What do you think?
Rate this book
The Putin Interviews
From Oscar-winner Oliver Stone comes a first-hand look at one of the most important, powerful, and controversial leaders in the world: Vladimir Putin of Russia. The companion to the news-breaking television series, this edition has substantial material not included in the documentary.
Academy Award winner Oliver Stone was able to secure what journalists, news organizations, and even other world leaders have long coveted: extended, unprecedented access to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Putin Interviews are culled from more than a dozen interviews with Putin over a two-year span—never before has the Russian leader spoken in such depth or at such length with a Western interviewer. No topics are off limits in the interviews, which first occurred during Stone’s trips to meet with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in Moscow and most recently after the election of President Donald Trump.
Prodded by Stone, Putin discusses relations between the United States and Russia, allegations of interference in the US election, and Russia’s involvement with conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere across the globe. Putin speaks about his rise to power and details his relationships with Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump. The exchanges are personal, provocative, and at times surreal. At one point, Stone asks, “Why did Russia hack the election?”; at another, Stone introduces him to Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 Cold War satire "Dr. Strangelove," which the two watch together.
Stone has interviewed controversial world leaders before, including Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Benjamin Netanyahu. But The Putin Interviews , in its unmediated access to one of the most enigmatic and powerful men in the world, can only be compared to the series of conversations between David Frost and Richard Nixon we now refer to as “The Nixon Interviews” of 1977.
The book will also contain references and sources that give readers a deeper understanding of the topics covered in the interviews and make for a more robust reading experience.
Academy Award winner Oliver Stone was able to secure what journalists, news organizations, and even other world leaders have long coveted: extended, unprecedented access to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Putin Interviews are culled from more than a dozen interviews with Putin over a two-year span—never before has the Russian leader spoken in such depth or at such length with a Western interviewer. No topics are off limits in the interviews, which first occurred during Stone’s trips to meet with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in Moscow and most recently after the election of President Donald Trump.
Prodded by Stone, Putin discusses relations between the United States and Russia, allegations of interference in the US election, and Russia’s involvement with conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere across the globe. Putin speaks about his rise to power and details his relationships with Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump. The exchanges are personal, provocative, and at times surreal. At one point, Stone asks, “Why did Russia hack the election?”; at another, Stone introduces him to Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 Cold War satire "Dr. Strangelove," which the two watch together.
Stone has interviewed controversial world leaders before, including Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Benjamin Netanyahu. But The Putin Interviews , in its unmediated access to one of the most enigmatic and powerful men in the world, can only be compared to the series of conversations between David Frost and Richard Nixon we now refer to as “The Nixon Interviews” of 1977.
The book will also contain references and sources that give readers a deeper understanding of the topics covered in the interviews and make for a more robust reading experience.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2017
145 people are currently reading
819 people want to read
About the author
Robert Scheer
52 books34 followersRobert Scheer is an American journalist who writes a column for Truthdig which is nationally syndicated in publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle and The Nation. He teaches communications as a professor at the University of Southern California and is Editor in Chief for the online magazine Truthdig.
Scheer was born to immigrant parents. His mother, a Russian Jew, and his father, a German, both worked in the garment industry. After graduating from City College of New York with a degree in economics, he studied as a fellow at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, and then did further economics graduate work at the Center for Chinese Studies at UC Berkeley. Scheer has also been a Poynter fellow at Yale University, and was a fellow in arms control at Stanford, the same post once held by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
While working at City Lights Books in San Francisco, Scheer co-authored the book, Cuba, an American tragedy (1964), with Maurice Zeitlin. Between 1964 and 1969, he served, variously, as the Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor-in-chief of Ramparts magazine. He reported from Cambodia, China, North Korea, Russia, Latin America and the Middle East (including the Six-Day War), as well as on national security matters in the United States. While in Cuba, where he interviewed Fidel Castro, Scheer obtained an introduction by the Cuban leader for the diary of Che Guevara — which Scheer had already obtained, with the assistance of French journalist Michele Ray, for publication in Ramparts and by Bantam Books.
During this period Scheer made a bid for elective office as one of the first anti-Vietnam War candidates. He challenged U.S. Representative Jeffrey Cohelan in the 1966 Democratic primary. Cohelan was a liberal, but like most Democratic officeholders at that time, he supported the Vietnam War. Scheer lost, but won over 45% of the vote (and carried Berkeley), a strong showing against an incumbent that demonstrated the rising strength of New Left Sixties radicalism.
In July 1970, Scheer accompanied as a journalist a Black Panther Party delegation, led by Eldridge Cleaver, to North Korea, China, and Vietnam. The delegation also contained people from the San Francisco Red Guard, the women's liberation movement, the Peace and Freedom Party, Newsreel, and the Movement for a Democratic Military. The purpose of the delegation was to "express solidarity with the struggles of the Koreans" and to "bring back to Babylon information about their communist society and their fight against U.S. imperialism," according to the Black Panthers' publication.
After several years freelancing for magazines, including New Times and Playboy, Scheer joined the Los Angeles Times in 1976 as a reporter. There he met Narda Zacchino, a reporter whom he later wed in the paper's news room. As a national correspondent for 17 years at the Times, he wrote articles and series on such diverse topics as the Soviet Union during glasnost, the Jews of Los Angeles, arms control, urban crises, national politics and the military, as well as covering several presidential elections. The Times entered Scheer's work for the Pulitzer Prize 11 times, and he was a finalist for the Pulitzer national reporting award for a series on the television industry.
After Scheer left the Times in 1993, the paper granted him a weekly op-ed column which ran every Tuesday for the next 12 years until it was canceled in 2005. The column now appears in the San Francisco Chronicle and is distributed nationally by Creators Syndicate. He is also a contributing editor for the Nation magazine.
