If you could talk to Vladimir Putin once again, now, what kind of things would you talk about here?

What kind of questions would you ask?

The following is a conversation with Oliver Stone. He's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time

with three Oscar wins and 11 Oscar nominations. His films tell stories of war and power.

Fearlessly and often controversially, shining a light on the dark parts of American and global

history. His films include Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, Scarface, JFK, Nixon,

Alexander, W, Snowden, and documentaries where he has interviewed some of the most powerful

and consequential people in the world including Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin.

And in this conversation, Oliver and I mostly focus our discussion on Vladimir Putin, Russia,

and the war in Ukraine. My goal with these conversations is to understand the human

being before me, to understand not just what they think, but how they think, to steelman their

ideas, and to steelman the devil's advocate, all in service of understanding, not the origin.

I have done this poorly in the past. I'm still struggling with this,

but I'm working hard to do better. I believe the moment we draw lines between good people

and evil people will lose our ability to see that we're all one people in the most fundamental of

ways, and lose track of the deep truth expressed by the old Solzhenitsyn line that I've returned

to time and time again, that the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.

Oliver Stone has a perspective that he extensively documents in his powerful controversial series

The Untold History of the United States, that imperialism and the military industrial complex

paved the path to absolute power, and thus corrupt the minds of the leaders and institutions that

wield it. From this perspective, the way out of the humanitarian crisis and human suffering in

Ukraine, and the way out from the pull of the beating drums of nuclear war is not simple to

understand, but we must, because all of humanity hangs in the balance. I will talk to many people

who seek to understand the way out of this growing catastrophe, including to historians,

to leaders, and perhaps most importantly, to people on the ground in Ukraine and Russia.

Not just about war and suffering, but about life, friendship, family, love, and hope.

This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

And now, dear friends, here's Oliver Stone. You're working on a documentary now about nuclear

energy. Yes. So it's interesting to talk about this. Energy is such a big part of the world,

about the geopolitics of the world, about the way the world is. What do you think is the role of

nuclear energy in the 21st century? Good question. And first of all, obviously,

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 coauthor who's Swedish.

Those two wrote a book called Bright Future. A Bright Future came out a few years ago,

and I lapped it up. It was a book, fact based, clear, not too long and not too technical,

and it was very clear that they were in favor of all kinds of renewables, renewable energy, yes.

They hated, made it very clear how dangerous oil and gas were, methane, and made it very

clear to the layman like me, and at the same time said that these renewables can work so far.

But the gap is enormous as to how much electricity the world is going to need in 2050 and beyond.

Two, three, four times, we don't even know the damage, but we have India, we have China,

we have Africa, we have Asia coming on to the scene wanting more and more electricity.

So they address the problem as a global one, not just as often in the United States. You get the

ethnocentric United States point of view that we know we're doing well, blah, blah, blah.

We're not doing well, but we sell that to people that were comfortable. We spend more energy than

anybody in this country per capita than anybody, and at the same time, we don't seem to understand

the global picture. So that's what they did, and they made me very aware. So the only way to close

that gap, the only way in their mind is nuclear energy, and talking about a gap of building

a huge amount of reactors over the next 30 years, and starting now, they make that point over and

over again. So obviously, this country in the United States is not going to go in that direction,

because it just is incapable of having that kind of will, political will, and fear is a huge factor,

and still a lot of shibbles, a lot of myths about nuclear energy have confused and confounded the

landscape. The environmentalists have played a huge role in doing good things, many good things,

but also confusing and confounding the landscape and making accusations against nuclear energy that

were exaggerated. So taking all these things into consideration, we set about making this

documentary, which is about finished now, almost finishing. It's an hour and 40 minutes, and that

was a hard part, getting it down from about three and a half hours to about this something more

manageable. And is it interviews? It's interviews, among others, but essentially we went to Russia,

we went to France, which is the most perhaps advanced nuclear country in the world, Russia,

and the United States. We went to the Idaho laboratory and talked to the scientists there,

as well as the Department of Energy people that are handling this. Idaho is one of the

experimental labs in the United States. 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 the most advanced nuclear reactor in the world at Bellayarsk at the Ural Mountains.

So we did an investigation there. And in France, they have some very advanced

nuclear reactors in their building. Now they're building again. They had a little,

the Green Party came into power, just not into power, but became a factor in France,

and there was a motion. When Hollande was president, they started to move away from it.

Actually, they were beginning to just abandon, they let not complete their, in other words,

let close down some of the nuclear reactors. There was talk of that, but thank God, France did not

do that. And Mac home came in and recently reversed it, reversed it and their building as

fast as they can now, especially with the Ukraine war going on. There's an awareness that

that Russia will not be providing, may not be providing the energy Europe needs.

So, and then China is the other one too. That's the other factor. I'm talking about the big boys.

They have doing tremendous work and fast, which is very hopeful. But of course,

China is building in all directions at once. The coal continues to be huge in China and

methane too. But basically coal, coal in India, in China, the biggest users of coal.

And we know, as you know, Germany went back to coal a few years ago. So all these factors,

it's fascinating picture globally. So we try to achieve a consensus that where nuclear can work,

and where it will be working, it will be used more and more. The question is how much carbon

dioxide China and Russia will be putting out. France is the only one that's not putting it out.

The United States has not changed with all the talk and all the nonsense about renewables and

the new lifestyle and all this. It's great for your guilt complex, but it doesn't do anything

for the total accumulation of carbon dioxide in the world.

Who's going to lead the way on nuclear, do you think? You mentioned Russia, France,

China, United States. Who's going to lead? I don't think it's going to be a United Nations

kind of thing, because the world doesn't seem capable of uniting. We go to these conferences,

Kyoto, and we talk and we agree, but then we don't actually enforce. I don't think it can happen

that way. I think it's going to be an individual race with countries that are going to just do

it for their own self interest, like China is doing it. China, the thing is, if it works,

and I'm praying that it will really work on a big scale, China will back away from coal naturally.

The same thing will be true of India. They will see the benefits, because if you go to India,

you see the cities, the pollution. You walk around and that stuff, and you get,

there's no hope in this, and you sense it. People will move in this direction naturally,

because nuclear is clean energy. The amount of casualties of nuclear is the lowest on the industrial

scale for energy producing from coal down to oil, everything. The lowest casualty rate,

very lowest, 0.002 or something, is nuclear. Not that many people have died from nuclear,

not that many. I think 50 people at Chernobyl, which was the worst accident. Nobody died at

Fukushima. Nobody died at Three Mile Island, and that's what you hear all over and over again,

these accidents. The environmentalists have sold us the idea that they're dangerous,

and it's a lot of environmentalists, thank God, of changing it. They've come off that routine,

and they've said, we were wrong. We've done a lot of good work. Greenpeace did a lot of good work.

Whale, saving this, saving that, but they admit themselves. Not they don't, but people who have

been in the organization have said, we were wrong. In 1956, we show the articles in the

New York Times that came out. The Rockefeller Foundation, which, of course, is a big producer

of oil, the Rockefeller family, and the foundation came out with a study, which was weighted.

They tipped the scale, put a thumb on the scale, but it was a scientific expose of radiation

in the study that came out in the printed in the New York Times, because the New York Times

publisher, Salzburger, was on their board. He was one of the board members, so they got a lot of

strong publicity condemning radiation from which killed, started the process of doubting nuclear

energy. The radiation levels that they pointed out were very minor, and, of course, if you go

into a scientific analysis of this now with what we know, it's just not true, but it tilted the

scale back in the 50s, 60s, and started the questioning the nuclear business.

Do you think that was malevolence or incompetence?

No, I think it was competition. I don't think it was conspiracy as much as it was a sense.

We don't want this nuclear energy is going to end the dominance of oil. Absolutely,

and it will, and it will anyway, because it's the only sane way for the world to proceed,

but the world will have to learn through adversity. 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 change your thinking,

and humans are pretty good at that.

Yes. Talking about human nature, they're very adept at that. Germany, for example,

I mean, when the Fukushima happened, they went out of the nuclear business. That was shocking to

me. They just pulled out, and they destroyed several of their nuclear reactors that were

still functioning and put up coal and oil replaced it. As a result, Germany drifted into this place

next to France. Their electricity bills went up, and France stayed the same. They have a

different system in Europe, but more or less, no question that France was doing a lot better than

Germany. Now, with this Ukraine issue, it's a very interesting fulcrum point, whether Germany is

going, what direction they're going to go now? How can they keep going with coal? They just can't.

What's the connection between oil, coal, nuclear, and war? 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 history of energy at my fingertips, and it's a very long history here,

but I would say, apparently not. It does seem that individually each country can answer its needs

by building, and up until now, we haven't had conflict accepted in this issue of Russia supplying

Europe. Obviously, the pipeline Nord Stream 2 has been closed, and Nord Stream 1 is also

probably going to be phased out, and the concept of Russia supplying gas to Europe

is now up and near, 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 worse than coal, worse.

