This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 23, 2019, with the late Stephen Cohen. After the fall of the Soviet Union, a dysfunctional and pro-American Russian President Yeltsin presided over the chaos of the 1990s; when Putin came to power, the West was very disappointed at the independent and nationalist character of the Putin led state and the demonization began.
STORY TRANSCRIPT
PAUL JAY Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. Iâm Paul Jay. And weâre continuing our discussions with Stephen Cohen about Russia and the United States, Trump and Putin. Thanks for joining us again.
STEPHEN COHEN Thank you. For Stevenâs bio, just look under the video player. Watch the earlier segments. But Iâll plug your book. People should read this book. Itâs important. Itâs called War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate. And let me say, while in the last segment I am arguing with you about how to characterize Trumpâand I donât know, maybe weâll argue againâI think your contribution on this issue is extremely important. I know youâve been under incredible pressure and getting isolated on this point. And I think itâs brave of you to take the stance you do.
OK, letâs just move on. In the early years of Putinâs presidency the West quite liked him. I guess they thought he would be a continuation of Yeltsin. I think they had expectations that he would help facilitate an AmericanâI donât know what the wordââtakeoverâ is too strongâbut allowing American mining companies and energy companies and finance to come in. And instead what emerged was a state with real laws. And an oligarchy emerged, which I think at some point the Russian people will have to deal with, because I donât think itâs good for them, but itâs up to them. That being said, America didnât get a free-for-all.
But as this relationship with the West became more and more tenseâand I think to a large extent for these reasons. The Americans didnât get everything they wanted out of Russia. I donât understand why Putin didnât take more of the Chinese stance, which is avoid direct confrontation as much as you can and build up your strength. And I donât get Crimea. Crimea wasâand you suggest in your bookâwasnât there an alternative to the annexation? There wasnât, like, an immediate threat. I know there was a right-wing takeover, a far-right takeover of Ukraine. The Americans certainly facilitated and helped engineer it. It is a kind of strategic threat. I mean, I think thatâs clear, and youâve made the case very eloquently. But still, why poke Europe and the United States in the eye and kind of make the case of the anti-detente forces? Oh, look, you know, Russiaâs on the move. It starts with Crimea, and Georgia will be next, and then it will be the whole of Ukraine.
STEPHEN COHEN Of course they didnât with Crimea, and thatâs just the argument that people who donât wish to understand the Russian point of view make. It didnât start with Crimea. It began with the expansion of NATO to Russiaâs borders.
PAUL JAY No doubt.
STEPHEN COHEN Well, not only no doubt, but for Putin and for the Russian political class that was the context and the prism through which they viewed Westernâand particularly Americanâpolicy toward Russia. So when the Ukrainian crisis began in 2013, letâs remember what happened, because it does lead to the annexation of Crimea.
In 2013 the European Union told the then-president of Ukraine, Yanukovychâand he may have been a rotter, but he was constitutionally and legally elected. It would have been a clean election. He was the presidentâthat he needed to sign a economic partnership with the European Union. It meant, in effect, losing his preferred trade status with Russia, which constituted about 40 percent of Ukrainian trade. Not to mention about 3 to 4 million Ukrainians who worked in Russia to support their families were allowed to do so, and allowed to send their salaries back to Ukraine to support their families.
So Ukraine was heavily dependent on Russia economically, and along comes the European Union that wants to exclude Russia from this new arrangement. So Putin says, Putin and his Foreign Minister Lavrov say, look, guys, why not a tripartite arrangement? It would be good for everybody. Weâll have an economic preferred agreement with Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union. And Washington and Brussels said no. Russia canât participate. Yanukovych for that reason declined to sign the agreement, and that led to the Maidan uprising. And Yanukovych flees from office to Russia.
So Putin now is sitting in Moscow, and Crimea comes to the fore, because youâve got a very right-wing, and I would say crazy, government in power, saying outlandish things. Including, you know, Crimea is ours, and weâre going to expel the Russian naval base there, which was there by treaty. They had a lease, I think, 25 years on the base. There were 22,000, by law, Russian soldiers on the Crimean base. They were already there. All right.
