He said that property was supposed to get into the hands of people who deserve it – that’s what he thought. I think that in our conditions, in the Russian conditions, it led to the legal enrichment of a whole category of people. And it also led to a situation where the government either lost control of strategic industries or just led to the destruction of those industries. So, my goal was not to stop privatization, but to make it more systematic, more equitable. (8)
I believe that the privatization laws at the beginning of the 1990s were not just. But if we were to conduct de-privatization, as I said before, it would have been even more damaging to the economy and to the lives of common people. And that’s what I told the big business leaders, that was a frank discussion. I told them that the previously existing schemes were to be phased out of existence. I told them that laws were supposed to become fairer and more just. And I also told them that business was to assume more social responsibility. And many businessmen, most of them, conformed to the new laws. Do you know who was not happy about the new laws? Those who were not true businessmen. Those who earned their millions or billions not thanks to their entrepreneurial talents, but thanks to their ability to force good relationships with the government – those people were not happy. (9)
Comment: Kleptocracy led the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries into humanitarian crises including today’s hottest topic Ukraine. How about the Hong Kong oligarchic system of governance? In fact, the SAR and CCP governments tend to preserve the oligarchs like Putin. However, Hong Kong oligarchs are only devastating lives of Hongkongers while Putin successfully cut poverty population in the 2000s by handling oligarchs. In 2019, it’s 12.3% poverty population.
The OECD poverty rate: Lessons from the Russian case
Q3 On intelligence reports:
I do not read abstracts. I always read documents – the original ones. I never use analytical materials provided to me by the intelligence services. I always read separate documents. (10)
Comment: It differs from newsreaders checking headlines to select articles. It is about intelligence or any other professional reports. That is why intelligence reports regularly must contain original texts and referential information to check origins. This format itself is essential to secure trustworthiness.
Q4 On Stalin:
I think that excessive demonization of Stalin is one of the ways to attack the Soviet Union and Russia, to show that the Russia of today has something originating from Stalinism. Well, of course we all have these birthmarks. What I’m saying is Russia has changed radically, but there is no going back to Stalinism, because the mentality of the people has changed. As to Stalin himself, he arrived in power with wonderful ideas that he was propounding. He was talking about the need for equality, fraternity, peace… but of course he turned into a dictator. I don’t think that in a situation like that anything else would have been possible. I’m referring to that situation in the world. Was it any better in Spain, or in Italy? Or in Germany? There are many countries where the government was based in tyranny.
But of course, this doesn’t mean that he was not capable of bringing together the people of the Soviet Union. He managed to organize resistance to fascism. And he even conformed himself to some of the decisions which were offered to him by his generals. This doesn’t mean, however, that we must forget all the atrocities Stalinism committed- the destruction of millions of our compatriots, the extermination camps. These things are not to be forgotten. And he is an ambiguous figure. I think at the end of his life he was in a very difficult position – a very different mental situation, I believe, but that requires an impartial study. (11)
Comment: Putin’s view on Stalin is quite balanced. Indeed, the excessive demonization of Stalin is to downgrade today’s Russia in terms of politics. Therefore anti-Soviet, de-communization seen in the 1990s only brought cultural destruction as cancel culture. Furthermore, it is the same for China that excessive demonization of Mao is unbeneficial for CCP itself.
Q5 Yeltsin Administration (1992-2001) and American Advisors:
There were many economic advisers from the United States working with the Central Government and the administration of President Yeltsin. And since we were in St. Petersburg, we had little to do with it.
Comment: Many people of today simply think Yeltsin as a US puppet yet Putin doesn’t. He partially and conditionally admitted that US government infiltrated the Yeltsin administration during 1990s especially in the economic field.
OS: But you joined with Yeltsin in 1995, right?
VP: 1996, to be more exact. […] we saw the discussions between the American School of Economics and the Europeans, the majority of whom were not entirely approving of the recommendations which we were given by the Americans. (By Yegor Gaidar; Chubais; Andrei Nechaev)
I refer to the privatization of state property. And to be frank we couldn’t interfere within this process, and we didn’t.
OS: Now, looking back at it, was this a private effort or did you feel the presence of the American government as well?