There's all kinds of charts we show in the film. We try not to be too overfactual,

but methane is not the answer. It's a short term answer.

Will countries go to war over energy is a question that I'm trying to think of all

the wars that happened. You could say Germany, of course, during World War II,

needed oil very badly, and it dictated their strategy with Romania, etc., and

it's getting the oil fields open. 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.

That's the question. I just have to ask, because you mentioned your mom was from France.

You've traveled, for this documentary, and you traveled in general throughout the world,

in Russia, Ukraine. What are the defining characteristics of these cultures? Let's go

with Russia. As I told you, I'm half Ukrainian, half Russian. I came from that part of the world.

What are some interesting, beautiful aspects of the culture of Russia and Ukraine?

I can't really speak honestly of Ukraine. I was there only in 1983 when I visited the

Soviet Union under the communism, and Kiev was beautiful and was one of the nicer places I went,

but they were very much stultified by the communist system. They all were. The best places to visit

in Russia were always in the south, whether Georgia or the Muslim countries. It was always a better

culture in terms of comfort, but communism was rough, and that was the end of it,

pretty much Brezhnev regime. And then Andropov Gorbachev was three years in the future when I

was there. So I can't talk about Ukraine, and they've not been friendly to me since. Of course,

since I made the Putin interviews, Ukraine has banned me, I believe. They've been very tough

on people who are critical. I think the Russian people have been very special to me, perhaps

because of my European upbringing, but I enjoy talking to them. I find them very open, very

generous, and they appreciate support. They appreciate people who say, you know, I understand

why your government is doing this or this or this. I've tried to stay open minded and listen to both

sides. The thing that I have seen as an American is, of course, this American enmity towards Russia

from the very beginning. I grew up in 1940, 46, I was born in the 50s. It was so anti Russian.

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.

Television shows were based on this. It was very much the Jay 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. I grew up with a prejudice and it took me many years.

My father was a Republican and he was a stockbroker and he was a very intelligent man. But even he,

because he was a World War II soldier, he was a colonel, had fallen under the influence.

It had, in order to be successful in American business in the 1950s, you had to have a very

strong anti Soviet line. Very strong. You wouldn't get ahead if you expressed any kind of, let's

end this Cold War, any kind of activity of that nature. You'd be cast aside as a Pinko or somebody

who was not completely on the board with the American way of doing business, which was capitalism

works, communism doesn't. And in particular, communism is embodied by the Soviet Union

is the enemy. So hence the narrative behind the Cold War.

That's correct. And it basically lasted. I mean, you saw the ups and downs of it.

When Reagan came in, I was, well, first of all, we had the crisis of 1962 with the Cuban Missile

Crisis. And Kennedy proved himself to be a warrior for peace. He resolved that with Khrushchev.

That was a big moment, huge moment. And people don't give him credit enough for

really saving us from a war that could have, could have affected all of mankind.

But it still didn't avert. No, because the moment he was killed,

honestly, there was a lot of, we can talk about that. And as you know, I've made a film,

JFK revisited as a documentary released this year about the movie I made in 1991.

But the moment he was killed, I would argue that Lyndon Johnson went back immediately to the old

way of thinking the old way of doing business, which was the Eisenhower Truman Way, which we

had adapted since World War II. That was an interim. You have to think about it from Roosevelt

dies in 45. Roosevelt has an interim of 15 years where he has more of a democratic regime,

more liberal. He establishes, he recognizes the Soviet Union for the first time

since the revolution. And he actually has a relationship with them. He sends ambassadors

who are friendly and he wants, he has a relationship with Stalin, etc. And Yalta,

and, or not Tehran, rather, that's where he had the relationship.

Do you think if JFK lived, we would not have a cold war?

No, absolutely not. And we go into great depth on that in the film. I urge you to see it because

it goes into all the issues around the world. Kennedy was being very much an anti imperialist,

it turns out. And many people don't understand that. But you have to look at all his policies in

Middle East with Nasser. He had a relationship with Sukarno in Indonesia, with Latin America.

He made a big effort with the Alliance for Progress. And when Africa, above all, with Lumumba,

he was very shocked at his death and tried to defend the right, the integrity of the

Belgian Congo with Dag Hammershield of the UN. He made a big effort. Unfortunately, it didn't work

out because Dag Hammershield was killed and then Kennedy was killed. And Congo descended into the

chaos of Joseph Mabutu's dictatorship. But Kennedy was very active in terms of, as an Irishman,

not as an Englishman, he was an Irishman. And I say that because, well, we'll come back to that

because Mr. Joe Biden is an Irishman, but it's a different kind of an Irishman. They're both

Catholic Irish, but Kennedy really made an effort to change the imperialist mindset

that it still was very strong in America and Europe. Lyndon Johnson changed back to the old

policy and we were never able to really keep big time going with the Russians. Briefly had it with

Carter, but then Brzezinski came in. Brzezinski was his national security advisor. He was put

there by Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a pole. He got revenge from the Poland. Poland has always

been attacking Russia as far as I remember back to another century. I mean, the two world wars

that occupied Russia so tragically, entry points were always through Poland and Ukraine.

So Brzezinski got his revenge and Carter ended up being an enemy of the Soviet Union and

creating, as Brzezinski took pride in it, he created the atmosphere of the trap for the Soviets to

go into Afghanistan in 79. That trap was set, he says, he said in 1978. So there was never

except for brief moments of periods of detente with the Soviets. And I grew up under that.

I didn't really know anything of this going on because I was learning. I was educating myself

as I was going learning movies and trying to be a dramatist and this and that. So I wasn't

thinking about this. Then when Reagan came in, I was worried again, because it was it was a beat

of the old beat, which was there, the most evil empire. I mean, it does, it goes on in American

history. It doesn't end. Reagan got a lot of points for that. And of course, when when Gorbachev

came in, it was a beautiful moment for the world. It was a great surprise. It was probably the best

years of for America, at least from my point of view, in terms of this relaxation in the mood.

1986 to 1991 were great years in terms of ability to believe once again,

that there could be a peace dividend. But the world changed again in 1991, 92. There's an

internal mechanism. Who knows, you could blame, you can blame the United States, you could blame

Russia for it. Gorbachev was perhaps not the right man to try to administer that country. At

that point, he had great visions. He was a man of peace. But it was very difficult to hold together

such a huge empire. So vision is not enough to hold together the Soviet Union? I think

the details are interesting. I followed up on that a little bit, because I was recently in

countries like Kazakhstan, talked about the negotiations that were going on and the breakup

of the Soviet Union. It's a very interesting story, because it involves everything in Ukraine.

Of course, everything is going on now. Some, what is it, 30 million Russians were left outside of

the Soviet Union when it collapsed. They had no home anymore. They were homes in other countries,

such as in Ukraine. So it's an interesting story and with repercussions today. Kazakhstan

is a good example of keeping a balance, keeping it neutral. He played both sides,

and because Yeltsin wanted him to join the Russian Confederation in a certain way where

he'd be supporting against Gorbachev. There's a whole inward battle there. I think the Ukraine came

along with Yeltsin as well as, I'm sorry, I don't remember now, but two other regions came with him.

That was a block that broke up 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 human civilization. But let me ask you, fast forward,

in 2000, Yeltsin was no longer president, and Vladimir Putin became president. You did a series

of interviews with Vladimir Putin, as you mentioned, over a period of two years, from 2015 to 2017.

Let me ask you the high level question. What was your goal with that conversation?

Oh, it came out in 2017. I guess I started them in 2014. At that point, the Snowden

affair had happened. I was working on a movie on Snowden. That happened in 2013. Ukraine happened

in 2014. And one thing after another, by 2014, Putin was enemy number again, becoming a wanted

man on the American list. He was enemy. He was certainly in the top five. But the animosity

towards Putin had been growing since 2007 at Munich. I remember that speech when he made it.

It's in my documentary. That's a four hour documentary, four different conversations.

I mean, we talked over two years, two and a half years. But I remember that image of him at Munich

making a very important speech about world harmony, about the balance necessary in the world.

And I remember the sneer 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,

he was almost treating him like this or the communists are back. And we know that Putin was

not a communist. We know that Putin is very much a market man. And he made it very clear and tried

to keep an open climate, a new relationship with Europe. But the United States, certain people in

the United States always sell that as a threat, like Putin is trying to take Europe away from us

as if we own it, as if we have the right to own it. But Putin was making the point. It's very

important about sovereignty and sovereignty for countries is crucial for this new world to have

balance. That's sovereignty for China, sovereignty for Russia, sovereignty for Iran, sovereignty for

Venezuela, sovereignty for Cuba. This is an idea that's crucial to the new world. And I think the

United States has never accepted that. Sovereignty is not an idea that they can allow. You have to be

obedient to the United States idea of so called democracy and freedom. But it's much more important

is sovereignty for these countries. And the United States has not obeyed that, has not even

acknowledged it. And it never comes up. So from the perspective of the United States, when power

centers arise in the world, you start to oppose those, not because of the ideas, but merely

because they have power. Isn't that at the heart of the doctrine of the neoconservatives? And they

packed for the new American century, they wrote that in 1997, they said there shall be no emergence

of a rival power. It was very clear was about power. And they have they've stuck to that doctrine,

which is if you if you start to get dangerous in any way or have power, we're going to knock you out.

