June 13, 2023

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to “Amanpour & Company” Here’s what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Everyone is blaming the prosecutors. He did it, it’s his conduct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Former President Donald Trump is arraigned once again. This time is on unprecedented federal charges. I discuss accountability and

consequences with historian, Timothy Snyder.

Then, Elaine Chao resigns from Trump’s cabinet after January 6th. Now, Walter Isaacson asked her about incitement and the rise of anti-Asian hate.

Also, ahead, Putin strikes Zelenskyy’s hometown. A conversation with two prominent Russian exiles on support for this war within. Dissident and

chess grandmaster, Garry Kasparov, and Evgenia Kara-Murza, wife of jailed Russian opposition activists join me.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

Donald Trump is the first-ever American president to be arraigned on federal charges, including espionage, conspiracy and obstruction over the

classified documents that he kept after leaving office. He’s entering his plea in a Miami courthouse after flying into Florida to hear the 37 counts

against him. Trump denies any wrongdoing, and he is still the front runner for the Republican nomination for president.

But these latest charges have seen some senior members of the GOP now soften their support for the candidate. Over the past days, former allies

like Governor Chris Christie and Attorney General Bill Barr sternly condemning his actions. And Christie lashed out at the Republican field for

publicly giving Trump a pass while quietly hoping that his legal jeopardy might knock come him out of the race.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They’re playing political games with you, because they think if you’re kind

of like Trump a little bit, and I don’t see anything bad about Trump, and then Trump kind of implodes and goes away, then you’re more likely to vote

for me.

How about we do this? How about you decide who is the most honest and forthright leader who has common sense and will put you first? How about we

stop these games?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now, Trump has dominated a climate of unprecedented, and he is being pursued by legal woes his entire career. But this one promises to be

the most consequential, not just for him, but for the country, its institutions, and if he gets elected anyway, for the whole world.

The Yale professor, Timothy Snyder, is an award-winning historian and bestselling author, focusing on the dangers of authoritarianism, and he’s

joining me now from New Haven, Connecticut.

Timothy Snyder, welcome back to our program.

So, let’s just put this in the big context. You know, everybody says, oh, you know, Trump, Trump, Trump, nothing is surprising. But this is very

consequential, isn’t it, for the whole world, essentially, looking in?

TIMOTHY SNYDER, HISTORY PROFESSOR, YALE AND AUTHOR, “ON TYRANNY”: Yes. I’d start by saying that the whole nothing this is surprising thing is not

actually a reaction from the good guys, it’s a strategy from the bad guys. Not just Trump, but a good number of dictators and aspiring dictators

around the world play this game. They admit to being outrageous so that our sensibilities are dulled, and then when lines are crossed and lights are

flashing, we don’t notice.

So, of course, this is enormously consequential. The president — or the former president is subject to law, just like everyone else. If we allow

that to go, we’re letting checks and balances go, we’re letting the rule of law go, we’re letting the constitution go, we’re letting the whole system

go, and the people who immediately jumped to support Trump, what they’re doing is they’re immediately putting their weight against the whole system,

and that’s extremely concerning.

AMANPOUR: So, let’s talk about the whole system. As you said, there are those who, in reaction to this indictment say, no man is above the law, and

it is America, a nation of laws, presumably that is the majority of Americans. But, on the other hand, opponents of this indictment say that

the Biden administration is weaponizing the Justice Department for their political benefits.

So, what is your view? Is putting this president, this former leader on trial, strengthening the institutions or playing into the hands of those

who have partisanized (ph) and poisoned American politics now for so many years?

SNYDER: I guess I would start off by just being very suspicious of anyone who makes the claim that there’s anything strange about this. If we look at

our American debate about this, it’s really quite unusual. Around the world, including in countries who democracy is unquestionably strong, like

let’s say France or Italy, around the world it’s normal for heads of government to be tried, for heads of government to be arrested, to be

sentenced after due process. It just happened in Scotland, a place where no one questions the rule of law.

