The FRONTLINE Interviews
Andrei Klimov
Russian Senate
Andrei Klimov is a Russian senator who has been a State Duma (Russian assembly) deputy since 1999. He is currently the deputy head of the Russian Senate's foreign affairs committee
This is the transcript of an interview with FRONTLINE's Michael Kirk conducted on July 11, 2017. It has been edited in parts for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
TOP
Andrei Klimov
Chapters
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
Putin's Political Rise
So, in 1999, who is Putin?
In 1999, he was prime minister, and a very active prime minister, who was in charge to stop somehow from one side the very bloody terrorist war in the Caucasus area.[On] the other hand, he must do something with this economical and social crisis, which was very deep indeed at that time in Russia.And thirdly, at that time, as we know, Mr. Yeltsin was very weak.And from time to time, Mr. Putin must be a kind of acting president, not real acting president but practically as an acting president in 1999, because he became an acting president only after 1st of January 2000.
Why his rise?
Well, I took part, very active part, in his elections, his first presidential elections.I was among those people who really supported him actively.We are from the same generation, so people of my generation really at that time tried to not change the world, of course, but tried to stabilize somehow life of my country—political life, social life, economic life.We have to do something to raise Russia, to have a kind of not just renovation, but renaissance of our country.
… Certainly, he [Putin] had some experience being in the government of St. Petersburg for several years with Mr. [Anatoly] Sobchak.And it was a good school, because I met Mr. Putin—our first contact was in 1993 in St.Petersburg, so I have known him since that time.And I can say that he was really a very active member of this Sobchak's government, and he really could understand the real problems with the Russian regions, because Russia is a big country.It’s a huge one, and we have a lot of different regions.Now, we have 85 constituents, entities in our country, and Putin came from the ground, if you like.1He was not a guy from Kremlin jumping from one office to another one, no.
1
He came from the real Russia, in this particular case from St. Petersburg.And being some years in Moscow like member of the staff of the Kremlin administration, a bit later as a chief of our security service, FSB—it’s a kind of FBI, but not exactly FBI.Then he became prime minister and spent almost half a year like a prime minister, and after that, he received such kind of permissions and instruments like officially acting president.
So this background was very helpful for him. …
Putin's Vision for Russia in his First Term
Was there a philosophy attached to what he came to do?
Well, this is, of course, my personal vision of that situation.I'm sure that at that time, in 2000, 2001, nobody can say that we have real program for decades, no.The task was to establish such kind of program.I took part in some very close meetings, discussions, how to go, what kind of tax system we have to have, where and when we have to spend the main money from our budget.
For example, exactly at that period, so first one or two years from Putin's first elections, we really decided to pay back old debts of the Soviet Union.It was a very difficult decision.But the idea belongs to Mr. Putin.He said that we have to stop this bad credit history.Of course, the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union and vice versa.But we have to do that even if it is our obligation to cover all debts of the Soviet Union, including debts of Baltic states, Ukraine, Belorussia, all states of our—Asia, Central Asia republics, and we did it in several years’ time.
In 2007, we could say that we have no debt as a state.After that, we proclaim the other story about new Russia, which must be stable, which must have its own development based on its own national interests.And of course we have to do that not because we’d like to be kind of global manager or something like that, no, but because we have to prepare special conditions with the Russian people to bring them other quality of their life, to give them stability, to give them perspectives, to give them guarantees for better social and economic conditions. …
I have a sense when I look back at the history that Putin and Bush got along at the very beginning.9/11 happened in America, and Putin calls Bush.He’s the first call into [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice offering help, hoping, I suspect, for a relationship, a very positive relationship with the United States.But events like the invasion of Iraq and other things, and America not really seeming—Bush not really seeming to pay attention to Russia in the right way—?
Well, let me explain to you how we in Russia translated that signal.Of course, America after 1991 decided, and we have a lot of quotations about that from the top of your political level, that the West is the winner of the Cold War.In our understanding, this is not about winners; this is about the end of Cold War.But in vision of people like Bush and others, not only Americans, of course, they were winners; we're not.
And that is why they look at Russia like a country which was in ruins, and that's true.At that time, not now like Mr. Obama proclaimed once, but at that time—
What did he say? What did Obama—?