Now that won't work. But I don't believe it can work. And that is unfortunately a policy the

United States is following. And the neoconservatives group, which is very small, but it's very strong

apparently. And their idea has resonated. It was it was behind the George Bush's invasion of

Iraq. It was part of not only Iraq, but cleaning out the whole world, draining the swamp, going to

Afghanistan first. And then although Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's attack, going after

Iraq. And of course, 60 some other countries that were terrorism had some had some signs of wherever

America judged would be a dangerous country. We had the right, you're either with us or against us.

Now that is a disastrous policy and led to one thing after another. The Iraq war never learned a

lesson. The neoconservatives were never fired, never thrown out of office. The people who

who prosecuted that war are still around. Many of them are still around. And they're they're

obviously guiding America now. Let me return to this question of power. Don't forget the sneer

that I saw there. That emblemized the United States reaction. Also, there were several other

American representatives who were laughing, kind of mocking Putin. It was very serious. I felt

it was a divide there. So since then, I mean, in a certain sense, the Europe reaction to Putin

is crucial. And they were they were more with him back then. And a big thing for America was always

to keep NATO to keep Europe in its pocket as a satellite. And with this recent war, of course,

they've succeeded in all beyond their dreams of the Russians have fulfilled the fantasy of the

United States to finally be this aggressor that they have pictured for years. Yeah, we can talk

about that later. But at that time, there was Europe had significant support for Putin. Yes.

The United States was sneering at Putin. That's correct. You can say that. And then so there's

this it was there was uncertainty as to the direction as to the future of Russia. And that's

exact. And when you interviewed Vladimir Putin, I wanted to know what they thought because we

couldn't get the the the the information war that the United States was fighting against Russia was

in evidence back then. It was full out the condemnation of Russia on all fronts. I never saw

a positive article about Putin. And although when I traveled in the world, and I traveled a lot

doing documentaries, it was very clear in the Middle East, in Africa, in other in Asia, there

was respect for him, that he was a man who was getting job his job done in the interests of Russia.

He was, as I said, in the documentary, a son of Russia, very much so. In the positive sense, a son,

a son of Russia, not that he's out there trying to destroy the interests of other of other countries.

No, that he was out there to sell that provoked the interest of Russia. But at the same time,

keep a balance, keep it, keep it, keep the world into a harmony. This has always been his picture.

Peace was always his idea. In other words, he always referred to the United States in all these

interviews as our partners. And I said, 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 on just the human

being that carries that power on his shoulders for so many years.

Keep in mind that he's been unlike most modern leaders, he's been an office off and on because

there was a Medvedev was president, and he was not literally in charge. He was, he was, he was,

he took another appointment at that point, and he, but he was still very much involved.

But for 20 years, more or less, he's been at the administrator of the state, the protector of the

state. And he's apparently done a good enough job that the Russian people have kept him there.

Because contrary to what many people think, I really believe that if the Russian people didn't

want him, he would be out. I firmly believe that. I don't think you can let you can go against the

world of the people. Now it expresses itself in many ways at the ballot box and so forth,

but also in other ways in Russia, there's a strong currents of opinion. So contrary to what the

position of him as a dictator, he wouldn't last if he was unpopular. Number one,

number two, Russia is much more divided than people know. There's other factors in Russia.

He is, there's, there are always tensions in, in, around the Kremlin who has power,

who doesn't have power. That's been going on for a hundred years. But the, the factions in Russia

are very much there. So when people refer to Russia as Putin, they're, they're mistaken.

And they do this regularly in the New York papers and all this. They say, Putin did this,

Putin did that, Putin's doing that, but it's Russia that's doing it. And that's what, there's a

distinction there that I, it's changed. In the old days, I would read about Khrushchev,

but it was never Khrushchev personally. It was about the Soviet Union. There was respect for

a country. And now when it started to get personal with Putin, it, it changed and the, our thinking

changed in a, in a negative way. We, we no longer respected it as a country. We were seen as a man

and the man we had trashed repeatedly, repeatedly as a poisoner, as a murderer and none of which

has ever been proven, but which has always been repeated and repeated to the point at which it

becomes like an Orwell mantra. It becomes like he is, of course, a bad guy. Can I just ask you

as a great filmmaker, as a human being, what was it like talking to one of the most powerful men

in the world? For honestly, and I'm not naive. I've talked to a lot of powerful people in the

movie business. There are powerful people and many of them are corrupted. I've talked to many

people in my life. I've been in the military. I've seen, I've had other jobs. I have to say I

found him to be a human being. I just found him to be reasonable, calm. I never saw him lose his

temper. And I mean, you have to understand that most people in the, most people in the western

way of doing business get emotional. I don't see that. I saw him as a balanced man, as a man who

had studied this like you. There's a calmness to you that it comes from studying the world and having

a rational response to it. It's interesting. His two daughters, one of them is very scientific

and the other one's doing very well in another profession, but they're thinking, 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, his daughter's right. He served Yeltsin the

way he looked at it. He served Yeltsin well and he, and he still, and he never trashed Yeltsin.

Certainly a lot of people did, but you know, I asked him repeatedly, you know, was he an

alcoholic or this or that, but he wouldn't even go that far. Just respect. And this man, Yeltsin,

was, it was in many ways ridiculed, but 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, that. Why did he

turn power over to Mr. Putin? Because he respected him for his work ethic and his balance, his maturity.

And that's what I can say is I saw in him a poor person, a poor, from a poor family who worked

his way up through the KGB. Well, Americans keep saying he's a KGB agent, but I, it's like saying,

you know, George Bush was a CIA agent, but you know, he became a, you grow, you grow in your life.

And he went from the KGB to this technocratic position. He dealt with many problems, including

the Chechnyan war, which is a very difficult situation, as well as the Russian submarine,

probably several things happened early in his, 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 charges that he's the richest man in the world are ludicrous, certainly

doesn't live like it or act like it. If you're rich, I've, I've been around a lot of rich people

in my life. You'd probably have too. In America, you run into them. So many of them are arrogant.

I'm actually good friends now with the richest man in the world.

Oh, of course. I saw your interview with Mr. Musk, who I appreciate. At least he speaks really.

I am positive about him owning Twitter because Twitter has become censorship city has all the

major tech. I mean, the censorship that we are now seeing in the United States is so unAmerican

and shocking to me. And he is a resistance to that. That is true.

Yeah. I like, I like Musk for that, just for that only. But I also appreciate him, his

adventuresome, his nature and his desire to, 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. Yeah. He speaks freely and it's refreshing. Yeah.

No matter whether you're rich or not, it doesn't matter. When you speak freely, it's a beautiful

thing. Actually, you must do it. A major point on going back to nuclear energy, you know, he was,

he never believed in it at first, apparently. He was going for batteries, right? And he did

put a lot of money into batteries. He made them bigger and bigger batteries, but

it just won't, as Bill Gates has said, it's just, it's not going to get us there.

Yeah. And now I think Musk is on another path. He understands the need for nuclear.

Yeah. He's a supporter of nuclear.

We're jumping around. Poon never asked for one thing, never. It was an interview. It was free

form. Ask anything you want. No, no restrictions, no rules. As with Castro, frankly. Castro did

the same thing as Dechevez. So I've had good luck in interviewing free ranging subjects,

people willing to express themselves. He's much more guarded than Castro or Dechevez because,

as you know, he's setting government policy when he speaks and anything he says is going to be

taken out of context. But there was no restrictions on what to talk about, none of that.

Nor any desire to see anything before we publish it. No need to check it with them.

It was completely... Do you think he watched the final product?

Yes, I do. But I don't think he made judgments on it. I think he was pleased.

He doesn't go either way. You see, 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

could see the way he dealt with me each time. He warmed up to me four times. You know, the first

time it might have been a little stiff. You're asking, you don't know who you're dealing with and

so forth. I understand that. But he's used to it now. He's done a lot of press. The worst press

he's done, frankly, has been the American press. 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 an overdub. They put a Russian speaker

for everything he says. He's much harsher. He speaks Russian in a much harsher manner than

actually Putin does. On my interview, I left him in his original language with translator.