So Putinâs sitting here. He sees some kind of threatâmaybe itâs rhetorical. But bad things are happening. This was a very violent uprising. You remember the burning buildings in Kiev and Maidan. If you watched this on TV, this was violence. It was very serious. Snipers killed, I think, 85 to 100 people in Maidan just before Yanukovych fled. They said that the snipers were sent by Yanukovych, but we now know they werenât. They were sent by neofascists, Ukrainian neofascists, on Maidan. But remember, Putin is operating in a context thatâs moving very fast, very dangerous. Intelligence is sparse, not clear. But there is clearly a new government in Kiev thatâs laying claim not only to Crimea forever, but to expelling the Russian naval base there. So Putin has to decide.
The back history is Putin never showed any interest in Crimea until that moment. However, it had been an issue in Russian politics when Putin ran for president in 2000. There was a party headed by two very influential men, the former mayor of Moscow, Luzhkov, and the former foreign minister Primakov, who had advocated reuniting Crimea with Russia, because Crimea had traditionally been a Russian province, I think somewhere likeâdonât speak of ethnicity, speak of language. Something like 85 percent of the population speaks Russian as a native language. I mean, enormous number. Itâs a Russian province. And it was only an act of accident under Khrushchev that had been assigned administratively when the Soviet Union existed to Ukraine, because Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.
So what was Putin supposed to do? To the extent that we know how he made the decision, he was told by his intelligence peopleâall leaders in crisis depend on intelligence peopleâtake Crimea today through a referendum, and peacefully. And by the way, they were polling like crazy. They knew theyâd get 85-plus. They knew this. If they had itâand the referendum was completely open. All this crap about âat gunpointâ is nonsense. I mean, it was a fair referendum. And Gallup has been going back to Crimea and polling. They get the same number; 85 percent want to be with Russia.
Putin is told do it by the ballot, the box, today, or fight a war there tomorrow. Thatâs what he was told. What would you have done in his place? See, itâs easy for you, Paul, and me, Steve, to sit here and debate what leadersâTrump, any leaderâKennedy, Putin, should do in a crisis situation without knowing the circumstances, or what we would do in that situation. I mean, they have to act and they have to act fast. And theyâre dependent on this intelligence.
PAUL JAY OK, but in the book you suggest there might have been an alternative.
STEPHEN COHEN Well, I can just simply tell you what Putin was told as an alternative. One group said âYou have to take Crimea now. The polls show Crimeans will vote to join Russia. There is an international law that referendums are binding and legal. Weâll have a referendum, weâll get the result, and theyâll vote to join Russia and weâll take them in. Do that.â.
The other view was âHold the referendum, but donât welcome them into Russia. Use it as a bargaining card with the West and Kiev when we see how the Maidan so-called revolutionâit wasnât a revolution, but the Maidan coup, it was a coup against Yanukovychâletâs see what comes next. But thatâll be a diplomatic card we could play. Go ahead and have the referendum. They will vote to join Russia, but that doesnât mean because theyâve requested to join Russia we have to say OK. Just take that and say to the West, look, the Crimean people want to join Russia. We understand that that may be, you know, difficult for you. Can we find a way to solve this problem short of annexation?â In other words, can we get guarantees for Crimea?
So Putin was told that was an option, and he didnât choose it. And I try to put myself in his shoes and see what would I have done? And the problem is I donât know the intelligence. For example, there is a report, I donât believe or disbelieve it, that NATO commandos were found on Crimea, on the peninsula. I donât know if thatâs true. Maybe it was scuttlebutt. Did Putin know it to be true? I donât know. But we have yet to be told the whole story of what happened between the coup in Kievâbecause it was a coup. It overthrew the presidentâand the decision, Russians donât say âannex,â they say ârejoined with,â or âwelcomed Crimea home,â to make that decision. One day weâll know more, and then weâll be able to decide if Putin really had a choice.
PAUL JAY Do youâand I donât, one, have anyâI donât have any detailed knowledge about the situation.