VP: I think both. Both the private sector and the government. Certainly, the private sector was taking an active part in this process. But no doubt under the control of the central government.
Europeans thought that unchecked privatization that was conducted in Russia wouldn’t lead to raising the efficiency of the economy. (12)
Comment: As they said, so called ‘shock therapy’ (unchecked, uninterferable privatization of the state properties) created pro-Western oligarchs in a blink of an eye. Both Putin and European critics on this issue were and sill are correct historically.
Q6 On the American Intelligence Agencies:
…in Afghanistan, we supported the United States. And we allowed them to use our territory to supply weapons and other cargo.
OS: And continued to do so until recently. [July 3, 2015]
VP: Yes. We believe that this cooperation is in our national interest. […] We assume that the Cold War was over, that we had transparent relations with the United States, with the whole world, and we certainly counted on support. But instead, we witnessed the American intelligence services support terrorists. [e.g., Al Qaeda-related religious radicals of Caucasus and Chechnya]
Note: They not only transfers weapons to them but also, they transfer those fighters, too. Logistic support (technical support) is often ignored by critics.
[…] 2005 or 2004. Some time had passed, and we received a response from the American intelligence services:
We support all the political forces, including the opposition forces, and we’re going to continue to do that.
[…] this bureaucracy, which still clings to the ideas that you’ve talked about – namely the possibility to use fundamentalism to destabilize the situation. Well, these are still alive. […] our American partners were talking about the need to cooperate, including in fighting terrorism but, they were using those terrorists to destabilize the internal political situation in Russia. (13)
Regrettably, the general principle in some countries is to support people who have extreme views to get help fighting people who are seemingly their enemies.
The thing is, the greatest problem is, distinguishing between these people is impossible. Because these people also evolve and change. They conform to conditions and it’s impossible to understand who is using whom – whether the intelligence services of the United States are using Islamic radicals. The radicals understand that the intelligence services want to use them to fight for their own interests and they get money, they get support, they get arms, and then they deal a heavy blow to their benefactors. Or they transfer part of their money, weapons or equipment to other armed units and are involved in activities which are not welcomed by the benefactors or those who support this or that country’s unit. The same is happening with ISIS right now. The same thing. When there is this talk about the need to support the opposition in Syria – the normal opposition, they are given money, they are given weapons, and then it turns out that some of them defected to ISIS. And our partners recognized that. But it’s a systemic mistake which is repeated always. This is the same thing which happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And right now, it’s happening in the Middle East. (14)
Comment: Unlike Oliver Stone’s interpretation, before and after 911, Russia firmly had supported the US and its WAR ON TERRORISM in Afghanistan (October 7, 2001-August 30, 2021). Their security cooperation in Afghanistan had lasted until the US withdrawal in 2021. Putin / RT thought the US presence in Afghanistan was to prevent spread of terrorism.
We support all the political forces, including the opposition forces, and we’re going to continue to do that.
This part is the most important one in terms of today’s political situations. It perfectly explains that why US intelligence agencies support both ruling and opposition political parties of various colors in every country including allies and enemies. This fact is what the most people still don’t accept. For example, Japanese opposition supporters still wrongly think that those opposition ‘influencers’, ‘stars’ and ‘critics’ within establishment are supportive of oppositionists and dissidents. In fact, every major conflict with China or Russia reveals who they are. People must know that true and real dissidents are totally out of establishment. And genuine dissidents only act for social causes not for money, LIKEs and reputation.
US intelligence agencies use all kinds of political forces and colors if they are useful to destabilize targets or maintain American order within a country. This also explains that why US and Canada had trained and still support Neo-Nazi military forces in Ukraine to destabilize Russia. It is their typical and effective principle.
Q7 Russia-US relations:
Overall, the relationships dampened because the United States supported terrorist groups in the Caucasus. That has always been a problem in our bilateral relations. Not just with the President, but in practice we saw that their actions were completely contrary to what they were telling us. And then our relations were dampened even further because of Iraq. There were other issues as well which were of concern to us. For instance, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM system. (15)
Comment: This part is frequently cited and exactly about the beginning of today’s US-Russia military confrontation.