He said a few years ago that Russia is in ruins, our economy and so on and so forth after the sanctions.2It was his own perception, but well, you can see a lot of ruins around you now, yes?And you can see how efficient is our army, how stable is our economy despite all these sanctions and so on.
2
But anyhow, at that time—I mean the ’90s—we were really in ruins, social and economical ruins.As a politician at that time, I spent maybe 90 percent of my life at that period to help people in my region just to have enough meals daily.We are speaking about cigarettes, bread, sugar, butter and so on, things like that, not about missiles, not about political revenge, no.We just thought how to survive today, not even the day after tomorrow—today.It was a very terrible story.
But within this ten years’ period, we could do a lot to have some kind of stability, not real stability, but some kind.Mr. Putin appeared in Kremlin in next three, five years’ period.We could really start our development as the development of independent, state-based on its own resources, national interests, and in favor of the Russian people. That's it, full stop.
And because of that, we had at that time one perception, one vision, but Americans and some kind of Western politicians, they continue to look at us like former Soviet Empire, ruins of empire, some kind of young boy.… It was really a kind of surprise when Mr. Putin presented his speech in Munich. It is really a new page of our affairs, because it was not just a surprise.3Immediately there were a lot of things appeared at that time, like Eastern Partnership—it's a kind of bloc among former Soviet republics against, honestly, my country—just [spreading].In this bloc were countries like Ukraine, for example. This happened in 2008.Officially, it was Polish initiative, but not only. There were some other initiatives like that. …
3
Putin Consolidates Power in his Second Term
But wait. Let's go back to Munich for just a minute.
Yes, please.
He comes on the stage and he has something to say to the world. What is it?
Well, he just mentions very simple and clear things, as it seems to me.One is that Russia is an independent state.We are not a branch of the White House or European parliament. No, we're just an independent state.Then this independent state has its own national interests, but this is not an interest to conquer the world.We do not want to be involved in any kind of domestic scenes of any other civilian states.
But we also cannot welcome people who like to change our political life from abroad, so we are really strongly against any kind of interference in our internal political life. He mentioned that as well.
By then he feels the move from NATO, he feels the—This is his explanation why we are so concerned about that story, because [on the] one hand, we are an independent state.We have our own interests.We’d like to ask other people to have a kind of respect to this, our interests, and we are ready to respect their own.So we are against any kind of influence from abroad to our home things.And then explaining why we're so concerned about NATO and so on, he really names some examples, including enlargement of NATO as a military organization to the Russian line, which is not acceptable.It cannot be acceptable for us. For NATO, maybe, for Washington, yes, but for us, no. …So in 2007, when he’s standing there on behalf of Russia, that really signals there's a new Russia.It will leave us alone; we're going to go our own way, and don’t—That we are not a territory open for any kind of experiments from abroad.We're not territory which cannot react in case … it can see some threats around us.Like the United States, for example.The United States is very serious when something happened or may happen—or may happen—with the sovereignty of the United States, you know, and it is very sensitive [to] things if somebody even could imagine in the States that some countries like Russia may do something, may do something, maybe, with their own political system.
That is why your media is so aggressive; that is why your politicians are so aggressive, speaking about Russia, because for some of them, this story, it's fake story, of course, but this story is so important because this is about the internal space of the United States.They're really eager to protect it.We're also eager to protect our own space.But it is not fake, it is the reality.Your weapons, your army, they're near our borders.We have no army near your borders, only now Far East and only Alaska.But you also have your own troops on your own territory and we on our own territory.But you have a lot of military bases around Russia, not on your own territory. And this is the great, great question mark: For what purpose?
The Reset and Arab Spring: Putin as Prime Minister
When President Obama wins, he sees the [Dmitry] Medvedev-Putin switch as an opportunity, what they called the “reset.”What was happening in Russia?What was happening with Putin?What did you see happening around all of that?
If you are speaking about if it is about myself, I never had any illusions about Mr. Obama.I do remember him as a senator.I understand—and this is my point, of course; maybe it’s a mistake, but for me it’s absolutely clear—that there are a lot of people behind Mr. Obama.He is not just a single player.And this group of people, they base on theory about exclusive rights of American government to rule the world.It seems to them that the American legislation is so great that it’s not just legislation for Americans or legislation for the territory of the United States, that this is legislation for the global things.