Scheer can be heard weekly on the nationally syndicated political analysis radio program "Left, Right & Center" produced at KCRW in Santa Monica and syndicated by Public Radio International.
Scheer was born to immigrant parents. His mother, a Russian Jew, and his father, a German, both worked in the garment industry. After graduating from City College of New York with a degree in economics, he studied as a fellow at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, and then did further economics graduate work at the Center for Chinese Studies at UC Berkeley. Scheer has also been a Poynter fellow at Yale University, and was a fellow in arms control at Stanford, the same post once held by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
While working at City Lights Books in San Francisco, Scheer co-authored the book, Cuba, an American tragedy (1964), with Maurice Zeitlin. Between 1964 and 1969, he served, variously, as the Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor-in-chief of Ramparts magazine. He reported from Cambodia, China, North Korea, Russia, Latin America and the Middle East (including the Six-Day War), as well as on national security matters in the United States. While in Cuba, where he interviewed Fidel Castro, Scheer obtained an introduction by the Cuban leader for the diary of Che Guevara — which Scheer had already obtained, with the assistance of French journalist Michele Ray, for publication in Ramparts and by Bantam Books.
During this period Scheer made a bid for elective office as one of the first anti-Vietnam War candidates. He challenged U.S. Representative Jeffrey Cohelan in the 1966 Democratic primary. Cohelan was a liberal, but like most Democratic officeholders at that time, he supported the Vietnam War. Scheer lost, but won over 45% of the vote (and carried Berkeley), a strong showing against an incumbent that demonstrated the rising strength of New Left Sixties radicalism.
In July 1970, Scheer accompanied as a journalist a Black Panther Party delegation, led by Eldridge Cleaver, to North Korea, China, and Vietnam. The delegation also contained people from the San Francisco Red Guard, the women's liberation movement, the Peace and Freedom Party, Newsreel, and the Movement for a Democratic Military. The purpose of the delegation was to "express solidarity with the struggles of the Koreans" and to "bring back to Babylon information about their communist society and their fight against U.S. imperialism," according to the Black Panthers' publication.
After several years freelancing for magazines, including New Times and Playboy, Scheer joined the Los Angeles Times in 1976 as a reporter. There he met Narda Zacchino, a reporter whom he later wed in the paper's news room. As a national correspondent for 17 years at the Times, he wrote articles and series on such diverse topics as the Soviet Union during glasnost, the Jews of Los Angeles, arms control, urban crises, national politics and the military, as well as covering several presidential elections. The Times entered Scheer's work for the Pulitzer Prize 11 times, and he was a finalist for the Pulitzer national reporting award for a series on the television industry.
After Scheer left the Times in 1993, the paper granted him a weekly op-ed column which ran every Tuesday for the next 12 years until it was canceled in 2005. The column now appears in the San Francisco Chronicle and is distributed nationally by Creators Syndicate. He is also a contributing editor for the Nation magazine.
Scheer can be heard weekly on the nationally syndicated political analysis radio program "Left, Right & Center" produced at KCRW in Santa Monica and syndicated by Public Radio International.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
January 23, 2023
Strongly recommend it.
(Putin is bad but it was interesting to read something that did not spin everything to make him look bad.)
Everything I heard about Putin (before listening to these interviews) was negative. Negative in content and negative in tone. Everything from Swedish radio, US politicians, friends, my family history and of topic comments by Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins et cetera - it all hammers in the message: Russia is the enemy, Putin is the enemy. Only exceptions are Nassim Taleb and Noam Chomsky.
What makes these interviews so good is not what they contain, but what they lack. They do not spin everything Putin says to make him look evil, and that is pretty much it. From watching ordinary news you could have pieced together what Putin thinks, but you probably would not. Because of how reporters start looking skeptical when Putin speaks. Because the Russian language sounds evil. Because Putin always looks tricky. The narrative of Putin as a potential Stalin feels so convincing, that everything he does makes him look like Stalin.
After having listened to these interviews I do not have a lot of new information. I mostly have a new perspective. The interviews challenged my emotions about Putin, and when emotions change judgements drift.
Putin now seems more like just an autocrat. Russia is the kind of place you would expect to be autocratic and Putin happens to be the one who rules it. It is not Putin's fault that Russia is Russia. The world has had a great number of autocrats since 1800 of whom a small minority were genocidal, or made their countries more violent than they already were.
Most people implicitly compare Putin to Stalin, Mussolini and Franco.
It now feels more natural to compare him to the 100 forgotten autocrats of the 20th century. South Korea, Singapore, independent Kazakhstan, Poland and so on all had dictators which today are forgotten. Forgotten because their rules were uneventful. The Maos, Stalins and Robespierres make up a tiny subset of all autocrats.
Public opinion can trick you into drawing the same analogies (this may be a very useful insight). Negative feelings about Iran in the US makes them compare Iran to Soviet in 1930, but if you have neutral feelings to Iran it also makes sense comparing them to 1960s South Korea.
Public opinion decides which comparisons plop up in your mind. Exposing yourself to favorable interviews with an unpopular man, lets you notice comparisons that made sense all along. This does not mean the new comparisons are better. But at least it broadens your understanding.
This being said. Putin is bad. It is nice to read something that does not spin. But the spin turned out to be correct.
(Putin is bad but it was interesting to read something that did not spin everything to make him look bad.)
Everything I heard about Putin (before listening to these interviews) was negative. Negative in content and negative in tone. Everything from Swedish radio, US politicians, friends, my family history and of topic comments by Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins et cetera - it all hammers in the message: Russia is the enemy, Putin is the enemy. Only exceptions are Nassim Taleb and Noam Chomsky.