STEPHEN COHEN I donât have enough.
PAUL JAY Never mind not knowing the intelligence.
STEPHEN COHEN You understand thatâs a question mark by what I say. We donât know for sure.
PAUL JAY Yeah. But wasâDo you think there might have been an option to have a referendum that took a littleâthere was more time, maybe get the United Nations involved? Something that gives a little more recognition to it?
STEPHEN COHEN Without naming names-
PAUL JAY And Iâm not talking the morality, here. Iâm talking tactically.
STEPHEN COHEN Practical politics. The point is that Putin was toldânow, mind you, this isâI mean, itâs a good thing that heâs a former KGB officer, by the way. Henry Kissinger, when he first met Putin, and he learnedâthis was when Putin was working as deputy mayor in St. Petersburg, and Kissinger met him. And Putin said to Kissinger, âYou know, I began in intelligence.â And Kissinger said, âThatâs the best way to start a political career.â Kissinger had started in intelligence during the war, right. Because these guys think, and maybe theyâre right, that if youâre trained in intelligence, or youâre able to evaluate intelligenceâthat is, you arenât going to be fooled by your own intelligence peopleâthat you can sort out false intelligence from legitimate intelligence. Putin was in a position, I think, to evaluate the intelligence. So the question that you raise is true. Why didnât they wait? And he was told we canât wait; events are moving too fast.
PAUL JAY In the earlierâlast segmentâyou talked about the pressure on him that heâs not proactive enough. Is this partly responding to that kind of pressure?
STEPHEN COHEN Yes. And thatâs why I want to return to this issue that only once before had Crimea been an issue in Russian politics, when a political party ran against Putin on a platform that we should somehow get Crimea back. They got, I think, two percent of the vote. There was no popular support for this. Putin was disdainful of the idea. In other words, this was somethingâthis was not aggression. This is ridiculous. This was a decision imposed upon him by circumstances that he did not create, but to which he now had to react. And I donât know whether he knew it or not, but that was probably his most historic decision. And I meanâitâs not his most historic, but it is part of what will forever define his role for Russians in Russian history forever.
PAUL JAY So letâs get to the big underlying question here-
STEPHEN COHEN You can go to Moscow and buy a poster in a shop. At the top is a map of Crimea, a very distinctive peninsula, right? On one side is Krushchev, who signed Crimea over to Ukraine, right, whenâin 1954-â55, when the Soviet Union existed. On the other side is a picture of Putin. And it simply says âHe gave away. He took back.â You can see these in the shops. These wereâKhrushchev frivolously, on some anniversary, said OK, Crimea is part of Ukraine. And Putin [got it back].
PAUL JAY In your book [crosstalk] Kissinger saying he might have been drunk that night when he did it.
STEPHEN COHEN Who?
PAUL JAY I think in your book you say that, donât you?
STEPHEN COHEN Thatâs not me.
PAUL JAY Somebody said that Khrushchev might have been drunk the night that he gave Crimea [crosstalk].
STEPHEN COHEN No, I didnât say that. I donât know. But-
PAUL JAY Somebody quotes Kissinger.
STEPHEN COHEN Possibly. But you know, these areâif youâre a student of history, and particularly of political leadership, as I like to think I am, this is a ⌠Graham Allison practically made a career of writing about the Cuban missile crisis and how the Kennedy teamâright? Heâs famous for studying that. Itâs a case study in crisis leadership. And Kennedy comes out looking pretty good. By the way, I would say Khrushchev comes out looking pretty good, too, because the Russian reaction could have been different. But now we have Putin in Crimea. He had to make a decision that was imposed upon him. Now, we donât have all the information. But we should be fascinated to study and understand this rather than demonize Putin for doing it.
PAUL JAY OK. Let meâthis sort of big, underlying question. Because I mean, Kissinger said that what Putin did in Crimea was an anomaly; that you canât extend anything from that. That does not prove that Russia is on the march and theyâre going to start threatening other Baltic states, and all this. The Crimea is a very particular situation. Clearly that was not the predominant attitude of the West towards Crimea. So whyâit began under Yeltsin, but with Putinâand Putin seemed ready for it. Why didnât the West assimilate Russia into Western capitalism?