I think that's important because he expresses himself very clearly and calmly. When you listen

to the American broadcast, it's a belligerent person who looks like he's about to bang his shoe

on the table. And secondly, the questions are highly aggressive from the beginning. There's no

there's no sense of rapport. There's no sense of, well, it's why, Mr. Putin, did you poison this

person? Why, Mr. Putin, 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. They're not looking to understand. To me, aggression is okay if that's the way you

want to approach it. But it should be, there should be underlying kind of empathy for another human

being in order to be able to understand. And so some of the worst interviews I've ever listened to

is by American press of Vladimir Putin. So NBC and all those kinds of organizations,

it's very painful to watch. And you saw the reception to the Putin interviews in America was

hostile without seeing it. So many people criticized my series without having seen it. Even, even I

went on a show, a television show with this famous Colbert, you know, he's very famous in America.

And I was shocked on the show to find out that he hadn't seen anything of the four hours. He was

just attacking Putin. And he threw me. I was complicit. Therefore, I was a Putin supporter.

And the show, the show was a disaster. It's one of my worst television shows. I actually,

I had to just shut up and get off the air. I mean, at some point it was embarrassing

because the audience too was clapping for Colbert on anything he said.

Well, as an interviewer in that situation, because between you and Vladimir Putin, there was camaraderie,

there was joking, there was, are you worried? Do you put that into the calculation when you're

making a film with somebody that could be lying to you, that could be evil? You talk about Castro,

you talk about, so are you worried about how charisma of a man across the table from you can

do? No, I take that into account. I absolutely take that into account. I mean,

doing Castro, he's a wonderful speaker. He's charismatic. So is Chavez. Look at those interviews.

I took it into account. But Putin doesn't play that game. He doesn't charm you. He doesn't try to

overwhelm you with his bon amie at all. He just asks your question. I'll give you my answer straight.

Here it is. And he analyzes it. This is the history of NATO. This is the history of our

relationship with the United States. How many times have we tried to talk to them about such and

such and such and 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 and a calmness.

Yes, there is. So like, let's just calm everything down. It's simple facts. That you can call.

So there's like the Hitler thing, which is screaming, being very loud, charismatic, strong

message and so on. And then there's a Putin style. I'm not comparing those two. There's the

Putin style communication of calmness. And that, at least to me, my personality, that can be very

captivating is bringing everything down. The facts are simple. But then when you say the facts are

simple, you can now start lying. And you don't know what's true and what's lost. It behooves you

to do some research. Yes. And frankly, when it comes to research, you're going to have a problem

because if you go to the Americanized versions of Russian history, you're going to run into a

problem. And that includes even Wikipedia. They will tell you things that are just not factually

supported. So it was a problem in terms of if you read all the books in the American

the library about Putin, there's nothing positive about it. They're awful. They're awful. And a

lot of them, I had a good relationship with Professor Stephen Cohen, who's the most, I think,

one of the most informed men on Russia. He done a lot of research, all his life. And

knew Gorbachev very well. And was very analytical about all these situations that happened before

his death in 2019. I'm not quite sure when Stephen died, but I knew him well. And he was the, he

gave me the best information I could get. I would go to Stephen and I'd say, I'm confused here.

Tell me the history of this accusation of poisoning against this person and so forth.

And he'd explain it to me in, I think, very the clearest ways that I understood. And he said to

me once, he said, most of these people who go to Russia and write this stuff about who

are going off the internet, the internet has really been a source of a lot of fractured facts here.

He said, pure analysis, you have to go back to the texts, all the documents, and to really

fully understand. But he spoke Russian. And his wife and him, Katarina Van Hoovel,

who's editor, publisher of The Nation magazine, would go to Russia several times a year and

talk to their friend Gorbachev. And Gorbachev's an interesting character. I talked to him,

interviewed him, not interviewed him, but talked to him at length. And I like him very much.

And I saw the divide, as you saw in the Putin interviews between Gorbachev and Putin early

on in the interviews, you sense Putin doesn't particularly care for Gorbachev because he,

in his point of view, he screwed up the administration of Russia and is responsible for

so much of the disaster of leaving all those people outside the Soviet Union. So these are

problems that continue into the future. But they see each other at the, or he sees,

he knows he's there at the May Day parade, we filmed. And his attitude is funny. It's very human.

He says, you know, he's welcome. He's got his pension. He's a pensioner. He's done his duty.

He's, there's no, there's no animus towards it. Even when Gorbachev in the early days,

you remember, criticized for his manners in terms of democracy. But I don't know that that,

you know, that becomes a quarrel. But frankly, by the, by the end of the situation, it's very

clear that Gorbachev is now moved closer and closer to the, says Russia is now really under

attack. This is, he sees it. He sees where the United States has made a concerted effort

to undermine Putin. And he does, and he's repeated this several times about Ukraine.

I think you've seen what he said. You can quote it. And Gorbachev is, we have no respect for

Gorbachev even, even at this juncture. When can you see Gorbachev's ideas printed in most American

newspapers? Very rarely, very rarely and not, and recently not at all. So Gorbachev, who was our

hero back in, in the American hero back in 1980s, 80s has now been condemned to the garbage can,

so to speak, of history. Well, in this complicated geopolitical picture you just outlined,

can we talk about the recent invasion of Ukraine? You wrote on Facebook a pretty eloquent analysis.

I think on March 3rd. Let me just read a small section of that just to give context. And maybe

we can talk a little bit more about both Russia and the man Putin. You wrote, although the United

States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn't justify Mr. Putin's aggression in

Ukraine. A dozen wrongs don't make a right. Russia was wrong to invade. It has made too many mistakes.

One, underestimating Ukraine resistance. Two, overestimating the military ability to achieve

its objective. Three, underestimating Europe's reaction, especially Germany, upping its military

contribution to NATO, which they've resisted for some 20 years. Even Switzerland has joined the

cause. Russia will be more isolated than ever from the West. Four, underestimating the enhanced

power of NATO, which will now put more pressure on Russia's borders. Five, probably putting Ukraine

into NATO. Six, underestimating the damage to its own economy and certainly creating more

internal resistance in Russia. Seven, creating a major readjustment of power in its oligarch class.

Eight, putting cluster and vacuum bombs into play. Nine, and underestimating the power of social

media worldwide. And you go on for a while giving a much broader picture of the history and the

geopolitics of all of this. So now, a little bit later, two months later, what are your thoughts

about the invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's very hard to be honest in this regard because the

West has brought down a curtain here and anyone who questions the invasion of Ukraine and its

consequences is an enemy of the people. It's become so difficult. I've never seen in my lifetime ever

such a wall of propaganda as I've seen in the West. And that includes France too, because I was

there recently in England. England is, of course, really vociferous. It's shocking to me how quickly

Europe moved in this direction. That includes Germany. I have German friends who express to me

their shock over Ukraine. I have Italian friends, same thing. And Italy, of course, has been perhaps

the most understanding and compassionate of countries. So it's quite evident that there's

a united, and this attests to the power of the United States. And of course, you have Finland

and Finland, which has generally been reasonable, jumping in, 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 me, 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.

But when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, I remember with great, in a sense,

satisfaction that at least France, Chirac, who I had not really know much about,

stood up and said, the United States, we're not going to join you in this expedition,

basically into madness. Schroeder in Germany, same thing. Of course, Putin condemned the

invasion. And Putin had been an ally of the United States since 911, if you remember correctly,

and had called Bush, and they were getting along. So even Putin said, I won't go,

don't go into Iraq. This is not the solution. He didn't oppose Afghanistan, but he opposed Iraq.

Chirac and Schroeder stood for the old Europe. I remember De Gaulle, Charles De Gaulle,

he was independent of the United States. Charles De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO

because he saw the dangers of NATO, which is to say, you have to fight an American war

when they say, and they put nuclear weapons on your territory in England and France,

and Italy and Germany, and when they do that, you're hitched to this superpower,

and you have no say in what they're going to do. If they declare war, and they use your

territory, you're going to be involved in a major conflict. I'm talking about sovereignty.

Where is that sovereignty? They don't have it. And that has influenced their mindset for years now

since 1940, since, well, De Gaulle was the 60s. He actually reversed the whole flow,

and I think it was Sarkozy who put France back into NATO.

And now it's Macron, I hope, because he was talking to Putin, would at least

have an independent viewpoint that could be helpful here. So he rolled it up. He may have

told Putin something else, but within days he had rolled it up and gone along with the United

States position, which was enforced by the United States in a very fierce way. The propaganda,

as I say, I don't know how much time he spent in America, but it was vicious and

everything was anti Russian. Russia were killing all these people, were shooting down civilians,

although there was no proof of it. There was just, these are the accidents of war,

but all of a sudden 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 Donbas and Lugansk during that 2014 to 2022 period?

That is what, it's a crime. There were so many people who were killed,

many of them innocent, many of them innocent. So what would be the way for Vladimir Putin to

stop the killing in Donbas without the invasion of Ukraine?