What makes these interviews so good is not what they contain, but what they lack. They do not spin everything Putin says to make him look evil, and that is pretty much it. From watching ordinary news you could have pieced together what Putin thinks, but you probably would not. Because of how reporters start looking skeptical when Putin speaks. Because the Russian language sounds evil. Because Putin always looks tricky. The narrative of Putin as a potential Stalin feels so convincing, that everything he does makes him look like Stalin.
After having listened to these interviews I do not have a lot of new information. I mostly have a new perspective. The interviews challenged my emotions about Putin, and when emotions change judgements drift.
Putin now seems more like just an autocrat. Russia is the kind of place you would expect to be autocratic and Putin happens to be the one who rules it. It is not Putin's fault that Russia is Russia. The world has had a great number of autocrats since 1800 of whom a small minority were genocidal, or made their countries more violent than they already were.
Most people implicitly compare Putin to Stalin, Mussolini and Franco.
It now feels more natural to compare him to the 100 forgotten autocrats of the 20th century. South Korea, Singapore, independent Kazakhstan, Poland and so on all had dictators which today are forgotten. Forgotten because their rules were uneventful. The Maos, Stalins and Robespierres make up a tiny subset of all autocrats.
Public opinion can trick you into drawing the same analogies (this may be a very useful insight). Negative feelings about Iran in the US makes them compare Iran to Soviet in 1930, but if you have neutral feelings to Iran it also makes sense comparing them to 1960s South Korea.
Public opinion decides which comparisons plop up in your mind. Exposing yourself to favorable interviews with an unpopular man, lets you notice comparisons that made sense all along. This does not mean the new comparisons are better. But at least it broadens your understanding.
This being said. Putin is bad. It is nice to read something that does not spin. But the spin turned out to be correct.
March 14, 2019
Putin comes across as an intelligent man, a patriot, a leader. I can't assess the veracity of some of his statements but his grasp of detail and ability to answer a plethora of questions was quite impressive. Some interesting insights for me was that America needs enemies, Putin doesn't read summaries he reads the whole report, and Putin is a bit cheeky. At times Stone tries to dominant the discussions and his leading questions are well deflected. "The Trump Interviews" would be fascinating.
January 30, 2023
It's about exactly the amount of information you'd expect from Vladimir "Steel Trap" Putin, first vampire head of state (no, Shikitsuhikotamatemi no Mikoto does not count). Stone doesn't hold back with the questions, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes an annoying thing. But either way, Putin shares the same amount. If nothing else, it shows off how meticulous he is, and how much data is stored in his brain-- the fact-checking section in the back overwhelmingly supports a good 95% of claims made. It's certainly impressive, if very dry. Easily the best part is that Stone gets Putin to watch 'Dr. Strangelove.' Even if it made little to no impression upon him, I'm glad for that.
November 22, 2017
Fascinating book filled with insights on anything and everything from President Putin’s point of view. He is a great man and leader who puts his country first and answers to no one but the Russian people. I gained a new respect for President Putin after reading this book and I recommend it to everyone!
January 4, 2021
The Putin Interviews: Oliver Stone Interviews Vladimir Putin, Very interesting series of interviews carried out by Oliver Stone of movie “Platoon” fame, this is a very candid view into the mind of Putin, by some extreme groups he’s portrayed as the anti-Christ or to other fundamentalist groups as the next saviour for mankind. Oliver asked so many questions and seems Putin has so many very plausible answers to every single question he asked or very suitable diversions. Putin a former KGB agent & now a 4 term Russian leader he is to me a real enigma of our tine, with some serious background training in the spy world. He’s definitely a very intelligent and charismatic man who just really loves Russia and is doing what he believes is in Russia’s best interests. Interesting couple of points I'll mention about his historic comparison of the Roman and Carthage wars with USA and Russia and the money spent annually 2016 figures USA 600 billion China 200 Saudi Arabia 76 Russia 66. With Rome and Carthage, if they had made a permanent peace both these empires and had learnt to co-exist then Rome’s demise 400 years later may have not happened, I see the point uniting creates greater strength, but leaders are far to selfish for that nonsense. So, then he says that the USA and Russia have been allies in two world wars surely there must be a way to unite our only future wars should be against terrorists, poverty, starvation and diseases that makes whole damn lot of sense to me, but we humans are way to fickle for that kind of logic and that’s to our detriment. Well overall it was a very interesting and worth the effort, thoroughly enjoyed it and that's all I've gotyo say about that.
September 3, 2017
Putin is obviously an intelligent man. There is no way for me to judge the truth of what he says but it is interesting as it is different from what the conventional media presents.
January 29, 2021
6.5/10.
Firstly: Oliver Stone is no Glenn Greenwald, a principled liberal who has more care for truth than ideology. Several times in the interviews, Putin adverts to Stone's anti-Americanism, and once asks him if he's a communist, point blank. This indicates the tenor of Stone's questioning.
An American being accused of communism by a KGB man. There's a Yakov Smirnov joke in there.
Secondly: Not as much as I'd expected. Putin here is the consummate politician. Nothing is made known that was hidden before. It is made obvious that he is not a madman or enemy of the world order (except for the globalists, perhaps): he puts Russia First and considers himself beholden only to the Russian people's interests, not Western demands. I hope he succeeds in his mission to make Russia great(er) again.
If only America were graced with a leader who put America(ns) First and wasn't beholden to Leftist, minority, or Israeli interests. If you had any doubts, Trump was not that man. If you think otherwise, you're a conservative - one who conserves Leftist innovations.
Though I admire the man, insight in to Russ-hysteria and Putinophobia here is missing, and the role of Putin, the Orthodox Church, and the Russian government in maintaining and strengthening traditional Christian civilization and outlawing degeneracy is elided. The only thing that's mentioned in depth is the law preventing homosexual proselytization among minors but even there Putin goes out of his way to be neutral to the LGBTs and even to praise them!