And if something happened wrong, America has right to change that, to correct that somehow.So they just based on such kind of cornerstone, and this is the reason of all coming events, because we cannot accept that at all.It is not acceptable for Russia to say or to think that somebody can do something in my country or with my country according to the legislation, to the ideas, to their perceptions, to their visions, to their philosophy.We do not want to change the philosophy of Mr. Obama or his team or this clan or this class or whatever you like.We do not want to do that.We do not want to change American Constitution or American legislation.
We do not want to help this or that candidate in your elections.The only thing we want is to have a kind of respect from America to my country, and we have to remind them, to your country, to your politicians, that your responsibility is inside the United States.All the rest of things are under the responsibility of the United Nations, or United Nations Security Council, if you like, and that's it. …
Putin Returns to the Presidency, Sparking Protests and a Crackdown
When the protests happen in 2011, 2012—In Russia, what's happened? What was happening?
Well, it’s normal that some people in different countries try to demonstrate their own opinions.But they like to have a kind of battle with police, the respect—we cannot allow people to do something which is against the law.You also have the same rules and regulations.Everybody in the world, people in the sovereign states, they have law. According to the law, they can do a lot.If it is not according to the law, there are some restrictions and penalties in case.
So the same thing’s happened in Russia.And it’s not something outstanding, because from time to time it’s happened.But if you just compare such kind of demonstrations and such kind of fightings, if you like, between those people and police, with events which happened in the beginning of ’90s, you can see a great difference, because at the beginning of ’90s, there were hundred thousands of people in Moscow, and Yeltsin at the time opened fire by tanks against the parliament.So this is our starting point of democracy, you see?
And in ’11 and ’12, there were some strikes, but not so—well, in your media, it’s reflected like something outstanding, but in the real life, it was just, if I could say, misunderstandings, because a lot of people in Bolotnaya Square and others, they were not looking for a kind of battle between police or against some kind of security.No, they like to demonstrate their own opinion. That's possible in my country, as many other countries.
We have such kind of demonstrations, small and not so small, everywhere, including my own constituency.4For example, a few days ago it was a demonstration in Perm, but there were only six participants. Six participants, 12 journalists and 10 policemen. …
4
It's interesting that it was reported that he was so unhappy about Hillary Clinton's conversations that seemed to spark a lot of those protests.And we've had many people tell us that he doesn't feel there's such a thing as really a spontaneous outpouring of people.
… We saw a lot of politicians, including American politicians, on Monday on Maidan Square in 2014.And they're not just looking at things. There were speakers during that kind of revolution. …But it was the first signal from the State Department that they're really very serious in their attempts to interfere in our internal political life.There never has been about them. It was their idea to proclaim that they are really ready to be involved somehow in our political life.5
5
… And it’s not a secret that, for example, President Obama recommended British people not to vote in favor of Brexit, or later he recommended [France’s] Mr. [Emmanuel] Macron to go ahead.But this is not the Russian style of doing business like that.That is why we really cannot accept any kind of interference in our internal life.This is only for Russians, the Russian.The internal life of Americans, only for Americans.Internal life of French people, it’s only for French people, and that's it.
Putin Asserts Himself on the World Stage in his Third Term
So when Ukraine is happening, Ukraine is a separate and sovereign country.
Absolutely.
And Russia—So how does Mr. Putin justify what happens down in Donbas?
Well, I can tell you something which I know for sure.Kremlin never, never proclaimed that the Kremlin’s administration is in favor of this or that candidate during the presidential elections when [Viktor] Yanukovych became president.After that, during negotiations, [in the] last days before this revolution, the special envoy of Mr. Putin and Mr. Okim [?], whom I know many, many years, and he’s my colleague now in my committee in our senate, he told me in details how it’s happened, in details, even in small details, you see?
It was an agreement to give Mr. Yanukovych possibility to be in his office until the end of 2014, and then it must be elections, normal elections.At that time, we were sure that it is not possible for Mr. Yanukovych to be re-elected, so everything being done with the help of Kremlin as well to give Ukrainian people [help] to solve their own problems themselves, and that's it, without any kind of Maidan revolution and other things which were absolutely against the Ukrainian constitution.