STEPHEN COHEN So weâre turning the clock back now to the end of the Soviet Union.
PAUL JAY Weâre going back into the early years of Putin. Why not let Russia join the EU? Why not encourage thisâa kind of real mixing?
STEPHEN COHEN Weâve got to get the history straight, or at least the history youâre talking about. If youâre talking about the decade, the 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union-
PAUL JAY When Putin comes to power.
STEPHEN COHEN Well, he comes to power in 2000.
PAUL JAY Yeah.
STEPHEN COHEN But I thought youâbut why didnât the West assimilate Russia after the end of the Soviet Union? Or when Putin came to power?
PAUL JAY Well, you got the free-for-all of the â90s. But that free-for-all had an American hand supporting Yeltsin through much of that period.
STEPHEN COHEN Yeah. Clinton unwiselyânot only Clinton. Bill Clinton, not Hillary. And Bill Clinton was president then in the â90sâbelieved that he was assimilating Russia with his policy toward Yeltsin. Thatâs what he thought. And he was so advised by people such as Strobe Talbott, all of whom should have known better. In fact, Russia descended in the 1990s into the worst and most corrosive economic depression ever in peacetime. Men were dying at 57. I think the collapse of industrial production was greater than it was during our own Great Depression. People were not receiving their wages or their social benefits. The middle class was being vaporized. Gangs were controlling large parts of the economy. Some people even think it was what people call state capture, that private oligarchs had captured the state. Russia was on the verge, if not of actually breaking up, of collapsing.
Now, flash back to that moment, 1999. Russia, the largest territorial country in the world, even after the end of the Soviet Union, laden, laden, stockpiled with every conceivable weapon of mass destruction, from germ, bacterial, chemical, nuclear. What if Russia had broken up? What if? Weâre talking Apocalypse Now. I would think that people would give Putin a little credit for holding Russia together, reestablishing control over the regions that had these weapons. But heâs never given any any, any credit. Russians themselves do. But in the WestâImagine what would have happened. It wasnât just Putin alone. He put together a team, a komanda, as itâs called in Russia. No one man can do this. But he chose advisers who understood the situation.
At the timeâat the timeâthis was semi-welcomed in Washington. You remember that Putin came to see the second President Bush, and they went to the ranch. And Bush said âI looked into his eyes and I saw a good soul.â And other things like that. And I think you, Paul, are right when you say that they, meaning the people who control our foreign policy, thought that this would be the continuation of the 1990s, except that Putin would be a healthy and sober Yeltsin; that Yeltsin had become dysfunctional, unable to govern the country that the West wanted to assimilate. And when it turned out that Putin wasnât Yeltsin, even though Yeltsin put him in powerâindeed, historically speaking Putin could not have been Yeltsin, though heâs never given his anti-Yeltsin speech the way Khrushchev gave his anti-Stalin speech. This is interesting. Heâs been urged to give this speech, by the way; the de-Yeltsinization speech, analogous to Khruschevâs de-Stalinization speech. Heâs never done that. People say heâs too loyal, to a fault. Too loyal. Putin. Some trait heâs got. They criticize him for it.
But nonetheless, very soon American disillusion in Putin set in. And we can date it. There is there was, and even remains today a New York Times columnist, Nick Kristof. Nicholas Kristof. Who wroteâI think it was 2003. Maybe Iâm off a year, year and a halfâthat he was greatly disillusioned, he, Kristof, that Putin had not turned out to be a sober Yeltsin. Imagine this. In other words, they, to the extent that columnists speak for these great powers, wanted Yeltsin, a person who by then had positive ratings in Russia of about 3 percent, who was hated in Russia for what had happened to the country. But the only grievance in Washington was he wasnât sober and healthy enough to continue the policy. And Putin, they thought at the beginning was a sober healthy Yeltsin. Look at him. And Yeltsinâon what Yeltsin is. They say heâs from Yeltsin. Heâs got to be. But it was clear. If youâd been paying attention it would have been clear it was impossible.