So, we get ourselves into trouble the moment we start to say, there’s something exceptional about this, because once we say it’s exceptional,

then we’re along the lines of saying, well, one man is above the law, and if one man is above the law, then there really isn’t any law.

So, I would plead for people to treat this as normal, to treat him as a normal defendant, let the process take its course. Anything else is pushing

against the system.

AMANPOUR: So, as we speak, you mentioned Scotland, the first minister, she was indeed arrested, she was taken in for questioning regarding potential

financial party irregularities, but she’s being released, and she’s protesting her innocence. But as you say, the system is working.

Right now, as we’re speaking, Boris Johnson, the former prime minister and a close Trumpian ally is about to be sanctioned by the parliament for —

and he has resigned over ongoing questions. And in Israel, the current sitting prime minister is actually on trial, four charges, including

corruption.

And yet, by and large, in most of these overseas, even if they’re not democracies, there isn’t the threat of violence and the call to protest

with the underlying threat of violence that happens in the United States, particularly around this president. And even now, we’ve heard from former

congresspeople and those who should know better, having had elected office, that “violence is now baked into the American political system.” What is

your comment on that?

SNYDER: Yes. I want to echo your remarks, because they seem to be very important. In those cases that you’re citing, there are some really

important differences. One of them is that the people who were accused, in general, don’t say everything is a lie. In general, they say, I am innocent

or, you know, the process should take its course. But they don’t say, as Trump has been saying, the entire system is corrupt. That is a very

damaging kind of reaction, and everybody who is supporting Trump is echoing, you know, implicitly or explicitly, that reaction.

And secondly, it’s very important, as you say, that in general, and in all the respectable cases, people don’t then call for violence as Trump has

done or as his allies have done. The moment you call for violence, you’re basically upending the whole premise of a constitutional order, which is

that we don’t settle these things by violence, we settle them by way of the law.

As far as the legislators go, this seems to be a very critical area, because the whole point of having a legislature, of having the Congress and

the Senate, is that these people pass laws. When they say the laws don’t apply, what they’re saying is that their own job makes no sense, that their

own institution has no purpose, that we’re not a tricameral system, we don’t have a division of powers. In fact, what we just have is a kind of

leader. And what — and the fate of that leader is the only thing that concerns us.

And once you’re in that mold, once you take that view, once you’re admitting from the point of view of a parliament that a parliament doesn’t

matter, then you’re in fascist territory.

AMANPOUR: And of course, your books and certainly the last one is called “On Tyranny.” And as you speak, you know, again, you know, we have to

remember that the sort of cult leader, who as you say, tries to drag everyone along with them.

So, back to the U.S. and the politics of this, as we’re going to obviously, continue with legal, but the politics as well. As we mentioned, there are a

good number of Republican candidates for the nomination who have tried to basically thread the needle in a way that they hope won’t alienate Trump

supporters. So, here’s a mash-up of some of these, you know, candidates, who are blaming the justice system, not the person of Donald Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I see in that document is deeply politicized.

MIKE PENCE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I’m deeply troubled to see this indictment move forward.

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think there needs to be one standard of justice

in this country.

SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Today, what we see is a justice system where the scales are

weighted.

GOV. DOUG BURHUM (R-NORTH DAKOTA), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is the kind of stuff that you never thought

would happen in America. And so, I think it’s a dangerous precedent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, the kind of stuff you never would’ve thought would happen in America. So, there are two issues there, one is, but surely America is

showing that it is a nation of laws, and then the other issue is, you know, how they’re appealing to the base with these comments. How do you think

that’s going to play out? Because populists are very successful in making those kinds of allegations or feelings stick.

SNYDER: Yes. I mean, the first thing that I think that has to be said is that, it’s, of course, true that the American justice system is not

perfect, but its flaws don’t have to do, in general, with extremely wealthy white men who used to be president. It’s flaws, generally, have to do with

minorities, especially African Americans, and with people who can’t afford the kind of high-priced legal protection that Mr. Trump has.

