As an exercise, whenever I read that the U.S. has suffered another cyber attack, I wonder about the potential times the U.S. has committed one.
Surely, I tell myself, the U.S. is smart and vigilant and aggressive enough to do its own version of these things.
So when Oliver Stone extensively interviewed Vladimir Putin for Showtime in 2017 I listened eagerly. After all, I knewe how U.S. officials, and our media, viewed the Russian leader, but I wanted to hear, unfiltered, how he makes sense of us.
Oddly what struck me about that four-part series had less to do with Putin and his views than with Stone and his chronic refusal to challenge Putin in any substantive way.
Okay, I told myself, Ted Koppel he’s not.
But whatever discomfort that gave me pales when placed alongside a more recent interview of Stone by podcaster Lex Fridman (shorter clip here).
There’s a real power here to the circumstance of the interview itself: Stone can no longer hide behind the veil of a journalist seeking truth and following his duty to allow Putin to share his view. Stone is now offering his own version of the truth.
Stone’s lack of scrutiny re Russia
But once one ponders his refusal to extend his reasoning on issues to all parties involved, his version of the truth shocks.
While he speaks of Putin’s belief in the importance of sovereignty—for Russia, China, Iran, Venzuala and Cuba—Stone largely dismisses the sovereignty of Ukraine.
But clearly he must have considered it. “There’s no opposition to Zelensky,” he says of the Ukrainian president, “so he doesn’t have a real sovereignty. It was a stolen sovereignty.” So what then of Putin’s sovereignty? Stolen or otherwise?
Stone speculates that Ukraine could become a place where, once the army is wiped out, “all that’s left are the Neo nazi brigades.” It’s also a place where “there’s been a series of hideous murders” against people who have spoken out.
And what, one wonders, happens to dissenters in Russia?
Stone’s sentiments on America
Stone’s views consistently demonstrate a disdain for the U.S. It would indeed be fair to call out American geopolitical hypocrisy, both current and historical.
Again, the question here is how Stone justifies this but seems defended against asking the same questions—just as passionately—of Russia.
Stone accuses the U.S. of “making a lot of noise” about Russia potentially using nuclear and chemical weapons in the current conflict.
Then things get weird. Stone adds that it’s possible to explode a nuclear device on the battlefield but doesn’t see it coming from Russia but from the U.S.
“And of course the blame,” he says, “would go right to Russia—right to Russia. Even if it did not 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.”[1]No need to wonder about his warm reception at outlets like Democracy Now!
He offers no substantiation to the claim, nor does Fridman press him for any.[2]I should preface by saying overall I like Fridman and his work. He is devoid of gotcha moments and gossip. He seems engaged existentially with himself and others. He takes interest in people with … Continue reading
For Stone, the U.S. is hell-bent on world domination. “They will go to any ends, they will destroy Ukraine if necessary,” he says, “but they want regime change in Russia and after they do that of course they will go after China.” Stone provides nothing to substantiate these claims, but he goes further in his characterization. “This is the equivalent frankly of Germany’s goals in WWII, world domination. There’s no question in my mind.”
There certainly is in mine.
“Propaganda all is phony”
Perhaps nowhere is Stone’s lack of balance more blatant than in his love of Vladimir Putin.
Of the filming of the Showtime series, Stone says, “I just never saw a misuse of his power. I saw a humility in him actually.”
Yet the most profound questions are often the most basic ones.
“Do you think he’s an honest man?” Fridman asks Stone.
“I do,” Stone replies. “No of course the question of money, the charges that he’s the richest man in the world are ludicrous. He certainly doesn’t live like it or act like it.”
Stone answers the question alright, but his quick shift away from his answer (I’ve provided a direct quote), and from anything that might support it, is telling. We’re witness to his caginess.
Bob Dylan, to whom Stone is no stranger, once said “Propaganda all is phony.”
Despite his seductive calm, something else seeps through: strains of a paranoid agitator and fervent propagandist. How much more of this before he can credibly be called a Putin mouthpiece?
Our thinking with Stone needs to shift for a moment from whether we think Putin is an honest man, to whether we think Stone is one. The Fridman interview provides a chance to consider just that.
Notes, etc.
| ↑1 | No need to wonder about his warm reception at outlets like Democracy Now! |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | I should preface by saying overall I like Fridman and his work. He is devoid of gotcha moments and gossip. He seems engaged existentially with himself and others. He takes interest in people with equal parts curiosity and respect. But there’s perhaps a reason why Stone expresses such satisfaction with the interview near its end: Like Stone with Putin, Fridman rarely pushes or challenges Stone. Judging by the praise in the comments section, the bar for what constitutes a good interview these days could be getting lowered. |