Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin

- Good afternoon everyone and welcome to today's events. My name is Douglas Rogers, I teach in the Department of Anthropology and I am the faculty director of the Eastern European and Eurasian Russian Studies program. Today is a special event not only because of our guest, who is one of the most well-known, distinguished and fascinating journalists and broadcasters of the last 50 years, anywhere in the world, but because, in a much smaller and more modest way, It is the first time that the term "Program in Russian Studies in Eastern Europe and Eurasia" has been publicly uttered at Yale. Applause is appropriate. (Audience applauds) Our program dates back to July 1, 2018.

And we believe that the interest we are generating on campus and in packed auditoriums like the one today are good evidence of the growing interest in the study of this part of the world . So thanks for coming. Visit our website, subscribe to our newsletter, we hope to bring you many more events like this. I want to thank the MacMillan Center, the Council for European Studies, for also helping us with this event, and especially the Poynter Fellowship in Journalism and the Office of Public Affairs and Communication. Eileen O'Connor is somewhere around here. Thank you very much for her collaboration in this event and in many other events that we have had in the past and hope to have in the future.

The plan for today is that I will hand it over to Constantine Muravnik, who I am also very grateful to for suggesting this program and for doing a lot of the work to make it happen. You will introduce our guest, who will then speak for a while, followed by a sort of open question, answer, and discussion period. So without further ado, Constantine. (Audience applauds) - It is my great honor to welcome Vladimir Pozner to Yale. Mr. Pozner needs an introduction only to those too young to remember the '80s and '90s in this country, when he appeared regularly on Ted Koppel's Nightline and The Phil Donahue Show and later co-hosted the Pozner/Donahue show on CNBC.

At that time, he visited Yale once, so it's not a welcome, but a welcome back. Pozner may also need an introduction to those who are distanced from contemporary Russia, where he is omnipresent in the media. For the past 10 years, he has hosted a weekly show, Pozner, where he interviews various national and world leaders from all walks of life; Gorbachev, Sekulow, Gaidar, Shoigu, Ted Turner and Vekselberg, Hillary Clinton and Sting, Michael McFaul and Ksenia Sobchak, among many others, had the opportunity to face Mr. Pozner's careful scrutiny and be judged by millions of Russian viewers. Mr. Pozner's views on a wide range of issues, from politics to football, from history to astronomy to the arts, quickly go viral.

They have become a fact of Russian life to such an extent that he has been called, half seriously, half jokingly, the nation's spiritual leader and its moral compass. This despite the fact that Pozner is as much Russian as he is American or French. He was born in France and was baptized at Notre Dame, grew up in the United States and arrived in Russia only at the age of 19. Perhaps this cosmopolitan aspect of his biography is what endears him to the Russian public, tired like any other public, of ideological concerns. agendas. Perhaps, this ability to be simultaneously Russian, American and European attunes Mr.

Pozner to the subtleties of different perspectives and brings him one step closer to the much desired and no less appreciated objectivity and truth. Especially now, when the gaps between governments and nations only widen. And one side increasingly refuses to consider the opinions of the other. In his more than five decades in the field of journalism, Pozner has done his share of partisanship and propaganda. However, this changed in the 1980s when he pioneered a project of so-called space bridges, or telebridges that connect with Russian and American audiences. Moscow viewers named him "Number One Television Journalist" in 1989. And this high recognition has not diminished since then.

In 1989 and from 1994 to 2008, Pozner headed the Russian Television Academy. In 1997 he founded the School of Television Excellence, a platform for the education and promotion of young journalists. He has written several books and made several documentary miniseries about different countries, their cultures and people. These films brought the United States, France, Italy, Germany, England, Israel and Spain closer to millions of Russians. I am hopeful that this conversation with Mr. Pozner at Yale will also accomplish what he has been so good at. That he will bring Russian views and opinions a little closer to our students and colleagues, and maintain what we all need most now: a dialogue based on mutual understanding and respect.