The system is weighted against people in this country, but it is not weighted against people like Mr. Trump. It is massively weighted in favor

of people like Mr. Trump, which makes it all the more true, as you’ve said, that in so far as the system is able to pursue what is obviously an

extremely well-grounded and well-thought through indictment against a character like Mr. Trump, that is a sign of its health, that is a sign of

moving forward, that’s something that ought to be encouraged.

When politicians make this kind of argument, what they’re trying to say to people is that the system is weighted against you because it’s weighted

against Mr. Trump. But the premise is wrong, it’s weighted for Mr. Trump. And the reason why this kind of allegation is dangerous is that it

encourages other people, it’s — or encourage other people to think that their reactions too would be beyond the law. That Mr. Trump is a reasonable

example, and that one can follow that example.

And that, of course, is an excursion into lawlessness. And unfortunately, there’s a very recent precedent for that, which is January 6th.

AMANPOUR: Of course. And of course, the other thing we have to say is after January 6th, his polls did go up, his poll — his fundraising went up also

under the — after the indictment in New York, which was not a federal one, but nonetheless, criminal. And so, this is a really tricky situation, that

apparently, America hasn’t quite figured out how to navigate and nor has the parties.

So, I want to ask you this. Here in the U.K. Boris Johnson, who was equally cult like, who was equally, you know, prone to using the same populist

tactics as Donald Trump, we’ve seen his party, the Tories, by and large, except for one or two, hold out, who — you know, who actually practically

are no longer in office, anyway, basically moving on. They just want to move on and they’ve said, you know, that Boris has a lot to answer for, but

not in the U.S.

Again, not only have we seen, what I just showed you, the mash-up, but again, Nikki Haley, who’s much more of a centrist. She’s having to have it.

She’s trying to have it always. Let me just play this for you and see your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. GOV. NIKKI HALEY (R-SC), U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Two things can be true at the same time. One, the DOJ and FBI have lost all

credibility with the American people, and getting rid of just senior management isn’t going to be enough to fix this. This is going to take a

complete overhaul, and we have to do that. Two, the second thing can also be true. If this indictment is true, if what it says is actually the case,

President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, you sort of touched on that a little bit before saying, you know, the justice system isn’t perfect. What would you say to her trying to

have it both ways, knowing that some people are saying, well, you know, it was President Biden who had documents, and before that, you know, the

accusation against Hillary Clinton?

SNYDER: Yes. I mean, she’s — it’s not that she’s having it, but the way she’s contradicting herself, because if the indictment is correct, and if –

– and I encourage everyone to read the indictment, but, you know, her premise is if the indictment is correct, she knows perfectly well that it’s

well-grounded and thoroughly researched. That means the Department of Justice and the FBI did good work. And if they did good work, then her

first argument that they need to be thoroughly purged makes absolutely no sense. So, she’s contradicting herself.

What I really regret is that there doesn’t seem to be a Republican candidate, at least yet, or at least one who has serious chances, who’s

able to say, look, this was a terrible mistake, a betrayal of national security and a pretty obvious violation of the law. You think, even if only

for political strategic reasons somebody would take that line on the logic that that would at least give him or her some kind of a chance when things

fall out the way that they’re going to fall out.

On the politics, I think one thing that’s not broadly understood is that this is not a political move for the Democrats. The Democrats are perfectly

aware that this doesn’t help them. They’re perfectly aware that this is very complicated. They’re not — it’s not that there’s a democratic

conspiracy to do this against Mr. Trump, they know it helps him fund-raise, right?

So, it’s two things going on at the same time, there’s a procedure against Mr. Trump on legal grounds, and then there was the Democrats trying to

navigate their presidential election in 2024. But those two things are not actually closely connected at all. The Democrats, if they were just

thinking politically and they were in control of all things, then we might have a completely different story. But we actually have two different

stories, and I don’t think people necessarily realize that.

AMANPOUR: Given that these two stories are going to collide, these two different stories, most likely, during the campaign and be — you know, up

until 2024 election, the legal and the political process, given that Trump insisted he’s not going to back out, and he’s going to continue, I just

wonder what you — I’d like you to comment on this.