Russia's response to feminism and its policy to increase native births is never discussed. Russia/the USSR have always been imperial, which is to say multiethnic and multilinguistic, states so they're probably not the best people to get advice from on the reestablishment of ethnic homogeneity over here. Maybe I should read some interviews with Shinzo Abe for that, since the Japanese have done such a good job at it and maintain a very correct and beneficial view of foreigners and foreign influence.
How much of the view presented by Putin here is calculated to make him look good to a Progressivist Western audience, and thus bad to me?
I imagine, in the back of my mind, that I've held out this hope that Russia is a sort of Third Rome and Putin a second patriarch along with Kirill. A state where the patriarchy survived and thrived, where religion plays an increasingly theocratic role and the church isn't at the leading edge of the Great Cucking as is the current heretical Catholic hierarchy, where powers are devolving to autonomous regions, where the tide of Western leftist degeneracy has been halted, the worst effects of mechanistic late modernity ameliorated, and Pussy Riots are jailed on a frequent basis. A place to which I've desired to emigrate when Moscow compensation packages for software engineers hit at least $150-250k, or about half of America. (What can I say? I myself am an acquisitive, degenerate child of a degenerate era; no matter how much I'm able to detect and purge from myself, some smears of dirt remain, what the mediaevals would have called besetting sins.)
In short, I was and partially remain in thrall of a view of Russia filtered through my second homeland of Russian Literature, the valorization of the peasant, the traditionalism of Solzhenitsyn, the psychology of Dostoevsky, the vital religion of Bulgakov (The Master and Margarita), the Rightism of Dugin (who doesn't have the influence the Western lugenpresse attributes to him), Solovyov, the Sophiologists and the Slavophiles. Keep in mind that all nations are homogeneous: a picture of the State of Gulag recovering from its atheistic Leninist legacy, a nation against modernity, a nation itself riding the tiger under the sign of the muscular, Rightist Christianity of the Byzantine Cross.
Reinforcing this view (illusion?) are all of Russian Literature and books such as Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance by Gavrilyuk, Two Hundred Years Together and speeches by Solzhenitsyn, all the works of Solovyov and Bulgakov, Holy Rus' by Burgess, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent by Garrard, and Russian Conservatism by Robinson.
Robert Wilton's The Last Days of the Romanovs, The Jewish Century, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and A People's Tragedy show the evils of Bolshevism to have been generated and perpetrated upon the Russians by a small, formerly stateless, eternal and wandering people just like pop culture, immigration, Hollywood, Freudianism and Boasianism were perpetrated upon us. This leaves the road clear to view the ethnic Russians as a sort of race of living saints building the City of God on earth and becoming Universal Man, an image reinforced by the general badassery of Putin and the biased reporting of his ostensible heroics for the church and Russian people against the homosexualists, feminists, Zionists, etc. in the Western media, though to Putin himself these things are such a tiny and insignificant part of his vision that they're below notice.
The book Creating Russophobia by Mettan, a Leftist author who probably would have called opposition to Stalin Russophobia disabused me of some of these notions. These interviews did a bit more.
How much of the view presented by Putin here is calculated to make him look good to a Progressivist Western audience, and thus bad to me? How much is the real Putin, and how much power does Putin really have? Does he reflect the people? In these interviews he is a majoritarian, somewhat nationalist populist Orthodox Christian who supports nationalism for all peoples (including, ostensibly, Whites according to the United Nations Charter section 2) and there are far worse things to be. Like a Democrat, Republican, Labourite, Tory, Multiculturalist, Antiracist, Open-Borderist, Crony Capitalist, or Socialist.
Firstly: Oliver Stone is no Glenn Greenwald, a principled liberal who has more care for truth than ideology. Several times in the interviews, Putin adverts to Stone's anti-Americanism, and once asks him if he's a communist, point blank. This indicates the tenor of Stone's questioning.
An American being accused of communism by a KGB man. There's a Yakov Smirnov joke in there.
Secondly: Not as much as I'd expected. Putin here is the consummate politician. Nothing is made known that was hidden before. It is made obvious that he is not a madman or enemy of the world order (except for the globalists, perhaps): he puts Russia First and considers himself beholden only to the Russian people's interests, not Western demands. I hope he succeeds in his mission to make Russia great(er) again.
If only America were graced with a leader who put America(ns) First and wasn't beholden to Leftist, minority, or Israeli interests. If you had any doubts, Trump was not that man. If you think otherwise, you're a conservative - one who conserves Leftist innovations.
Though I admire the man, insight in to Russ-hysteria and Putinophobia here is missing, and the role of Putin, the Orthodox Church, and the Russian government in maintaining and strengthening traditional Christian civilization and outlawing degeneracy is elided. The only thing that's mentioned in depth is the law preventing homosexual proselytization among minors but even there Putin goes out of his way to be neutral to the LGBTs and even to praise them!
Russia's response to feminism and its policy to increase native births is never discussed. Russia/the USSR have always been imperial, which is to say multiethnic and multilinguistic, states so they're probably not the best people to get advice from on the reestablishment of ethnic homogeneity over here. Maybe I should read some interviews with Shinzo Abe for that, since the Japanese have done such a good job at it and maintain a very correct and beneficial view of foreigners and foreign influence.
How much of the view presented by Putin here is calculated to make him look good to a Progressivist Western audience, and thus bad to me?