So please join me in welcoming Vladimir Pozner. (Audience applauding) - Thank you very much. Quite an introduction. I would like to say a couple of words about who and what I am despite what we just heard. It is important that you understand that I do not represent anything or anyone. Any organization, political, social, whatever. I represent myself. I am a freelance journalist. And that is an animal that is disappearing in Russia and not only in Russia. I think it's important for me to say that and I hope I don't talk too much because I was told we would have a conversation later.

And I think that might be the most interesting part because you have questions or insights that you might want to share with me and I can't guess them beforehand. But there are certain things I would like to say before we have that conversation. I would like to say, first of all, that we find ourselves in an extremely dangerous moment today. Russian-American relations with the Soviet Union have never been at this level, at least not like before. During the worst times of the Cold War, when I lived in the Soviet Union, and I remember all of that very, very well.

The Russians were against the White House, against Wall Street, but not against the United States, for the most part. In fact, there was a kind of warm feeling towards the Americans. Today that is different. Today it is anti-American at the grassroots level. And there is a reason for that. Another thing that scares me is that neither side seems afraid of nuclear weapons. 30 years ago, those my age surely remember an American movie called "The Day After," which is about what happens to you and your country after a nuclear attack. There was fear of these weapons as there was in the Soviet Union, it was understood that these weapons can destroy, and if used, will destroy our countries.

Nowadays, when you talk to people, you get the feeling that nuclear weapons don't exist. It doesn't really seem to influence the way we act. And the danger of a nuclear exchange that is not deliberate, but accidental, has increased because the level of mistrust between the two countries has also increased. There have been several occasions in the past when computers warned of a nuclear attack. But it never came to fruition because people took the time to really check it out. Now, they didn't have much time. If an ICBM is launched from Russia, it will take about 10 minutes to reach the US.

So you already know that, and vice versa, obviously. So you don't have much time but you do have some. But my feeling is that if today those same computers fail and an attack has been launched from both sides, the response would be immediate. Because the feeling is that this is what is going to happen. Not long ago we were all very optimistic, right? Gorbachev, Gorby, Gorby, Russians, we will be friends, we will be... And in such a short time, how did this happen? Why are we at the point we are today? And I'm not saying who's to blame, because that's not a productive way of looking at things.

But we should try to understand exactly what happened. The Soviet Union, once Gorbachev took power, didn't really last long. He came to power in March 1985. And in December 1991, the Soviet Union no longer existed. Some people say it collapsed. It didn't collapse. In a place called Belavezha, which is a kind of forest, three presidents, the president of Ukraine, the president of Belarus and the president of Russia proper, Mr. Yeltsin, decided to separate, decided to dissolve the Soviet Union. . Now, everyone definitely had their own reasons. But if we look at Mr. Yeltsin, his reasoning was very clear. He was the president of Russia.

So he was number two behind Gorbachev. Because Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union, of which Russia was a part, most of it, but only a part. Get rid of the Soviet Union, there will be no president and you will get rid of Gorbachev. That is precisely what he did. So no more Soviet Union. Quickly no more Warsaw Pact, of course, that is, countries that were usually called Soviet satellites, and part of a military alliance with the Soviet Union, that Alliance disappeared. And then the United States had to figure out how to deal with this new entity called Russia.

How do we deal with that? The Soviet Union no longer exists. What will be the policy of the United States towards this country? And of course, Yeltsin also had to think about what Russia's attitude toward the United States is going to be. You may remember that shortly after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and I think it was February of 1992, Yeltsin came to the United States. And he addressed the joint session of Congress. And he said, the people of Russia are offering their hand to the people of the United States in friendship, to build a better world, a world without war, a world with our peace.

And this was exactly what the vast majority of Russians wanted. And even he would say that today the vast majority of Russians would like to have, if not a friendship with the United States, then at least a partnership. I have no doubt that that is the case. So that was what Yeltsin wanted and what kind of response did he get? What kind of response did Russia receive? Well, the United States could have chosen two ways to deal with Russia. One was: let's treat Russia like we treated our enemies after World War II, Germany, Italy and some of the countries that were occupied, like France, or not occupied, like the United Kingdom, but were seriously injured.