Yeah, that's a very good question. And I've asked that several times and I don't have the,

I have not talked to him since about two years now. It's a very good question.

What's the mistakes? What the human mistakes and the leadership mistakes means?

It's a very good question. You see, what the American press has not said,

and the Western press has not said, is that on February 24, was it, that was on that day,

when they invaded, the day before, if you check the logs of the European organization that was

you supervising, was in the field in Ukraine, these are neutral observers. They were seeing

heavy, heavier and heavier artillery fire going into, into Donbas from the Ukrainian side.

So they had, apparently Ukraine had 110,000 troops on the border. They were about to invade

Donbas. That was the plan. That's what I think. Russia as a, as a, because of the buildup on the

border of Donbas brought 130, they say 130,000 troops to the area near Donbas, right? So you have

buildup of forces on both sides, but you wouldn't know that from reading the press in the West.

You would be, you'd believe that the Russians suddenly put all these men into, into the situation

with the, with the idea of invading Ukraine, not only Donbas, but invading all of Ukraine

and getting rid of the, decapitating the government there, which is all assumption.

We don't know what they would intend it to do.

But you at the time, as did a lot of people, thought that the, all the talk of the invasion,

Russian invasion of Ukraine is just propaganda. It's not, it's not going to happen. It's very

unlikely to happen. Well, we thought, I think many of us thought that the United States is building

this up into an invasion. In other words, that is the nature of false flag operations. When you,

you create this propaganda, they are going to invade, they are going to invade. And then

when they invaded, they were, the United States was completely ready and all their allies were

completely ready for the invasion, correct? So why did Putin do that? He fell into this,

theoretically, into this trap set by the United States. Here you're telling all your allies

across the board, they're going to invade, but you, why do you think he did it? So here,

is it madness or is it not strategic calculation? Perhaps this one, I cannot answer you faithfully,

because first of all, we don't know what he was told. If he was indeed getting the right

intelligence estimates from what I said earlier in that, in that essay I wrote,

you would think he was not well informed, perhaps, about the degree of cooperation he would get from

the Russian, the Ukrainian Russians in Ukraine. That would be one factor that he wasn't,

he didn't assess the operation correctly. Remember this, Mr. Putin has had this cancer,

and I think he's licked it, but he's also been isolated because of COVID. And some people would

argue that the isolation from normal activity, which he was, he was meeting people face to face,

but all of a sudden he was meeting people across the table 100 yards away or whatever, 10 yards

away. It was very hard to, perhaps he lost touch with, contact with people. So it's not just power,

it's the very simple fact that you're just this. I see, I'm speculating, I don't know.

I see that. And I also, perhaps he thought in his mind that there would be a

faster resolution that the Ukrainian, because the evidence had been that the Ukrainian

Russians, the Ukrainian army had folded so many times in the, and that they were only

backed up and they were stiffened by the resistance of the Nazi, or Nazi oriented,

as off battalions. That was a factor, of course. And that is a big factor for the Russians, because

these people are very tough, they rush. See, what people don't understand is that Ukraine,

since 2014, has been a terror state. They've been run. Anytime a Ukrainian has expressed any,

any understanding of a Russian, of the Russian Ukrainian position, they've been threatened

by the state. From 2014 to 2022, there's been a set of hideous murders that people don't even

know about in the West. Journalists, people who speak out, liberals, people who I interviewed,

Viktor Medvedev, who they make out to be some kind of horrible person. But Medvedev was a,

was a very important figure in the administration of Kushma, the first Ukrainian prime minister

in the 1990s. And he did a great job on the economy. He was a very thoughtful man. If you'll

see my interview, it's called Ukraine Revealed. He's very thoughtful about the future of Ukraine.

He doesn't want to go back and join Russia. He wants it to be an independent country.

Ukraine is independent. And he wants it to be a functioning economic democracy, more or less,

a democracy, if you can get that, but between, that exists in a neutral state, neutral state,

which Ukraine used to be before 2014. It was neutral from 1991 to 2014, neutral, very important.

And under Poroshenko, it just immediately went into an anti Soviet Cold War position

as an ally of the United States. And my point was that it was a very dangerous place in Ukraine.

People were being killed. Death squads were out there. Medvedev, they stripped him of his

television stations. Very suddenly, this is Zelensky, the new president, said Zelensky was

elected on a peace platform. Remember that he was 70% of the country was for him to make peace

with Russia. Did he ever have even tried to make peace with Russia? Did he attend any of the Minsk

two agreements? Did he visit? Did he pay any attention to Putin? Did he go to Russia? No,

not at all. The moment he got into office, I'm convinced that the militant the militant sector

of the right sector parties of the Ukraine, let him know that you will not make a deal with Russia.

There'll be no concessions to Russia. This is very dangerous. This is where this attitude,

this very, very hostile to Russia has hurt us. The whole world is being hurt by this. And no,

no one calls them out. No one calls them out. Zelensky backed off from his platform as running

for president. And as president has been ineffective, did nothing to promote on the contrary, went the

other way and seemed to support the Ukrainian aggression. Well, he found his support in this

war. You've revealed through your work some of the most honest and dark aspects of war.

Nevertheless, this is a war. And there's a humanitarian crisis. Millions of people as

refugees escape in Ukraine. What do you think about the human cost of this war initiated by

whoever, just as you write, whatever the context, whatever NATO, whatever pressure,

as you wrote, Russia was wrong to invade. Okay. Yeah. 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 2014 to 2022. Yes. Ukrainian Russians, 14,000

were killed, not necessarily by some of them by maybe accident 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 death squatting that whole area. And remember, I did a film about

Salvador. I know a little bit about death squads and how they work. And I know about

paramilitaries because in South America, they're all over the place. America supports, hates

Venezuela, goes on about Venezuela. But do they tell you anything about Colombia, its next door

neighbor? Colombia for years has been plagued by paramilitaries that are right wing. And the

United States has said nothing about them, except occasionally there's a newspaper report now.

So this support of death squads by the United States is all over the world. It's not just in

South America and Central America where we see plenty of evidence of it. It's here too. And

this is what's horrible about this whole thing, this hypocrisy of America that they can support

such evil, such evil. Now, going back to your larger question about, yes, it's a terrible

refugee disaster. But again, we have to get the numbers. Let's get the numbers and get

evidence because I would ask you, I'm not sure at this point whether more civilians were killed

before 2022 in Donbas than have been killed in this latest. So we can't talk about this without,

we can't talk about the invasion of Ukraine without considering the full war between Russian Ukraine

since 2014. That's correct. Absolutely. And take the toll on both sides. And I mean,

you might be surprised by the result. I think the Russian military, of course, I'm not there,

and I'm not, this could be this speculation, the Russian military has slowed down. And part of

that reason is not to keep the civilian corridors open. And I think the Ukrainian military has

made it more difficult on purpose, especially some of these battalions that are death squad

battalions have gone out of their way to keep the civilians locked into these cities in danger,

because it's in their interest to do so. So there's no reason why Ukrainian military,

who have killed Ukrainian civilians for years, would change their policies.

They would have no compunctions about wiping out, for example, people with white armbands in Bukha.

Okay. As to what Putin was thinking at the time, I wondered this, I still do. I said,

okay, so Putin can say, let's say the Ukrainian government wants to now invade Donbas. This is

on February 23. And they have artillery that pepper in the whole place, they're going to go in,

and they're going to get Donbas back. What do you do? And you have Russian separatists who are

Russian Ukrainians who are on, who are going to fight. How far do you go in supporting them?

Can Russia at this point say, well, we can't help you, you have to get along, you have to somehow,

you have to be absorbed by the Kiev, you're going to be absorbed by them, and they're going to be,

they're not going to give you autonomy, and you have to live with them. And there's going to be

a price to pay. You could do that. And you can also say, well, we open our borders to Donbas.

You can come into our country, you can leave, and we will help you to, to resettle. And that's,

that would be a reasonable approach. So you take it to the next stage, as Putin's thinking, you

take it to the next stage, you, you stall it harder for your people. Of course, you have this pressure

on Putin from inside his own government to say, what are you going to do? I mean, you can't do

this to, there's a lot of nationalists in Russia, they would certainly bring, it would be to his,

they'd say Putin is weak. And that's the biggest rap you can ever give a Russian leader is you're

weak, you can't get anything done. So there would have been some damage. But let's say he goes

with that. And he says, okay, we know what the United States intention is. It's to get rid of me,

regime change, and to get another Yeltsin in. That's what they want. And they will go to any

ends, they will destroy Ukraine if necessary, but they want regime change in Russia. And then

after they do that, of course, they'll go after China. But that's the ultimate policy of the

United States. This is a country that has no compunctions about going all the way.

And it will use hypocrisy and all the news propaganda in the world to get what it wants.