I imagine, in the back of my mind, that I've held out this hope that Russia is a sort of Third Rome and Putin a second patriarch along with Kirill. A state where the patriarchy survived and thrived, where religion plays an increasingly theocratic role and the church isn't at the leading edge of the Great Cucking as is the current heretical Catholic hierarchy, where powers are devolving to autonomous regions, where the tide of Western leftist degeneracy has been halted, the worst effects of mechanistic late modernity ameliorated, and Pussy Riots are jailed on a frequent basis. A place to which I've desired to emigrate when Moscow compensation packages for software engineers hit at least $150-250k, or about half of America. (What can I say? I myself am an acquisitive, degenerate child of a degenerate era; no matter how much I'm able to detect and purge from myself, some smears of dirt remain, what the mediaevals would have called besetting sins.)
In short, I was and partially remain in thrall of a view of Russia filtered through my second homeland of Russian Literature, the valorization of the peasant, the traditionalism of Solzhenitsyn, the psychology of Dostoevsky, the vital religion of Bulgakov (The Master and Margarita), the Rightism of Dugin (who doesn't have the influence the Western lugenpresse attributes to him), Solovyov, the Sophiologists and the Slavophiles. Keep in mind that all nations are homogeneous: a picture of the State of Gulag recovering from its atheistic Leninist legacy, a nation against modernity, a nation itself riding the tiger under the sign of the muscular, Rightist Christianity of the Byzantine Cross.
Reinforcing this view (illusion?) are all of Russian Literature and books such as Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance by Gavrilyuk, Two Hundred Years Together and speeches by Solzhenitsyn, all the works of Solovyov and Bulgakov, Holy Rus' by Burgess, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent by Garrard, and Russian Conservatism by Robinson.
Robert Wilton's The Last Days of the Romanovs, The Jewish Century, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and A People's Tragedy show the evils of Bolshevism to have been generated and perpetrated upon the Russians by a small, formerly stateless, eternal and wandering people just like pop culture, immigration, Hollywood, Freudianism and Boasianism were perpetrated upon us. This leaves the road clear to view the ethnic Russians as a sort of race of living saints building the City of God on earth and becoming Universal Man, an image reinforced by the general badassery of Putin and the biased reporting of his ostensible heroics for the church and Russian people against the homosexualists, feminists, Zionists, etc. in the Western media, though to Putin himself these things are such a tiny and insignificant part of his vision that they're below notice.
The book Creating Russophobia by Mettan, a Leftist author who probably would have called opposition to Stalin Russophobia disabused me of some of these notions. These interviews did a bit more.
How much of the view presented by Putin here is calculated to make him look good to a Progressivist Western audience, and thus bad to me? How much is the real Putin, and how much power does Putin really have? Does he reflect the people? In these interviews he is a majoritarian, somewhat nationalist populist Orthodox Christian who supports nationalism for all peoples (including, ostensibly, Whites according to the United Nations Charter section 2) and there are far worse things to be. Like a Democrat, Republican, Labourite, Tory, Multiculturalist, Antiracist, Open-Borderist, Crony Capitalist, or Socialist.
November 18, 2021
É de louvar o trabalho de Oliver Stone na condução desta entrevista. As entrevistas filmadas foram meticulosamente preparadas e conseguem enriquecer muito este diálogo pois temos acesso a um contacto mais "intimista" com Vladimir Putin. Putin tornou-se uma figura mítica para o Ocidente e um líder ensimesmado. Controverso, incisivo e determinado, Putin não deixa nenhuma pergunta sem resposta. Contudo, algumas respostas são evasivas e discretas, talvez por causa do seu temperamento russo ou para manter intacta a estratégia que o mantém no Kremlin há duas décadas. O sucessor de Ieltsin não menospreza nenhum rival nem nenhuma ameaça. É um excelente exercício de aproximação ao lado mais pessoal de Putin. Stone procura ser imparcial ao longo do diálogo, embora a velha tensão EUA vs. Rússia esteja sempre presente, ainda que inconscientemente. Mas vale muito a pena a leitura e a visualização da versão filmada destas entrevistas.
August 30, 2018
This is a series of interviews which I listened to on audiobook. The famed director, Oliver Stone conducted these interviews over a period of two years with Vladimir Putin, President, Prime Minister and then President again of the Russian Federation. They cover a whole range of topics of great relevance to today's world. I chose to listen to this audiobook after realising that Putin seems to be making more sense on global issues than other world leaders in recent years. I was amazed by what I found out in this audiobook. Everyone, whether you are a fan of Putin or not, should at least give this a try. In fact, you should give it a shot if you really dislike Putin and think he is the greatest threat to world peace today. You just might be surprised.
N.B. The version I listened to had a guy narrating Putin's portion with a neat Russian accent.
N.B. The version I listened to had a guy narrating Putin's portion with a neat Russian accent.
February 19, 2020
Изключително интересна книга, включваща интервюта на Оливър Стоун с Владимир Путин. Тук липсва суха материя. Води се освободен от политическа сухота разговор, който увлича в четенето. Руският президент разказва интересни спомени за детство си, семейството, ежедневния си график. Разговорите не са статични - дори напротив. Путин посреща Стоун на различни места - в конюшната си, в кабинета, в Сочи, двамата гледат дори и филм. Засягат сериозни теми, като Украйна, САЩ, Сноудън, олигарсите, промените в Русия и външната политика.
August 9, 2019
Few things.
1. If the U.S. was involved some way in Chechnya war, where's proof? If that's true, then Putin shot his leg with such claims as he had destroyed free press that can investigate it. Only idiots or yesterday born babies would believe what Putin has to say. And he is definitely much smarter than fatty, sleepy Westerners. As I always say, the problem with people's opinions, they make their decisions on too little of the information.
2. Magically became the president. Who da hell you trying to fool with this? There is no such magic in the world, especially when you are the KGB agent.