Let's find a way to make sure that in those countries the Nazis and fascists do not return. And the communists don't come to power, and I might remind you that in those days, the Communist Party of France and the Communist Party of Italy were very, very powerful. And it turned out that that plan was later called the Marshall Plan, which was basically a financial idea to spend a lot of money but in a very precise way to develop certain things and not allow others to develop. Now, that could be the policy to adopt towards Russia. Ensure that democracy begins to develop in that country.

And let me say, just for the record, that Russia never, in its thousand years, ever had democracy, completely absent. So it wasn't something the Russians once had and then lost, but they knew what it was. They didn't know what it was. So let's spend money advancing democracy in Russia and making sure the communists don't come back. And that could have been one approach. The other approach was to say, for 40 years, you held a nuclear bomb over our heads, you lost the Cold War, and you're going to pay for it. You will be punished for what you did.

And there were people who supported one point of view and people who supported the other in this country. In early 1992, a gentleman named Paul Wolfowitz filed a paper in the United States. You may know who he was, he was the United States Under Secretary of Defense responsible for policy. The document he produced came to be called the Wolfowitz Doctrine, unofficially, but that's how it was approached. It was later incorporated into something that was officially called the Bush Doctrine. That document was leaked to the New York Times. And so it became public. And what it basically said, and you can look it up, it's available, you know, just go to the Wolfowitz Doctrine and you'll find it, what it basically said was this.

The United States should never again allow any other country to challenge it. The United States must remain the superior country. And we should tell our allies not to worry about developing their own weapons because we will do that for them. And we have to be careful with Russia because we don't know what path it will take. The bear might rear up on its hind legs and growl. When that document was leaked to the New York Times, there was an outcry from the most liberal, so to speak, in America now the word liberal and conservative has lost the meaning it once had.

So when I say liberal, I'm not sure I'm saying the right word, but at least a lot of people were upset by this document. Edward Kennedy said that it was an imperialist document that no country could or should accept. It was quickly deleted and rewritten by Mr. Cheney. As far as I remember, he is not a very liberal man in any sense. And the Secretary of Defense of those days, Mr. Powell, but he basically held that view that Russia and the United States should remain, was going to be the only superpower. And basically, that vision was the one that was accepted.

It was the one that was accepted. And the attitude towards Russia was more or less that you are no longer a superpower. You are a second class country. Just stay quiet, please. This isTrue, we make our decisions and come to certain conclusions from what we read, what we see and what we hear. So basically, that's it. I would say that the Internet certainly allows us to have a much broader vision. In fact, we could communicate with the other party over the Internet. Not much is happening, but a little bit. So how should I put it, the average citizen could do a lot to change what is happening in both countries, and it is a two-way street.

And I think it's people like you, that is, your age, they are the ones who, for me, are the reason for optimism because you can do this. Whereas people my age and a little younger can do much less. So I hope that what I have said today can lead you to investigate this. And I'm not telling anyone, believe me. Believe me, God forbid. Look inside. That's all I would say. - So I was struck by both your conversation and your kind of mutual criticism of the media on both sides and I've been curious for a while about how this may or may not be different from what this image looked like, say halfway through. 1980s - I wonder if you remember, so pick up the New York Times.

I mean, I wonder if you could remember, you know, what the New York Times reporting on Russia and the Soviet Union was like in the '80s. - Yes. - And if you see a significant difference... - Let me give you an example. In the 1970s and 1980s, all the big television networks, which were the most powerful in terms of impact at that time, especially affected people's opinions. The three major networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, had offices in Moscow. The head of the ABC Office was a woman named Anne Garrels. Well, it was rare in those years for an office to have a woman as its boss.