According to the Republican National Committee, to get on a debate stage into the presidential campaign, candidates have to pledge to support the

eventual party nominee, which, as we’ve discussed right now, according to polls, look set to be Donald Trump.

So, I don’t know whether that’s the same thing for the Democrats, but if it is, I want to know, is party therefore — are they putting party before

country, before this loyalty pledge? And we just have to, you know, note that Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie have said they would not support a

Trump candidacy if he was the nominee.

SNYDER: Well, I’ve got to say, it’s a weird — I mean, for a party which talks a lot about the freedom of speech, it’s very weird for them to be

doing a precancellation as a precondition for a political debate. That’s something which I think, you know, ought to be thought through.

And it’s — what’s strange about the Republican Party here is that the party itself, unfortunately, doesn’t really seem to exist. There is a

leader cult, and the leader cult is protecting itself against competition by way of these speech taboos and by way of — you know, of the charisma,

talent and outrageous performance of Mr. Trump, right?

But what we don’t have is a Republican Party which, like the Tories, to go back to your comparison earlier, has institutions and alternative leaders

and mechanisms by which it can move along after a given, in the case of the British, head of government falls. The Republicans don’t really have, that

and that’s part of their — that’s a big part of their problem, that there’s not really an institution there.

And this is what worries me about all the candidates lining up behind Mr. Trump, because the closest thing they have to an institution are these

presidential elections, and if they — if everybody lines up behind Mr. Trump, they’re looking at a doomsday scenario where Trump is their

candidate where he just can’t win, right, because he’s so unpopular. He’s unpopular before these scandals, he’ll presumably do worse after these

scandals.

And then, where are they? What are they calling for? They’ve just spent all this time supporting a candidate who, A, is going to lose, or is likely to

lose, and B, has been tearing down the system for a year and a half. Where does that leave you, morally and politically as Republicans in 2024, 2025?

It is setting you up for a situation where it will seem like the natural thing to do, is to try to tear the system down, in other words, have some

kind of repeat of January 6th.

And I just would hope there would be some people looking ahead and thinking about the steps that lead them in that direction before they go too far.

AMANPOUR: Now, beyond the politics of it, which are vital, obviously, for the health of America’s democracy, the policies are also vital. We know

that President Trump, his own aides say, in a second term, he may have pulled America out of NATO. He did pull America out of the Iran nuclear

deal, and there’s great peril now in that region because of that. And on a — the town hall stage at CNN, he said the following about the Ukraine war

to moderator Kaitlan Collins, and you’ve written a lot about this and how so much is at stake there. This is what he claimed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Can you say if you want Ukraine or Russia to win this war?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want everybody to stop dying, dying. Russians and Ukrainians.

I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done in 24 hours. I’ll have it done. You need the power of the presidency to do it.

COLLINS: But you won’t say that you want Ukraine to win? You —

TRUMP: You know what I’ll say, I’ll say this. I want Europe to put up more money, because they’re in for 20 billion, we’re for one 170, and they

should be —

COLLINS: But that’s not an answer about who should win the war.

TRUMP: — and they should equalize. They have plenty of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I mean, there’s just so much in there, a lot of (INAUDIBLE) in fact. But, you know, it’s a potential threat if he does, in fact, managed

to get reelected. What do you see as the risks there?

SNYDER: Well, you mentioned Boris Johnson earlier, and one has to say that despite all his other manifold flaws, Boris Johnson, at the end of his term

as prime minister, took a very clear stand on Ukraine. And actually, in many ways, put the U.K. above the U.S. and the European Union in terms of

what it was going to do, a line which has been followed by his successor.

And this is a very important difference between a Boris Johnson and a Trump. Whatever is wrong with Boris Johnson, he is not part of some kind of

international cabal of right-wing leaders who admire one another, pat one another on the back, and support the idea of dictatorship. Unfortunately,

Donald Trump is.

