Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Finnish President Alexander Stubb; Interview with Ukraine Former Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk; Interview with Politico Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnist Jonathan Martin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 07, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ALEXANDER STUBB, FINNISH PRESIDENT: I look forward to sit down with Donald Trump to discuss how we can face the threats collectively.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: NATO and the world prepare for Donald Trump's return. Finland's president, Alexander Stubb, joins me with his view on a new chapter in
Europe-U.S. relations.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: It has to end at some point. It has to end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- how might the war in Ukraine end with Trump in charge in Washington? I asked Ukraine's former defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk.
Then, a Washington insider addresses the fallout from Tuesday's election. Walter Isaacson speaks with Politico bureau chief Jonathan Martin.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
From day one, Joe Biden made protecting and enhancing democracy the hallmark of his presidency. Now, he offers Donald Trump the traditional
official courtesy that Trump had denied him four years ago, a White House meeting in order to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: The struggle for the soul of America since our very founding has always been an ongoing debate and still vital today. I
know for some people, it's a time for victory, to state the obvious. For others, it's a time of loss. Campaigns are contests of competing visions. A
country chooses one or the other. We accept the choice the country made.
I've said many times, you can't love your country only when you win. You can't love your neighbor only when you agree.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, back in January, Joe Biden kicked off his aborted presidential campaign by accusing Trump of sacrificing democracy to put
himself back in charge. This week, the American people, knowing exactly who Trump is, returned him to the White House, declaring their hardships
mandated a change of worth going back to the future for.
In a moment, we'll look at what this means for America and the world. But first, for more on how Washington prepares to shift back to a Trump
presidency, chief U.S. national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny joins us.
Jeff, welcome to the program. And I know you've been analyzing and discussing and talking ever since the results came in. But let's just talk
about what President Biden did today. You know, he didn't do anything unusual. He actually offered the American people what they have, you know,
come to deserve over the last, you know, couple of hundred years.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, so utterly normal for one president to extend a branch and a phone call
yesterday to the president-elect and invite him to the White House. That meeting is likely to happen next week. And he said it was a free and fair
election and, you know, lick your wounds and move on.
But the reason it was extraordinary was because a President-Elect Joe Biden four years ago was never afforded that courtesy. And the questioning of the
legitimacy of the last election really was a shadow and more than that, a cancer that hung over the Biden administration and the whole presidency.
But, Christiane, when we take a step back on this, I mean, the whole reason Joe Biden ran for president in 2020 was to stop Donald Trump. The whole
reason he ran for re-election, he thought, only I can beat him. But what an extraordinary turn of events as President Biden was pushed from the ticket
because he was not equipped to serve. That was clear. Now, he will be taking his leave, and Donald Trump is coming back stronger than ever.
AMANPOUR: So --
ZELENY: It's remarkable.
AMANPOUR: It certainly is. A big comeback. And as I said, the American people knowing exactly who he was, the convictions, you know, the
impeachments, the -- all the things that he's done, nonetheless, declare that they were suffering enough to bring this person back to office.
But what do -- because Biden was obviously addressing his supporters, people who would, you know, struggle for a different outcome, like Kamala
Harris did yesterday. What do they think they did wrong, if anything, or failed to recognize in the American mood?
[13:05:00]
ZELENY: A couple things. One, I think an over reliance on the importance of the abortion rights message. That was a lesson that Democrats saw in the
midterm elections that, you know, really help them, stop them from a huge Republican win. So, this was the first presidential election after the
Dobb's decision. So, I think Democratic strategists thought that this would be enough to sort of stop the bleeding in other areas, on the economy, on
the right track, wrong track. But it simply wasn't.
And one of the reasons is abortion rights has played out in an election in many places already. Some states have passed referendums. And voters simply
did not believe that Donald Trump supported a national abortion ban. He was successful in some terms of muddying that issue. He, you know, certainly is
responsible for the Supreme Court justices are writing that decision. But since then, he's sort of been arm's length from that.
So, I think an over reliance on abortion rights as a message and also the fact that Vice President Harris was - you know, to win she needed to be
seen as the changed candidate. And so, challenging to sort of differentiate yourself when you are still in that administration.
So, she entered this 107-day campaign with so many headwinds. Many of them were because of the Biden-Harris administration, the economy they
inherited, et cetera, that simply was not enough to overcome and overtake that.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ZELENY: And the democracy argument was not also enough to win the day.
AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you about that, because we're going to be digging in with our guests, world leaders, right after we've spoken to you.
But very quickly, and I'll ask 30 seconds. President Biden also tried to burnish his own legacy. He tried to say, hopefully, now the issue of
American democracy and fair elections and secure and safe elections will be laid to rest. That was a clear dig at Trump and his acolytes over the last
four years.
ZELENY: It absolutely was because, basically, what he was saying is, look, there are no claims of voter fraud if Trump wins. So, on that score, he's
right. But in terms of burnishing his own legacy, Christiane, sat least at this moment, it's impossible to assess history in the moment, but it is
hard for me to see history looking very kind on the Biden presidency because it is going to lead to the Trump presidency once again.
This is part of his legacy. He, of course, is aware of that. But his decision to run for re-election and then not being able to complete the
task and then Harris losing will be a central part of what President Biden happened under his watch.