Not only that, but she spoke Russian and I would like to tell you that the vast majority of American journalists did not speak Russian, they had interpreters, she did not. And one day I met her at a reception and she was doing the show that, you know, I did for Moscow radio. And we talked and she said, "You should appear on American television." I said, well, you know, how does that happen? She called Ted Koppel. Remember who was right, Nightline? I hope you don't forget it. (Audience laughs) And she said, you know, Ted, instead of having dissenters all the time, who represent 0.0 points and something of the country of the Soviet Union, why don't you hire someone who can express the Soviet point of view? and who can do it in English.

So I got on Nightline, and since I wasn't your typical Russian as far as the American audience was concerned, who is I? I got excellent grades and that's why I went again and again and again. And then on NBC and CBS and here and there. Today that wouldn't happen. I was allowed to defend the Soviet point of view on American television. I was allowed to do that. Ted would invite someone from the State Department to refute me and very often the State Department would say: we're not going to do this because Pozner is a pain and we don't want to talk to him, okay.

Today, you wouldn't have that chance to be regularly on a major network. And that's what has changed. That's what's really changed. And I've come to think that government censorship was either official or unofficial, and that's why the Soviet Union was official. It was an official censorship, you have to go with your piece and the censor read it, sealed it, censored it. Today that does not exist in Russia. But of course there is censorship when the boss says no, you can't say that or you can't print it. So, and I'm talking about the mainstream media, right? That's why I call that government censorship.

But there is something I call corporate censorship. And it is just as effective. And what happened to the American media, something I very much regret, is that what used to be independent, you know, CNN was owned by Ted Turner and he ran it. CBS was

created

by William Paley and he ran it. But gradually, many of these very important sources were bought by larger companies. CNN sold it to NBC, NBC was bought by AOL, ABC was bought by Disney. And so, these very important media outlets, whatever the organizations, became part of enormous conglomerates and the information became very different.

The attitude toward what the media is supposed to do changed dramatically. I asked the group of people, I actually paid for it, just try to find in the New York Times from the last three years, 2015, '16, '17, any positive articles about Russia. A positive article, I didn't find any. None, now I tell myself, that's not censorship, so what is it? I mean, there have to be people who come to Russia and say, wow, they have good ice cream, you know, or they have a great theater, and they do. And people line up to buy theater tickets.

And that's a good thing, right? It gives a more or less precise answer, but no, it's all negative. And that's the New York Times, let alone everything else. And for me it's terribly disappointing, because I, you know, I worked here for a lot of CNBC for quite a few years until a man named Roger Ailes, I don't know if you remember who he was, killed our show because we were too liberal. He just didn't renew the contract and that was it. So I know what press freedom is on both sides of the fence, so to speak.

It's a different question. So that's what I'm saying: in a strange way, corporate censorship is just as effective and sometimes much more sophisticated than government censorship. - I think we are on this side of the room and people in the middle can also ask questions somewhere. We see a head in the back. - Actually, you could throw the microphone. - So, my name is Rick Schneider. I work with the Yale Rivendell Institute. - Where are you? - Right here. - OK thanks. - I am also a visiting professor, I was at Gimmel and currently at Bushka. -Yes.-So my question is, based on your conversations and his experience with Russia's leaders, do you think there is room to reach an agreement on Ukraine?

I mean, after all, maybe the big sticking point right now in our relations is all those sanctions, most of the sanctions besides Magnitsky, of course, but most of the sanctions have to do with Ukraine and Donbas is a big problem. So is there room to reach an agreement to solve this problem? - I bet, first of all, I applaud the question because the key word is commitment. The key word is commitment. I had asked for the possibility of showing a map. Is that still possible or is it no longer possible? I want to answer your question because I want to show something that I think is important.

And I asked, Oh my God! (Audience laughs) I asked for a map of Russia with Ukraine to be put on the screen and, hopefully... - This will take, it will take a couple of seconds. - I'm not in a hurry, and let them put a map of the United States and Mexico on the screen. Now, let me return to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Two completely independent leaders, Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro, decide that it would be a good idea for Russia to deploy missiles on Cuban soil. Did they have the right to make that decision?