Going back a decade or so, he is very closely connected to Vladimir Putin. The things that he says about Ukraine and Russia tends to be very close to

Kremlin talking points. I think a deep problem with the reelection of Mr. Trump is that there is now — we can have no expectation that he would

pursue a foreign policy of American interests, let alone a foreign policy which would support the cause of democracy. The man does not support

democracy at home, and he certainly doesn’t support it abroad.

And the way these things work, it’s all connected. So, a Biden foreign policy supporting Ukrainian democracy abroad is also a Biden domestic

policy supporting democracy at home. A Trump foreign policy of letting Ukraine go, rooting for the dictatorships, is also a Trump domestic policy

of scorning the division of power, scorning the rule of law, and setting himself up as a kind of leader who’s beyond all the institutions. That’s

one big story.

So, Ukraine is not some faraway place about which we can know little, Ukraine is a place where the cause of freedom and democracy is right now

either supported or ignored or denied. Trump ignores and denies. The people who want to keep America strong and safe and democratic are on the right

side of Ukraine, and they will be willing to answer that question.

The only way for lives to be saved is for Ukraine to win the war as quickly as possible. The only way for American interests to be secured is for

Ukraine to win that war as quickly as possible. Not only because of Russia, but because Ukraine winning that war makes it much less likely that we’ll

have to deal with an aggressive China.

So, whether it’s democracy or whether it’s interest, I think the arguments are clear.

AMANPOUR: And we are going to turn exactly to that with our next guest. But for now, Professor Timothy Snyder, thank you so much, indeed.

So, as the professor said, the very issues that we’ve been discussing, law and order, democracy, security, are all at stake in Ukraine as the war

rages on. Kyiv’s counteroffensive is making some gains in the east, but Russia continues to rain down strikes on civilians. Today, hitting the

hometown out of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. As Belarus just announced that it will accept Russia’s deployment of tactical nuclear

weapons within days.

I’m joined now by Russian voices, speaking out against what’s being done in their name. They are the dissidents and chess grandmaster, Garry Kasparov

and Evgenia Kara-Murza, who is the wife of the jailed Russian opposition activists, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and who is continuing his cause. Both of

them joined me from the Oslo Freedom Forum in Norway.

Thank you both for joining us.

We’ve just had a really fascinating discussion with Professor Snyder who, as you know, writes a lot about democracy and tyranny and what’s at stake.

Garry Kasparov, in fact, both of you, I just want you to comment on what’s being discussed at the Oslo Forum right now, and how deeply concerning is

the fact that this war continues and attacks all our institutions and our values and the world order? Garry, first to you.

GARRY KASPAROV, CHAIRMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION: Here in Oslo, no one is surprise by these brutal tactics adopted by Putin. He always did it. He

recognized fairly quickly who would win the war of battlefield and he used traditional tactics of deliberately attacking civilians, and he keeps doing

it almost every day.

But the situation on the frontline has been changing and not in his favor, which definitely will enrage him and will probably making — intensifying

these attacks. But as for the crowd here at Oslo Freedom Forum, there are dissidents, freedom fighters, who has actors around the world, and they all

recognize the simple thing, the Ukrainian war, the outcome of this war will have great impact for the cause of freedom around the globe.

God forbid, Putin wins, we’ll all be in trouble. But if Ukraine wins, I should believe it, when Ukraine wins, dictators will tremble from North

Korea to Nicaragua, from Belarus to Zimbabwe. We can expect great changes.

AMANPOUR: And, Evgenia, I’m not sure whether you’ve been, you know, hearing or — and listening and paying attention to the latest with Donald Trump,

but we were just discussing that if he does get reelected in the extraordinary situation that this might happen, given the legal problems

that he’s under, what do you fear, because he has out and out equated, essentially, Ukraine with Russia, and as you know, he has not called for

Ukraine to win and he’s been, during his presidency, very friendly towards, and very like-minded with Vladimir Putin, who has your own husband under

arrest?