Do you have any doubt that the—you have no doubt that the United States was responsible for the Maidan?
Ask, please, your colleagues.Let them check how many diplomats you had at that time in Kiev, just only for your own experience. I'm sure you will be surprised.
What are you saying?
How many diplomats from the United States were at that time in Kiev? How many? It is really an outstanding number of people, only diplomats.[Add] to that politicians; [add] to that let’s say advisers from different intelligence and military departments; and [add] to that a lot of money in dollars cash which were everywhere in Ukraine.We had no doubt from where it came.But you cannot name even one Russian politician on Maidan Square or somewhere in Kiev. We just look at that.
Why were we there?
Why?
Why was America—why were our diplomats, why was our money—?
Well, first of all, it is not question for the Russian politician, it seems to me.It's better to ask you why you spend so much money from the American budget to change things in different countries.This is not a question to me, but I can tell you what may be the reasons.
Or what you thought were the reasons?
Yeah, of course, of course.That's my opinion.Because Mr. Obama and others, they decided that America can do whatever they like to spread democracy, they call it.They’d like to spread democracy also in Ukraine, practically.They have some kind of perceptions of that democracy.Of course, they cannot be aware of all nuance of the political and real life of Ukrainian people.They know that by books or by reports from some of their diplomats and intelligence, and that's it, but it’s not really understanding of the life of people.
At that time in Ukraine, about 50 percent of people decided to be as close with Russia as possible, and they were eager to be part of this new Eurasia[n] Economic Union. About 50 percent.But most of those people, they were in Crimea, Donbas, partly in Kiev, but not in the western part of the state.In the western part of the state, in Lvov and some other cities, there were people from the other side, those who decided that they must run from Russia as soon as possible, exactly to the European Union, NATO and so on and so forth.
So the Western politicians decided to base [their assumptions] on that part of people and to spread their influence on others. And they opened Pandora’s box in this concrete country.But Ukraine is not Estonia or Latvia, where you have population less than 3 million in each. You have in the Ukraine now 45 million people. It’s something.And it is very difficult to change their mind like this according to the orders from Washington and Brussels. It is not possible; it takes time.Only Bolsheviks, people like Trotsky, they could think that it’s possible to have such kinds of revolutions to kill opposition and to build new Soviet communist democracy.
Now I am speaking about a new type of democracy, American-style democracy, supported with the help of money from abroad, with the help of intelligence service, with the help of diplomatic service, and even, in some cases, with the help of Pentagon.It’s happening in Iraq, for example, to have full control.For me, it's not a secret how elections in Iraq [are] being organized, and it is not a secret for me how elections in Ukraine [are] being organized.I know well such kind of telephone communications between executives in Russia come from Washington and from Brussels about future of the Ukrainian government.
They decided whom to be in the government, whom to be the president and so on and so forth.That is why I said that I'm not sure that we have a sovereign state in Ukraine now.Of course we respect their territorial integrity.Of course we are eager to have Soviet state in Ukraine, but it is just a country, not a state now, because of course we respect the right of Ukrainian people to build their own society with whom they like. It’s up to them.But we are aware of the situation, and we know that a lot of things happened not because of willingness of people but because of some kind of influence, which is visible.
There's a lot of debate in the United States about giving lethal weapons to the Ukrainians to defend themselves against, the way the argument goes, Russian armor and other military forces.
Well, let me just—Yes, please.
So the argument was we should do that partly because we have a moral obligation, but we should also do that because we need to let Mr. Putin know that he can't go into a sovereign country, that he needs to be stopped and an example needs to be made.How would that have washed with President Putin if we would have armed those guys?
Look, you're basing [this] on the position that Mr. Putin liked to be involved somehow in the civilian country life, but it is not true.It's your vision. It’s an explanation of the West. But we have another understanding of that reality.
Intervention in the U.S. Election
We have just a few minutes left. Let’s talk about 2016 and the American election.When it’s reported that Russia hacked the election, that Hillary Clinton was the target, tell me your reaction.Tell me the reaction in Russia to the reports.
