The FRONTLINE Interviews

Tikhon Dzyadko

Russian journalist

Tikhon Dzyadko is a Russian journalist. From 2010 to 2015, he worked for TV Rain, one of the last independent television stations in Russia. He now reports for RTVi, a Russian-language television station based in New York.

This is the transcript of an interview with FRONTLINE's Michael Kirk conducted on June 21, 2017. It has been edited in parts for clarity and length.

This interview appears in:

Putin’s Road to War

The Putin Files

TOP

Tikhon Dzyadko

Chapters

Text Interview:

Highlight text to share it

Vladimir Putin's Early Life

Let’s talk a little bit about his early life.… What is the story about his early life, how he ends up in East Germany when the Soviet Union falls?

… A guy who just appeared from nowhere and became a prime minister—for most of the Russians he was a guy from nowhere.Of course, Russian journalists knew that he was the head of FSB [Federal Security Service], and that before that he used to work in St. Petersburg with [then-Mayor] Anatoly Sobchak.But for the majority of Russians, he was just a guy who came from nowhere and who showed himself being strong and being a real leader.Maybe that’s why everyone loved him at the beginning.

Then we received this book about Vladimir Putin, where he was telling about his childhood and the time he was working in Germany.I don’t know if much in this book was true. I think it was made up.

Why?

Because Russian politics is not as transparent as American [politics], for example.We still don’t know anything about Vladimir Putin’s family, about his daughters.We just, in June, we have been told that he has grandchildren, but we don’t know what are their names.Vladimir Putin is trying to hide his private life, so I think that the details of his previous life—[by that] I mean the details of his childhood and the time he was spending in Germany—he or his team are only giving us what they want us to know: that he was an agent in Eastern [sic] Germany, and that he was a good agent, and that then he went back to Russia, and he was in St. Petersburg, and that he went to Moscow, and then he was chosen to be the next president of Russia.

So this biography, which he controlled the writing of, what's the story of his early life?And the significance, of course, of this is, because it says something about him, because he’s approved this version, so it’s interesting in that level, even if it isn't the truth.How does he describe his youth?

I only remember one episode, which he is describing in this book in which he’s talking to journalists Natalia Gevorkyan and Andrey Kolesnikov.He’s telling about an episode in St. Petersburg during his youth when he was in the room with a rat and that he was staying in the corner, and the rat was looking at him.Then he’s saying something like, “At that moment, I understood that I have to fight, and that I have to forget about being scared,” etc., etc.First, I don’t think it’s true.Second, this is the good example of making up some stories, because this story should show us how fearless Vladimir Putin is and how fearless he became in his childhood.But it is too—I don’t know, it looks too good to be true. …

Putin's Political Rise

So how does he see the ’90s?He seems to be a man who, a lot of how he views the world, how he views Russia, how he views the West, comes from the period of time of the ’90s, with all the changes that are taking place in Russia.What [are] the lessons that he seems to have taken from that period of time?

I think that Vladimir Putin does not have the only one opinion on [the] ’90s, because first of all, he understands that he is the child of ’90s.I think he understands that he only became the president of Russia because of the political culture we had in ’90s, when he was actually chosen to be the next president, because he was, at that time, he was comfortable to the main group of oligarchs and political figures.

Secondly, I think that he doesn’t like ’90s because [the] ’90s were the time of freedom, and he saw how political fears became important in Russia.And then they stopped being important.For example, Boris Nemtsov, everyone thought he was going to be the next president.But then his reputation was destroyed by the media.I think that Vladimir Putin does not want his reputation [to] be destroyed by the media, as it was in the ’90s with Nemtsov.

Also, it is important for him to show that there were ’90s with freedom, but without money, and people were poor.Then he came [and was] so strong and so good for Russia, and he’s so much better than what was in [the] ’90s in Russia.So he’s playing on the differences between time of his presidency and the time of the presidency of Boris Yeltsin.That’s why he’s telling [stories] that the life in Russia in ’90s was awful, which is true and is not true at the same time.But he’s choosing only bad things from the ’90s to show how good he is now.

And his view of the West—how much of that grows out of the relationship that Yeltsin had with the United States and the West during those years?What's the lesson that Vladimir Putin takes from that?

I think the lesson is that Russians like when they are fighting against the world.That’s why Putin and propaganda now are saying that in the ’90s, we were not partners with the West, but Russia was under the West, and Russia was doing what the West was telling her to do.That’s why there is this myth in the Russian propaganda now, that with Vladimir Putin, Russia stood up from its knees and that now we can do whatever we want, and tell the West that we are independent, and we have our own interests, etc., etc., etc., etc.

I think that Vladimir Putin is using this topic and the relations between Russia and the West, he is using it in the domestic politics, because he understands that—and he learned it in the ’90s —that if you don’t have, for example, if the situation within the country is not really good, you can always feed your people with the idea of war or a confrontation with your neighbors and with other countries.So that’s how he’s continuing feeding people in Russia with this confrontation now with Ukraine, before it was Georgia.And it is always West and the United States.

Someone came in here and said that, in fact, he doesn’t have a foreign policy.It’s all used for domestic reasons, that everything—all his moves are specifically to make sure that he remains in power, that he reminds the people that it’s only because of him and his strength and such.Is that your view of it?

Yes.I think that if we will look at Russian foreign policy over the last 20 years, we will see that there is no logic in it.We, Russia is just doing something, and if you try to look what are the strategy, it would be really hard to find the strategy.First, we were allies with the United States and European Union.Then we started to confront [the] U.S. and the European Union.Then we tried to be friends again, and then again, again, again.

I think for Putin, there is no foreign policy; there is just domestic politics.He’s interested only in it, and he is just using some episodes from the foreign policy in his actions within the country.

So when he’s prime minister, how much did the war in Chechnya, the second war, affect his popularity? How was it used? …

I would say that it was really important to him, because it helped to show the difference.It helped him to show the difference between him and Yeltsin.When Yeltsin was the president, he was old and weak.When Yeltsin was the president, Russia was poor.When Yeltsin was president, the war in Chechnya was terrible, and it ended without end.Basically, Chechnya got its independence.The question was, why did all these young boys die there, right?

Then Putin came. He’s young, and he’s strong.Money is going to Russia since the oil prices are growing, and he has this war in Chechnya where he’s going to end this so-called independent state in Chechnya.It was really important to him to show that he is strong and young and active.I think you remember these words from Putin about the terrorists, that he will find them wherever they are, even in the bathroom, in the restroom; that he will find them there and kill them.

It was something Russians wanted to hear.They wanted to see a person who is speaking the same way, who’s talking the same way they are talking to each other at their own kitchen.So I think it was really important to him.

Putin's Vision for Russia in his First Term

At that period of time, how was he viewed by the normal Russian in the street? How was Putin seen?

I think he was seen as a savior.People were tired.[The] ’90s were—the way from one type of economy to another is always a difficult way, and life in Russia was really tough in the ’90s.It’s not a secret; it’s true.And people were tired from it.People were tired from this feeling that no one more respects Russia in the world like it was [respected] before, during the Soviet time.By respect, [I mean] no one fears, no one is scared of Russia anymore.I think for the Russians, the first term of Vladimir Putin, it was a miracle. The savior has come to save us from all of our troubles.

There's the famous story in 1999 of the apartment building bombings.It’s something that’s in all of the bios, and I know it’s written up as being one of the stories that he resented the most.What is the Russian population's opinion of those episodes, of the fact that some of the journalism early on was that the [FSB] was involved with it.How do people view that story now?

I think the tragedy is that most of the people, they just don’t remember about it.We had so many terrible terrorist attacks in Russia over the last 17 years, and people just don’t forget it—they don’t remember about it.But if you talk to anyone about it, most of the people will say that it was made by the Chechen terrorists, right, like it was reported in the media.

But still, among I would say liberals, especially in big cities in Moscow or in St.Petersburg, you will find a lot of people who will say that it was made by the FSB to help—to let Putin start the war in Chechnya, to get his ratings and his popularity.¹

Actually, it looks pretty logical, right.But the problem is that we don’t have enough proof to say that it was made by the secret services. …

So 1999, you have Yeltsin before the Christmas tree and resigning.

Yes.

Did you see that?

Yes.

… He resigns, and he names Putin as his successor.It’s a very sad video in a lot of ways. But how did the Russian people view that video?

For the Russians, it was like one side is leaving, and the side is coming to the Kremlin.²

So it was some sort of monarchy what was happening in 1999.It was not the act of democracy; it was not the act of [a] normal political situation.But I think that most of the Russians, they were fine with it, because over four months, they were looking at Vladimir Putin as prime minister.He was shown by the TV stations all the time, 24/7. People started to like him.So I think they were happy that he was becoming president of Russia.

So they were optimistic?

Yes.

The fact of watching this former leader who had been so vibrant, was such a hero, had changed the history of Russia, I mean, what was the attitude toward Yeltsin by that time?

By that time, the attitude toward Yeltsin was very bad.For most of the Russians, he was an alcoholic.He was the reason of the bad economy in Russia.He was the reason of people losing their jobs.So people didn’t like him.

An embarrassment.

Yes.The guy who is dancing with an orchestra, drunk, with leaders of other countries, that’s an embarrassment.

Why Putin?I mean, there are stories about why the decision was made.What is your point of view?What is the common point of view about why Yeltsin chose this man who, until recently, was an unknown?

I think the idea was that Putin was nobody.And people from Yeltsin’s close circle, they thought that it would be easy to put pressure on him, and he will be their puppet.But as the history showed us, it was completely different.

So this is a decision by the oligarchs?

That’s how I understand it, yes.

Putin comes in, and he has a certain attitude about consolidation of power.… I mean, he certainly was a powerful man, and he certainly needed to very early on define that power.What is his philosophy, and what does he do as far as it comes to media, specifically, especially TV? And why?

I think that Vladimir Putin understands that media has a lot of power, and he saw how in the ’90s, media and TV were destroying lives and careers of people.For example, of course he remembered the attacks [on] Moscow Mayor [Yury] Luzhkov, or he saw what happened to Boris Nemtsov after he was attacked on the Russian TV.I think that Vladimir Putin perfectly understands the power of television in Russia, where everyone is watching TV.

That’s why one of the first things he was starting to do was, he was getting all the main media under the state control.³

It started with NTV and Media Most. Then it went to other TV stations.So now in 2017, in Russia, there is no independent TV; there is no independent TV station.There [are] no independent newspapers.All of them are somehow connected with the Kremlin.Some of them are connected because they are state-owned.Some of them are connected because they are owned by the businessmen who have some ties with the Russian government.And some of them are connected because Russian government wants them to exist, because if Russian government did not want them to exist, it would be easy to shut them down.

So how much does that—how far does that control go?Is that—you know, there are stories of people being instructed on what can and cannot air.How restrictive is that control to the media?

I think it has two options.The first option is the censorship, when people are being told what to tell to their audience.The second option is autocensorship.When there is an idea of censorship, the minds of people are changing.Young journalists, they don’t think that they should report honestly and correctly about everything.They are starting to think that maybe there are some topics they should not work on, because let’s just not talk about it.

Why, for example, why would we report on the private life of the Russian president if he doesn't like it? Why would we do it? It could cause us [many] problems in the future. Let’s just switch to a different topic.

So you're saying it’s not written down sort of restriction, censorship, clearly. It’s more of a subtle censorship.

Sure, yes.I think, at the beginning, it was—there were written rules. But then, day after day, it was going in the minds of the journalists to—it’s the atmosphere.

So explain, because I don’t understand it.When did TV Rain come about?

TV Rain was created in 2010. It was [during] Medvedev’s presidential term.

And you worked for that, and you worked for radio before that, which was also independent.

Yes, yes.

How did those independent voices exist at that period of time?

I think that people in Kremlin, they understand that if you are living in the room, and the air there is bad, sometimes you need to open the window and to let fresh air to come into the room.That’s why there are some independent but still controlled media in Russia, such as, for example, radio station Echo of Moscow or TV Rain or some websites.But the audience of these media is not huge.If you compare the audience of TV Rain and First [TV], the state TV channel, if you compare audiences, you will see that the audience of TV Rain is ridiculously small, and the audience of First TV station is the whole country.

People in [the] Kremlin, as [far] as I understand, they don’t see these independent media as a threat, as long as their audience is not big.But what happens with TV Rain, [this] shows that sometimes they are changing their minds when they realize that media is becoming a threat.

Putin Asserts Himself on the World Stage in his Third Term

So TV Rain got too big, in other words?

I think TV Rain got too big. TV Rain became too popular.⁴

TV Rain—we were—I think that for the Kremlin, our main crime, our main sin was the fact that we were broadcasting the events in Kiev, in Ukraine.What we were doing, we were just turning on the camera on the Maidan, and we were showing it all day long to our viewers, because it was important to cover what was happening there.

I think for the Kremlin it was bad, because the state propaganda was telling that people who were protesting in Kiev were fascists and radicals, etc., etc.When we were turning on the camera, people saw that not only fascists were protesting in Kiev, but that the absolute majority of the people, where there were normal citizens of Ukraine, citizens of Kiev, who wanted to improve their life.And of course, Kremlin doesn’t like when people see that it’s OK to protest.

What were the other stations covering?

The other stations, they were showing the—they were not covering it live like we did.[On] other stations, historically, were a lot of manipulations.And this is the main difference.If you are showing live what is happening, if you are streaming, there is no way to correct what is happening there. There is no way to change anything.And that is the problem for the Kremlin.That is why, for example, on the state TV, there is no live. Everything is prerecorded.

In the end, that sort of was the end of TV Rain?

… Yes, TV Rain was cut off from all the main cable and satellite networks.TV Rain was all—almost all of our advertisers, they left TV Rain, part of them because they were told by the Kremlin to leave, part of them because it was best for their reputation.So TV Rain became, I don’t know, like became a marginal or something like that.

You were called fascists.

Yes, and neo-Nazis. Yeah.

When that was going on, what did you all sort of fear?What were your options?

We didn’t have any options.The only options we had, we were using these options.We were doing our job. We were doing our job, even though we had to cut our expenses, etc., etc.But still, we were journalists, and we were just continuing covering what was happening in Russia and in the world.

You were there three times.What did you see?As an eyewitness, what did you see?

In Kiev?

In Kiev.

I saw a revolution. I saw the perfect example of what is happening when the government is not listening to its own citizens, because I saw how this protest was becoming more and more radical.I went there three times.The first time I was there in early December, right after the so-called Revolution of Dignity started.And it was a peaceful protest.It was a lot of fun, gathering together on the Maidan, spending night there, having dinner there, drinking tea, etc. It was a lot of fun.

Then I went there in January, when people started to feel exhausted because nothing was changing.Then, this last, the third and the last time I was there, the day when the Maidan won, and when [President Viktor] Yanukovych left the country, it was a completely different picture. People were angry.People were aggressive, because no one wanted to—no one in the government wanted to understand their feelings and their hopes and their requests.Instead of understanding, people were beaten by the police, and some of them were killed.People were angry, and they were aggressive, and they wanted to get the power in their own hands.

Take us to that moment when everybody realized that Yanukovych had fled.

I came there a few hours after the shootings, and it was really scary on the Maidan, because everyone was aggressive and angry and active, but at the same time, no one knew what was going to happen.Everyone felt that Maidan would be destroyed by the army or by the snipers, etc., etc.But the next morning, it was announced that Yanukovych left the country, and people were so relieved.People were so, so, so happy.They went there with their kids, with their families.

And it was—I've never seen anything like this before, only in the movies, when you are watching movies about, I don’t know, French Revolution.And you think that this cannot be true.Or when you are watching movies about what was happening in Moscow in ’90-’91, there in Kiev I saw the revolution and understood what this word meant.

How was the announcement made? On loudspeakers?How did people learn, and what was the reaction of the people?

From the Internet, just from the Internet.

But what would people—how was the word spread?

Everyone was using Twitter. Everyone was using [the] Internet.And somehow people got information, I think from these leaders of the protests, from [Arsenjy] Yatsenyuk, from [Vitali] Klitschko and from [Oleh] Tyahnybok and others, that Yanukovych is no longer in Kiev.Then people started to see the police started to quit.Just 20 minutes ago, they were sent in there, and they were fighting with the protesters, but now they were going into their cars, and they were leaving the center of Kiev.People understood that it is a time to go there and to see what's going on.

Because the night before, people were basically getting ready for battle.

Yes, absolutely.

I mean, people that stayed were—after the sniper killers, what was the mood?What were people there for?

There was this ultimatum made by one of the protesters.He was telling that Maidan will attack government buildings next, next day at 2:00 p.m. or something like that, and everyone was waiting for this battle to happen, or everyone was waiting [expecting] that during the night, police would attack Maidan.Everyone was nervous about what was going to happen.But suddenly, when the new day started, everyone realized that Yanukovych left the country, first the city and then the country.Then everyone realized that the police [were] quitting and that there [were] no police in the center of Kiev anymore, so [that is] when a lot of people from all over the city started to come to Maidan and to the center of town to look at what was going on there.

Were you broadcasting this live?

No, I was—Dozhd was broadcasting, yeah.I was there by my own merits.I have a lot of friends in Kiev. I just wanted to be there.I just wanted to be there with them at this time.

What was the reaction of Dozhd reporting back in Moscow and Russia?

The media like Dozhd, independent media, they were just covering what was happening, telling about the victory of the revolution.The people on the state TV, they were talking about the coup; that it’s not a revolution, it’s the crime that the fascists took the power in Ukraine.Frankly, they are continuing to tell these same things now.

And that’s what Putin is saying.

Yes.

Putin is saying the fascists won, and the shooters were not—were not the Ukrainian soldiers.

The shooters were not the Ukrainian soldiers but the activists of the opposition, yes.

Putin Consolidates Power in his Second Term

All right, let me go back in time … The color wars, 2003-2004, seemed to have had a huge effect on him.This was at a time when he was in transition on how he was viewing the West.He looks at the color wars in Georgia and Ukraine as being manipulated by the West.

Yes.

What is Putin’s point of view?How do the color revolutions affect him?

I think that Putin, he doesn’t think that people could just go out on the street and protest because they want to.⁵

He thinks that if people start to protest, then they are being paid by someone.Or they are being told to go there by the foreign government and specifically by the Department of State of the United States of America.The so-called color revolutions in Ukraine and in Georgia, they were, I think, for Kremlin, they were scared because of these events, especially in Ukraine, because now we have a lot of problems.We have a war with Ukraine.But still, Russia and Ukraine, they are very much alike, and when you look at something [like what] is happening in Ukraine, you could imagine that something like this could happen in Russia.

I think that Putin was frightened by the fact that revolution could happen in Ukraine, the neighbor country, and he was frightened that something the same would happen in Russia.That’s why he started to—he and his administration—started to fight against so-called attempt of making [a] color revolution in Russia.

Beslan, the school in September 2004: What is the importance, or what's the most important thing to understand about how that affected the Russian people, how it led Putin to make the decision to make governors appointed instead of having regional elections?Describe Beslan for an American audience on how that affected people in Russia.

I would say that for me and for a lot of people, Beslan is an example of where corruption could lead, because as we all know, the policeman was—he got a bribe from the terrorists, and he let them go into Beslan because he was corrupt.And this is a good example of how the state is organized in Putin’s Russia.It is a corrupted state where everything could happen because of this system of corruption which goes from the high levels to the bottom.

Also, I think it is yet another example of how Putin is using tragedies and some horrible events to make what he really wants to make.There is no connection between school in Beslan and elections in the Russian regions.But somehow they made governors in Russian regions be appointed because of the terrorist attack in Beslan.This is ridiculous. This is insane.That’s how it was made.

What were people’s reactions?Did people think that’s insane, there's no connection?Or did they think, well, he’s a strongman; he has to do this; it’s in our best interest?

I think they were thinking that’s insane, there was no connection, but he’s a strongman, and now he has to take decisions like this.On the other hand, people were told by the state propaganda that bad things which are happening, they are happening because of so-called democracy.There is no time for so-called democracy when situation is bad.It is a time to unite and to be together and to fight against our enemies.

The Reset and Arab Spring: Putin as Prime Minister

Jumping up to 2011, when the Arab Spring breaks out, and when Libya happens and the United States is involved in that, and [Muammar al-]Qaddafi is violently killed, everybody says that those events affected Putin dramatically. Explain.

For the Russian government and for the Russian propaganda, Arab Spring was yet another example of how the West is changing regimes all over the world.It was yet another reason to be afraid of the attempts of the West to do the same in Russia.But specifically, what happened in Libya, as [far] as I understand, for the Russian government, it was a betrayal from the United States, because Russia agreed not to veto the resolution in the United Nations for the [Security] Council.Then everything happened not the way Russia wanted it to happen.

I think it was the last time when Russia cooperated with the United States in Security Council of the United Nations on some important questions, because for Putin and for his government, it was some sort of a betrayal from the United States.

Putin Returns to the Presidency, Sparking Protests and a Crackdown

<v Michael Kirk> Let’s talk about the demonstrations in Moscow and around cities around Russia, where different people have a little bit of a different focus on why they occurred.

But why did the demonstrations start coming out?Was it because of the parliamentary elections? Was it because of the corruption? Was it because of social media spreading information?Why did they start popping up all over, and what was the view of Putin toward what was taking place?I think that demonstrations started because people didn’t feel that they are being respected by the government.In Moscow not a lot of people voted for the United Russia Party in Moscow.And people knew each other.Everyone was telling each other that they were voting for a different party or didn’t vote at all.But then at the day of the election, people in Moscow were told that more than 60 percent of the voters in this city voted for the United Russia.It was a shock for the people.It was the sign of the fact that Russian government just doesn’t respect people.It was the second time.

The first time was when it was announced that Vladimir Putin was going back to the Kremlin.People in Russia, especially in big cities, they are different from people in Russia 17 years ago, when it was OK when the monarchy changed one king to another.In 2011 it was not OK anymore.People were—the level of their life was completely different, and they started to think about the values and democracy and the way of their own life.

But for the Kremlin, I think it was, again, the attempt from the West to resume change in Russia.Putin said that people in these demonstrations, they were being paid for their presence there, so yet another example of how Vladimir Putin doesn’t believe that people could protest without being paid.

Was social media a part of it?I mean, there are some stories about videos being taken of people stuffing ballots and busloads of people going from one voting station to another.

Of course.

What was being passed around and the effect of it?

If there weren't Facebook, there would be no demonstration in Moscow, because first, people started to spread the information about how elections were rigged.People were watching videos about what was happening during the day of the elections and all this fraud, etc., etc.Then Facebook was being used by the organizers of the demonstrations to organize them and to gather people together.

… Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at that point, made some comments about the importance of free elections and about this election having irregularities.What was the reaction to Hillary Clinton saying that, and how did Putin see that?

He sees that like the attempt of the United States to somehow interfere in what is happening in Russia.… Putin doesn’t like when someone tells him what to do.And when someone tells him that there is not enough democracy in Russia, or that the elections are rigged, he is becoming nervous after such words.So when Hillary Clinton in 2011 made this statement about the parliamentary elections and when the demonstration started on the streets of Moscow and other cities in Moscow, in Russia, for Putin and for the people in Kremlin, it was the proof of the fact that these demonstrations were organized by the people from U.S. Embassy, or from the Department of State, of the United States of America.

So you were involved in the demonstrations. You were covering them.

Yes.

You got arrested. Talk a little bit about what it was like to be on the streets, what happened, how you ended up arrested.

It was an interesting feeling, because over last 10 or more years, we haven't had such massive protests in Russia.It was something new.And it was inspiring, because it was how people were becoming citizens while trying to defend their rights to be heard, their rights to elect their representatives.Of course, it was sad to see that government did not want to react to the requests of the protesters and that instead of the dialog, the government started to use police against the demonstrations.

I was arrested while covering it.I was released shortly because I was there as a journalist, but I saw how many people were arrested and were detained.Then some of them were arrested and then sentenced to three to six years in prison.

And the effect of that?

What do you mean?

The effect of those sort of tactics against the demonstrators.

The effect? Well, the effect was people were scared.People were scared of these arrests, and the—every next demonstration gathered less people than the previous one, because first of all, people were afraid of being arrested, and the second, people saw that these demonstrations, they haven't had change anything.

And the May 6 demonstration?

May 6 demonstration was the start of the end of this movement, yes.⁶

For the next three years, this moment was actually dead in Russia, yes.

Why?What happened on May 6th?

Because people were on the May 6, there was a provocation made by the police.They found the reason to start to detain people.But people, they didn’t want to leave the square.There were clashes with the police, and more than 300 people, I guess, were arrested.Then 30 of them were sentenced to several—to three to six years in the prison for so-called riots on Bolotnaya Square.

And it was, I would say, a good move from the government, because after May 6, people started to be afraid of participation in the demonstrations.

Putin is elected in 2012.How big a turning point was this?How different was this Putin than the Putin, the President Putin that had been in power before?How did he change things from that point on?

I think it was a turning point.His third term is different from the first one and the second one, especially from the second one.I think that he had a feeling that he left the power in the country for four years to Dmitry Medvedev, and Dmitry Medvedev was not strong enough, and that now Putin has to show what Russian strong leadership is.That’s why first months after he returned to Kremlin, there were a lot of laws adopted by the parliament, a lot of restrictive laws, a lot of laws against opposition and media and Internet and everything, because for Putin, I think it looked like Dmitry Medvedev was weak and was not strong enough, so now it’s time to show that the boss is back in the Kremlin.

Putin Asserts Himself on the World Stage in his Third Term

What other changes took place once he came in in the third term?

I think he became more aggressive.Especially after the annexation of Crimea and sanctions, etc., etc., he understood that there [are] no partners in the world for Russia anymore, only enemies or opponents, and that he has to be aggressive, and he has to tell to his own people in Russia that there is Russia, and there is rest of the world, and that we have to be united together now since the world is against us.

So how is he viewed now?How is this Putin, this new Putin different from the old Putin?How is he viewed in Russia at this point?

I think first two years after the annexation of Crimea, people—a lot of people were supporting him, but then they realized that rhetoric is not changing, but the level of economy is dropping. …

… Describe what happened in Crimea and how Russians viewed what took place.

I think that what happened in Crimea, it was an annexation. There was no doubt.But for the Kremlin, it is important to say that we are not breaking international law.What Russian propaganda is doing all the time is that it is saying that the West and the United States are breaking the international law, for example, in Kosovo, and that Russia is not breaking international law.

That’s why we were not admitting that these so-called [little] green men were Russian soldiers at the beginning.Then we made the so-called referendum, and now we could speak more about the referendum and try to forget about these green men.I think that for a lot of Russians, the annexation of Crimea was a good thing.They were happy that somehow Russia is being bully in the world and is doing whatever it wants, because Russian propaganda was telling all the time that America is doing whatever it wants.And now Russia is doing whatever it wants as well. So we are just like America, and we are cool.

… Crimea seems to be viewed in a different way than, for instance, the rest of Ukraine.

Yes, of course, because for the many Russians, Crimea was always a part of Russia, and it was stupid situation when it was given to Ukraine by [Nikita] Khrushchev.I think that a lot of Russian politics, a lot of people in Russia during the ’90s or early 2000s, they have done a lot to convince people in Crimea that they should live in Russia instead of living in Ukraine.This is the problem of Ukraine government that it hasn’t done enough to stop Russian propaganda there in ’90s or in 2000s. …

Do the Russian people understand the [cyber] tactics that are being used are very new, are very powerful, and are very smart in a lot of ways because of what they can accomplish?

I think that most of Russian people, they just don’t believe that it’s true.They don’t believe Russia hackers were doing something in Baltics or they were interfering with the elections here in the United States, because of Russian TV, which is saying that there was no proof.I think that a lot of Russians are—they would agree with Mr. Trump when he is using words “witch hunt.”For the Russians, for a lot of Russians, what is happening now in the United States, or what was happening before in the Baltics, this hacker thing, etc., etc., it was just a witch hunt and Russophobia.

And being used by the West to blame?

Being used by the West to blame Russia in all sins, and to be used by the West to show that Russia is an enemy and is bad, etc., etc. …

To Putin, I think you write about it, which is fascinating, is his view toward the need for being strong, for his place in history, I mean, how does Putin sort of think about—Yeah.

I was told once by one of the journalists that answering this question about what is the best thing Putin have done during his presidency, and what was the achievement which would be remembered by next generation?Putin said that he thinks that the best things he has done was the fact that Russian churches are united now, Russian churches, Russia and Russian church abroad.⁷

I think that he views his place in the history as the guy who gathered Russia.Again, he thinks that the collapse of Soviet Union was the greatest political tragedy, and he is the one who somehow makes [the] Soviet Union exist again—not with Georgia, but maybe not yet; not with Armenia, but maybe not yet; not with all the part of the Ukraine, but with Crimea.So he is first of all, he is the great Russian monarch; the second, he is the person who is showing that Russia is still strong and is not on its knees anymore.

And is that still the popular point of view?

It is a popular point of view, but not the way popular it was, say, five years ago or 10 years ago, because again, it’s impossible to be fed by the words about how strong and how great you are.At some point, you start to realize that to be great means to be rich and to be successful, not only to be strong and very, very, I don’t know, very dangerous for your enemies.

You say that the West doesn’t understand him. Explain.

He is completely different from what politicians look like in the West.He has his own interests.He doesn’t want to cooperate, and next day he wants to cooperate, and then he doesn’t want to cooperate again.So he’s not predictable.He is like Trump. Trump is unpredictable.But he [Putin] is unpredictable in the other way.He is unpredictable because he doesn’t want anyone to understand who he is.Trump is unpredictable because he’s unpredictable. He doesn’t know what he wants.

I think that Putin knows what he wants, but he doesn’t want other leaders to understand what he wants.

Do you think the Russian people understand him compared to the people in the United States?

No, I don’t think they understand him, but they are fine with him when he is being strong, when they need it.They are fine with him when he is being nationalist, when they need it.He has very good PR team. But the problem is that it’s not enough anymore.Again, it is impossible to feed the citizens with the same words 17 years in a row.

Putin and Trump

How do you think Putin views Trump?