EVGENIA KARA-MURZA, WIFE OF JAILED RUSSIAN OPPOSITION ACTIVIST VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Unfortunately, President Trump’s affection towards dictators

and authoritarian rulers of this world is very well-known. And I believe that, again, we need to reiterate that Ukraine’s victory on Ukraine’s

terms, in this war, is crucial, because it will send a very clear signal to all dictators and authoritarian rulers of the world, including those who

are just — who just demonstrate affection for those, that such things are not going to go unpunished.

Because this war came as a result of over two decades of impunity that Vladimir Putin has enjoyed, and that impunity has got to stop. Resetting

relations, or, I don’t know, offering compromises to a bully is unacceptable.

And when we talk about the crowd her at the Oslo Freedom Forum, I think that the main thing I see on such platforms is that, honestly, they

struggle for freedom, it’s universal. And people here understand that. They understand that what is going on in Ukraine, the genocidal aggressive war

that the Russian State launched against Ukraine affects us all. And that fight for freedom is universal, and should be continued until all dictators

fall.

AMANPOUR: I want to drill down a little bit on what you both think about the possibility of the Russian dissident movement, if there is such a

thing, and Russian opposition leaders, the possibility of them getting together to be able to effect change.

I’m sure you’ve seen the stories that came out of the — this week’s meeting at the European Council in Brussels, where there was a lot of

disagreement and outright mudslinging, if you like, by certain exiles, again, for instance, Navalny who is in prison there.

Garry, you have long, long, long, played a role in anti-Putin politics. I covered you when you try to run for president against him. And for decades,

or rather for years and years, you and others have been trying to see whether you can build some kind of actual, you know, effective, you know,

opposition. What is the state of it now?

KASPAROV: You can think Russia today as (INAUDIBLE). There is no physical oppositions at the country. Or it does exist, but in jail. Or as Boris

(INAUDIBLE), those who would be killed in Russia. The rest is in exile.

And we mentioned the meeting in Brussels. So, we all took part. So, I was in line. Yevgeni was there physically on the ground in Brussels, with many,

many others, dozens of our friends and colleagues. Yes, there are disagreements, yes, we should not underestimate them. But prior to Brussels

meeting there was a conference in Berlin that worked out conditions for our corporation with European institutions and with other friendly foreign

NGOs.

It’s based on the so-called Berlin declaration that called for Ukraine to win, for war criminals brought to justice, for Russia to pay compensations

for Ukraine for the damages, and for Russian imperial structure to be abolished and Russia to start its way, pay for (ph) road transit to some

sort of loose federation and parliament or republic.

There are many other things in the declaration, but European Union and European parliament accepted the key elements of these declarations as the

basis to work with Russian opposition exile. So, that’s why we’re looking in the future with such optimism. But we’ll understand, nothing will happen

in Russia, nothing will happen with Putin before Ukrainians win the war.

The beginning of liberation of Russia from Putin’s fascism will be marked by Ukrainian flag raised in Sevastopol.

KARA-MURZA: And —

AMANPOUR: Yes. Evgenia — yes, go ahead. Go ahead. Yes.

KARA-MURZA: Well, as the wife of a political prisoner now, I continue Vladimir’s work, speaking on behalf of all those political prisoners in the

Russian Federation and all those oppressed by this regime in the country and forced to leave, fearing persecution.

And according to Memorial, Russia’s most respected NGO, and a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, there are over 500 political prisoners nowadays

in Russia. And according to OVD-Info, an independent media project on political persecution, over 20,000 people have been detained since the

beginning of the full-scale invasion for their protests against the war. And these detentions, these arrests continue on a daily basis, and many

people switch to partisan methods of opposing the regime, fighting the regime.

So, these people, yes, when we think about those 20,000 people detained across the country and the population around 145 million, yes, there maybe

not enough to bring down the regime, but they definitely show that there are many, thousands and thousands and probably millions of people who

reject everything the Putin regime represents, and who just are waiting and trying to look for ways to oppose it in any way they can.