3. "It is always better to make a decision than none." And how they can't understand, imperialism comes exactly from such ideologies... Read something on Taoism maybe, - every action leads to even more actions, a waste, actually (as an example, see picture above of "decisions"). This is especially dangerous in politics, where every idiot can pretend being a "savior", "father figure" (="führer") of the world, and then try to overdo everything. People can do shit without your shitty guidance. So, it is always better to postpone decisions and let people do their own shit. Talking about average people.
4. Who Putin really is? "High-dominance introvert" or "expansionist with orientation to foreign affairs": "These leaders have a view of the world as being "divided into 'us' and 'them'," based on a belief system in which conflict is viewed as inherent in the international system".
5. "Unknown reason for 'coup d'état' in Ukraine." Well, well, reason is known just from simple name of the revolution - "EUROmaidan", not including many other things done by Yanukovich, that are also comparable to Putin's.
6. Crimean referendum. Beyond words, no outside observers can prove that it was democratic, like everything else in Russia.
7. Shut down Malaysian plane. Putin would never admit what is really known. Just another case on where psychopathic "decisions" lead.
8. "We radically liberalized..." Radically! :-D No one would tell you in this book, their "liberal" party leader is totally crazy idiot constantly shouting various "Putin-test*" nonsense like "we should drop an atom bomb on Baltic states" or "I'll shoot opponents if I succeed Putin".
Ah, fuck it, tired commenting everything about this psychopath.
On the other hand, 1) what Putin does is just "real-politik" and his actions are plainly understandable, and 2) this is nothing different from U.S. side psychopaths' imperialistic rhetoric and crimes.
* Putin-test - it is thought that V.Zhirinovsky's shouts are actually a part of Putin's tests, another part being Russia's planes and ships crossing Baltic or North Europe borders, on how world/ NATO would react to that.
Also posted to my blog
P.S. This guy is good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2xM...
P.P.S. Changed the rating from 4 to 1 due to the fact that too many idiots are taking this book as pro-imperialistic, pro-Putin criminal gang vote.
P.P.S. On Putin system and bandits of 90-ies: Криминал и Власть. Где сейчас бандиты 90х? | Быть Или
October 13, 2017
Read it attentively, with empathy towards Putin, try to understand not only what he says but also why he says what he says, and surprise yourself. You will find out how mislead were you by the anti-Putin western media. Not only on the content of his speech, but also on the form.
And check how desperate Oliver Stone sounds in front of a Putin who insists on calling US politicians by "our partners", despite the overwhelming accumulation of US aggressive speeches, US misconducts against Russia and US physical aggressions on Russia (arrogantly admitted US support on Islamic terrorism in southern Russia, for instance).
Beautiful peace of good sense and argumentation!
Watch also the 4 parts interviews, really worthy. You can find it on the bottom of this page:
http://pensamentosnomadas.blogs.sapo....
And check how desperate Oliver Stone sounds in front of a Putin who insists on calling US politicians by "our partners", despite the overwhelming accumulation of US aggressive speeches, US misconducts against Russia and US physical aggressions on Russia (arrogantly admitted US support on Islamic terrorism in southern Russia, for instance).
Beautiful peace of good sense and argumentation!
Watch also the 4 parts interviews, really worthy. You can find it on the bottom of this page:
http://pensamentosnomadas.blogs.sapo....
August 3, 2017
Annoying recording, the performance stultifying, distracting to the point that it's literally unlistenable. For some reason, the Putin voice is acted with a slavic-accented English, unnecessary.
The interview is frequently interspersed with "background notes" in a different voice, almost a computer-like reading. I will try to just read the book when I can.
The content is interesting, and important. Putin himself comes off as a reasonable pragmatist, with his greatest interest in solving the problems of his nation the best way he can. Stone is an interesting character in his own right, and a pretty good interviewer, although brusque at times, as if mistrusting what he's hearing.
Unfortunately, I DNF'd this one due to the performance, not the content.
The interview is frequently interspersed with "background notes" in a different voice, almost a computer-like reading. I will try to just read the book when I can.
The content is interesting, and important. Putin himself comes off as a reasonable pragmatist, with his greatest interest in solving the problems of his nation the best way he can. Stone is an interesting character in his own right, and a pretty good interviewer, although brusque at times, as if mistrusting what he's hearing.
Unfortunately, I DNF'd this one due to the performance, not the content.
August 28, 2017
Oliver Stone does an excellent job of interviewing Vladimir Putin. The leader of Russia is very articulate, has a fine sense of humor, and seems quite open, except for the few times he refuses to comment. He has a lot to say about the mistakes American leaders have made, and he is pretty persuasive. Altogether an interesting read.
June 24, 2017
In The Putin Interviews, Oliver Stone shadows Vladimir Putin for over two years and asks a series of provocative questions of the enigmatic leader. They cover everything from his childhood and education to the most recent developments in their role with the election of Donald Trump. I mainly read this as a source of research for a novel I am working on that partially takes place at the point of his rise as a regional politician after leaving the KGB, but ultimately I found this book to be a captivating window into the inner workings of Putin's goals as a politician, his incredibly enthralling personality and mind as a man and a leader, and the rise of the oligarchy's stronghold on Russia since the fall of communism.
What I found most fascinating was Stone's incredible approach to the interviews themselves. He knows precisely how to develop the interview in such a way that – was the book not organized chronologically in the manner that it is – one would assume it was organized for dramatic effect. He not only develops a strong rapport with Putin, at one point persuading him to sit down and watch Dr. Strangelove (a surprise considering he had never seen it), but is able to seamlessly transition to provocative questions whose answers are a beautiful indictment of not only Putin, but to the modern governmental system we find ourselves in. The resulting analysis shows a world that seems to promote irrational responses as the best possible option in the face of impossible choices. It is complicated. It is raw. It is saving oneself above all others while attempting to do the most good. It is also knowing bad will come of it. It is all because we are human, but some humans are better than others at making tough decisions.