Absolutely, two independent countries, and Fidel Castro was not a satellite, for sure. So, that's fine. So they make that agreement. And so they begin to bring them the missiles or the parts to assemble. And the United States discovers it. - That's not him (murmurs). No no no. - And Kennedy tells the Russians: turn your ships around or we will sink them. And if that leads to World War III, so be it. And the Russians turn their ships around. But there was a compromise. It was not made public in this country at that time. Kennedy agreed to remove the American missiles that were deployed in Turkey in exchange, because the Russian said, look, you have missiles in Turkey right on our border, almost.

You say our missiles are an existential threat, but so are yours. Take them out and we won't deploy ours. That was a commitment. Now, Kennedy asked that this not be made public because it would be seen as a loss of faith and blah, blah, blah, and it wasn't made public and then it was later. So that was a compromise. And it helped prevent World War III. Well, this isn't happening yet... - You might have to ask people to cast spells on their minds. - It's ok, I'll do it. - Yes, I think you wanted... - Now the Russian leaders see NATO as an existential threat.

Right or wrong, that's not the point. The thing is, that's what it looks like. And this is not politics. You know, why would you bring NATO closer and closer to our borders, they say. In Latvia it is on the border, in Estonia it is on the border. Now Ukraine is moving west, it is a complicated issue, the United States has played a certain role in this, that is not the point. It is moving west. If it eventually moves into the Western fold or whatever you want to call it, then it is logical to assume that Ukraine will join the European Union and become a member of NATO.

Ukraine now has a border with Russia. Not only that, but Crimea, which was traditionally Russian, but I'm not, we can get into the complicated part of how Ukraine was Russia and was (mumbles), not the point, but Sevastopol was always the base of the Navy. the Russian Navy, Black Sea naval fleet. So if Crimea remains Ukrainian and if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, the Russian fleet will not be in Sevastopol, but the American Sixth Fleet could well be there. And NATO will be on Russia's southwestern border. And the Russians see this as an existential danger. And they say, we won't allow it.

Now, does that correspond to international law? No, it's not like that. When you talk about existential threat, you say: I don't care about international law, like in the Cuban missile crisis. You say no, we don't give a damn how you feel. We will not allow this. In my opinion, if from the beginning there had been some kind of internationally negotiated agreement, according to which Ukraine would not become a member of NATO for at least the next 50 years, there would be no problem with Ukraine. Why did I order a map of the United States and Mexico? Well, the United States has a pretty big border with Mexico.

Now imagine that you have a revolution in Mexico. That's not so hard to imagine. And let's imagine that the government that comes to power is not a big fan of the United States of America. I think that's not hard to imagine either. But since he is a little afraid of the big brother, he asks the Russians to send three, four or five divisions to place them on the border between the United States and Mexico. Do you think the United States would accept that? So why would the Russians accept this? That's what it's really about. Does there have to be a compromise?

In my opinion, yes. And the compromise has to be that Ukraine guarantees that it will not become a member of NATO. And then the compromise is that the Russians leave. We leave, but there is the guarantee. Crimea is a different topic. There could be an agreement to hold another referendum under international supervision. Let's see what the people of Crimea want. Do they really want to be part of Russia or do they want to be part of Ukraine? Or do they want to be an independent republic? I know the response will be overwhelming. And so does everyone.

That's why no one even suggests that, because most people living in Crimea want to be part of Russia. It is a tradition, it has existed like this for a long time. But basically, that's my answer. Yes, you need a commitment. And if neither side is willing to budge, well, then we're in deep. - We are here for the next question. (man speaks in foreign language) I can't hear you. (the man speaks in a foreign language) Do you speak Russian? - No, I'm going to switch to English. I just wanted to say hello to you in Russian.

