TOP

Vladimir Ryzhkov

Chapters

The FRONTLINE Interviews

Vladimir Ryzhkov

Opposition politician

Vladimir Ryzhkov is a Russian opposition politician and political analyst. He served as a deputy in the Russian assembly from 1993 to 2007.

This is the transcript of an interview with FRONTLINE's Michael Kirk conducted on July 12, 2017. It has been translated from Russian and edited in parts for clarity and length.

This interview appears in:

Putin’s Road to War

The Putin Files

Text Interview:

Highlight text to share it

Putin's Political Rise

Here we go.It’s December of 1999.What is the state of Russia at the time?

The situation was actually, was very grave, but there were certain signs of turning for the better.See, economics of Russia started growing before Mr. Putin became president.So the situation was quite difficult in the country, but I cannot agree with those [who] say that Mr. Putin assumed Russia when it was in a disastrous situation.It was not a disaster.The economy was growing.The budget of 1999 was sure with no shortages, was a surplus one; there was no second war in Chechnya; and generally speaking, all the regions subordinated with the federal center.So they actually—the country was resuscitating.

Did you know Vladimir Putin?Had you met him?What was he like? What was your impression of him?

For quite a while, I have known Mr. Putin before he became the president.I got acquainted with him in April 1995, when he was first deputy governor of St. Petersburg.… We had a conversation in his office in the Smolny Institute at St. Petersburg.He gave a very good impression then.He gave an impression of a man who is actually friendly, with good manners, well brought up.He could listen to other people very well.And another important thing, very important thing, then, when I knew him before his presidency—and I knew him for four years already, and we met from time to time because of the call of duty—he always, always actually kept his word.

I remember there was some party meeting, and we were members of the same political organization, which was called Our Home is Russia.He was then head of the Executive Office of the President, or director of FSB, and our parliamentary faction had three or four requests, very specific ones, very exact ones.Mr. Putin had his notebook with him, a famous one.Always he carries this notebook with him all the time, and he made bullet points—one, two, three, four—and within two or three days, he actually did everything.

But I remembered one impression from that time.When Mr. Putin was appointed acting prime minister, it was August 1999.He came to the State Duma [parliament].I was a deputy, and this was a closed chamber meeting dedicated to the situation in Chechnya.

All the leaders of the faction have spoken and criticized the government.I was the leader of the faction, and I also spoke out and also criticized the government.In fact, I criticized the work of Mr. Putin.And then an interesting thing happened.When all the leaders of factions took the floor, Mr. Putin came to the podium with his notebook and started, point by point, answering, responding to our criticism.And at that moment, in August 1999, I, for the first time, saw an absolutely different person.

He was very emotional.He was very rigid, very tough and very angry.He shouted at us, at me, and he said: “What the hell are you saying?You do not understand what you are talking about.What are you all speaking about?You do not understand what are you speaking about.”Then I realized that this person is much more complicated than I thought of him.

Then he actually disclosed that he has this force, this aggression, and even angriness, anger.

And that is a very different person than Boris Yeltsin must have known about, and very different person than the Russian people knew about?

I do think that.So, for Boris Yeltsin, everything mattered.First of all, it mattered what I have just mentioned.Mr. Putin, when he says, “I will do,” he means it, and he will do it.In Russian, we call it just following your words, living by your words.This was factor number one.If Mr. Putin promised to Mr. Yeltsin to keep [Mikhail] Kasyanov as the prime minister, to warranty safety and security for his family, and I do think there were more terms, and Putin said, “I will do that,” and if you pay attention to that, he kept all his words given to Mr. Yeltsin’s family.They live comfortably.Yeltsin’s daughters, grandchildren, they kept their property.And moreover, Mr. Putin built an enormous museum dedicated to Yeltsin in Urals, an enormous one, a huge one.So this way, Mr. Putin, from his viewpoint, actually fulfilled all the items of his promises given to Yeltsin.And it was very important for Yeltsin.

Secondly, I just think that Yeltsin felt that Mr. Putin is tough.I just think that this was another factor why Yeltsin opted for Putin.Yeltsin, when he was leaving his office on Dec. 31 of 1999, he was in his winter coat and winter hat.He came to the steps of the Kremlin, and it was December.It was very frosty.Next to him, a young Putin was standing.And Yeltsin shook his hand. And this famous footage, actually, the whole world saw. And Yeltsin said, “Take care of Russia.”Just those words, “Take care of Russia.”

I do think that Yeltsin saw Putin as a person who, first of all, would keep his word, his promise given to Yeltsin personally, item by item.And he saw Mr. Putin as a strong enough person who would preserve Russia, who would save Russia.I just think that these two factors actually mattered.And he absolutely trusted Mr. Putin.

Putin's Vision for Russia in his First Term

It sounds a little bit like Yeltsin’s perspective on Putin are mirrored when Putin meets President George W. Bush for the first time, and Bush says he looked through his eyes and into his soul.When you heard Bush say that, how did you hear it, and what was your reaction?

You know, when I heard these words, I believed them, because my personal experience for communicating to Putin since 1995 through 1999 was absolutely pleasant.I was 100 percent sure that he will do more for us, that he is a reformist, and I was absolutely sure that Putin is a democrat, because he supported Boris Yeltsin.He was first deputy and the right hand of Mr. Sobchak, the mayor of St. Petersburg.Anatoly Sobchak is the most renowned [of] our democrats.How could such a great democrat work with a bad person?

We all were sure that Mr. Putin is representative of our political camp, that he is a liberal and he is a reformist.So everything was absolutely great.But I know a different thing, too.I know that several years afterward, Boris Yeltsin, to certain extent, got disappointed with his choice.Boris Nemtsov told me about that.We were friends, Mr. Nemtsov and I.He met Boris Yeltsin, and the latter was very much disappointed and was very upset with certain decisions taken by Mr. Putin.

The most important moment: Yeltsin was a pensioner at the time.He was at his dacha near Moscow, on Rublyov Highway.But certainly he watched TV, and he actually monitored what was going on in the country.The most important moment when he started disagreeing with Putin was [oil tycoon Mikhail] Khodorkovsy’s arrest in 2003.That moment, Boris Yeltsin realized that this is an absolutely different style of politics.This is not his style of politics.This is not the politics when the television is absolutely free, when business can work freely, when Khodorkovsky could freely work with American companies.

Yeltsin chose Mr. Putin.But several years passed, and Yeltsin realized that this is an absolutely different style of politics.This is the style of politics which destroys, to much extent, what Yeltsin had created the early 1990s, foundations of democracy: freedom of speech, federalism, private property and free market.But Yeltsin was isolated.He almost didn’t make any public speeches, and there were just two or three interviews of Mr. Yeltsin which were taken quite cautiously in a very diplomatic language.But between the lines, you could read certain disappointment with what was going on in the country.

… How were the Russian people responding to what Putin was doing?His argument is, Russians need and want a powerful, decisive leader—they’ve needed it—and someone who will stand up to the world and gain respect for Russia, and that that was who he intended to be.

History very often plays bad jokes with us, and history is very unfair to us.For instance, Mikhail Gorbachev; from my point of view, he’s one of the best leaders in the history of my country.He’s a person of exceptional honesty, humanism, decency, and he is a person who did for Russia and for the world so much good that probably no other person of the history did.But most of Russians just hate him.I mean, Mikhail Gorbachev.Why this happened?Mikhail Gorbachev is not the one to be blamed.He is not guilty that when he became the leader of the Soviet Union an economic crisis took place, that the oil price fell fourfold, and the Soviet Union was left with no money.

Mikhail Gorbachev could not influence the oil prices.The Saudi sheiks actually were the ones to influence it, not Mikhail Gorbachev.But the people in their consciousness connected the economic crisis with perestroika, with the reforms, and that’s why Mikhail Gorbachev was considered as a bad guy.Boris Yeltsin gave a lot of freedoms to our people.Boris Yeltsin created free mass media.He was the one to create private property.Boris Yeltsin created market economy.It was then when we got the parliament, the constitution, federalism, local authorities and governance.But people just blaming him, why?

Because in 1990s, we had an economic crisis.Why there was an economic crisis in 1990s?Because we had somehow to deal with the old, obsolete Soviet economy with its huge factories and convert it into the market economy.The crisis was inevitable.But the people say that we lived poorly because of Gorbachev, because of Yeltsin, because of democracy, and because of perestroika.

Now, what happened when Mr. Putin came to power?As I have already said, the economy began to grow at the end of 1998, when Mr. Putin was not the prime minister yet.So the economy was already growing.He came to power as a president when the economy was already on the rise, and at the same time, simultaneously with the oil prices grew.When he became president, the petroleum prices were $20 per barrel.In 2008, it was $140 per barrel.So the price grew seven times.

The public revenues also grew; the pensions grew; the salaries grew.When he became president, the average wage was $100 a month.In 2013 it was already $900 per month, nine times bigger.Within the same period, within the same decade, Mr. Putin actually took control of the TV channels, arrested oligarchs, canceled the elections of governors, prosecuted the opposition.But people lived better with every year on.Then they said: “That’s great.If under democracy we lived very poorly, and under authoritarianism we are living well, long live authoritarianism.Long live strong hand. Long live Mr. Putin.” …

Putin Consolidates Power in his Second Term

Meanwhile, while the economics were going up and things were getting better, other things are happening on the outside: NATO moving in; the Baltic states changing; EU coming this direction; the color revolutions, Rose and Orange.And there's a feeling from Mr. Putin, apparently, that this is American hegemony: Americans coming in; Americans pressing on him, disrespecting the borders of Russia.… Is that what is happening in ’03, ’04, ’05, ’06?

Absolutely.He perceives that the United States is moving to the East.NATO is moving to the East, and the West is moving to the East.This is what really happens in reality.And it should be said that the West and the United States certainly bear a big part of the blame for what happened to Russia and for this kind of confrontation.

At the time, Ronald Reagan was willing to integrate the Soviet Union under Gorbachev into the Western structures.Ronald Reagan strategically realized that there is a window of opportunity that former “evil empire,” former Soviet Union is integrated into Western structure.But everything changed with Bush the Senior came to power.In 1992, Bush Sr. changed the American strategy dramatically.

Ronald Reagan was willing to consider the reorganization of NATO by including Russia, and he was ready to consider the program of aid to help the Soviet Union at the moment of the crisis.George Bush and his aides, neocons, you know very well, made a decision to adopt a different structure: The winner gets everything.And under Bush Sr., that’s when the NATO eastward expansion started.This is when the decision was taken that NATO should remain as the main skeleton, the main foundation; that NATO should include more Eastern European countries.The same rationale was pursued by Bill Clinton.And the bombardment and shelling of Yugoslavia in 1990s was the key point when authoritarian country, but a peaceful one, was bombed by NATO without the agreement of the Security Council of the United Nations.I do think that this was a key mistake.

And Gorbachev, when the petroleum prices fell, he asked Ronald Reagan, and Yeltsin asked Mr. Bush Sr., to help Russia economically.There was a very bad short cycle where the oil prices were down and they could help us, and this could lay the foundation for a single, for a unified security system, could lay the foundation for cooperation.But instead, the West actually was very egotistic.No Marshall Plan was developed for Russia, no help, no aid for Russia.Eastward expansion, movement to the East.

I was the member of the parliament for many years by that time, and I remember clearly that Russia still had a very big foreign debt inherited from the Soviet Union, more than 100 billion U.S. dollars.Russia asked to write off at least half of this debt, because it was very hard for us, so we had no money.The West wrote off almost the whole debt for Poland; the West is writing off the debt of Greece.But when Russia asked to help it and to ease this burden, zero; not a single penny was written off.And Russia, which was lying in poverty, destroyed, was made pay all these $100 billion.

That’s why there's some logic in Mr. Putin’s position.He says: “You didn’t help us when the situation was dire for us. You didn’t want to integrate us into common structures.You were egotistic. You decided to conquer, to seize everything.”

And that’s why, in his picture of the world, this is a cynical realpolitik pursued by West.He absolutely mistrusts the West, because he believes that the West betrayed Russia many times and cheated on Russia many times.And he makes a practical conclusion: We need more nukes, more weapons, more defense spending, and more aggressive policy—the foreign one, in that sense. …NATO forces would be stationed there.So he has his rationale.And let me repeat it again: The West is responsible for what happened to Russia, with Russia, and so for the system which has been set up in Russia.

For a moment, I’d just like to talk a little bit about [the school siege at] Beslan and what the meaning of that action was.Did it have an international audience, or was it about purely antiterrorist action for domestic consumption?

I remember clearly the Beslan tragedy.In those days I was actually a member of the Valdai [Discussion] Club.It was early September.Of course it was a huge tragedy, and the Russian experts, the American experts, the European experts, we all stood in front of the TV screens and we saw the tragedy in Beslan.We were crying.It was a huge tragedy for all of us.And Putin, after Beslan, reacted with two things.First, he—not so to say, toughened the situation in Russia.Precisely after Beslan, he canceled the democratic elections of the governors, and precisely after Beslan, he canceled the elections in the constituencies.So the system has become even more rigid.

Secondly, he said that there are forces in the world which want to destroy Russia.It was his speech pronounced immediately after the Beslan tragedy.I just think that he meant the United States, and most likely he meant the West.… He believes that the West played its role in both Chechen wars and that the West played its role in supporting terrorism. …

So Beslan, a United States role, a United States role in Georgia, a United States role in Ukraine at the time.Just at that moment, he goes to Germany, to Munich, and gives the famous Munich speech.What was the meaning of that speech to you?What was he saying, and how was it received here?

Russia is home to many diverse people.We have very complex country, just like the United States.Different layers of the society received the Munich speech differently.I think that many people could be actually called hawks or neocons that are people who feel kind of nostalgic about the Soviet might.These people received the Munich speech with admiration, because, in fact, it was a declaration of a new Cold War against the West.It was a manifesto of the fight against the West.

I'm a liberal, and I received the speech absolutely differently.I remember clearly the year 2007; I remember clearly that speech.I watched it on live TV, and then I read the transcript of the speech, and it was clear for me that we are entering a new age of contradiction with the West; that we will see the struggle against each other; that this confrontation will take place on the post-Soviet territory—I mean Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltic states.And it was clear for me at that time that this new confrontation will not bring anything good for our economics.It will not bring anything good for our people, because we know, from the history, that any confrontation is very costly.

… This new arms race, and this new confrontation with the West, which was announced in the year 2007 in Munich, makes the life of our people much worse.So this Munich speech was very important in the sense that, in fact, it gave start a new age of foreign policy in Russia.

Putin Asserts Himself on the World Stage in his Third Term

… What was he trying to do?

This is how he reacted to the Western expansion.This was a decision taken to make the West stop at certain points.I remember clearly September 2013.I again participated in the International Valdai Discussion Club, and Mr. Putin came as usual.We had a meeting with him.There were debates.At that Valdai Club meeting, it was September 2013, six months prior to Maidan and six months prior to the Crimean events.At that Valdai Club meeting, Defense Minister [Sergei] Shoygu, Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov and President Putin spoke, and also Sergei Ivanov spoke, who was then head of Executive Office, so the first four main people of the country who are responsible for the foreign policy, security and defense.

I remember that clearly.I was just sitting in front of them, and they were speaking.I asked questions, and they responded.They answered the questions.All those four people, just like kind of a mantra, repeated the same thing.They said that if Ukraine signs the Association [Agreement] with the EU, if Ukraine tries to move to the West, if Ukraine signs those agreements and treaties, neglects the interest of Russia, for us they said, this is a red line.This is the red line.And I remember clearly what I thought at that time.I thought, wow, that sounds very serious.If Putin, Shoygu, Lavrov and Ivanov say that this is a red line, then it means that this is very serious.

Two months afterward, I was in Europe in Stockholm.I had a very brief meeting with Carl Bildt.He was then the Sweden foreign minister, and he was the main man behind the agreement between Ukraine and the EU.And I told him, “Carl, I have just returned from the Valdai Club meeting, and four people—Putin, Shoygu, Lavrov and Ivanov—kept saying that the Association [Agreement] would be a red line,” and he said: “Oh, this is nonsense. Just nothing will happen. This is not serious.”

And I told him: “This is very serious. You have to hear me that this is very serious.”And he said: “No, no. This is nonsense.”Two months afterward, Maidan took place in Kiev.Civil war broke out.And then Crimea was annexed, because actually, Putin perceived that as a red line.He perceived it: “OK, the West came to Estonia, Poland, to Slovakia and Bulgaria, but it cannot go further to the east. This is a red line.”And when he saw what happened, he perceived the agreement between Kiev and Brussels as the attempt to drag Ukraine into the Western alliances.This is how he reacted.

In his view, national interests of Russia require that the neighboring countries, such as Belarus and Ukraine, at least, were neutral.This is what [Henry] Kissinger suggested, and this is what [Zbigniew] Brzezinski suggested.When the Ukrainian crisis broke out in January 2014, Kissinger published his article, and Brzezinski published his article, and they both said that the best solution is to ensure certain warranties of neutrality and territorial integrity of Ukraine.And probably it could have been the solution.But unfortunately, no one wanted to listen to them, and what happened happened.

The Reset and Arab Spring: Putin as Prime Minister

Thank you. Good thorough answer. Let’s go backward to 2008.Obama is president of the United States.Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state.There is a thaw around [Dmitry] Medvedev, the switch with Putin, and we call it the “reset.”What actually happened there?Explain the thaw, the hope for the thaw, and what is the reality of what was really going on.

It was quite a good period of time.Looking back, I just think that it was a good period of time.And those four years, when Mr. Medvedev was the president, really it was a thaw, not only in the relations between Russia and the West, but also within the country.Internet was freer; there were less political oppressions, more pluralism in the mass media.It was not a bad time.

I remember I met Mr. Obama in Moscow, when he just was elected, and this was his first visit to Moscow.He worked all day long; he met the students, and he had a very brief meeting with Mr. Gorbachev.And then, for four hours, he had tea with Mr. Putin in his dacha.Then he came back to Moscow, and there was a meeting between Obama and the Russian opposition.

And he told us that after awful, terrible relations between George W. Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney and Russia, he wants new relations with Russia, more constructive, more cooperation, more trust, more mutual understanding.But at the same time, Barack Obama was a Democrat, and for Democrats, their values are very important.And for Barack Obama, such things as human rights, democracy, are really very important, also the freedom of speech.And he met with us, the representatives of the Russian opposition.

I remember that meeting.We were sitting in a hotel.It was Ritz-Carlton on Tverskaya Street, and he lived there along with his wife and to his two daughters.He was very tired.He worked all day long, and our meeting was at 8 p.m.And at night a memo was brought to him, and he read this note, and he broke out laughter.And he said, “Know what it is?”We said, “No, we absolutely don’t know about that.”And he said: “My little daughters sent me a letter from the fifth floor.‘Daddy, just finish your conversations. We want to have some dinner.’”This was a kind of a small detail.But Obama met the Russian opposition, and next to me was Mr. Nemtsov.

And Obama said: “Yes, I want to establish good relations with Russia, good relations with Mr. Putin.But at the same time, I will not keep silent about the violations of democracy, freedoms and human rights in Russia.”And I just think that this is what Mr. Putin disliked.Putin is ready for pragmatic agreements while discussing security, defense and economy, but he believes that no one is entitled to criticize him for his domestic policy.

I do think that this conflict between him and Obama took place exactly because of that, for those reasons, because Barack Obama, just like Hillary Clinton, openly were criticizing when someone was beaten up, prosecuted arrested, and Putin was irritated with that.And what did it end with?In Vladivostok there was a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Sergey Lavrov.I think it was a summit meeting, and Lavrov said, “All your NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], such as NDI [National Democratic Institute], IRI [International Republican Institute], Fund for Democracy, they should move away from Russia.”And all the American NGOs were just thrown away from Russia.Today, they are banned in Russia, just like Soros funds was expelled from Russia.And today it is forbidden in Russia.It is banned in Russia.So in fact, all the American organizations are forbidden in Russia, and these happened under Obama, and these happened under Hillary Clinton.So that’s why the reset failed.

Putin Returns to the Presidency, Sparking Protests and a Crackdown

A switch back happens.Putin and Medvedev announce, well, Putin is going to be president again, and there's quite a reaction to it.It’s really, in some ways, the first time social media really enters a process as well in reaction, I guess, to it.Talk about that a little bit for me, will you, the switch, the reaction to the switch, and social media’s role in that.

I participated in that directly, together with Boris Nemtsov and other opposition members, was an organizer of those rallies, the one at Bolotnaya [Square], the one on Sakharov Avenue, on New Arbat [Avenue].I was actually one of the moderators of those rallies, one of the leaders, and it was amazing.It was unexpected even for us.Just a year before, when we conducted certain protests, we gathered no more than 1,000, or maximum 3,000 people.And suddenly in December 2011, 120,000 people gathered.

We were astonished.How [may this] be explained?I just think there were two reasons for that.The first reason was that Medvedev gave us some hope.When he was the president, his rhetoric was very inspiring.He said freedom is better than lack of freedom.Nice words.I just think that Lincoln himself would have signed such a statement.And he said that Russia needs modernization.Modernization actually was his main motto.

He said that Russia needs four I’s: innovations, investments, infrastructure and institutes.Great. Sounds great.There was some hope that, step by step, gradually, the country will do more reforms, becoming more transparent, more open, more modern, more modernized.And all of a sudden, Putin comes out and says, as [Arnold] Schwarzenegger, “I am coming back.”Of course, it was a total shock for all of us.Huge numbers of people didn’t want Putin to come back, because the people realized that if Putin comes back, there will be no modernization; that there will be no freedom, no reforms.And this is exactly what has happened.After he came back, the whole modernization was stopped.

And the second reason, there was an economic crisis.You may remember that it started with the Lehman Brothers.It started with the Wall Street in New York.The world financial crisis took place, followed by an economic crisis, and Russia also got affected by it.In 2009, the Russian GDP fell by 9 percent.The people’s income fell.And these things [were] put together: the decision of Putin to come back, the disappointment, the economic crisis, and the mass falsification at the elections to the parliament.There were thousands of videos on social networks from the polling stations showing how ballots were rewritten, how protocols were made for the party in power.This resulted in huge indignation, and people started going to the streets and demanded their reforms.But unfortunately, unfortunately, at that time, we failed to implement our requests.

Putin got back in May 2012.Oppressions and repressions began.The society got disappointed with what was happening, and we failed, actually, to obtain those reforms.The social media, however, played a huge role, because they spread information about falsifications and riggings.Facebook played a very big role, and YouTube played a big role, because the people came to the polling stations, saw riggings, and they took their smartphones.They recorded everything, and they immediately uploaded that on the Internet.And the whole country could see it.So the social networks have played a huge role in those protests.

And the social media was something that was not presumably in President Putin’s toolkit.He wasn’t ready for it to come, probably surprised by it all.Do you think that’s true?

I totally agree.Not only Mr. Putin, but even we, the representatives of the opposition, could not expect this effect from the social media.For us it was a total surprise as well.We saw, for the first time, that the YouTube and Facebook could bring together millions of people.It was a surprise.Then the Arab Spring followed those events, as you know, where the whole world saw that the social media can bring millions of people in the streets of Cairo, for instance, or the streets of Istanbul.But December 2011 in Russia was very first case in the world when the social media played such an important role.

If you were Putin, from what I understand about him, he does not believe in spontaneous combustion of a population.He believes Americans in USAID [United States Agency for International Development] or that secretary of state talking on YouTube and social media, encouraging the crowds, caused this, not whatever was actually happening in policy terms that angered Russian people.Am I right about that?

You're absolutely right.Vladimir Putin many times said—and he kept repeating that the protesters, people at the rallies in Moscow and in Kiev, are backed by some external forces.He genuinely believes that people will not just come into the street because of their beliefs and because of their values, just like Nicolas Maduro, a Venezuelan president, nowadays says that Caracas protests are masterminded by the Americans, that 1 million of Venezuela’s citizens [are] coming in the streets because of the United States.[Recep Tayyip] Erdogan in Istanbul, when 1 million people gather for a rally, he says that this is because of [opposition leader Fethullah] Gulen, who is now in the United States, and he demands the extradition of Gulen, because he believes that if he gets Gulen and puts him in prison, the protests will end.

All these people do not understand that the reason of those protests is inside the country, that people are protesting not because the United States wants that, but because they want a different life.These leaders just do not understand it.I, as the organizer of the rallies at Bolotnaya, Sakharov, New Arbat, can even take an oath and say that there was no external influence exerted on us.We organized everything on our own.People actually did that on their own.We did that because of our beliefs and our values.

But unfortunately, Mr. Putin does not agree with that.That’s why, after the mass protests of 2011-2012, when he got back to the Kremlin, some tough measures were taken.First of all about 40 people were arrested and put in jail.These are the people who participated in the protests.Secondly, Russia, first time in the history, officially adopted censorship on the Internet after 2012.A department was set up, which is called Roskomnadzor, the Russian committee for the oversight, which may, any time, without any court ruling, following its own initiative to block any website, any blog, any video clip on the YouTube.Now there are thousands of websites, thousands of blogs, which have been blocked or banned by Roskomnadzor’s decision.

Just to make it clear for the American audience, everyone knows the great chess player Gary Kasparov.Garry Kasparov has his own media, which is called Kasparov.ru.This is his Internet newspaper, a small one.It’s been blocked in Russia since 2012.It means that you cannot read his blog in Russia.The same way, Alexei Navalny’s live journal was blocked.The same is true of online newspaper Daily Journal. Also Internet newspaper Grani was blocked and so on.Thousands of sources, including democratic, liberal, opposition ones, were censored and were blocked.There is no access to them from Russia.

Putin Asserts Himself on the World Stage in his Third Term

This is the culmination of a very different Putin than [who] took over in 1999.By the beginning of his term in 2012, this is a very different man.

Absolutely, absolutely true.He wrote a very interesting article.In November—sorry, December 1999, when he became acting president, and he said that he is going to run for president, his first elections, he published his first article which was called “Russia at the Turn of the Millenium” This is a very important article, because in essence, he explained his strategy.And the strategy is very interesting, in the sense that, on the one hand, there is a promise that Russia would be a democratic country; it will be free; that he would grant the freedom of speech, human rights, constitutional guarantees.These things are all there.

But at the same time, on the other hand, there is a different part of the article, where he speaks about traditional values, about “vertical of power,” about setting order to the country, and about the rigid system.It is in December 1999 his rhetoric combined two parts: on the one hand, the democratic image of the country, which crept out in early 1990s, and on the other hand, the traditional conservative values and traditional Russian power, which is not compatible with freedom and democracy.

All those 17 years we saw how the first part was dying out, and the second part was blossoming.There was a transition from one part to the other.And if, in 1990s, when Putin became president for the first time, it was the country [was] certainly not truly democratic, not truly with market economy, but it was moving in that direction, now, 17 years after, we have an authoritarian rule; we have mass violations of human rights.And this is a country which has almost no market economy, because 65 percent of the GDP is the public sector, 65 percent of the GDP.

Certainly this is not Belarus under [Aleksandr] Lukashenko.Under Lukashenko, the public sector accounts for 85 percent.In Russia, the public sector counts for 65 percent of GDP.But you may agree that if the state has two-thirds of your economy, you would not say that you have a market economy.And under Yeltsin, the public sector accounted only for 25 percent of the GDP.It means that the public sector grew more than two times, and it means that the state has more control over the economy, over the people who are working for the public sector.So you're absolutely right.Russia, which we see now, is dramatically different from the one from the country which we saw in 1999, when Putin became president.

Intervention in the U.S. Election

Do you think—I mean the world, and certainly the president of the United States and the former president of the United States, and many legal officers in the United States—believe that Russia hacked the DNC [Democratic National Committee] computers, and that the fake news was coming from troll factories in Russia, that there may have been collusion between some members of Russia and some members of the Trump team.When you heard about all of that, what do you think the implications are for Russia and Putin of the allegations about the hacking?

Certainly I have no proof.Probably certain evidence would be obtained in the course of the investigation held by Congress and the Senate.But what I know for sure, the Russian Special Services or Secret Services have certain departments which deal with cybersecurity, and there are certain units which may hack certain Internet sources or websites.Again, in Russia, we have hundreds of cases of the mailboxes being hacked.Nemtsov’s mailbox was hacked, and Navalny’s mailbox was hacked.[Politician Vladislav] Surkov’s box was hacked just recently, three days ago.Shaltay-Boltay, a hackers’ group, was put in prison.It was hacking the mailboxes of the hyper-high-ranking officials. …

Secondly, I know for sure that in Russia we have troll factories, many special companies which hire people who produce and spread fake news on the Internet.There is such a troll factory in Moscow and somewhere near St. Petersburg.

Thirdly, which I'm also very sure of, when there was a presidential campaign in the United States, and I kept track very carefully of the Russian media content, what was said on the public TV channels, what was said by the Russian state media, all the Russian establishment and the Russian propaganda certainly opted for Donald Trump, sympathized with Donald Trump.They openly supported Donald Trump.It was said that he loves Russia, that he loves Putin, that he would be an excellent partner; and Hillary is a bad woman because she used to work with Barack Obama, and she actually was the one who organized Maidan, who was masterminding the color revolutions, and she helped opposition in Russia.She is bad. So it was black-and-white picture: very good Trump and very bad Hillary.

There was an open support for Donald Trump.In astonishing, most illustrative example, when these nights of elections took place, and the whole world was watching what was going on in Wisconsin, in Arkansas and New Hampshire, and when it became obvious that Donald Trump won, the same day the Russian State Duma, all the MPs actually applauded Trump’s victory standing.Can you imagine that the Russian parliament, in a situation when we have a confrontation with the United States, in a situation when we are under sanctions, would applaud, standing, to the victory of one of the candidates in the American presidential elections?I do think that no further proof is needed, no further evidence is needed, in order to understand who the Kremlin supported and who the Russian establishment supported.

Putin and Trump

In what ways, when you think about it, are Trump and Putin similar?What is the affinity between these two men?

I do think that Putin likes Trump because he is very much like him.Trump used to say that no one needs NATO, and Putin says that no one needs NATO.Trump used to say that he doesn’t need a unified Europe, and Putin doesn’t need it either.Trump said that he hates free media, and Putin cannot stand them.Trump says that you need protectionism and walls, and Putin believes that we need protectionism and walls.Trump says that they need censorship in the media, and Putin says: “I'm doing that already. I have been practicing that for many years.”Trump says business is what matters; real deal is what matters, and values are only second to that; freedoms and human rights are second to that.And Putin says: “What a great dude!I also believe that values are about empty chatter, and we have to do real business.”

And the final thing, during his election campaign, Trump said that he admired Putin. This is the exact quote.He said that Putin does a lot of things right.And how could Putin react to those things?Certainly he was very glad to hear that.And I do think that Putin now is very much disappointed.He expected a different thing.He probably thought that the very first person to meet for Trump would be Mr. Putin, and actually, it turns out that Putin was the last man, the last person that Trump wanted to meet.

Putin expected Trump to understand his position in Syria, in Donbas and in Crimea.Nothing like that happened.Putin expected Donald Trump lift the sanctions, and we see that most likely, Trump would finally sign the new law on sanctions approved by the Senate and the Congress.I do think that Moscow is disappointed with Trump.Before the elections, a lot of people said that Trump is our guy.Now many people say, no, Trump is not our guy. …

Latest Interviews

Get our Newsletter

Stay Connected

Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation

Koo and Patricia Yuen

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, with major support from Ford Foundation. Additional funding is provided the Abrams Foundation, Park Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, and the FRONTLINE Trust, with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.