And when it dawned on them they were bitter. And Iâm not sure that they started hating on Putin because they personally had been so wrong, their analysis had been wrong, or because they couldnât stand the thought of a non-Yeltsin to this day. Because even today you could read in the New York Times and other analyses, so-called, how great it was under Yeltsin. It wasnât great. It was a country in agony. And it was dangerous to us, with all those weapons.
So you know, weâve discarded history. Weâve discarded real historical and political analysis for a kind of Russophobia that I actually never experienced in my lifetime before. Itâs much worse now. And remember one thing, as we all go forward and think about Russiagate, which I think is going to be with us in one way or another for decades. But the Putin-phobia, the hating on Putin, began long before Trump was a presidential candidate. Long before. The two got fused together in Russiagate. The loathing for Putin and the loathing for Trump was fused into this thing called Russiagate. Now, who did the initial fusing? In my book I argued it was our intelligence services, and particularly the CIA. We will see. I think weâre going to have some investigations now. I may be wrong. I donât think it was the FBI, as people think. I think was Brennan and Obamaâs CIA that got all this started.
But theseâthis didnât come out of nowhere. This had been developing, this demonizing of Putin had been going on for years before Trump appeared on the scene. And then bingo, it came together. And weâre stuck with it. And it ainât going to go away. And I think itâs the worst threat to our national security. Iâve said Russiagate is the great number one threat to our national security. In the book I do the five greatest threats for our national security. The book is all short pieces. And RussiaâRussia and China donât make the top five. Russiagateâs number one. Unfortunately youâre younger than I am so we canât share these moments together. But there was the Cuban missile crisis, correct?
PAUL JAY Well, Iâyou know, I was alive. I was very aware of it.
STEPHEN COHEN All right. But it is said that in the history books, in the textbooks, that itâs the closest we ever came to nuclear war with Russia, Soviet Russia. Correct?
PAUL JAY If you listen Ellsberg we were seconds from it.
STEPHEN COHEN OK. And yet because of the leadership of Kennedy, and I would add Khrushchev, because it takes two to tango, as Reagan said, these two guys averted Armageddon. Correct? And thatâs the lesson weâve taught our kids and we teach in our textbooks. OK. Imagine todayâand it doesnât take a lot of imaginingâthat we have a Cuban missile crisis-like confrontation. Could be in Venezuela. Could be in Syria. Could be in former Soviet Georgia. Could be in Ukraine. Lots of places. It happens, suddenly. The two nuclear superpowers are eyeball to eyeball like the Cuban missile crisis. Everybody credits Kennedy and Khrushchev for averting the crisis.
This happens tomorrow, do you think the American political class and its media are going to invest Trump with the authority to negotiate a way out of nuclear war? The guy they called the Kremlin puppet? And are they going to credit Putin, the guy theyâve so demonized, as a partner to avert nuclear war? They will not. And what happens then? The answer is nuclear war. Thatâs why I say weâre walking on a razorâs edge with this Russiagate demonizing Putin nonsense. We need these two guys, whether we like them or not, to avoid nuclear war. And we areâwe have too many situations fraught with war with Russia which could become nuclear war, more than weâve ever had before. And the people whoâve contributed to these situations refuse to acknowledge what theyâve done. Above all, the mainstream media. What you and I are discussing today should be discussed in the major newspapers and television talk shows in this country nightly. And I guarantee you decades ago it would have been. Weâve lost our way. And the new way is exceedingly dangerous.
PAUL JAY I agree with all of that. But Iâve got a âbut.â Itâs not just the MSNBCs and the Democratic Party that are making this so fraught with danger. But itâs also the agenda of the Trump administration and the people around it. For example, in Venezuela, where Pompeo, the Koch brothers guyâthe Koch brothers have a deep interest in Venezuelan heavy crude. Canadian mining companies have a big deep interest in Venezuelan gold. Pence is a Koch brothers guy. The agenda is a very aggressive agenda. So itâs itâs complicated by the fact that itâs not like TrumpâI have zero faith in Trump as someone who might play such a constructive role.