Stone's conversational approach puts a human face on the hockey-playing, nation-swaying, controversy-embroiled leader of Russia, and in their incredible discussions we learn about where the nature of our relationship is, and where it is headed. Stone's questions are formulated and executed to foster the best conversations, and as a result, this book is an excellent addition to his body of work and history as a whole.
What I found most fascinating was Stone's incredible approach to the interviews themselves. He knows precisely how to develop the interview in such a way that – was the book not organized chronologically in the manner that it is – one would assume it was organized for dramatic effect. He not only develops a strong rapport with Putin, at one point persuading him to sit down and watch Dr. Strangelove (a surprise considering he had never seen it), but is able to seamlessly transition to provocative questions whose answers are a beautiful indictment of not only Putin, but to the modern governmental system we find ourselves in. The resulting analysis shows a world that seems to promote irrational responses as the best possible option in the face of impossible choices. It is complicated. It is raw. It is saving oneself above all others while attempting to do the most good. It is also knowing bad will come of it. It is all because we are human, but some humans are better than others at making tough decisions.
Stone's conversational approach puts a human face on the hockey-playing, nation-swaying, controversy-embroiled leader of Russia, and in their incredible discussions we learn about where the nature of our relationship is, and where it is headed. Stone's questions are formulated and executed to foster the best conversations, and as a result, this book is an excellent addition to his body of work and history as a whole.
May 30, 2021
To me, Putin comes across as a Statesman, in a way that is a striking contrast to Western clown 'leaders'.
There are lots of reminders in this of recent past events and in depth details of them that are valid and useful when hearing of events in the Ukraine a month or two ago and also the forced landing of a commercial jet in Belarus last week. I had forgotten that the commercial aircraft carrying the Premier of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was forced to land because it was thought Edward Snowdon was onboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Mor...
I thought Oliver Stone was at times a little irritating but I suppose he is a product of his time and place but he also acts as a good contrast to Putin. To give an example, I think a couple of times Oliver Stone asks Putin about his dreams. Does Putin have troubling dreams? Does he remember them, and wonder what they mean? Putin is a sensible normal bloke, and no, he doesn't tend to remember his dreams or analyse them. I got the impression Putin is not interested in all that Freudian claptrap and I doubt he has dream catchers hanging up in his dacha or Moscow apartment. But I suspect Oliver Stone has quite collection of dreamcatchers hanging up in his Colorado ranch, together with the complete works of Sigmund Freud. I think that actually the contrast between the two of them adds to the insight and value of the interviews.
Overall, after listening to this and reading and listening to Andrei Martynov's three books, I will admit that I am jealous of Russians. I think it likely that for someone of my near bottom of the pile station in life, I am probably quite a bit better off than a Russian of equivalent social standing and age, but how long that lasts is another matter. But Russia is one of what Pepe Escobar calls the three sovereigns: Iran, China and Russia. Three truly independent states. And in the case of Russia, a country that is run by highly competent people who care about Russia and Russians. And not just that, Russia has the means and the capabilities to retain its independence.
Russia and Russians have a future.
There are lots of reminders in this of recent past events and in depth details of them that are valid and useful when hearing of events in the Ukraine a month or two ago and also the forced landing of a commercial jet in Belarus last week. I had forgotten that the commercial aircraft carrying the Premier of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was forced to land because it was thought Edward Snowdon was onboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Mor...
I thought Oliver Stone was at times a little irritating but I suppose he is a product of his time and place but he also acts as a good contrast to Putin. To give an example, I think a couple of times Oliver Stone asks Putin about his dreams. Does Putin have troubling dreams? Does he remember them, and wonder what they mean? Putin is a sensible normal bloke, and no, he doesn't tend to remember his dreams or analyse them. I got the impression Putin is not interested in all that Freudian claptrap and I doubt he has dream catchers hanging up in his dacha or Moscow apartment. But I suspect Oliver Stone has quite collection of dreamcatchers hanging up in his Colorado ranch, together with the complete works of Sigmund Freud. I think that actually the contrast between the two of them adds to the insight and value of the interviews.
Overall, after listening to this and reading and listening to Andrei Martynov's three books, I will admit that I am jealous of Russians. I think it likely that for someone of my near bottom of the pile station in life, I am probably quite a bit better off than a Russian of equivalent social standing and age, but how long that lasts is another matter. But Russia is one of what Pepe Escobar calls the three sovereigns: Iran, China and Russia. Three truly independent states. And in the case of Russia, a country that is run by highly competent people who care about Russia and Russians. And not just that, Russia has the means and the capabilities to retain its independence.
Russia and Russians have a future.
July 2, 2017
The audiobooks is so well done!! The voice actors have the appropriate accents. The actor playing Putin resembles his presence when speaking. The translations for Putin's side of the interview is also well translated, he comes across as very intelligent, calculating, methodological and at times, very eloquent. After listening to this audiobook, my impression of Putin is he's just looking out for Russia's best interests.
Stone asks some gritty questions and Putin is so candid in his replies! I definitely want to see this movie also when it comes out!
A must for fans of Biography, History, Politics, Current Events or Oliver Stone. (I'm a Stone fan due to his movie for The Doors! Also a Russian Lit geek)
Stone asks some gritty questions and Putin is so candid in his replies! I definitely want to see this movie also when it comes out!