Q8 On Snowden and Mass Surveillance of US and Russia:
Our first contact with Mr. Snowden was in China. [Hong Kong] We were told back then that this was a person who wanted to fight for human rights and against violations of human rights. And that we had to do that together. I’ll probably disappoint many people, probably even you, but I said we wanted nothing to do with that. We didn’t want to do that because he had quite difficult relationships with the United States as it was, and we didn’t want to aggravate those relations. And Mr. Snowden didn’t want to give us any information, he was just urging us to fight together, and he must be credited with that. But when it turned out we were not willing to do that yet, not ready, he just disappeared.
But then I got a report that Snowden’s on a plane bound for Moscow and that he was supposed to get on another plane and fly to Latin America, if I’m not mistaken. But it turned out that the countries he wanted to fly to were not quite happy about receiving him. Secondly, this is not out information, this information comes from other sources and that information was leaked to the press while he was on the plane. And it turned out that he could not continue his journey. And he stuck in the transit area.
Note: Organizations behind the Snowden’s departure from Hong Kong are still mysterious not fully established. 1) Not Russians; 2) WikiLeaks; 3) Hong Kong government; 4) the Guardian; 5) South China Morning Post etc. CIA operatives like the opposition helped Snowden to leave Hong Kong safely. There is apparently no ideological consistency among the supposed contributors on this event in terms of Hong Kong politics. In fact, it reversely reflects what Hong Kong politics is.
[…] according to our law, Snowden didn’t violate any law – he didn’t commit any crime. That’s why in the absence of this agreement on mutual extradition, given the fact that the US has never extradited any criminals to us who sought asylum in the United States, we had no choice. It was impossible for us to unilaterally extradite Snowden as the United States was asking us to do.
……Snowden is not a traitor. He didn’t betray the interests of his country. Nor did he transfer any information to any other country which would have been pernicious to his own country or to his own people. The only thing Snowden did he did publicly. And it’s quite a different story.
OS: Right. Did you agree with what he did?
…I think he shouldn’t have done it. If he didn’t like anything at his work, he should have simply resigned – that’s all. But he went further……I think it’s wrong.
OS: So, you do agree the NSA went too far. And how do you feel about Russian intelligence activities in their surveillance.
VP: I think they’re working quite well. But it’s one thing to work well within the framework of the existing legislation. And it’s quite another story if you violate the law. Our surveillance services always conform to the law. That’s the first thing. And secondly, trying to spy on your allies – if you really consider them allies and not vassals – is just indecent. It’s not done. Because it undermines trust. And it means that in the end it damages your own national security.
Comment: Snowden only publicized what he publicly had done in Hong Kong about the NSA’s bulk surveillance on allied leaders, US citizens and foreigners even outside of the US. However, too many ‘dissident’ conspiracy theorists further extended it beyond its realities and fabricated numerous fake stories (e.g., PLA’s gun fight with CIA in Macau). So called bulk surveillance is regularly done even without consent from the public in every country (for this, no country can hypocritically blame US and Russia) and every region including search engines, websites, smartphone applications and almost all social network services etc. Simply, no matter whether it is a private actor or state entity, everybody is doing the same thing. For instance, Taiwan’s National Security Bureau (it inevitably means US) is even spying on ‘friendly’ Japanese foreign ministry staff at Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association even though it’s under the DPP rule. This kind of practice is not a secret at all even before the Snowden incident (2013).
Q9 On Euromaidan and the Azov Battalion:
Yanukovych didn’t give an order to use weapons against civilians. And incidentally, our western partners, including the United States, asked us to influence him so that he did not give any orders to those weapons.
OS: I see. Have you heard of the Azov battalion?
VP: Yes, certainly. There are certain armed formations which are not accountable to anyone, nor are they accountable to the central authorities in Kiev. I believe that is one of the reasons why the current leadership cannot put an end to these hostilities. That is simply because they are frightened that these uncontrollable armed forces will return to the capital.
Note: Putin explained why the Ukrainian side initiated and continued the Donbass War. One of major driving forces is the Neo-Nazi.