AMANPOUR: Jeff Zeleny, thank you.
ZELENY: Sure.
AMANPOUR: And of course, many European leaders and others are going to have to grapple with all of this as well. They were among the many heads of
state and government congratulating Donald Trump after Tuesday's victory.
France's Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz all say they welcome the opportunity to work with
him again. The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, the current president of the E.U. Council and a close Trump ally says he would
celebrate the victory with several bottles of champagne.
And in Finland, one of NATO's newest member states, President Alexander Stubb noted that, quote, "Finland and the United States are close allies on
so many fronts, including security, technology and business."
But with the returning president promising to levy stiff tariffs on European goods and his volatile position on NATO, working together maybe a
tall order.
President Alexander Stubb now joins me from Helsinki. Welcome back to the program. I just want to ask a general question to begin with. You all were
there. I know you were, you know, doing your stint in government as a minister. Now, you're president during the first Trump term. Do you
remember what it was like? I mean, people called him the chaos agent. There was sort of a sense of a collective nervous breakdown happening for four
years around the world.
ALEXANDER STUBB, FINNISH PRESIDENT: Well, I think there was probably -- at that time, there was more sense of surprise because a lot of people
thought, including the pollsters, that Hillary Clinton would win the election. And I think Europe was then trying to come to terms with the new
president called Donald Trump. But now, this time around, everyone knows what Donald Trump stands for. I think on foreign policy has been very
clear.
So, in many ways, you could say that a lot of European leaders are much better prepared and probably, therefore, much more willing and able to
cooperate.
AMANPOUR: I know that you've got to work with the next president. I'm not asking you to diss one and praise another one. But what -- I've asked Jeff
Zeleny, our correspondent, about Biden's legacy. In foreign policy, particularly European policy, NATO policy, what would you say his strengths
and legacy would be?
[13:10:00]
STUBB: Well, I think the starting point for a small country like Finland is that both Joe Biden as president and at the time President Donald Trump
supported Finnish NATO membership, and that meant a lot to us. I think there was a lot to grapple during this four-year period, and it all
started, of course, on the 24th of February 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine. So, in that sense, I think American foreign policy has been quite
steadfast. And I would argue, especially in the beginning of the war, that it was very much a cross-party line that was coming from the U.S.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you from your perspective, since you are a new NATO member and public opinion shifted in your country to allow you to
join because of the Russian invasion of -- full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
There is a huge debate in Washington as to what President Trump will do to resolve or to continue this certainly American help for Ukraine. What do
you think? What do you expect? And can you pick up any slack?
STUBB: Well, I think the starting point is to say that we need to work together with Ukraine. And you also have to, I think, take President Trump
at face value. When he says something, he does it. And of course, he's talked a lot about getting peace done both in Ukraine and in the Middle
East. And I think the window of opportunity that we have right now is from when the election result came to probably inauguration day. And then we'll
see what happens.
You know, my starting point is that Zelenskyy will probably need four things. One is territory. Two is security and security guarantees. Number
three is justice. So, Russian war criminals indicted. And then, number four is reconstruction. And I'm sure that President Donald Trump elect and his
administration are already working with the Ukrainians on that. And from what I understand, President Trump and President Zelenskyy had a phone call
yesterday.
AMANPOUR: They certainly did. And Trump has said, I can -- you know, I can fix this war in one day, but he's never said who he wants to win.
STUBB: Yes. I mean, I think the starting point here is that, from my perspective, as at least because the war is existential, that politically
you could say that Ukraine has already won, because you have to look at what was the aim of President Putin. It was to Russify Ukraine. It was to
split Europe, split NATO, and make sure that NATO doesn't enlarge.
Well, what did he get? He got a European or Euro Atlantic Ukraine. He got a unified European Union. He got a unified transatlantic partnership. He got
a rejuvenated NATO. And the icing on the cake, of course, is that Finland now doubled NATO's border with Russia. So, in that sense, I would argue
that politically, Ukraine has already won.
AMANPOUR: Can I talk to you more about more general European, you know, imperatives here? So, you talked about unity. We've been reading and
listening to some of the analysis since this since this election. You know, it's potentially some countries are going to sort of build on their
individual relationships with Donald Trump and, you know, flocking to Mar- a-Lago. Let me just read a tweet -- let me just read what Gerard Araud, the former ambassador to the U.S. for France said, expect Europeans to flock to
Mar-a-Lago in droves to demand preferential treatment over their neighbors.
Are you concerned that this could be a divide and conquer moment?
STUBB: Well, not really, but I do have to admit that foreign policy in today's world is probably a little bit more transactional that what it used
to be. And you have to remember that U.S. foreign policy, whether with Trump or with Biden, has been very much focused on forging alliances. And
those alliances have either been bilateral, trilateral, as was the case with Quad, where you have Japan and India, or AUKUS, where you have the
United Kingdom, Australia, together with the U.S.
And then, of course, they're regional, as they are with NATO. And within that, you have those guys who take care of their own defense, like Finland.
They will, of course, have a very close relationship with the United States, whether with the Biden administration or the Trump administration.