And that Brussels dialogue, I believe, was very productive thing. And I try to maintain my remains of sanity, so I can keep myself away from, you know,

social media, just getting too involved. The Brussels dialogue, itself, those couple of days that we spent talking, discussing, raising important

topics, they were extremely effective and extremely productive.

AMANPOUR: OK.

KARA-MURZA: And we’ve seen many instances of new, young, human rights activists, representative of grassroots movements who work with people in

Russia, on the ground. And we believe that, yes, there is hope, of course, because the only way for Russia to stop being a threat to itself and the

entire world is for it to become a democracy, and we definitely league need to do everything we can to support that part of the Russian population that

understands what’s going on, and that rejects Vladimir Putin’s regime and his war in Ukraine and his policies.

AMANPOUR: Evgenia, you know, sadly, your husband, Vladimir, was arrested last year, sentenced to 25 years in prison on trumped up charges of

treason. It is the longest sentence that the Putin regime has ever handed down. What can you — to a critic like that. What can you tell us about his

condition? Are you able to be in touch?

KARA-MURZA: Well, that 25-year prison sentence is definitely the recognition of the effectiveness of Vladimir’s work. The regime feels that

it needs to lock him up for 25 years, for a quarter of a century, to stop him from working. Well, I will not allow this to happen. I will continue

his work as I — as best I can.

My contacts with Vladimir has been only through his lawyers. And actually, Vladimir had been fighting for over a year to have phone conversations with

his children, no one even mentions me, as much as a foreign nation to them as he is, but with his kids. And twice he was denied.

First time, the refusal came in December of last year. That paper said that would — such conversations would impede the due legal process in the

criminal case against him. A couple of days before a verdict, the second refusal came. It said that Vladimir could not have phone conversations with

his children because his children were living in the United States of America. I think they were trying to insinuate that some state secrets

could leak through the conversations that Vladimir might have with his kids. In a case of high treason based on five public speeches that Vladimir

made on different international forms of can be found online.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

KARA-MURZA: But, today, I was flying to Oslo, and I was up in the air, Vladimir had his first — in over a year, his first conversation — phone

conversation with his kids. And I was not there to even hear his voice, and that breaks my heart, of course, but I’m happy that the kids, at least, got

to talk to their father for 15 minutes.

AMANPOUR: That’s good news, and you are raising them — you have to right now, in the United States. Finally, to you, Garry, again about — you know,

Vladimir wrote about how everyone is being oppressed, those who speak up against the war. And from the OVD-Info, a group that monitors human rights

in Russia, this is what they’ve told the “Financial Times” recently.

Only a minority of Russians are either ardently pro-war or ardently anti- war. The majority languishes in hopelessness and fear. Do you agree with that, and do you think that’s going to be it until the war ends? Do you

think there’s anything that’s going to cause people to protest? I’m not talking about bringing down the government, but showing the government they

want this war to end.

KASPAROV: The answer is, I don’t know, and actually nobody knows, because the percentage of people who are brave enough to answer the questions is

probably under 10 percent. So, 90 percent simply do not respond, for phone calls or somebody knocking their door asking them about the war.

Don’t forget, in Russia you can go — to — you could be sent to jail for a tweet. Two years, Facebook post, I think we had a case of nine years. So,

it’s total fear. But instinctively, I agree with this assessment. I would say that probably 25, 30 percent that is pro-war, maybe half of this number

is against the war, but the majority, sitting on the fence, in fear and waiting for this horror to come to an end.

But if history is any guide (ph), the moment where Russia — Russian people rise against the government is the moment when the war is lost.

AMANPOUR: OK.

KASPAROV: Every lost war, every defeat led to revolt and revolution.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

KASPAROV: So, that’s why let’s wait for Ukrainians and for changes (ph) in Russia to begin.

AMANPOUR: Garry Kasparov and Evgenia Kara-Murza, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us.

And now, we join CNN USA for continuing coverage on Donald Trump’s unprecedented court appearance in Miami. He, as we said, becomes the first

former president to face federal charges and answer to the arraignment for allegedly mishandling classified documents.

END