Comment: The truce made between Yanukovych and the opposition was faithfully conformed by the police however it became a major factor of police forces’ surrender to rioters ultimately. The lesson learnt from this tragedy is that police cannot be disarmed in any circumstances and must use overwhelming forces to contain riots. No police violence on peaceful and legitimate protests is a reasonable and civilized manner but it should not be for riots or any mass violence beyond genuine peaceful demonstrations.
Q10 On Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis:
I’m not an admirer of Khrushchev but placing Soviet missiles in Cuba was prompted by the stationing of American missiles in Turkey, from the territory of which those missiles could easily reach the Soviet Union. And that’s why Khrushchev responded by stationing missiles in Cuba.
Cuba was not the one who initiated the Cuban missile crisis. (18)
Comment: In the mainstream narrative, there is no mention of what the US side did to Turkey in the first place which triggered the Soviet response. Both Soviet Union and Cuba did not even initiate the Cuban missile crisis at all.
Q11 On Post-Soviet Russia:
…we understand full well that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we lost 40 percent of our production capacities and the Soviet legacy was a semi-ruined and outdated economic management system, as well as technologies which were outdated. But at the same time, it gave us certain chances of making resolute steps to revive our economy and our social sphere. (19)
Comment: They lost 40% of production capacities mainly due to the split of the USSR. It is similar for loss of population as the same result.
Q12 On the Ukrainian debt to the IMF:
Incidentally, Russia not only paid back its debt to the IMF, but we also paid back the debt of all the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine’s debt, which was 16 billion US dollars. (20)
Comment: Russia paid back the IMF debt for Ukraine. This fact is almost ignored by even pro-Russia documentaries.
Q13 On the Power of the Working Class in the Soviet Union:
The working class was not the ruling class in the Soviet Union. (21)
Comment: This is the biggest issue for Marxism. And it is also the key lessen of the 20th century practices of scientific socialism. Contradictory, workers are not the ruling classes in so called socialist countries…
Q14 On the Nature of the WW2 and the Cold War:
OS: You realize World War 1 was the first war, but with the Second World War, we became a military industrial complex. We needed an enemy to build all these weapons.
VP: Yes, I think it’s not so much about ideological motives. It’s more about geopolitical rivalry. To this day, I believe, the mistake is that our partners in the United States still treat Russia as if it were their main geopolitical rival. (22)
Comment: The Cold War (1947-1991) was unanimously defined as ‘capitalism versus communism’ however the cold war among the US, Soviet Union and China was more about geopolitical contradictions. For instance, Sino-Soviet Split and Sino-US strategic cooperation against the USSR.
Q15 On the new Paradigm of Foreign Policy:
Certainly, you can try to use North Korea or some other countries to paint a darker picture, to elevate tensions there. But I think what’s needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm, a new philosophy for building relations among countries. And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interests of other countries, for the sovereignty of other people, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to shift sooner or later. (23)
Comment: Using outer threats to bluff targeted countries is to secure the US position in the region as perfectly witnessed in East and Southeast Asia. For this, the ‘China threat’, ‘North Korea threat’ and ‘Russia threat’ are useful tools to sell weapons to client states because they are told to believe that only the US help can resist these ‘external enemies’.
Q16 On the Role of IS, Terrorists and Mercenaries:
There are thousands of militants originating from former Soviet republics and from Russia who are fighting there [Syria]. And they can get back to Russia. And we should prevent that from happening.
OS: Well, when you’re talking about interfering parties, we’re talking about countries like Turkey? Are we talking about people like Saudi Arabia? We’re talking about people like Israel. And ultimately, the United States, France, Britain?
VP: Well, Israel to a lesser degree. Judging from what we see and from what we know, Israel is primarily concerned about the possibility of the spread of radical groups that might damage Israel. But when I was talking about interference from outside, I was talking about those who were sponsoring and arming, buying oil from terrorists and thereby funding them. And who does that? I think it’s very simple to determine, even not being a specialist or an intelligence officer.
……I think it was Israel’s defense minister and Greece’s defense minister who said publicly that they were seeing that radical groups were suppling oil to the Turkish territory. I assure you everyone knows that. And I was disenchanted by the US statement that they didn’t know anything about that.
The projected number of terrorists participating in ISIS is estimated at 80,000 people. 30,000 of them are foreign mercenaries from 80 countries of the world.
OS: Even Chechens?
VP: They are originating from 80 countries of the world. Including from Russia.
[…] In Vietnam, the United States was fighting the government, whereas in this region, terrorist organizations are trying to fight the government. Someone tries to use these terrorist groups to their ends to oust the government of Syria.
[…] And let me tell you that ISIS is not just laying claim to Syria or to Iran, they are also laying their claim to Libya and other territories up to Medea, Mecca, and Israel.
Comment: On the contrary to conspiracy theories, Israel does not support IS terrorists. In fact, Israel is a victim of conspiracy theories on this.
About the IS mercenaries, it resembles the pro-neo-Nazi foreign mercenaries in Ukraine who are from 63 countries around the world (a total of 6,824 fighters from 63 countries; mainly Europeans and Canadians). In fact, it includes IS members thus it is same that it’s from 80 countries more accurately.
Russia releases data on foreign mercenaries in Ukraine
On 7 July, the New York Times reported the presence of a Chechen volunteer force made up of ISIS sympathisers in territories disputed by Russian separatists and Ukrainian troops.
It appears that they have openly sided with Ukraine in a bid to weaken Russia and compel it to concentrate its forces on that country, drawing resources away from other fronts on which it is pitted against various Islamic terrorist groups.
To date, the Ukrainian authorities have made no attempt to deny the reports and have neither disowned these fundamentalist ISIS combatants nor sought to remove them from territory Ukraine has been claiming is its own.
Presence of ISIS combatants in areas disputed by Ukraine and Russia
Q17 On Bulk Surveillance:
OS: Is Russia collecting any bulk communication in any form?
VP: No, and I can assure you of that.
OS: Everything is sort of targeted?
VP: Absolutely. Special services are working with a targeted approach, but we do not collect bulk communications with the subsequent section. That’s not what’s happening.
Comment: Here it is only about the intelligence agencies not about the private sector. Today private sectors are also spying on citizens for their own purposes and cooperate with spy agencies on demand. Moreover, automation of the entire collecting process is just another technical issue.
Q18 CIA’s infiltration of both ruling and opposition parties of targets:
OS: […] So, your first term is coming to an end. In the middle of all this, and you told me a fascinating conversation on my first visit, in 2005 you complained to Bush about US support of terrorism in Central Asia. And that was an interesting story. And you said, I think it was the CIA had sent your Special Services a letter saying that they in fact supported the terrorists in Central Asia – something to that effect. Am I wrong?
VP: Yes, we had that conversation, but this was not about Central Asia. That was the following – according to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus. And I told the US president about that, and he said that he would sort it out, and that he would investigate it. Later, through our partner channels, we received a letter from the CIA which stated that ‘our colleagues thought they had the right to maintain contact with all the representatives of the opposition and that they were going to continue to do that.’ It even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku.
OS: And all this while they’re fighting the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Comment: It is not only opposition, but also always about both ruling and opposition forces including media of both camps. Today there are still numerous people unable to distinguish establishment and grass roots or specifically opposition and dissidents. The 99% of all established ‘influencers’, ‘stars’ and ‘experts’ well-known for us belong to the establishment as capitalists or its economic equivalents even though they are recognized ‘opposition’ figures. However, they are not dissidents at all.
Q19 RT and Putin’s ideological attitude on America:
We have never adhered to a pro-American position, per-se. We have always assumed a position aimed at ensuring our national interests. Back then, we thought it was necessary to forge good relations with the United States. And I still think that. I didn’t change my position in this regard. Our partners must change their attitude toward us. (26)
[…] We had opened to our Western partners. Suffice it to say to remind you that the former head of the KGB had opened to the US partners the whole system of surveillance in the American Embassy in Moscow. He told them everything about that thinking that the US was ready to do the same, with the Embassy of Russia in the United States. And that was not the most well-thought-through decision, because there was nothing in response from the United States. (27)
Comment: RT is neither leftist nor Marxist media at all. Its ideology is same with Putin that ‘always assuming a position that best fits advancing Russian national interests.’ Thus, it is essentially rightwing, conservative state media of Russia not literal independent media at all.