So, the United States has put for a long time already their interests at first, and that means that some bilateral relations are probably going to
be deeper than others. Finland, for instance, a security provider, long border with Russia, we have a DCA agreement with the United States, Defense
Cooperation Agreement.
You know, we're a country that you can trust. And, of course, it's in our interest to have very close relations with the United States, which is a
very close ally to ours.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: And what about the notion of Trump proofing? And this is, what I mean by this, is if Trump decides to change the terms of NATO protection
and all the things that he said before? We've heard President Macron, who was in Budapest, as you know, there was a big meeting today of European
leaders. Zelenskyy was there as well. He has said, Europe must stop outsourcing its security and write its own destiny.
You know, there's an idea that, you know, banding together with Germany, the two big powers in Europe, but both are very, very, very grievously
wounded. Macron kind of shot himself in the foot with that election that he basically lost. He's got a massive budget hole. Scholz's coalition has
fallen apart. Where do you think Europe stands in terms of being self- sufficient?
STUBB: Well, two points on this. First, Europe needs the United States, and the United States needs Europe. Because the U.S. wants to be a
superpower, and in order for it to be able to compete with China, it needs allies. Those closest allies come from Europe. There are about 40 of us who
have both the same values and interest that the United States have.
Now, one thing that I tell my European colleagues is it's time to start taking care of our own security a little bit more than what we will see
with a new Trump administration. I think correctly so. He's going to force or at least persuade European states to increase their defense budgets. And
remember, that in 2014, there were only three countries in NATO that hit that 2 percent margin. Now, they are 23. So, the movement is already there,
but I would argue that we are probably going to have to increase our defense expenditure. And then the way in which it happens is a different
story.
I think we do it for two reasons. One, because the United States wants it, and two, because it's in our self interest in the current security
political situation.
AMANPOUR: I just want to play this soundbite because I know it's kind of repeating what you just said, but this is also the view of the new NATO
secretary general, Mark Rutte.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: When he was president, he was the one in NATO who stimulated us to move over the 2 percent. And now, also thanks
to him, NATO, if you take out the numbers of the U.S. for a moment, is above the 2 percent. And I think very much that is his doing, his success.
And we need to do more. We know this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I just wanted to put that out there, which you commented on, but you know, you talked about alliances. Trump is notoriously skeptical of
alliances. And it was considered when Biden became president that he did a lot to restore Transatlantic alliance. So, on one issue, if Donald Trump
decides that America will no longer pay that amount to Ukraine, deliver that amount of weapons to Ukraine, can Europe, does Europe have the
wherewithal to fill the necessary gap?
STUBB: Well, Europe has already filled the necessary gap. I think there's this narrative that the U.S. has done more than Europe. That's not the
case. It's about 50/50. If you then start looking at, say, GDP per capita, Finland is the fifth biggest donor. If you, of course, look at raw
donations, then it comes from the U.S. And I do think that Europe needs to take more responsibility. But this is probably one of the incentives also
to start ending the war or trying to find some kind of a peace settlement.
I think the money funnels, at the end of the day, are going to be a little bit more in a win-win situation, because, of course, when the war is over
it's going to be all about reconstruction. And suddenly, we're going to start seeing a lot of companies, European, American and others, who want to
come and do the reconstruction of Ukraine.
But I do think that Europeans understand that we have to take more responsibility. But we will survive and we will survive together with the
United States.
AMANPOUR: So, on the other issue you were once, I believe, finance minister. And as you know, President Trump has literally said he loves
tariffs. Tariffs is the best word in the dictionary. And he's going to slap some 20 percent tariffs on just about every country. Now, we'll see whether
he picks and chooses and what he does, but he's done it before.
This is what an expert told The New York Times, a Trump victory is very painful for Europeans as it confronts them with a question that they've
tried to hide from, how do we deal with the United States that sees us more as a competitor and a nuisance than a friend to work with?
Do you agree with that assessment? And what do you see as the result of a massive tariff regime?
STUBB: Well, I think here's where I put my former trade minister hat on, which is probably even more relevant than the finance minister hat in this
particular case. I belong, of course, to the category of free traders. So, I believe that free trade actually improves and gives economic growth and
stealth and development.
[13:20:00]
Now, I think we have to pick and choose here a little bit. There will be probably tariffs put up by the United States in some areas. Some of them
will go to Europe. Some of them will go elsewhere. But I think the key here is to try to build confidence so that Europe and the United States can have
as much free trading as possible, because if, of course, the competitor is China, then the U.S. needs to consider in which directions the tariffs go.
There are countries, say, like Finland, who have a lot to give on, for instance, mobile networks. Nokia is a good example or on quant technology
and quant computers. So, there's a lot of work that we can do with the United States. But, of course, we'll have to see how things settle, what
kind of tariffs might come into play.
There's one little sort of reminder, Europe does have exclusive competence. So, the E.U. decides on trade, on customs, on monetary policy, and on
competition. So, there it is really Brussels that decides and has the discussion with the United States.
AMANPOUR: So, the analysis is that Donald Trump has essentially identified trade and immigration, migration, whatever you want to call it as the big
issues of his time -- of everybody's time. And that he has absolutely push this issue far to the right. We've just talked about tariffs and
protectionism, and we know what he wants to do with immigration, mass deportation. And the thing is, that is the case all over Europe right now.