I have been following you for many years, your work. Retelling Telebridges with Phil Donahue and I'm sure some of us remember those days in Washington back in the Soviet Union. I'm from Ukraine, just for the record. So I certainly share your opinion on many things you talk about. Today, however, I find it a little difficult to accept your point of view. And I can't shake the feeling that it's almost like a legal defense that tries to explain a person's bad behavior by external circumstances. I am certainly not naïve or idealistic about policymaking in any country, including the United States.

And I certainly agree that mistakes were made. Not being an expert in this field, I find it difficult to really know the exact chronological sequence of events. That's why it's hard to argue what was the cause and what was the effect of what you're describing. However, in your presentation today, I think you certainly presented Mr. Putin as a positive and peace-loving person. And I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. - I do not know i do not know. - Well, you certainly mentioned a series of effects that presented him as someone who continually reached out to the world, not only to the United States, but to the West, who had the mission of peace in mind.

However, his actions not only against Crimea but in general towards eastern Ukraine. His rather aggressive actions in Syria certainly do not create that position. So I think there's a bit of a disconnect between whether it was the United States or our policymakers who

created

that image of Putin as someone who's not easy to work with. (Audience applauds) But certainly his actions in many ways, not only his actions, but also the aggressive tactics of the military, the Russian military, in many of its regions, do notthere. - You see it there, right. That small country that says Armenia? - Yes, good. - So I'm a doctoral student and I study genocides, but today I'm going to ask... - You study what? - Genocides. - Wow! - Yes, very funny.

But today I'm going to ask a question about the current events that happened right next to Russia, and that are very related to what you talked about, about talking about the new generation that can change, the generation that may not have this system Soviet. The mentality can change or it can be the change. - Yes. - And something like that happened recently in Armenia, no one ever expected that peaceful demonstrations in such a small landlocked post-Soviet country could lead to a change, which was the collapse of the old government and the establishment of the government. that has total and complete support of the people. - Yes. - And the curious question I always hear when I talk about this with students or at conferences is why did Russia not intervene in any way in these events?

And I would really appreciate your thoughts on this, like how come Vladimir Putin didn't really respond visually to this development? And how was this even or was it observed, seen in Russia because it was next door. It was a big change. And some people were even speculating how this could serve as an example for other countries to overthrow their governments, etc., thank you. -Well, one reason could be that maybe Putin is not exactly the man everyone thinks he is. You know, that's a possibility, I don't insist on it. Another reason could be that Armenia's new leader never expressed any anti-Russian sentiments.

On the contrary, he said that we are in an independent country, but look where we are. And we have always had very close ties with Russia and we want to have close ties, economic ties. There was absolutely no feeling of enmity, on the contrary, and it was the people, there was no doubt at this moment, it was the people who spoke. You know, Armenia is really a very small country. What is the population now? Three million and there were a million people who came out. Can you imagine that 30% of the entire population goes out into the streets?

You can't ignore that. And that's another reason. But the very question of why Putin didn't interfere reflects the way people think about it. Because that's how it's been portrayed. So, you know, that's my answer, by the way. Well no, I'm not going to go into that. One more question you say. - I think one more, yes, we will try to finish at six. So we come back to this side. I see a hand right next to you. Hello you. - Hello, I am a master's student in European and Russian studies. I guess my question is about the poisoning that happened in the UK earlier this year. (audience laughing) - Finally, finally. - Is there a way to respond so strongly that it doesn't escalate, the confrontational type of paradigm? - Yes, you know, when this happened, in Salisbury, I was shocked and tried to discover some kind of logic for myself.

Now you know why, who would do this and why. Now, you know, let's forget about the girl, I mean she, you know, didn't do anything. Skripal was a military agent, right? He worked for the old GRU, not for the KGB, Putin works for the KGB, he works for the GRU, which is military intelligence, and they can't stand the KGB, and the KGB can't stand his intelligence. That's a normal competition. Then, and betrayed his country. Let's be real, right? He crossed over to the other side and began working for British intelligence. And they caught him and tried him.

And he was sentenced to 13 years. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with what happens to spies, who turn against their own country and then get caught? Well, in times of war, they get shot. But in peacetime, well, it's usually something like 30 years, 25, 13 is a strange phrase. Considering that not only does he receive this rather short sentence, but he is also exchanged for Soviet spies, excuse me, Russians who were captured. Now if he was traded that means he really didn't know anything at the time. He did not pose any danger to the Russian side. So, you know, let it go and we'll get ours back.

Now, Putin doesn't like traitors, who does? If Putin wanted to kill him, he was in prison, he could do it. And you could say that he had a heart attack or that he committed suicide or whatever. He had no problem killing when he was in prison in Russia. They let him go, they traded him, they could have traded someone else, they traded him. What would be the point of poisoning this man under those circumstances? I mean, logically. Putin is anything but stupid. It's not stupid, he is very risky. The risk of this being discovered somehow is always there.

Why do it, this is not a dangerous person. He can't do anything. He can talk about what he knows, but he's done. So I try to find, I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying I'm trying to find some kind of logic, logic, not emotions, logic as to why Putin would be involved in something like that. Very well, it's not Putin. He's one of those underdogs, you know, one of the GRU people who thinks Putin would like them to do it. But would Putin like to be found out? No, of course not, they cut off their heads.

So why would they take the risk? They will not receive decorations for doing so. Because if Putin had ordered it, then yes. So why would they do it? So for me, it really remains a mystery. Because it's stupid, it's counterproductive. It doesn't contribute anything positive at all. So am I denying something? I'm not denying it, what I'm saying is that you give me proof. Please show me, yes, there it is. Now this interview, did you see it? Rita's interview, what's it called? Sonya, of those two two people. You saw it? It was one of the most unprofessional jobs I have ever seen. (Audience laughs) That was, you know, I thought what, who, why?

And it happened, you know, the day before that Putin had said that these two men should go to the media and they came the next day and they were there, you know. It's ridiculous except it's not, not really. Then I would tell you that the whole story is disgusting. I find it hard to believe that Putin started it, I really do, but someone did. No doubt about it. And now I heard a really nice story. You know that Mr. Skripal in Britain, every time he met with his handlers, as they call them, they would pay him a certain amount, not much, you know, 5,000 pounds or 7,000 pounds, where if he felt that he had something really interesting that say, 10,000 pounds.

But, once again, he had no real interest. So I'm thinking, and now this is John le Carré, right? I think British intelligence gets together and says: we don't need this guy and he's costing us money. And he's not kidding. Now, why don't we do it and make it look like it's about Putin? Well, that's brilliant, you should do this, you know? So British intelligence poisons the guy and it all works out this way. It is not impossible. I laughed a little at myself when that occurred to me. And I would like to talk to Mr. le Carré and see what he thinks.

By the way, if you haven't read his last two books, "The Pigeon Tunnel," which is a story of his life as a spy. And I forgot the other one, "A Spy's Legacy." He writes with total disgust about that profession in which he was for so long. Oh really. So you know, there it is. My answer is: I just don't know. It's such a strange thing, it really is. I don't see any reason for it. It's just invading another country, I can explain it, right? But I don't know this. Has no sense. One day we will know the reality.

Oh, by the way, Salisbury, I don't know if you've ever been there. I was there, I filmed a documentary about England. So you know why I went there, not because the steeple is I don't know how many feet high or something. I have no idea. It is a beautiful church, beautiful actually. But it is because they have in their possession one of the three original copies of the Magna Carta. And that's the beginning of real democracy in the West, if you don't count the ancient Greeks, and I really wanted to see it. And they took him out.

And I can't tell you what, you know, when you look at that. And you say, what was 1215 and they already said that you cannot put a man in prison without proving that he has committed a crime. And you have all the kings and queens and all that. It's amazing, that's why I went there. These guys didn't even know he was there, right? They went to see the bell tower, I mean, come on. - Okay... - Let me thank you all for listening to me. (audience applauding) (soft music)