Oliver Stone likes to poke the bear. Sometimes, he literally flies to Moscow to do it.
When The Putin Interviews first dropped on Showtime, the reaction was less like a standing ovation and more like a collective gasp of horror from the American media establishment. Critics called him a "useful idiot." They said he was fawning. They claimed he let a dictator run circles around him for twenty hours of footage.
🔗 Read more: Why Sabrina Carpenter Tomorrow Starts Today Is The Andi Mack Nostalgia Hit You Need
But if you actually sit down and watch the four-part series—which, honestly, most of the loudest critics probably didn't do in full—you see something much weirder and more nuanced than a simple propaganda piece. It isn't a "gotcha" journalism masterclass. It was never intended to be. Stone isn't Mike Wallace. He’s a dramatist. He’s a guy who believes that if you give a man enough rope, he’ll either build a bridge or a noose.
Why the Oliver Stone Putin project still matters in 2026
The world has changed since those 2017 broadcasts. We’ve seen the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, the tightening of sanctions, and a total collapse in East-West relations. Looking back at the footage now feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck before the impact.
Stone’s goal was "empathy." Not sympathy, though the line gets blurry. He wanted to understand the logic of the Kremlin. Basically, he wanted to know: What is this guy thinking? Most Western media portrays Vladimir Putin as a comic-book villain. Stone tried to treat him like a protagonist in a Russian novel—complex, paranoid, and deeply obsessed with history. This approach is exactly why the interviews remain so polarizing. People don't want a complex villain; they want a target.
The "Dr. Strangelove" Moment
One of the most bizarre scenes in the entire documentary involves Stone making Putin watch Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. Think about that. You have an American director sitting in a room with the leader of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, watching a satire about nuclear annihilation.
Putin’s reaction? He didn't laugh much. He looked at the screen with a sort of clinical, detached interest.
He eventually remarked that the film’s ideas were "too subtle" for the American military-industrial complex to actually understand. It was a classic Putin move: take a piece of Western art and turn it into a critique of the West. Stone just sat there, nodding, letting the camera capture the sheer absurdity of the moment.
The stuff nobody talks about: Factual friction
People say Stone didn't push back. That’s mostly true, but there were flashes of friction.
- The Syrian Video Incident: In one famous (and embarrassing) moment, Putin showed Stone a clip on his smartphone, claiming it was Russian jets hitting ISIS. It turned out to be American footage from Afghanistan. Stone later got heat for not catching the error in real-time, but it serves as a perfect example of the "reality gap" that defined the whole project.
- The Gay Rights "Sensible Law" Comment: Stone took a massive amount of flak for calling Russia’s "gay propaganda" law "sensible" during their talk. He later tried to walk it back, saying he wasn't homophobic, but the damage was done. It showed his desperation to find common ground, even where none existed.
- The Snowden Connection: It’s easy to forget that this whole project started because Stone was filming Snowden in Moscow. He asked Putin if Edward Snowden was a traitor. Putin said no, but added that if he had been a Russian officer who did that, he’d be dealt with harshly. The hypocrisy was right there on the table.
The "Statesman" vs. the "Killer"
During a 2017 interview on CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose asked Stone if he saw a "cold-blooded killer" when he looked at Putin.
Stone’s response was telling. He called him a "statesman" concerned with national interests.
This is where the divide lies. For Stone, the "Deep State" in America is the real villain. He sees Putin as a counterweight, a man who—while certainly not a saint—is reacting to NATO expansion and US hegemony. Critics argue this view ignores the literal bodies left in the wake of Kremlin policy.
Honestly, both things can be true. Putin can be a calculating statesman and a ruthless authoritarian at the exact same time. Stone’s mistake wasn't necessarily talking to him; it was assuming that "humanizing" him would somehow lead to peace.
Is it worth watching now?
Yes. But not for the reasons you think.
🔗 Read more: Killing Ground Full Movie: Why This Aussie Thriller Is So Hard to Shake
You shouldn't watch it to learn "the truth" about Russia. You should watch it to see the architecture of a worldview. You see how Putin views the 1990s as a period of American-led humiliation. You see his obsession with "sovereignty."
You also see Stone’s own disillusionment with America. The interviews are as much about Oliver Stone’s psyche as they are about Putin’s. It’s a dialogue between two men who both believe they are the only ones who truly see through the "matrix" of global politics.
Moving beyond the headlines
If you want to actually understand the impact of the Oliver Stone Putin interviews, you have to look past the Twitter outrages.
- Watch with a grain of salt: Recognize that Putin is a former KGB officer. Every word is a calculated move. He isn't "opening up"; he’s projecting an image of the "sane, rational partner" for a Western audience.
- Compare the rhetoric to 2026: Look at what Putin said about Ukraine and NATO in 2017. The seeds of the current conflict were all there. He wasn't hiding his intentions; we just weren't listening, or we thought he was bluffing.
- Analyze the "Stone Filter": Notice how Stone frames his questions. He often leads the witness. He wants Putin to confirm his own theories about the CIA and Wall Street.
The value of the interviews isn't in the answers Putin gives. It’s in the questions Stone doesn't ask, and the way the silence in the room feels heavier than the dialogue. It’s a historical artifact of a time when we still thought "dialogue" might prevent what was coming next.
To get the most out of this, don't just read the summaries. Go find the raw transcripts. Look for the moments where Putin laughs—it's usually when Stone suggests something "naive" about Western democracy. Those tiny, unscripted moments tell you more about the state of the world than any hour-long speech at the Valdai Club ever could.