I mean, even more liberal governments, if you want to say that, are taking much, much more tough and more right-wing policies on migration. Would you
say that Trump and people like Giorgia Meloni and Orban and Marine Le Pen and all those people have pushed Europe much further to a nationalist
right?
STUBB: Oh, definitely. I think the mega trend that we have right now is to the right. So, if there was a pendulum, say at the end of the Cold War, it
was all about market, market, market, freedom, freedom, freedom, and including free movement and immigration.
Now, that trend has swung over to the other side, and I think it already started sometime during the financial crisis, because that's when a lot of
people felt not comfortable with, say, the capitalist financial system that we have. It hit mortgages, it hit jobs, it hit growth. And suddenly, people
felt quite sort of disoriented and thought, hey, listen, globalization was supposed to be a good thing to us and especially to me. And then, suddenly,
you're in a situation where it didn't.
And of course, Brexit was a manifestation of that as well, because it was very much a rejection of the other. It was a rejection of free trade, it
was rejection of immigration. So, that's the mega trend that we have right now in 2024. But I would argue that it's been going on for the better part
of at least 15 years.
AMANPOUR: And do you think it'll continue or do you think there's a swing back to be had?
STUBB: Oh, there's always a swing back, at some stage. But I think, you know, in the world order in general, right now, there is this rejection of
multilateralism of rules, of free trade, of institutions, of the WTO, of the U.N. And what we need to understand is that we live now, not in a
bipolar, not in a unipolar, but a multipolar world. And with this multipolarity comes chaos. In order to contain that chaos, we need
multilateralism. We need rules. But someone needs to start setting them.
I'm just afraid it's going to take about five to 10 years before things start to settle with or without DONALD TRUMP. But he's going to be such a
key player in this.
AMANPOUR: All right. Well, that's really an interesting point to close with. President Stubb, thank you so much for joining us from Helsinki.
Now, we've talked about Ukraine. It is the European country that may be most directly affected by Donald Trump's return. President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy posted his endorsement for Trump's peace through strength approach. But the incoming president and his vice president repeatedly cast
out on America's commitment to Ukraine during the campaign.
Now, Andriy Zagorodnyuk is Ukraine's former defense minister, and he's joining us from Western Ukraine. Welcome back to our program. And we really
want to get your perspective in the wake of a new direction in American leadership. And even Congress is possibly going to be, you know, all
Republican.
So, peace through strength of what -- you know, what Trump is saying. How do you interpret that?
[13:25:00]
ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK, UKRAINE FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER: Well, the situation is that President Putin is clearly adamant to keep on war on Ukraine. And
the only thing which can stop him is that we construct the perspective that he loses. So, that's the only way. If he clearly sees the perspective of
losing, if he sees the perspective of some disaster at home, either economic or military or both, then he will consider the ideas of somehow
stopping the war, and that's what we need to construct.
All other options are not going to work with him and that's been tried for a last at least 10 years and that never worked. So, that's a person who
understands only the strengths, strengths of the other side. And if he sees the strength, if he sees the opportunity that his position may be extremely
vulnerable, extremely difficult, then he would consider some sort of negotiations or some sort of way out and stopping the war.
So far, he doesn't see that and he's continuing. And clearly, we can see from the next year budget. They are going to commit a lot of money, tens of
billions into the war. And obviously, that is a huge issue for us. We do need --
AMANPOUR: Well, let me stop you for a second. I need to ask you a question on this. Putin has said that Donald Trump's claim to be able to end this
war in one day, which is what he said throughout the campaign is, quote, "an over exaggeration." This is Vladimir Putin today about that plan. And
you say -- what many analysts say that yes, strength is the only thing that Putin understands.
So, what would you say to a -- you know, a J. D. Vance -- or let me just play what J. D. Vance has said about it and the fact that they believe you
should essentially sue for peace. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT: I think what this looks like is Trump sits down, he says to the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Europeans,
you guys need to figure out what does a peaceful settlement look like? And what it probably looks like is something like the current line of
demarcation between Russia and Ukraine that becomes like a demilitarized zone. It's heavily fortified. So, the Russians don't invade again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Does that sound like it makes sense to you?
ZAGORODNYUK: This is not the war about territory. This is the war about existence of Ukraine. It's existential war for Ukraine. And this is a war
about the world order, international law, et cetera. So, this is not about some regions or some villages or some towns.
So, the -- we have seen quite a lot of ideas coming from all kinds of politicians and policymakers and analysts saying that, oh, in order to get
peace, Ukraine needs to cede some territories and so on. This is complete deviation from actually the actual situation. Putin is not waiting this war
to get some a little bit more territory. His goals are much more strategic and much more serious and much bigger than that. And so, we need to
understand that. And in order for Putin to stop the war, he needs to be seeing very clearly perspective of losing. And that's what the peace
through strength, that's the only way it can produce.
Any ideas about let's suggest that Ukraine gives up something like, you know, some region or something like that, first of all, it's illegal. I
mean, there's nothing like that in any laws at all. And we don't want to make it legal. And I don't think any democratic nation wants to bring this
into practice. And also, that will not stop Putin.
So, we shouldn't be talking about the territories. We should be talking about the principle matters of the war. And Putin needs to see that his
endeavor, his adventure failed.
AMANPOUR: OK.
ZAGORODNYUK: That's the only way.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you on the on the on the ground. We have heard your defense chief of -- the military, General Syrskyi and other senior
leaders, including soldiers defending on the ground. I mean, things are very, very tough, they say. Very, very tough. Even in Kursk, which you all
did as a surprise and as a show of strength, and, you know, easily, you know, occupied that part of Russian territory, they're pushing you back.
Apparently, they've got North Korean soldiers.
It's really bad on the frontline. How do you assess that? And what is the number one thing you need?
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, clearly, we should always remember that things were always tough and there's been all tough world all the way through -- for
the last three years. And also, we've been always fighting it with the one hand tied back, because we always have some limitations. We have
limitations of using the firepower. We have constant shortage of the weapons. And we have a shortage of some classes of weapons, for example,
air power.
Any NATO general, for instance, would never fight the war like that. There will always be a question of long-range power, with long-range firepower,
with missiles, with air power. And something to keep the enemy away from the frontline. And we have been fighting the war on the frontline all the
way through for the last three years.
[13:30:00]
So, yes, things are very extremely difficult. And we certainly need that all these issues result. To be honest, there's nothing new which appeared
over the last week or months of our requests and our sort of pledges to the allies. We still need the shells. We still need weapons. We still need
ground-based air defense. We still need to protect our cities, but we do need to bump up the long-range firepower capabilities such as airpower and
missiles.
And all these restrictions such as like don't shoot at Russian or don't shoot at Russian land, I mean, they just don't make militarily any sense to
be honest. I mean --
And do you think --
ZAGORODNYUK: -- like if --
AMANPOUR: Do you think you're going to get --
ZAGORODNYUK: Sorry?
AMANPOUR: Do you think that's going to change under a President Trump?
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, we don't know, of course, because this is a new administration and there will be a new policy and we'll have to see what
happens. All we hear from Donald Trump, which is -- I have to say, encouraging, is that he wants to stop the war. So, we also want to stop the
war. We want the war to end, because nobody in Ukraine enjoys that at all. And we obviously all want to -- this to be over.
The only thing is that concessions are not going to stop the war. The only thing which can stop the war is strength, which was just said before. So,
if he wants to stop the war, really, like -- then he will have to face the reality that Putin -- nature of Putin's regime. And we need to show him
strengths and we need to show him a perspective of losing. And that gives us a chance to stop it.
AMANPOUR: And one of the things you need, and all your officials say it, and your front liners, that you need more people. Now, we know that Russia
has limitless supplies of people, no matter how many casualties they are enduring, they keep replacing them. They've paid a lot of money, we
understand, from reporting, to people. They paid, you know, recruitment fees, coffin fees, death fees, they paid the families.
Do you think Ukraine is going to have to resort to that, because you are not being successful at the moment at your recruitment drive?
ZAGORODNYUK: We actually are successful. We already bringing a very substantial amount of people into their own forces. What happens is that we
shouldn't play Russian playbook on the war. We cannot have this war as a land based and the frontline, like where in frontline people clash, because
that's the way to lose as more people as possible. We need to keep the war as a long-range firepower where we keep the enemy outside of the frontline.
And that's how NATO would fight that war.
Because what the -- the war is -- which is currently here on the frontline is not the one which any NATO general would want to work with and to fight
with. So, it's -- the thing is that about the capabilities, which would give us an advantage, these capabilities are very well known to all NATO
generals involved in this matter. This has been very clearly communicated throughout the whole three years of the campaign. And all we need is a
policy, which will allow us to, first, get the capabilities, and secondly, use them properly. So, we can actually keep the enemy outside of the -- of
Ukraine.
And technically, is it possible? Absolutely possible. Are there capabilities for that? Yes, there are. What is required is actual policy.
And this is not a matter of possibility, this is a matter of choice. So, we do hope that administration will make a right choice.
AMANPOUR: And let me just say again, President Biden has promised another $425 million new military assistance dollars. The State Department -- and
I'm going to read this. This latest package demonstrates the U.S. commitment to surge security assistance to Ukraine that Congress has
authorized. President Biden has been clear that we will utilize as much of the authority that Congress is authorized in support of Ukraine as possible
before he leaves office.
Just to be clear, do you think that's going to happen and have you received the stuff that's already been promised?
ZAGORODNYUK: We received more -- some of the stuff which has been promised and we receive -- we keep receiving. But generally speaking, do we receive
enough to win? Do we receive enough to change the tide? No, we don't. And that's very clear. And that's been the case, again, for a while right now.
We welcome U.S. government support to Ukraine. We extremely appreciate the support from you U.S. people, but we do need to change the rules of this
game. We need to install new capabilities into the battlefield and we need to create that advantage which would set that sort of new pace of the war,
which will bring Putin the idea that he is actually going to lose it.
This is still to be built. And the package which has been promised is going to keep us going, but this is not going to change things dramatically. So,
we still need that policy to be taken. And that's the only way to stop the war. That's very important to understand.