This is the equivalent, frankly, of Germany's goals in World War Two, world domination.

There's no question in my mind. But we're going about it in our way, as opposed to Hitler's way.

So just to finish your thought, where do they go? What's stage two? Okay, let's say they take,

Ukraine takes back Donbas. Let's say people get killed in large quantities. So we now,

to the next stage, we're finished with the Minsk two agreements that we're 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, perhaps, I don't know what happened, what the

US is thinking. But the US cannot say Russia has done anything. They have not used violence to stop

Donbas from belonging back to Ukraine, right? So you're in a new setup now. It's a whole thing

rearranges. Now you have, but you still have nuclear weapons. And you still have a Russian

nuclear weapons and they're serious weapons. They're very well developed, crude, but not as

refined as the American nuclear force, but powerful. That becomes another game. Then you open another

chessboard and know what you still haven't been condemned. The sanctions haven't been imposed.

That's a new, it's a new game. Could he have done? Could he have lived with that? That's the question

I asked myself. So you see ultimately Ukraine today as a battleground for the proxy war between

Russia and the United States? The United States would have then NATOized Ukraine or

certainly put more weapons. And the United States has already done a lot in Ukraine with

intelligence, with training advisors. The intelligence aspect of the Ukrainian army has

been raised enormously by the United States contribution. Is it possible for you to steal

man to play devil's advocate against yourself and say that Vladimir Zelensky is fighting for

the sovereignty of his nation? And in a way against Russia, but also against the United States,

it just happens that for now, the United States is a useful ally. But ultimately, the man, the leader

is fighting for the sovereignty of his nation. I would think he thinks so. Yes, and he could

say that, but he's not acknowledging that the sovereignty of his nation was stolen in 2014

with a coup d'détat that brought this right sector into power. And they have controlled the

country since then. It's thuggery what they've done. The Medvedev case is a case in point.

They just take what they need. They go to a house and they have a how many people have been killed?

Serious people, journalists killed by these battalions. That's what people don't realize.

In other words, you can't speak out. A person like me would have been on the death list on day

five. There's no opposition to Zelensky. So he doesn't have a real sovereignty. It was a stolen

sovereignty. Do you think President Zelensky would accept an interview with you today?

Actually, since I made Ukraine on Fire documentary, which perhaps you've seen,

which records the incidents of 2014 and the Maidan demonstrations and shows you the dishonesty

behind it. No, I think that they've been very negative and they would kill me if I was in Ukraine.

I mean, they don't have any. These people are very tough. These are as rough as they come,

in my opinion. And I've seen rough in my life. I mean, these guys are not playing with fair at

all. These are death squads. No, I don't think and Zelensky would have nothing to do with it.

But of course, it would be dangerous for me. And they've been very hostile in their

in their policies to any 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. You have to take the anti Russian line,

but I think a lot of them are divided. So you think you would be killed and Zelensky wouldn't

even know about it? So there is... Well, I don't think... If I was killed, certainly abroad. No,

they wouldn't kill me abroad. I think they figure out... 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 is the modern world

that we're living in. And yet that's information is not coming out to the mass of the people.

And on the contrary, the United States has closed down all the RT, all the information

centers that are possible, alternative news, getting to the American people. They've seriously

made an effort. And the BBC, English, and France. I was shocked when France closed RT now because

RT is actually pretty good. They... Yes, they may... It's called... There are distortions,

but you know as well as I do because you hear... You speak that RT has done a very

brave job of putting correspondents into the field in very dangerous positions and they've

gotten great footage of some of the violence that's going on. Well, given the wall of propaganda in

the West, I also see the wall of propaganda in Russia. Yes. The wall of propaganda in China,

the wall of propaganda in India. What do we do with these walls of propaganda? I talked to...

Let's talk about Russia because you would know more about it. But my last experience there,

newspapers, it was more interesting. There's... Put it this way, when I went to Venezuela,

the United States was saying back then that Chávez controlled the press. I get to Venezuela and

there's nothing but criticism of Chávez in the press. It was owned by the oligarchs of

Venezuela and who hated him. So it was across the board. That's why Chávez opened the state

television, spent more money on it and advertised his point of view through state television.

But in Russia, what I saw was criticism. I met with a publisher who got the Nobel Prize of that

famous newspaper and his point of view at that time when I spoke to him a few years ago was

we're operating. There is criticism of him, but you can't call for the overthrow of the government

nor in Venezuela, nor in the United States for that matter. If you call for the overthrow of

the government of the United States, you're going to be in deep trouble.

Well, all right. So to push back on that, it's interesting. It's so interesting because

we mentioned Elon Musk and there's a way that people sound when they speak freely.

When I speak to my family in Ukraine, I have family in Russia. When I speak to people in

Russia, let's put my family aside. When I speak to people in Russia, I think there's fear. I think

they don't... Sometimes when you call for the overthrow of government, that's important not

because you necessarily believe for the overthrow of the government, but you just need to test,

test the power centers and make sure they're responsive to the people. And I feel like there's

a mix of fear and apathy that has a different texture than it does in the United States.

That worries me because I would like to see the flourishing of a people in all places.

As I said, my impression was that there's far more freedom in the press than was pictured by the

West. And that means different points of view because the Russians are always arguing with

themselves. I've never seen a country that's so contentious. There's more intellectuals in Moscow

and the cities than you can believe. And you know the Russian people there. They've been fighting

government for years. Back from the 1870s, the Tsarist times, they always plotting against the

government. And the intelligentsia has known through history as being contentious and anti

government in many ways. And we see the same thing, educated people turning against Russia. I don't

appreciate those people because I think they're very spoiled and they don't understand some of

this 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, although the West

paints it as empire. I see no evidence of it. Why didn't he do something in all these years?

Nothing. He did nothing except defend the country in Georgia and in Chechnya.

So the imperialist imperative is coming more from the West?

It's the imperialist agenda. Going back to, I'm sorry, where we left our discussion off,

I mean, I was going to go on with America not only being censored, closed down now,

closed down. And you say it's not fear. Well, it is fear. I am scared because if you get your

Facebook page suspended or your Twitter account thrown off, a lot of good people are getting

there thrown off. You can't say it. You can't speak out. It affects your business. It goes back

to the 1950s when my father's world, when you could not express any sympathy for a Soviet Union

without endangering your job, without basically being not trusted. You had to be part of the

program to get along, to go along. Same thing when the 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 in Ireland 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. The Algerian war for independence divided France greatly.

You could not even show Paz of glory. World War I film in France for, I don't know, 20 years after

it came out. Censorship is a way of life when democracies also feel threatened. They are much

more fragile than they pretend to be. A healthy democracy would take all the criticism in the

world and shrug it off and say, okay, that's what's good about our country. Well, I'd like to see

that in America. There are times that it's been like that, but it's so scary now. So it is scary.

That's what I was trying to say. It's not unscary to me. In China, I would say to you, yes, it's

much scarier to me because there is the internet wall that they cut off. And I got into problems

in China too, because I said something in years ago about, you have to discover your own history.

You have to be honest about Mao. You have to be, you have to go back and let's make a movie about

Mao. That upset them and show his negatives. So China has been much more sensitive than

Russia about criticism, much more. And it is a source of problems. But on the other hand,

China has a lot of grievances, a lot going back to the 19th century and the British imperialism

of that era and the American imperialism. If you could talk to Vladimir Putin once again,

now, what kind of things would you talk about here? What kind of questions would you ask?

Well, one thing I'm certainly asking 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 your opinion, how are you going to,

okay, where are we going to go? That would be the key question because it's,

it's, but he didn't go that way. He chose to take the sanctions and to go this way.

Why he did that is a key question for our time. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps it was his

judgment. Perhaps, as I said, but I don't, knowing the man I did, I don't think so. I think it was

calculated. Now, this is projection and speculation, but there's something different about him in the

past several months. It could be the COVID thing, the isolation that you mentioned. I listened to a

lot of interviews and speeches in Russian. And there's, there's something about power over time

that can change you, that can isolate you. Well, when I was there, no, he'd been in office for

already 15 years. He had power. He didn't misuse it in my opinion. He was very even. I saw him

go on television and talk to his fellows the same way he always talked to them. He grew with it.

He grew in intelligence and knowledge because he had dealings with the whole world. Now,

people had come to him. He was very well known in Africa and Middle East, certainly Syria.

And I just never saw misuse of his power. I saw humility in him actually.

So perhaps there was a calculation and he calculated wrong in terms of what happens

if he doesn't invade. Perhaps there was a calculation. Perhaps he had a calm and clear mind

and he calculated wrong. Well, he also made the point that he, the talk of Zelensky saying,

well, nuclear weapons were going to come into Ukraine. There was talk about that right before

the invasion too. And certainly that would have set off alarms. You know, the United States is

already kind of doing that by not only putting its intelligence and its heavy weaponry into Ukraine,

but you've got to deal with a 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 press about Russia using nuclear weapons and chemical weapons.

That's a lot of noise. Again, going back to my analogy, when the United States starts that,

it starts the conversation going. It's in the interest of the United States

for Russia to be pinned with any kind of chemical or nuclear incident. For example, it'd be very,

not simple, but it would be possible to explode a nuclear device in Donbas and kill thousands of

people. And we would not know right away who did it, but of course the blame would go right to Russia,

right to Russia, even if it didn't make sense, if there was no motivation for it.

It would just be blamed on Russia. The United States might well be the one who does that

false flag operation. It would not be beyond them. It would be a very dramatic solution

to sealing this war off as a major victory for the United States.

That's terrifying.

No, but it can happen. It can happen at one kiloton device, low yield. It's possible.

But when you walk across that line, you can potentially never walk back.

Well, I think the United States is calculating that it's a dangerous, yes, I agree, but I think

the Neoconservative arrogance is such that they really believe they can push their advantage

to the max now because of all these propaganda successes up to now. The Ukrainian army could

be wiped out for all we know. There's all that's left as a neo, nasty brigades, but they're being

advised very well by US. And they're sending the weapons in our huge amounts of weapons.

What about American budget? No one talks about how much money we're giving to Ukraine.

It's a billion dollars already in weaponry and not most of it just poured in. What about,

you know, the Russian budget is, defense budget is 60, some billion dollars a year.

It's nothing compared to the United States, one 15th 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 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 is pulled out of the, 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 journalists. You'd have to go back, but trace each, like you would trace each time

they made an accusation against Putin of murder. You need that same kind of Sherlock Holmes

intensity investigation. And they don't do it because the United Nations or the chemical,

not the United Nations as much as the chemical people, the organization has been tampered with.

If you remember correctly, there was accusations that the chemical, chemical investigative unit,

I don't know the name of it, was tampered with. And people quit, people who were working on that

commission quit and said that this is not legit. It's a 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 new casters in the United States, the most heaviest of them were saying,

well, President Putin, 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, when nuclear is really terrifying.

Do you think now, combine this with the fascinating choice in your interviews with

Vladimir Putin to watch Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strange Love or How I Learned to Stop Warring

and Love the Bomb, given the fact that you did that, now looking at the fact that the word

nuclear and it feels like the world hangs on the brink of nuclear war. Do you think that

that's overstating the case? No. That's what worried me from the beginning and that's probably why

I got involved in all this stuff because I go back to the 60s when we were so close to nuclear war.

I lived through that period and I thought, as many people did, that this was going to come now.

So I've lived through that. 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.

The Russians were really paranoid at that point and they were responding to our military exercise

on Abel Archer. There was also the Korean airliner. There were numerous incidents

in the 80s, but I never felt the fear. I thought Reagan was testing the limits, but

perhaps if I'd been younger, I would have felt it. But anyway, no, we come close. The United

States has risked this several times. If I told you, it would be hard for you to believe. If I

could set a scene for you in a drama in 1962 when Kennedy has a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of

Staff and the CIA and they talk about a plan, the military plan, to first strike the Soviet Union

and China. It was an Eisenhower plan that had been put into potential operation in

the early 60s or late 50s, SIO P62. This was an attack on the Soviet Union, first strike.

That's why the United States has never given up the concept of first strike. It's interesting

that the Russian nuclear policy posture is more defensive than the American one, which leaves

options open. The same options are open. A neoconservative agreement that we see from the

late 90s where they say the emergence of a rival power will not be tolerated. That's a very broad

statement and 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. They broke that one. That was

the intermediate missile. That was 2019. I don't know when they broke it off, but the United States

has not been very faithful on its nuclear agreements. I don't know that we can even deal

with the United States diplomatically. It seems to be impossible. Now, it brings me to Biden.

Yes. Another Irishman. This is the opposite of Kennedy. Kennedy was a Catholic Irish

anti imperialist. Biden seems to be the opposite. He seems to be a get along, go along guy who's been

not only old, but he's also gone along with this program, which I voted for Biden because I feared

Trump, but I thought Biden at a certain age would mellow. I really did. He's not mellowed.

Apparently, he's still listening to these people and he believes them. It seems that his horrible

woman, Victoria Nuland, who was under Secretary of State, he appointed her to this sector of the

world. She's very influential and she's been one of the worst people on Ukraine. She obviously

was behind the coup. She was the one who boasted that we got our man in, Yats, Yatsenuk, and also

remember the famous statement, fuck the EU, all these things. But she's back and she said the

other day about if the Russians use nuclear weaponry of any kind, there's going to be a

horrible price to pay. She was out of the blue. I said, what the hell is she doing? She's talking

nuclear all of a sudden. And then since that day, everybody in the US press, all the shows have gone,

talked nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. Secretary of State has done it, Blinken. 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 is. That's why I showed him strange love,

because I wanted him to show him. I wanted Mr. Putin to say, look at this film. You never saw it.

How can you not say? It's a seminal film in American history to those people who care.

And it shows you the Kubrick had a pacifist, thank God, antiwar mentality, which he showed

in Bars of Glory, as well as strange love. And it's such a dire, well done scenario that

I wanted Mr. Putin to be aware of the way the United States thinks.

Yeah, the absurdity of escalation, the absurdity of war at the largest scale,

the absurdity of nuclear war, especially. Can we walk back from the brink of nuclear war?

Can we? Can we? Yes. Yes. What's the path to walk back?

Reason. Reason and diplomacy. There's no reason. I mean, talk to the guy.

Like, Mr. Biden, why don't you calm down and go and talk to Mr. Putin in Moscow?

Why don't you just sit across the table from him and try to have a discussion without

falling into ideologies and stuff like that?

Can I ask you for advice? You did some of the most difficult interviews ever. Do you have advice

that you can give to someone like me or anyone hoping to understand something about

a human being sitting across from them about what it takes to do a good interview?

You're doing one.

Well, no, but there's a, listen, there's levels to this game. And interviewing somebody like

Vladimir Putin, also language barrier, sit across from the man, try to keep an open mind,

try to also ask challenging questions, but not challenging with an agenda, but seeking to understand

and understand deeply. How do you do that? Seeking the truth. It's very simple. Seeking

the truth. Being a questioner like you are, you want to know what is really going on. I could

not get anywhere with Biden or Bush or for that matter, Obama. They'd be opaque with me. There's

no interview possible with the president of the United States because he's got to stand for all

the stuff that they stand for, which is imperialism, which is control of the world. How can you defend

that? No one's going to come out and say that. They're always going to blame the enemy. They're

going to blame Iran. They're going to blame China. So some people, it may not be possible to break

through the opaqueness. You can't. Have you ever seen an interview with the president besides being

personable where he actually discussed American policy? Yeah. I mean, not really, but maybe after

their president. I could see Obama being able to do such an interview. I could see George W

being able to do such an interview, or are they not able to reflect at all?

George W hasn't shown much conscience in terms of thinking about what he's done. You've seen that.

Have you ever seen my movie W? I think that's one of my best movies because it shows a man who's just

out of his depth and has no, he has a conscience at the end of the movie. If you remember correctly,

he talks to his wife and he says, I don't get it. I'm trying to do good in the world. I've done,

I believe in good and right. And why do people not understand it? You know, that kind of complaint

as if he can't get outside himself to understand the way other people think. Empathies, walking,

like a dramatist is what I do. You walk in the footsteps of other people. When I did a movie

about Richard Nixon, it wasn't because I liked him. It was because I wanted to, I think I understood

a part of him because of my father and I think I wanted to walk in his footsteps. That's not to

say I sympathize with him because I didn't. I don't think he helped the American cause at all,

but it was empathize as opposed to sympathize. Same thing with Bush. People were shocked when I did

the Bush movie. They said, how can you be in any way, any way receptive to this guy? I said,

that's wrong. Dramatists don't have political positions. They walk in the shoes of, that's

why Bush movie perhaps was surprising to me and maybe people didn't care for it. Maybe that's,

but that's, you've got to go there. If you did a movie about a villain, you have to go there.

You have to walk in their shoes. Yes. So see them because they usually, villains usually see

themselves as the hero. Yes. So you have to consider what is it like to live in a world where

this person is the hero? Yes. Is that a burden? Is that hard? Not for George W. Bush. He's

bitching because they didn't understand him, but he had a good vision. He's out of democracy and,

you know, democracy forgives a lot of sins. Can I ask you a hard question on that? Yes, sure.

So because empathy is so important to a great interview, let's ask the most challenging version

of empathy, which is when you're sitting across from a man on the brink of war that leads to

tens of millions of deaths, which is Hitler. So if you could interview Hitler in 1939,

as the drums of war start to beat or 1941, when they're already full on war, but there's still

a lot of pacifists, there's still a lot of people unsure what are the motivations behind

what Hitler is doing. How would you do that interview? What depends when you do it. If you do

it in 1938, I certainly would have, no, you have to, if you sit down across from Hitler,

you empathize. What is your beef? What do you, where have you been? What is your consciousness?