A must for fans of Biography, History, Politics, Current Events or Oliver Stone. (I'm a Stone fan due to his movie for The Doors! Also a Russian Lit geek)
September 7, 2017
A very interesting perspective. The book is good, but it is only a dry transcript of the interviews conducted over a few visits to Russia. The documentary is way better! You can see the selection of places to provide the background (quite telling in itself!), the facial expressions of Putin, his body language and intonation which is indicative of his hidden psychological reactions. Watch the interviews first, and then read it. Or perhaps listen to the audiobook (haven't heard it but other reviewers seem to praise it).
January 3, 2018
I don't really know much about Vladimir Putin, just what I hear in the news. Which is not always true. Reading this book was informative as it gave me insight on what kind of man he is and his perspective on what goes on in the world.
January 5, 2024
Vlad is a sneaky guy
March 24, 2019
These interviews with Vladimir Putin are absolutely fascinating. Up to this point, everything I have heard about Russia and Putin has been portrait in a negative vain. This book will open your eyes to a different point of view; not just the "evil Russia" point of view fed to us by the conventional media.
I gained a new perspective about the relationship between the U.S. and Russia, conflicts in the Ukraine and Syria, Putin's rise to power; and I have a better grasp on global issues not just based on what I have heard from many of the western leaders.
Throughout the interviews, Putin comes across as an intelligent, well informed person, who's only goal is to provide a better life for the Russian people. He is a patriot! I am impressed with his wealth of knowledge on any topic.
There is no way of knowing whether he spoke the truth during the interviews; but if he did,.......he earned my respect.
I gained a new perspective about the relationship between the U.S. and Russia, conflicts in the Ukraine and Syria, Putin's rise to power; and I have a better grasp on global issues not just based on what I have heard from many of the western leaders.
Throughout the interviews, Putin comes across as an intelligent, well informed person, who's only goal is to provide a better life for the Russian people. He is a patriot! I am impressed with his wealth of knowledge on any topic.
There is no way of knowing whether he spoke the truth during the interviews; but if he did,.......he earned my respect.
July 11, 2017
It is very interesting to get to see how the Russian leader views the rest of the world and how he handles his position. While i do not agree with Mr.Putin on many of his points or agree on how Mr. Oliver Stone handled his follow-ups, it was a very gutsy interview and kudos to Oliver stone for persisting and finishing this 2 year long interview.
July 25, 2017
Stone is a bit of a Putin sycophant, but it is interesting to hear Vlad's take on the US and he seems amused by Stone, who's number I think he has. This book is especially interesting in the climate of what is happening in the US today with the current administration's entanglement / unknown alliances/debts to the Russian government and/or financial system.
July 18, 2018
Góc nhìn của Putin, của Nga về nhiều vấn đề nóng.
OS giỏi trong đặt câu hỏi thì VP cũng rất tài ba trong trả lời. Dù OS có phản đối chính sách này kia của Mỹ, thì Mỹ vẫn luôn là người nắm truyền thông, và tiêu chuẩn kép thì vẫn luôn tồn tại với Nga.
Thế giới đa cực hay đơn cực?
OS giỏi trong đặt câu hỏi thì VP cũng rất tài ba trong trả lời. Dù OS có phản đối chính sách này kia của Mỹ, thì Mỹ vẫn luôn là người nắm truyền thông, và tiêu chuẩn kép thì vẫn luôn tồn tại với Nga.
Thế giới đa cực hay đơn cực?
November 24, 2020
The book consists of interview transcripts between Oliver Stone and Vladimir Putin, who has governed Russia since 1999, either as president or as a force behind the ‘official’ president. I must confess that I find Putin darkly fascinating; while his contemporaries in the United States and Europe stumble around getting themselves stuck in decades-long wars and debt traps, Putin has been steadily and consistently solidifying his own power and Russia’s foreign influence nearly every year he’s been in office. This quiet, details-oriented professional stands in stark contrast to DC’s celebrity-kings. I don’t like him, but I admire his competence, just as I do Otto von Bismarck’s. I bought this volume to perhaps learn more about what makes him tick. Oliver Stone is a curious interviewer, one whose hostility toward DC is such that Putin regards him warily — not wanting to be dragged into “anti-Americanism”. Putin communicates his disappointment that regardless of the noises various presidents make about Russian resets, the DC establishment has a Russian fixation that derails any hint at progress. Even when Russia was helping DC in the aftermath of 9/11 to move into Afghanistan, Putin claims that DC also treacherously began promoting terrorist organization ins Chechnya. I was impressed by Putin’s repeated observation that DC’s bureaucracy is far more powerful than its presidents, and his opinion that changing the president has little real effect. This is something I wish more Americans understood — the DC machine has inertia of its own. There’s a lot for an American audience to consider in a book like this, though I was not impressed by Stone as an interviewer: he’s candid to the point of vulgarity, and almost seemed childish.
May 7, 2018
Gosto de livros de entrevistas. Nesse aqui, o líder russo Vladimir Putin é entrevistado pelo cineasta americano Oliver Stone. Alguns pontos são interessantes, especialmente quando Putin fala de si próprio, da sua infância, de seus pais. Quando as perguntas são sobre política ou economia, Putin tende a ser mais evasivo e o livro perde um pouco da sua graça. É interessante ouvir alguém com quem raramente temos contato, como é o caso do Putin, mas acho que com um entrevistador mais preparado teria havido um resultado mais interessado. Stone, em muitos momentos, parece mais um tiete.
November 12, 2019
Fairly slanted but still informative.
March 17, 2020
An extremely interesting insight into the Russian mind and viewpoint, which is sadly muffled by U.S.A. and ignored by Europeans.
July 23, 2020
a truly amazing look into the world, solely from Mr.Putins perspective. a must read for anyone interested in politics and national relations
November 10, 2020
661 - 2020
Lama bacanya... but worth it!
Lama bacanya... but worth it!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews