AN INTERVIEW with Mikhail

Gorbachev: America wanted to rule

the world but lost its way

The Ukrainian issue has intensified the tension that existed between the West and Russia: now,
another Cold War is possibly lurking on the horizon. Are we to witness another stand-off - or
will it be averted? The relations between Russia and the West seem to be stuck at dead-end, so is
there hope common ground will emerge between the two? We ask these questions to the man
who prides himself on ending the Cold War, the last leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail
Gorbachev, on Sophie&Co today.
November 2015.
Sophie Shevarnadze:Mr. Gorbachev, thank you very much for finding the time to talk to us
today.
Mikhail Gorbachev:I havent gone public for 18 months now.

SS:You recently said that the current situation is getting so intense that someones nerves might
just snap. Why is the threat of mutually assured destruction no longer a sufficient deterrent
today?

MG: I do not agree with those who say this that the threat of nuclear destruction is no longer a
sufficient deterrent. Today, we have much better knowledge of what nuclear weapons actually
are and what they can do.
Ill give you one example. Just one intercontinental ballistic missile, named Satan in the NATO
classification (a very powerful missile of ours )... this one missile alone carries 100 'Chernobyls'
in it, and this is why I think everyone understands what an immensely destructive force it is, as
we have had enough time to understand that. And now we need to be vigilant and careful to
make sure it never gets into the hands of extremists of any kind.

SS:In your article, you wrote that Europe needs its own Security Council. However, Europe
already has the OSCE. Does that mean that the OSCE has lost its purpose?

MG: Ill give you my answer. As of today, the OSCE is - [sarcastic cough] that is my answer.
Although I wouldnt say that it lost its purpose. To say that would be to imply they are
completely useless. However, the OSCE is still trying to do something. They are flailing around
in Ukraine, their observers are there, and so on.
It is all about a different thing. Whenever we talk about the nuclear arsenal, the levels of control
and responsibility are the highest. We need to get back to it. We need to build a united Europe, a
Europe that would be home for all. Whereas now, in this European home we only get squabbles
and arguments.

NATO seeks to interfere with everything everywhere

SS:When the German reunification was negotiated, the US secretary of state pledged that NATO
will not go an inch further east of Germany. Those talks were never translated into binding
agreements. Now, when the emotions are running high, negotiating something like this in regard
to Ukraine seems to be even less probable. Will NATO ever stop until it reaches Russias
borders?

MG: Thats all because the US is trying hard to get here. And watching the US, Russia responds
with some steps in return, sometimes these are unnecessary steps. Thats how all of this grows
out of proportion. I gave an interview to Time magazine a couple of days ago. I told them: I
dont really get you. A long time ago, Eisenhower told you to beware - beware of the militaryindustrial complex. NATO seeks to interfere with everything and everywhere, it wants to expand
beyond its designated territory. Eisenhower was a very serious man, a warrior. He went through
everything that our country went through. He is a man whose judgement you can trust, thats
what I told them.
So what is it that youre doing? Cant you just live without it? Its like America cannot live
without its military-industrial complex growing, weapons sales increasing and war costs soaring
- cant you live without it?.
And they answered, Yes, it looks like it.
And I said, Then look, in this case, this society is sick. It needs help.

SS:So why do you think NATO would want to expand to the East? Why?

MG: Thats its political culture, its military culture. For example, in 1990, there was a summit
for the European countries a really great summit. So they adopt a development plan for Europe.
And it all looks like Europe is becoming the worlds new driving force, it sets the new pace.
So President [George H.W.] Bush delivers one speech, another one, yet another one about the
new world order based on the experience of what is going on in Europe. And Gorbachev says
something along the lines after him.
Pope John Paul II also says, Yes, we do need a new world order, which would be more stable,
more fair, more everything, and so on and so forth.
So everyone realized then that we arrived at the moment where there was an opportunity to move
in the peaceful direction; the direction that the best people from basically all countries have
dreamt of. And one of them was a certain American by the name of John Kennedy, the man who
went through the Caribbean [Cuban Missile] crisis and said:
If you think that future peace should be Pax Americana youre mistaken. Its either peace for all
people, or no peace. Thats exactly true. Its harsh, its cruel, but its the way it is.
The inventors of nuclear power also said that. One of them said that with the arrival of nuclear
weapons, the world lost its immortality.

And it all started with the Americans all of a sudden wanting to assert themselves. Why did they
do so?
The Cold War was over, we put an end to it together, it was in fact a common victory shared by
all nations. And yet Americans said, No way, we won it. We won. We won the Cold War. We
did. Us.
And it seems OK to say Oh well, whatever. If you like saying that - just go ahead.' But this leads
to something. If the Americans indeed won, they can make a conclusion and they did go on to
make that conclusion and started to say publicly, We dont need to change anything. We won,
the world is at our feet. Why should we have to change anything? We dont need to change a
thing. Our policy is right. And the most extreme thing they came up with they began creating
a new superpower, a super empire. America wanted to rule the world.
The Americans lost their way. Any attempt to create a one-sided, mono-polar world is just
complete and utter nonsense.

US needs its own Perestroika

SS:You suggested holding a Russia-US summit because these countries bear...

MG: Yes, I did.

SS: ...particular responsibility.

MG: Neither Russia nor the US responded.

SS:But if they wanted to resolve the crisis, surely they would have held this summit long ago.

MG: They are going to want to resolve it only when they feel the pressure from the civil society
in the US, here in Russia, and everywhere. Its clear that without civil society and its defined
and organized nature, its difficult to keep the hawks at bay.

SS:We talked about Barack Obama just now. You were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and so
was he. How do you feel about the fact that in this regard hes your colleague in this sense, a
member of the same club, so to speak?

MG: In his case it was kind of like an advance. Such things happen in politics, too. One time I
was giving a lecture in St. Louis, and after I finished a young man stood up and asked, Mr.
President, what would you advise us Americans to do? I asked what he meant by that. He said,
You see how bad things are here, and they are getting worse. I said, Well, thats new. All this
time it was America that doled out advice for everyone, even though no one asked for it. No, I
will not give you any advice. You Americans have everything at your disposal to figure this out.

A second young man stood up and said, I would like to support my colleague. Please answer the
question. You have gone through all of this. We need to do something about our situation, too. I
said, Very well. I will not give you a plan or a recipe, I just think the US needs its own
perestroika. After that the audience of 10 or 15,000 people that were there gave me a standing
ovation. Two years later Barack Obama was elected President. So for the most part, the people
are changing. The main thing is that Americans dont want to die. Why is it that the US opts for
using planes, warships, missiles without deploying ground forces? Thats because the society
wont let them anymore, it will start putting pressure immediately.

America cant live without old policy of pressure

SS:You also said in an interview that the US acts as the worlds policeman and thinks it alone
can protect the world. But who is Americas enemy? Who are they protecting against?

MG: I dont think they have anybody to protect against. They just need an enemy to come back
to their old policy of pressure. They cant live without it. They are still enslaved by their old
policy. Thats why America has to be stopped. It should be stopped in a friendly manner, as a
partner. Lets be realistic. America is a phenomenon we cant ignore, and it has certain rights. Its
word carries weight, and America can make decisions that benefit the whole world. Yes,
Americans can lead. Do they want to lead? Yes, they can lead. But they should do so in
partnership with other nations, because the only kind of leadership that is possible today is
leadership through partnership.

SS:If I get it right, you also said that Americans want troubles in Europe to continue. How does
the US benefit from disagreement among European nations?

MG: Whenever tensions are high, whenever theres instability in a certain country or throughout
the region, its an opportunity for them to intervene. Thats my frank answer to your question. I
am quite familiar with this policy from my own experience. This is bad for US itself in the first
place. In my lectures, I ask a question: Do you really think you'll be happy with the role of the
worlds policeman? And I say, I'm pretty sure that you won't. And the audience applauds. And in
all of my public appearances I ask these questions, probing the public opinion. No, the
Americans do not want war. But it is not easy for them, with the society that they have. It has
developed certain powerful mechanisms I'd say they need a Perestroika, I mean it. They can
call it any name they want, the American way.

Shifting responsibility is American way, mass media backs it

up
SS:The United States benefits from turmoil in Europe because it gives the US a great excuse to
interfere - if that's indeed so, why is the USA trying to shift the responsibility for resolving the
Ukrainian crisis in its entirety to Russia? Why are the demanding that Russia...
MG: But of course they are!

SS:But why not share the responsibility?

MG: But that IS the American way - shifting the responsibility. Their mass media will provide
all-round support, they will prove anything that's needed, however improbable. If they need to
prove that a devil incarnate appeared, they will, if that's what it takes.

SS:Id like to touch upon the sanctions and other current events. The South Stream [gas pipeline
project] had to be shut down. The sale of Mistral ships is suspended. All of these issues have
been causing a lot of damage to companies, including European ones. Why is the EU harming
itself in its relationship with Russia?

MG: Well, just the other day 60 major figures spoke in Germany, including former presidents, as
well as Mr. Genscher, Mr. Schroder, and Mr. Mangold, and so on I knew most of them.

Celebrities spoke as well. They all said unanimously that we shouldnt be doing our business in
such a way as to damage our relationship with Russia.
This is all happening because Chancellor Merkel finds herself in a very difficult situation for the
reason of Germanys dependence on the US; as for the rest of the European nations, Germany
can handle them. At one point, Americans cut the oil prices, the oil prices plunge, and we lose
dollars because of the measures that had already been taken by Americans according to their
arrangements with Saudi Arabia. So this is yet another way of putting pressure.
Some time ago, I spoke at a conference in Passau, West Germany, which we held together with
Mr. Kohl when he was still well. The theme of that conference was Individual in the United
Europe. As it turned out, we both believed that without Russia, there cannot be a world order that
would meet the interests of all nations, right. Then a guy stood up and said, If thats your
opinion then you should accept Russia to the EU. None of us was ready for that, especially my
friend the chancellor. He leapt up, knocking the table over almost, and yelled, What do you
think youre saying! This cannot be done, no way! Why did he say 'no way'? Because without
Russia, Germany has a lot of weight in the EU, its got a very strong position. So when Russia
shows up youll have to accommodate that. Russia will have enough arguments to defend
sovereign, strong positions.

West declared Russia enemy

SS:President Putin has recently said, and you also confirmed it, that the Ukraine and Crimea
issue was just a pretext to impose sanctions against Russia, and that the West wouldve come up
with something to do that anyway.

MG: I tend to share that opinion.

SS:I will discuss Crimea separately in a moment. Now, if you do share this opinion it means that
the US and the West want to be Russias enemies, and that they wouldve imposed sanctions
anyway?
MG: It was them who declared us enemies. So whether they wanted it or not, they did. Not all of
them did though. Ive heard many of them, to the contrary, defending us saying that Russia is
right. In the course of Russias long history, all kinds of things have been done to Russia, but no
one managed to bring this country to its knees - lets recall Napoleon, or Hitler - and nobody
will. But you know what can happen now? If the war begins, considering the kinds of weapons
that exist now, then

SS:Is there a threat of such war?

MG: I believe theres no threat of war right now. But we see the escalation; we can basically say
that Cold War has started, or resumed. Thats what is happening now. So we have to be alert.

SS:So lets go back to Crimea now. Let me quote you saying, Earlier Crimea was merged with
Ukraine under Soviet laws, to be more exact by the [Communist] party's laws, without asking the
people, and now the people have decided to correct that mistake. If thats true, why doesnt the
West realize or accept it?

MG: Because its not to the advantage of the West. Historically, this position hasnt been
beneficial for the West. I am always trying to say what I know, to tell the truth in all of my
articles, speeches and interviews. So in the times of the Russian Empire, before the Bolshevik
Revolution, there was not such state as Ukraine. There was Malorossiya [Little Russia]. You
would know that, right? Catherine the Greats lovers used to rule it one after another. Oh, women
are so cunning!
Under Lenin, the state of Ukraine was established. Regardless of anything thats been said about
Ukraines living at that time, Ukraine flourished as a state. It had powerful industry and culture;
its leaders were represented in the Politburo as key figures. It produced General Secretaries,
leaders of the Party and so on. But then passions started to run high; and when passions are
revolving around women or having power it hard to get things right.

SS:But Mr. Gorbachev, when you were General Secretary, or the first President of the USSR,
why didnt you bring Crimea back as part of Russia? You couldve done it.

MG: Why would I have done that, while the Soviet Union still existed? And the boundaries
within the Soviet Union were the same as symbolic fences between two neighbors gardens. The
biggest fight wouldve happened if your geese wandered into your neighbors garden; but from
the state viewpoint, it wasnt divided, or guarded. This is how it used to be.

General Secretary Khrushchev thought he would appease Ukraine. He used to be the First
Secretary of Ukraine. So he did appease them, so to say, by handing Crimea over to them. But a
lot later, in 1991, when we had the negotiations about the future of the USSR, the Belavezha
Accords that were dissolving the Union were introduced, and there were all these meetings, and
the signed accords were approved.

So the question is, how could they possibly have approved it in that way? Someone representing
Russia tried to speak up, something along the lines of well what about our people, they live
across the Union, what happens to them, etc.. And then cosmonaut Sevastyanov, he was a
deputy, so the cosmonaut stood up and said, Listen, what are you talking about? Gorbachev will
be gone from the Kremlin tomorrow thats what the most important thing is!

SS: Mr. Gorbachev, youve had such a long and intense political career. What would you now
consider your greatest achievement of all?

MG: Perestroika, and everything thats related to it, even though it was interrupted, was never
completed. Let me count here, freedom, Glasnost (freedom of speech), freedom to travel
abroad, religious freedom, and so on, I wont list all of them. And finally, disarmament: it made
people sigh with relief. Across the globe, particularly in the developed countries, they were all
digging shelters in case of nuclear war, which couldve broken out any moment. So that has been
done, and we completed that part.
People were granted freedom of choice in Central and Eastern Europe. Germany was reunited.
The relationship with China was resumed. It was fascinating. Thats already enough for a good
result. But I do regret that I never managed to lead this project to completion. What we should do
now is roll back and resume from those positions. We should come to agreements, and keep
moving forward. But all players should participate in this process. As Ive written in the article, I
suggest creating structures and institutions that would be in the hands of the people. Thats it.

SS:Thank you very much.

MG: How many questions did you write?

SS:A lot.

MG: Ooh!