Why do you hate Jewish people? Why, why, what is, you know, all these questions that come up,

his sense of grievance as a result of World War I, there's justifications there, etc. But if I,

and by the way, Churchill was trying to make a deal with him in 38. That's a fact that people

don't know is Churchill himself. And, you know, there was still the desire in England to make peace

with Germany. And he was seen as a possible, what Churchill really wanted was Hitler to go

against Russia and anything to destroy the Bolsheviks. So he was using Hitler as much as he could

to go after Russia. But Hitler was too elusive to get, to pin him down. But if you remember,

Hitler was very kind at the end of, kind is not the right word, was did not go after the

British Empire when he had France. And he could have. He had another objective, which was obviously

the East. So Hitler's goal, I think, he always had an admiration for England. It's an interesting

story, always. And the Empire. Yes. And certainly Churchill, we have no doubts now from history,

revisionism, that Churchill's interest, main interest, was not Germany. It was the British

Empire. Yes. And to preserve it to India, the road to India and all that. And Middle East,

Churchill fought the entire war with the concept of preserving the British Empire. All his goals,

he sent America on a goose chase into Italy, you could argue, instead of establishing a

sincere second front in Western Europe. Interesting man. So I would have tried to get,

you know, I think I would approach it the same way. In 1939, it would have been a different story,

because at that point, he'd attacked Poland in 1940 France. So it's another ballgame.

But certainly, at whatever point you talk to him, I would try to understand his point. So I'm not

judging you, Hitler. I'm saying to you, tell me what you're thinking. Why are you invading Russia?

What's your thought? That's all an interviewer should do. He shouldn't be expressing his contempt

for Hitler, which is like an American journalist interviewing Putin. I'm getting brownie points

for expressing my contempt for you. That doesn't wash with me. That's ugly.

Yeah, seek to understand. Yes. This is a technical question, but was language a barrier

as an interviewer? To some degree, it's very hard to learn Russian. But I had very, they have excellent

translators in the Kremlin. Excellent. They are people who are trained very seriously for

months or years before they, these people are young and they're very bright. I was very impressed

with the Russian translator. It's interesting. I mean, I'm impressed as well, but there's a humor

that's lost. There's a wit, a dry wit. There's stuff said between the lines. That's not actually

have much content, but it's more kind of the things that make communication more frictionless.

It's the, there's a, there's a kind of sadness to a Russian humor that permeates all things.

And that sometimes is lost in translation. The translation is a little bit colder,

meaning it's just conveys the facts. Would you call it sardonic humor?

I would say so. Yeah. And so it's interesting. But I think you could see that from facial

expressions when you're sitting across from the person and you can feel it. Let me ask you in

general, what's the role of love in the human condition in your life, in life in general?

You've talked, you looked at some of the darkest aspect of human nature. What's the role of this,

one of the more beautiful aspects of human nature? I think without love, I wouldn't,

I don't think I'd be able to carry on. I think that love is my, 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.

If you love well, I think you expand it to the human race too. And I, 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 the scientists sometimes don't express that clearly.

You can lose that when you focus on the facts, on empirical data, on the science of things.

You can lose this, the humanity that's between the lines.

I'm often struck by when I talk to scientists and I've talked to a few

at how arrogant they can be about, they don't talk to you if you don't understand their world

and they talk to each other and there's an arrogance, a closed circle kind of thing.

Oh, he's not at my level. I can't, there's no discussion to be had with this person. He's a human

being. That arrogance is terrifying to me because it's, it's next door neighbor to close mindedness,

which then can be used by charismatic leaders as it was in Nazi Germany

to commit some of the worst atrocities. The scientists can be used as pawns in a very,

in a very cruel game. What advice would you give to young people? You've done, first of all,

some of the greatest films ever. You've lived a heck of a life. You've were fearless and bold

in asking some really difficult questions of this world. What advice would you give to young people

today, high school, college, about career, how to have a career they can be proud of,

or how to have a life they can be proud of? Well, I have three children. So obviously,

I'm not necessarily the best, best advisor in the world. I, and they, I do find that the children,

I've raised them with a sense of freedom and they do what they want. In the end, it's their life,

their destiny, their character. That's what comes out. You can try to influence it, but you can try

to get your daughter to wake up at a certain hour in the day, but it never works. So I long ago gave

up on that and my children are all grown now. But aside from that, I think if I was a teacher in a

school and teaching film, I'd say to the students, get an education. You can't just look at film.

Because it's not a full education. It's not the spectrum. I don't think you should teach film as a,

I think you need a base in other, in other worlds. One of the greatest courses I took in NYU

was, and I was a war veteran on the GI Bill. So I was older than the other students. One of the

great, I took a class outside the film school in Greek classics because I hadn't had much history

or, and I wanted to know more about the world of Homer and so forth. And the teacher opened my eyes

to so much in that class. And I wrote about it in my memoir. It's called Chasing the Light

about Professor Leahy and what he did to me. He just, he gave me the concepts clearly of consciousness,

which is the Homeric theme of Odysseus. And, and also lethe, L E T H E, L E T H E, which is sleep.

And how most of the crew, Odysseus's crew, were experiencing lethe 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 that, I think, is the basis of a good education and a classic one is

important. A basis. I think then you go on and you can learn computer if you want. But that's

specialization, you know. If you're a computer geek, is that a life? Does that give you enough

satisfaction? Do you get the joy out of, out of people? No, just like filmmaking is a skill.

Yes, right. You need to have the broad back on to understand the world, literature, history.

Absolutely. So one of the things about being human is life is finite. It ends. Do you think about

your death? Are you afraid of your death? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. You have to come to terms with

death. And that's a tough one for many people. It's always there. I'm older than you, obviously.

And I'm getting closer to it. It couldn't happen any day, actually. When you get to a certain age,

you can't assume that you're going to be alive tomorrow. So I try to deal with that.

Are you afraid of it? Much less so than I was when I was younger. Remember, I was in Vietnam,

but I thought I dealt with it there. But when I came back, I realized that I wanted to live.

So yes, I've learned over time to get more and more used to it and get ready for it.

What's a good answer to the question of why live? So the realization that you wanted to live,

what was the reason to live? Because it was better than being one of those corpses that I

saw in the jungle. I saw how finite death is.

Are there things in your life you regret? Oh, sure. Too many.

Is there something you wish you could have done differently? Like if you could go back

to do one thing differently or that regrets all the time?

It's much less. I'm curious. What do you say offline all the time?

No, no. You'd be curious to know. And he's an engineer, too. And engineers really value mistakes.

Engineers value mistakes and errors, because that's an opportunity to learn.

I mean, this is what you do with systems is you test them,

you test them, you test them, and errors is just information. He did.

The same thing is true in its way of filmmaking. There are certain things you learn as you build

films and you make mistakes. It's like putting an engine together and you, oh, the film is flawed

in that way. You know it. Other people may or may not see it, but the car runs or made money

or it didn't make money. It can be good and it didn't make money, but the point is that everything

is a build. Every film is a construction. Same thing as he goes through on a Tesla,

we go through on each film. But films are art. It's a little tricky.

Yeah, the thing is one film does not lead to a lifetime guarantee of copyright.

Well, yeah, you have the movie game, as you've called it, is a complicated and cruel game.

But it takes an enormous amount of work, enormous amount of work to make a film.

People underestimate that. It's extremely complicated to have something be successful

because it has so many elements of luck involved and reception and so forth.

What do you think, I apologize for the absurd question, but what do you think is the meaning

of life? Why are we here? The why? I think to realize ourselves, to realize more of what you are,

to realize what life is, to appreciate it, to grow, to honor our life, to honor the concept

of life and to understand how precious life is, the preciousness of life as the Buddhists say.

And of course, the immediacy of death all around us, the causes of death are all around us.

And our life is like, as they say, is like a lantern in a strong breeze among the existing,

among the causes of death. So life is so precious. And at the same time, we

have the immediacy of death and then of course, the continuation of life in whatever form it's

going to take. But in this life, to wake up to the preciousness of it, to the preciousness.

Yeah, that's a wonderful thing. By the way, I didn't have that when I was young. I took it for granted.

Oliver, like I said, I'm a huge fan. You're an incredible human being,

one of the greatest artists ever. So it's a huge honor that you sit with me and talk so deeply

and honestly about some very difficult topics. Again, you're an inspiration and it's an honor

that you will spend your valuable time with me. Thank you very much. Thanks for talking to me.

Fun being here. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Oliver Stone. To support

this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with

some words from Oliver Stone in the untold history of the United States. To fail is not tragic.

To be human is. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.