STEPHEN COHEN You donât have a choice.
PAUL JAY We donât have a choice.
STEPHEN COHEN You donât knowâyou do not have a choice.
PAUL JAY Because heâs the president.
STEPHEN COHEN No. If if such a situation, a Cuban missile crisis-like situation, would occur, you will either trust and empower Trump to avert it or prepare yourself for nuclear war. And there, for me, there is no choice.
PAUL JAY I agree with that, and-
STEPHEN COHEN About Venezuela and the rest you have to talk to somebody else. I donât know that story.
PAUL JAY But the pushbackâLike, I think we need to do both. We need to, you know, what youâre doing, which is attack and denounce this demonization of Putin, and tying the hands of Trump to have some kind of normalization with Russia, for whatever reasons needs to be denounced. And I really value what youâre doing on this. I justâas I said in the earlier segment, we need to talk about the aggressive militarist agenda of Trump as well.
STEPHEN COHEN But that happens every day. I mean, my truth is maybeâthere are not many people that speak what I think is this truth that Iâve spoken to you. And the bashing of Trump is ample, and maybe not sufficient. Maybe there needs to be more. But weâre at an interesting moment now. We are now approaching a new presidential season in this country.
PAUL JAY Can IâCan I just intervene for just a sec? The problem here is both on Venezuela and Iran the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment is on the same page as Trump. Netanyahu is on the same page as Trump. The Saudis are on the same page as Trump. When Trump throws this missile, missiles into Syria after the supposed gas attack, Chuck Schumer says finally Trumpâs acting presidentâis a president. The problem is is that as much as these guys vilify and are dangerousâthese guys meaning the Democrats and that whole establishment are dangerous on Russia-
STEPHEN COHEN I donât disagree.
PAUL JAY Theyâll converge with Trump on some very dangerous stuff in Iran.
STEPHEN COHEN I donât disagree. But that brings me to my final point, I guess, because we are at the time we are in. We now have, I think, at last count 19 or 20 Democratic would be contenders for the presidential nomination; 19 or 20. We need to ask ourselves which, if any, of these people see these dangers clearly, and ask them. But I have a feeling that the mainstream media will not ask them, because these are uncomfortable issues for them. I also think that the one candidate who has embraced a position similar to my own, Tulsi Gabbard, was immediately attacked by NBC, as you know. Scurrilously.
That itâs a question of what kind of discussionâbecause according to our democracy these existential issues that you and I have discussed are discussed during presidential campaigns. This is when we clarify and make our choices. It seems to me this is unlikely to happen, partly because the mainstream media doesnât permit voices like mine any longer. Though they used to welcome me. I used to work for them. It would be interesting to see how they treat Tulsi Gabbard, whoâs the closest to this kind of anxiety about the new Cold War with Russia, has taken positions on this. There may be others, but I havenâtâI havenât noted that. Weâll see how theyâreâif thereâs an attempt to suppress her view, or to give her a fair time. Now, sheâll have to do well in a primary somewhere to get that. But itâs a little discouraging that of 19 or 20 Democrats, only one thus far has spoken with some clarity about this, what I consider to be the number one existential issue; the danger of war with Russia.
PAUL JAY Well, youâre certainly welcome on The Real News Network.
STEPHEN COHEN Well, maybe you should have Tulsi Gabbard on, too.
PAUL JAY Oh, we have, and we will again.
STEPHEN COHEN Oh you have, good.
PAUL JAY Yeah. Weâve interviewed a couple of times, and weâre weâre actually just arranging another one now.
STEPHEN COHEN Oh, thatâs good. All right. Well, thank you so much.
PAUL JAY Well, I hope this is just the beginning of a conversation.
STEPHEN COHEN Today or tomorrow?
PAUL JAY Another day.
STEPHEN COHEN Appreciate it. Thanks very much. Thank you.
PAUL JAY And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.