First of all, we look at that as a funny story because we have no reason to do that.We know that Mr. Trump, he is a non-politician, but anyhow, he's pro-American politician.Madame Clinton, she is pro-American politician, but she's from another camp.We will have problems with all of them, and we can have successful story with all of them.But we’d like to have somebody who will be president to start negotiations with the new president of United States, and that's it.
Of course in our society, there are different people, 145 million, and we have some freedoms in my country. I believe not just some.And we have not kind of—which is very popular in the Western world, political correctness.So in our media you can discuss whatever you like.That is why some politicians discuss that it’s better to have Trump in White House.The other politicians said no, no, no, it’s better to have Clinton or Obama.
But it was theoretical, academic discussion between them, practically.We never sent any instructions to our ambassador—that is I know for sure—to our minister of foreign affairs, to our intelligence and so on and so forth, to do something, to be involved somehow in that problem.Why? Because we have no real possibilities to change, but it is not the main reason.The main reason is that we have no reasons to do that.America is a great country with a very stable political system, with a lot of instruments to protect their own sovereignty and their internal life.
Moreover, we in my country, in new Russia, not in the Soviet Union, in new Russia, we are not eager to be involved somehow in the internal life of other sovereign states. This is not our business at all, at all.But for the purpose of Madame Clinton’s campaign, it was a very good idea, very practical idea, very efficient idea, to name Russia as a threat, to, if you like, to not just to me but to proclaim my country as an enemy which really is able to penetrate and to change dramatically the results of the elections.
It was very good idea of somebody in her team—I don't know the name, but it’s a very clever guy or, I don't know, maybe lady who did that.And then they also did a lot to prolong the effect of such decision and to base their activities, again [of] Mr. Trump, on such kind of perceptions, artificial things which they implement as very efficient weapons, political weapons, against Mr. Trump and partly against my country, and that's it.But this is a domestic story of your country. We have nothing to do with that.
Putin Returns to the Presidency, Sparking Protests and a Crackdown
Back in 2011 and 2012, did you think that Hillary Clinton as the secretary of state was becoming involved or directing involvement in internal affairs?
I can just remind you of one quotation from her speech, remind you of one quotation from her speech in 2012, or maybe—I do not remember exactly, but she was in her office at that time.She said that we have to do everything which we can do to stop Eurasian integration, to split that, not to give possibility to the Russian government to arrange a kind of renaissance of this post-Soviet space by all means, by all means.She said that: “by all means.”This is quotation; this is her speech.6
6
But did she actually stimulate the protests?
Well, of course in the State Department they have a lot of people, thousands.It is not necessary for Madame Clinton or somebody else to go to Moscow like a spy and to do something personally.She has enough instruments not only in the State Department to implement such kind of orders or plants.It is very, very understandable.And I can remind you also the very, very new report of your Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, in—they publish it on 28th or 29th of June, just now, and they said that this renaissance of Russia is a main challenge of the United States, and they also mention our attempts to protect our sovereignty and to prevent any kind of interference in our political life as a problem for spreading of democracy.7You see?So please mind that we are not happy to have any kind of influence from abroad.And if you'd like to have good affairs with Russia, if you'd like to have international stability, if you'd like to have cooperation with my country, forget about our domestic life.
7
Intervention in the U.S. Election
Is it a dangerous time right now, an especially dangerous time?
I cannot say that we have the same situation like it was during the times of Cold War.Fortunately not, because it is not competition between communists and capitalist systems.This is a competition between national interests; that's true.This is new reality, and in this new reality, we have to respect each other.If we can respect each other, we can solve any problem on the globe.
But we don’t—we're accusing you of impacting our presidential election.
Look, look, we are not anti-Americans.We really do not want to change your political system. It is not in our minds.America, it has to solve the problems themselves.But if somebody in America thinks that it is from Moscow, we cannot just change the minds of that kind of politicians. It is not in our hands.The only thing we can say, that officially that's true.I don't know about some crazy people in my country, but this is the official position of the Kremlin administration, of our government, of our parliament.We do not want anyhow to [interfere] in the political life of the United States of America.We have no reasons to do that, and we do not want to do that, and we never tried to do that as a state. What happened with some individuals, I don't know.This is not my responsibility.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
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.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund 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.