I think Putin is laughing a lot about Trump, because Trump, he is not a politician.Somehow he thinks that he could deal with Putin and that they are on the same page or on the same level.I think that for Putin, Trump is a guy from the show business, who is playing a game.Putin is not playing games, and he is not playing games over 17 years.I think that Putin does not respect Trump.I don’t think he thinks that Trump is a serious leader or a serious politician.

But useful.

Maybe.Yes, he is useful to create mess in the United States.I don’t think that Russia had a goal to make Donald Trump the president of the United States.I think the goal was to create mess in the United States the very same way it was made in Europe, to then show to the Russian people what democracy could bring to your country, the mess.

What's your point of view about the accusations that Putin [and] Russia hacked into our elections, the United States elections?

I trust these accusations. I think that Russia tried to interfere with the elections here in the United States.But again, I don’t think that the goal was to make Donald Trump the president. The goal was to create a mess.

Why? Why would Putin want that?

I think that, again, as [with] all his foreign policy, it was done for the reasons of the domestic politics.The main reason is to show to the Russians that democracy is a mess.This is what happens when you have so-called democracy.First of all, you are getting a showman as the president.Second, this showman is being accused of being a spy.Is that what you want for Russians? No.

You’ve been here through the elections.What are your thoughts about how Trump views Putin?

I think that Trump thinks that he can deal with Putin because he was so successful in business, and that he can deal with everyone.But in fact, I think that Putin is much stronger than Trump.I don’t think that Trump will succeed in this.

You say that—what the bottom line with Putin is, [is] that he wants respect.

Yes.

What do you mean by that?Do you think that he has achieved that?Do you think that people who believe that Russia is back—does he believe that Russia is back at this point because of what he’s done?

Does Putin believe that Russia is back?

Yeah.

Of course.In 2007, in Munich, on this conference for the security, he, Putin, said that there is no one power [in the] world anymore and that the world has changed, meaning that Russia was back.⁸

I think that he is absolutely sure that Russia is back, and I think that Putin is absolutely confident that now, with Donald Trump as the president of the United States, there is no more Russia and the United States; there is just Russia, because the United States are in messy situation.

… In 2007, when Putin said that there is no more unipolar world, and that the world has changed, and that Russia was back.

One other thing.The other speech that’s amazing to listen to is the Crimea speech.… When you listen to that speech, what did you hear?

I heard that my president was lying.At the beginning, he was saying that there were no Russian soldiers there.Just in a week or two, he said, “We were never denying that our soldiers were there.”It is just lie.What I felt was that my people from my country, they didn’t care.They didn’t care that the president was giving lie to them.They didn’t care that the president just took away the part of the different country.They were agreed with the situation like this.

David, what are we missing?

When you say all of this goes back to domestic politics, we hear that Putin is very popular, the polls show, 80 percent or more.Is that a true picture? How do you understand his popularity?

I don’t believe these polls.I don’t think that there is a sociology in the state like Russia. Russia is an authoritarian state.People have these memories of the Soviet Union when you would not tell what you think when you are being stopped by someone in the street, so I don’t believe in this 86 percent of people supporting Putin.I do think that a lot of people supported annexation of Crimea, just because it’s better to be bigger than be smaller.I don’t think that people, that a lot of people now, in 2017, do care about Putin.I think if he was Ivanov or Petrov or someone else, they would support him as well.

The level of support of Putin is being supported by the propaganda.If [the] situation on the TV changed, everything will change in a week or in two weeks, because people in Russia, they, a lot of them don’t have any information about what is happening in their own country.They perfectly know what is happening in Ukraine.They perfectly know what is happening in Europe.And especially, they perfectly know what is happening in the United States.But they don’t know how bad situation is in Russia today.If they get this information, of course they will not support the president who is governing this country.

Just one more.Back in 2011, [when] Medvedev announced the job switch, you said people felt you do not respect.Could you just explain, why at that moment did they feel not respected or insulted?

I think that when Putin became the president of Russia, there was some sort of a deal.And people agreed with that kind of a deal.Then, in 2008, Dmitry Medvedev became the president of Russia, and there was some sort of liberalization in [the] Russian political system.Medvedev said that to be free is much better than not to be free, and people agreed with this as well.They had money; they were traveling a lot; they saw the results of democracy in the West.And they were ready to change this agreement, this deal with the Russian government.

Then they were told again that they are not changing anything.They were told again that Kremlin doesn’t care about the opinions of people and that they have to admit that their next leader was chosen by the Kremlin.At this moment, I guess, people started to care about their dignity and to care about their rights, and people decided to ask, to request to get these rights back.

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. 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.