Q20 On JFK assassination:
As former head of the Russian FSB, I can say the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. (28)
Comment: It essentially means that it had nothing to do with the Soviet bloc. It was a sheer result of the inner politics of the United States.
Q21 On Fake News / Propaganda / Disinformation Capacity of American and European Journalists:
[…] your Western journalists are very talented people. They are capable of convincing people that black is white and vice versa. Just as an example – the tragic events, the assault against South Ossetia – Mr. Saakashvili publicly announced that he ordered his troops to commence that action. One of his dignitaries even spoke on television saying the same thing. I didn’t believe it when I heard it, when the media was accusing Russia of this attack. And millions of TV viewers believed that across the world. This is just astounding, this capacity that your American and European journalists can have. You’re all very talented. But when our journalists try to protect Russian national interests, when they take a stance, they are declared immediately the mouthpiece of Kremlin propaganda – much to my chagrin. (29)
Comment: It still happens today. Even one of Japanese major television networks (NHK, Nippon TV, Asahi TV, TBS, TV Tokyo, and Fuji TV), Asahi TV did the same thing on Russia that they reported the Russian army tanks with Z marks as Ukrainian army during a rescue operation for white-banded pro-Russian residents. All the Japanese television networks are anti-China / anti-Russia including Okinawan media even though Asahi and TV Tokyo have closer relations with opposition parties. Undoubtedly, as part of the establishment, Japan’s main opposition parties and their ‘stars’ (e.g., Tokyo Shimbun’s investigative journalist star Isoko Mochizuki / 望月衣塑子) are CIA-Dentsu parties to exploit and contain dissidents. Furthermore, satellites of the establishment like self-proclaimed independent media IWJ and its one of independent freelance journalist stars like Rei Shiba (志葉玲) are just plants.
Close friends of the ‘opposition’ Hatoyama-Uekusa-Magosaki cell like Tokyo Shimbun’s ‘star’ Isoko Mochizuki and IWJ-supported freelance ‘anti-War’ journalist Rei Shiba are just anti-Russia propagandists to push CIA-Dentsu narratives. There are no such ‘dissidents’ at all.
志葉さんは、ロシア軍が侵攻した別の地域でも同じことが起きているのではないかと懸念する。「戦争中であっても、民間人への攻撃は国際人道法で禁じられている戦争犯罪だ。プーチン大統領の責任は、国際法廷の場で追及されるべきだ」と憤った。Mr. Shiba is concerned that the same thing may be happening in other areas invaded by Russian troops. He said, "Even during war, attacks on civilians are war crimes prohibited by international humanitarian law. President Putin's responsibility should be pursued in an international court of law," he said angrily. – ‘Shimbunkisya’ 望月衣塑子 Isoko Mochizuki (30)
As we can see here, there is no fundamental difference among ‘freelance-anti-War journalist’ Rei Shiba, Tokyo Shimbun’s ‘opposition’ star ‘Shimbunkisya’ Isoko Mochizuki and TBS’s anti-Russia propagandist Shigenori Kanehira. All of them are not dissidents at all.
Q22 On Cyber Warfare:
OS: […] cyber warfare is not surveillance. But it’s with us, as pervasively as surveillance. In my film Snowden, he told me this story, he was in Japan stationed in 2007 /2008 and the NSA asked the Japanese to spy on their population. The Japanese said ‘no’ and we spied anyway.
Not only that but we went on once we knew their communication system to plant malware in their civilian infrastructures if Japan would no longer be an ally. Snowden also described similar situations in Brazil, Mexico, and many countries in Europe. It’s quite surprising that we would do this to our allies.