[13:35:00]
If we're about to set a peace in the region, that peace can only be built through the strength, through the correct policy, and through the correct
capabilities which are brought on the battlefield.
AMANPOUR: Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former Ukrainian defense minister, thank you so much for being with us.
And now, whilst the world is wondering what a second term under Donald Trump will bring, many are falling back on their memories of Trump, the
chaos agent, during his first term. Jonathan Martin has written all about that turbulent time as co-author of "This Will Not Pass." He also is the
political bureau chief there, and he joins Walter Isaacson to discuss the implications of Trump's re-election and what went wrong for the Democrats.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. Jonathan Martin, welcome back to the show.
JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICS BUREAU CHIEF AND SENIOR POLITICAL COLUMNIST, POLITICO: Thank you, Walter.
ISAACSON: You've been all over the country, mainly in Pennsylvania, past couple weeks, precinct by precinct, looking at things. And what you wrote
after this election was that Democrats don't have a Harris or Biden problem, their challenge is far deeper. They have a voter problem. What do
you mean by that?
MARTIN: I'm seeing a rejection from the electorate. It's akin to a company that's trying to sell a product and the customers don't want to buy the
product. You know, when Procter & Gamble or Apple or whoever else faces that challenge, well, boy, they go back to the drawing board and try to
figure out how to give the customers what they want. And that's the onus on Democrats now that they're being rejected by a large swath of this country,
the working class, frankly, of America across racial lines.
And, Walter, that was the foundation of the Democratic coalition for much of the 20th century, as you know, and to be rejected by these voters who
favored a billionaire, you know, who is cozying up with fellow billionaires is humiliating for Democrats, but it does show to them that they do have to
find a message that's more appealing to the working class core of this country.
They simply cannot win 270 electoral votes, let alone find 51 Senate seats with suburbanites, there's just not enough of them out there.
ISAACSON: So, the -- you're talking about the working class. What type of issues have failed the Democrats in trying to appeal to the working class?
It used to be the party of the working class.
MARTIN: It was the party of the working man for decades. And I think, look, here's the coming fight in the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders
crowd on the left is going to be, say, that we were not sufficiently focused on an economic populist message, the people versus the powerful. We
have to get back to our populist roots and drift away from this kind of proto corporatism that's much more friendly to high income earners.
Other folks in the party are going to say, let's be honest, we've lost these people on culture and identity, and we're talking too much to sound
like the Amherst Faculty Club, to borrow a line from our friend James Carville, and we're using language that's alienating to these folks who are
not as fixated on identity as the elites in America are, and that is the challenge for us. So, that's the coming debate, Walter, is this -- what was
the problem, economics or identity, frankly.
ISAACSON: Well, let's unpack both those and start with the economics. And you mentioned Bernie Sanders. After the election he said, it should come as
no great surprise that the Democratic Party which is abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First,
it was the white working class, and now it's Latino and black workers as well.
Should the Democrats have fought against corporate and greed and other things and fought for the working class more?
MARTIN: Well, I think that's the critique. It's a blistering critique from Bernie Sanders, who was mostly a good soldier during the course of the
campaign, but obviously is now telling us how he really feels.
But I think there are clearly areas where Democrats could have done more to go after Trump on class related issues. The one that sticks out in my mind
was when he bragged about not paying overtime to the people that worked for him and found other workers to replace them.
I mean, you talk about a gift from the gods. Here was somebody who was promising to end taxes on overtime. But at the same time, he never paid
overtime to his own workers, not capitalizing on that, I think was in fact a huge mistake.
But, Walter --
ISAACSON: But wait, wait. Let me go back to the broader thing, which is a populism.
MARTIN: I hope.
[13:40:00]
ISAACSON: There have been many Democrats who are able to keep a populist message, whether it was Jimmy Carter or at some point Bill Clinton early
on, but what the Democrats have not been able to do, and what I think Bernie Sanders is talking about, is really embrace populism.
MARTIN: Yes. And look, Biden was able to do that at times because he has a sort of labor history and liked talking about unions. And -- you know, but
it was never really Harris' forte, right? She comes out of a law enforcement background in the Bay Area. She's not really a class warrior.
It wasn't the kind of natural language for her to use. So, I just don't think it was obviously her approach.
Also, Walter, Democrats, I think, have been so fixated on driving their numbers in the suburbs and trying to drive a wedge through the old
Republican coalition, talking about abortion rights, talking about democracy and Donald Trump's sort of low character. Those are issues that
can galvanize high income earners in the suburbs, but again, Democrats did just fine with a lot of those voters who are now basically Democrats
operationally, but there's just simply not the numbers there, OK?
You just look at a place like Michigan or a Pennsylvania, and you can get a hell of a lot of votes out of the suburbs of Philly and Detroit, but
there's a lot of state left where that they don't have college degrees.
ISAACSON: The other issue you talked about beside the economic one are the cultural one, the populist ones.
MARTIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: Democrats getting painted as the party of transgender, the athletic rights or bathroom rights or whatever. To what extent were those
real issues? And to what extent did it cut against the Democrats?
MARTIN: Well, I -- in terms of being a real issue, I think it's not really a real issue. Most high school sports teams aren't dealing with this.
Obviously, there are -- there have been a few cases. Oh, it's just a wedge for the Republicans to use to try to sort of jam Democrats and make them
choose between their traditional affinity and support for marginalized constituencies like those in the gay and lesbian community and the broader
electorate out there, which is going to be uncomfortable with the idea of boys playing in girls' sports. And it obviously worked pretty well.
You know, Walter, maybe the most memorable act that Trump ran on was that Kamala Harris wants to use taxpayer dollars to pay for trans surgeries for
prisoners, which almost sounds like a conservative parody, but it's actually true. This actually happened in California. And it was a gift from
the gods for the Republicans who just put this on repeat in television ads and ran it again and again and again.
And this gets to the heart of the Democratic challenges, losing not just workers, Walter, but losing men, losing working class men who, from a
cultural standpoint, just have a hard time supporting Democrats.
ISAACSON: Is a problem about losing men partly a sexism against a woman candidate?
MARTIN: Well, there's no question that it's difficult for a woman to get elected president in this country. We have two examples of that and we'd be
naive to say otherwise. I think it's even harder when she's a black woman. So, there's no question that that was a challenge for Harris, that that
obviously was something that she was going to have a hard time getting beyond.
But I think that the ground was somehow -- in some ways laid for her in ways that were even more difficult for her, because there was a pre-
existing structural challenge for Democrats as being this party of the so- called woke.
I wrote something in October. You know, the irony for Harris is she's not a faculty club type. She's not somebody who's doing the language police. She
would have been perfectly comfortable, I think, sort of taking a different direction and would have had a credibility to do it as a black woman. And
it's sort of puzzling that she wouldn't have done more of that, sort of taken a stance, sort of sister soldier during the campaign against the
excesses of the campus language police. I think she could have done that, and it may have helped.
ISAACSON: You said that, you know, one way she could have gone is run a more populous campaign, but I read your writings. You said she should have
run to the center a bit more, moderate.
MARTIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: Explain why -- how that would have worked and why she didn't do it.
MARTIN: Well, look, I think there are ways that you could level populist attacks against Donald Trump on issues of economic fairness, like the
overtime issue, but still broadly and totally reassure voters in the political center that you're going to govern from the center.
Look, this is the burden on left of center parties around the Democratic world. It's something that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama understood
intuitively. You constantly have to practice defensive politics in this country, which is center to center right, and by the way, it's certainly
center to center right in the Electoral College version of this country, to reassure people that you're not a crazy liberal, and that's just the burden
of running and winning a national election as a Democrat.
[13:45:00]
It's why the last two-term elected Democrats were affected. It was constantly on their minds. How do I reassure the center that I'm not
extreme?
ISAACSON: Didn't she just to do that by campaigning with Liz Cheney and others?
MARTIN: She tried to do it around the edges. But here is my concern about the Liz Cheney stuff. Well, you're sitting with her and you're talking
about January 6th, democracy, and the guardrails of our constitution. That's not stuff that's going to win you new voters, Walter. The people who
are voting on January 6th in our constitution are already in your column by now. They're not thinking about Trump. They're already for you. You got to
give the voters who are not quite yet for you something.
And Walter, I was with her and Liz Cheney in Wisconsin. And people stood up from the audience and said, I'm a lifetime Republican voter. Tell me how I
could be for you. Please reassure me. And she couldn't do it.
ISAACSON: You talk about the big shift being man, and this is something that I've noticed when I listened to talk radio or I'm online, that there
is a broke culture out there, especially among young men, young Hispanic men.
MARTIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: I mean, for the first time in our lifetimes, a Republican won Hispanic men, but it's a tech bro culture and a finance bro culture, but
also a frat bro and working class bro culture that is just flock to the Republican party now.
MARTIN: It has. And I kind of wonder if we would have even called it a bro culture in the 1980s or '90s. I mean, I don't think men were appreciably
different then. They were still masculine and into sports. And, you know, as our buddy Carville says, they don't want to have a hamburger watch
football game. I mean, I just think that the sort of broader culture has changed somewhat. And we're now determined to place folks and sort of
identity boxes in ways that, you know, in the past, that would have been just sort of, I guess, to borrow a phrase, boys being boys. So, I'm not
sure how different it is.
But you put your finger on what is different, which is just on mass blocking to support Republicans and just not to be --
ISAACSON: There's something that Wired magazine -- I love the phrase, I've been using, calls the manosphere, which is sort of the podcast, you know, a
podcast that some of our viewers may not have heard of, but the top ones like Adin Ross. And of course, you have Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and
Lex Fridman. But Trump went on all of those podcasts.
MARTIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: And that's a -- sort of a manosphere online and in the podcast world.
MARTIN: Walter, you are so dead on. It's the new celebrity culture and it's taking place off TV, off the movies. I'll give you an example. The
Saturday before the election, I was at Penn State for the Ohio State-Penn State game. At a tailgate with one of the big -- the GOP candidates in
Pennsylvania. And there was a podcaster there and somebody who has a popular podcast, that's kind of part sports part of politics. Walter, he
was flocked with people asking him for selfies, people coming up the left and right, much more so than the actual politicians in Pennsylvania who
were there at the tailgate. The selfies were for him, not for the candidates.
ISAACSON: Would it made a big difference if Biden had not sought re- election two or three years ago?
MARTIN: I do think so. I mean, look, I think the original sin, here you could say politically, is two things. A, it's Biden putting Harris on the
ticket in the summer of 2020, basically ensuring that she'd be the successor. And then, secondly, it's Biden's insistence -- I guess, the sort
of co-original sin, if you will, Biden's insistence, Walter, on running for re-election as he was going to turn 82 years old. And really, nobody in his
orbit or even in the party insisting on otherwise. That to me was the deafening silence.
That nobody in his family, his staff, or the senior leaders of the Democratic Party said a word about the wisdom of running an 82-year-old for
re-election, who, by the way, looked every bit of 82.
ISAACSON: The larger question is of guardrails, whether it's guardrails, maybe it's on the Wall Street Journal editorial board about too high of
tariffs, or Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnell, others talking about guardrails that keep them within constitutional limits. Do you think there will be
people and who will they be who will try to put guardrails around Trump this time the way that some of the people did early on in the first Trump
administration?
MARTIN: Well, that's one of the biggest differences between this administration and that administration, is that, you know, Trump came in
surrounded by staff and cabinet that was mostly people that were, you know in, that old consensus, Walter, that you mentioned, neoliberal,
neoconservative. And certainly, on Capitol Hill, but the leaders were Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
[13:50:00]
Well, now that the leaders are going to be likely Mike Johnson and the House, and then, I think likely John Thune in the Senate. People who both
come from kind of a pre-Trump tradition, Johnson more conservative, Thune more of a Bush conservative, but still, they're going to be much more
willing to accommodate Trump and Trump-ism, especially after this election, because they've seen the support Trump has across the board. And I think
they're going to be even more reluctant to confront him.
ISAACSON: One of the things that struck me most about this election in the past few years is the deep polarization, that, you know, people just can't
talk to people on the other side as much as they used to in an era when it was Obama running against John McCain or Mitt Romney. How deep is this
polarization and how's that going to shape American politics for the next 10 years?
MARTIN: Well, it's the biggest story of our time. I mean, politics has become less about your preference and more about an extension of your
identity. It's not pistachio or strawberry for dessert, it's good and evil, it's black and white, it's which side are you on? And that is a fundamental
shift from what politics was 20 years ago, and I think that has created a lot of the contentiousness in this country.
I think Trump is more of a symptom or maybe an accelerant, Walter, than he is the story. But obviously, now, that he's back in power that is not going
away. And I think it's going to cause huge rifts in this country, both culturally and frankly, in families and communities too. And it's a
challenge.
And I think one of the biggest storylines we're going to see is what do Democrats do? Did they have people to go to the barricades and try to
resist Trump like they did in 2016, 2017, or are the results so shocking to them that they try to accommodate some level of Trump-ism? You saw --
ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait. You answered your own question.
MARTIN: Oh, I mean, look, I think that the majority of them will go to the barricades and try to resist. I do.
ISAACSON: Is this a major political realignment, a tectonic shift we've seen, talking about everything from working class to gender issues and
other things, or is this -- that will reshape American politics just the way the new deal did, or is this something temporary?
MARTIN: Oh, I think it's temporary. I mean, look, I think we're in a period of exceedingly close elections in which the parties trade back power
in a divided country that's cleaved along those lines of class, gender, and region that we've been talking about so much.
I spoke to a historian last week at the Smithsonian about this. This does reflect the kind of post-Civil War period. I think technological change,
high immigration, and a really closely divided country in which politics was a growth of identity and sort of who you were that more than it was a
preference. And because the country is so divided, I think we're going to have closely fought elections and quite frankly, trade power back and forth
in Congress, Walter, because when one party overreaches or missteps, the other party will take advantage of that and we'll go on and on and on I
think in that same way for some time to come.
ISAACSON: Jonathan Martin, thank you so much for joining us.
MARTIN: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, the Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has joined Trump's global well-wishers. Just days before world leaders
descend on Rio for the G20 summit, I spoke to President Lula about what Trump 2.0 means for a world facing its hottest year on record. Here's a
snippet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know what President Trump did in his first term, he pulled the United States out of the landmark Paris Climate Accord. Do you think
he's going to do the same thing again?
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Well, I believe that President Trump, he has to think as an inhabitant of the
planet Earth. And if he thinks, as an -- as the ruler of the most important, richest country in the world, most important, that has high --
more technology that is better prepared from the arms viewpoint, he has to have the notion that the U.S. is in the same planet that I am, and that on
an island of 300,000 inhabitants is.
And so, all of us, we have to take responsibility for the maintenance of this planet, of the Earth. We need to guarantee that the planet should not
be -- suffer a warming of more -- above than 1.6 degrees. We need to guarantee that the rivers should continue healthy with clean waters. And
so, we need to guarantee that the biomes of all the countries should be preserved.
And so, this is a commitment that I have, not only as the president of Brazil, as a human being that lives in the planet called Earth, and that
there's no other place to live, only Earth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Appealed -- appealing to Trump's sense of global responsibility. We shall see. You can catch the full conversation on our show tomorrow.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