[…] VP: Since the early 1990s, we have assumed that the Cold War is over. Russia has become a democratic state. Of its own accord, Russia has been the one that initiated this process. We proposed that sovereignty should be granted to former Soviet republics. We thought there was no need to take any additional protective measures because we viewed ourselves as an integral part of the world community. Our companies, our state institutions, and administrative departments, they were buying everything – hardware and software. And we’ve got much equipment from the US, from Europe, and we use that equipment, it’s used by the intelligence services and by the defence ministry. But recently we certainly have become aware of the threat that all that poses. Only during recent years, have we started to think about how we can ensure technological independence, as well as security. Certainly, we give it much thought and we take appropriate measures. (31)
Comment: First, Snowden knows NSA/CIA implanted malware in Japan’s infrastructures because he simply did it as a contracted job. And his ‘exposure’ of the fact can be seen as an indirect delivery of the threat to Japan by the establishment. Besides this, the Japanese side is also spying on its citizens even without any consent from the public. Thus, there is something misleading element in this part.
Q23 On the Malware Attack against China:
OS: …Snowden is describing a situation where they’re basically doing cyber-attacks on China. This is in 2008/2009, in that era. I would imagine he never knew about the Russian side of the cyber question, but I would imagine Russia is having an ongoing battle with the United States. An ongoing battle, secret battle, with cyber warfare. I would just imagine that. I would imagine the United States is trying to do things to Russia. And Russia was trying to defend itself and do things to the United States. I would just imagine that as practical – I’m not making it up. That seems to me obvious.
VP: Maybe when there is an action there is always a counter action. (32)
Comment: This part of conversation reveals that why Snowden did not choose mainland China for asylum because he knew that he would be arrested for the cyber-attacks he conducted during 2008 and 2009 from Japan. This also explains that why US military personnel themselves are unwilling to individually enter mainland China for security reasons. One of military intelligence officers stationed in Japan once personally told me that ‘China knows who’s who.’ And China is generous on the Snowden issue. Why? China let Snowden to leave Hong Kong even without any effective passport. His passport was cancelled before leaving Hong Kong. Technically, he was impossible to continue his trip without the governmental help.
Q24 On International Affaires:
VP: Let me say once again that the best way is not to add fuel to these disputes, to these contradictions. These disputes should not be tried, shouldn’t be used to secure someone’s position in the region.
On the contrary, they must push forward in normal, positive, constructive dialogue with a view to finding solutions to the outstanding issues. (33)
Comment: This is the best suggestion for the US and European allies who are sending weapons to Ukraine for continuation of the ongoing war with Russia. There is no such pacifist that sends weapons to warring parties or fuels the conflict in any way.
This is undoubtedly the best book on Putin. Highly recommended!
1. Oliver Stone , Hot Books (US, January 1, 2017) ‘THE PUTIN INTERVIEWS’, pp.33-4.
2. Ibid., p.36.
3. Ibid., p.230.
4. https://www.rt.com, RT, (May 4, 2022) 'Russia blacklists Japanese PM.' Available at https://www.rt.com/news/554952-russia-blacklists-japanese-pm/
5. https://cn.ntdtv.com, NTDTV, (March 7, 2010) '一水會代表贊神韻傳遞神的訊息.' Available at https://cn.ntdtv.com/gb/2010/03/07/a395268.html
6. Oliver Stone , Hot Books (US, January 1, 2017) ‘THE PUTIN INTERVIEWS’, p.12.
7. Ibid., p.14.
8. Ibid., p.19.
9. Ibid., p.24.
10. Ibid., p.23.
11. Ibid., pp.25-6.
12. Ibid., pp.28-9.
13. Ibid., pp.33-4.
14. Ibid., p.36.
15. Ibid., p.51.
16. Ibid., pp.53, 54 and 55.
17. Ibid., pp.73-4.
18. Ibid., p.81.
19. Ibid., p.94.
20. Ibid., p.112.
21. Ibid., p.118.
22. Ibid., p.118.
23. Ibid., p.121.
24. Ibid., pp. 132, 133 and 141.
25. Ibid., p.179.
26. Ibid., p.182.
27. Ibid., p.183.
28. Ibid., p. 184.
29. Ibid., p.187.
31. Oliver Stone, Hot Books (US, January 1, 2017) ‘THE PUTIN INTERVIEWS’, pp.220-1.
32. Ibid., p.222.
33. Ibid., p.230.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.