August 30, 2023

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many of them did stay in, they were advised that even if you think the brunt of this has passed, you’ve got to stay in your house.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, INTERNATIONAL HOST: You’ve been watching CNN’s coverage of the hurricane battering the United States and Florida in

particular. “Amanpour and Company” is up next.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

A massive aerial bombardment here in Kyiv and the largest drone assault on Russia since this war began. We look at the big picture tonight with former

national security council official, Fiona Hill, and the European Union’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell.

Then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: As long as we live in a world with conflicts, with countries like Russia, we need to stand together. One

for all, all for one in NATO.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: — the man charged with holding the line for democracy, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg.

Also —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DREW GILPIN FAUST, AUTHOR: I grew up in an environment where I was constantly interacting with black people, but always in situations of

tremendous inequality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: — “Necessary Trouble,” Walter Isaacson speaks to Harvard’s first female president, Drew Gilpin Faust, about growing up at midcentury,

grappling with race and gender in Jim Crow America.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in Kyiv, Ukraine where Russian forces conducted a massive drone and missile strike at the

crack of dawn here. The largest attack since spring, say officials.

Remarkably, all 28 cruise missiles were intercepted. Two people were killed by falling debris. But perhaps even more striking and significant and

astonishing drone attacks inside Russia. Multiple regions were targeted across almost 1,000 kilometers, including Pskov where drones damaged four

military planes. A senior Ukrainian official says, the war is increasingly moving to Russia’s territory, while not claiming responsibility.

At its core, the defense of Ukraine had been framed by President Biden and allies as defense of democracy around the world, including in Africa, where

today, again, democracy suffered yet another blow as a group of military officers seized power in Gabon in what appears to be the latest in a string

of coups all across the continent.

Tonight, we’ll try to connect the dots and explore what this all means with each of our important guests, including the European Union’s foreign policy

chief, Josep Borrell, and NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.

But first, Fiona Hill, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and senior director on the U.S. National Security Council, a veteran Russia

watcher. Fiona Hill, welcome back to the program.

So, let me start by asking you first, you know, it’s not unusual to see attacks into Kyiv, not unusual to see them intercepted thanks to the

Patriot missiles and others, but this massive attack into Russia is a first. How do you assess what’s happening?

FIONA HILL, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: Well, look, I think, you know, from the Ukrainian point of view and you’re there on the

ground in Kyiv, Christiane, and I’m sure we’ll be talking to people about this. In part, it’s for domestic audiences in Ukraine and also in the

audiences of western allies who are standing by and supporting Ukraine to show that, you know, Ukraine has agency in this war. This is not just a

one-sided conflict in which Russia was relentlessly attacking Ukrainian territory and trying to keep onto — hold onto the territory that it’s

already taken, but the Ukraine has some capability of reminding people in Russia that there is a war, and there is not without consequences in Russia

itself.

I don’t think that the Ukrainians are fully taking the conflict into Russia. They’re also constraints around that in part because, of course,

Ukraine is trying to make the case that it’s defending its own territory. This is not a dispute with Russia over territory or an effort by Ukraine to

expand its gains, this is Ukraine’s effort to bring its territory back by telling Russia and the Russian population that there are costs to

continuing this war. It’s a signal to the Russian population, as well as it is to the domestic population in Kyiv and Ukraine but at large that Ukraine

has the ability to make its presence felt inside of Russia.

AMANPOUR: Yes. It is extraordinary and people here are all talking about it, this incredible range of — apparently these drones. And that even

President Putin’s own spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, called a massive attack. Of course, they frame it as terrorism. So, what do you think, knowing,

obviously, the way they think, operate, et cetera, what do you think this is going to mean to President Putin despite what you say it’s really for

domestic effect here in Ukraine? Do you think it will have any effect on — you know, on the Kremlin and the leadership?

HILL: Well, look, I think one of the reasons that Ukrainians have been so careful about this is because, of course, a lot of these bombardments can

exact opposite effect of what you want to have. I mean, we see, for example, that Russia’s bombardment of Ukraine has in fact strengthened the

resolve of Ukrainians. And, you know, throughout history we’ve seen that aerial bombardments very rarely have effect that the aggressor wants it to

have, which is to, you know, break the spirits of the people who were under aerial attack.

And in the case of, again, Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow, it’s meant more to signal that Ukraine can put certain basically physical objects at

some kind of jeopardy in Russia. But the — you know, the risk is, of course, that the Russians react to this. They rally around Putin and his

accusations and Peskov’s other accusations of terrorism and it has an unfortunate unintended consequence of hardening the attitudes of the

Russians.

I mean, basically, what the Ukrainians are trying to do with this is to also encourage the idea of Russia eventually engaging in some kind of

diplomacy down the line, by basically saying, look, this war is a self- defeating exercise for Russia as well.

I mean, I think, you know, we have to watch this very carefully because, of course, Putin will try to play this to his advantage. And I think, you

know, the Ukrainians themselves are trying to calibrate this accordingly. There are downsides and upsides to doing, you know, this kind of drone

assault on Moscow, Peskov and on other cities within Russia.

AMANPOUR: And also, as we discussed on our program last night, a very daring attack on to military targets inside Crimea. That was, you know, a

few weeks ago. But look, let me ask you because you raised the issue there of potential peace negotiations down the line. We’re in the midst of a

counteroffensive. Russia has adapted very, very importantly to Ukraine’s innovative use of drones, but also it has really dug in and its defenses,

apparently, are incredibly, you know, effective.

Do you see and when would you look for any sign that there might be a shift towards any kind of negotiation?

HILL: Well, look, it has to be a diplomatic effort first. And you have coming on to the program Josep Borrell and also Secretary General

Stoltenberg. And, you know, I think, you know, parts of the whole process here is preparing a diplomatic framework for something eventual and putting

Ukraine in the best possible diplomatic position.

I don’t think we can talk about an actual negotiation at this stage. You know, you and I have talked about this before, diplomacy is often conflated

with that. But basically, we have to have a lot of diplomatic support for Ukraine as well as for Ukraine’s position. So, there’s a dual track that’s

going on here, and I think that Secretary General Stoltenberg has been talking about this. I also know that the high representative Borrell of

E.U., they’re all thinking about this, how do you strengthen Ukraine’s diplomatic position, not just Ukraine’s position on the battlefield?

We’ve seen President Zelenskyy meeting with the African Union, going to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, going to Copenhagen in Denmark, you know, for

example. There is a big diplomatic effort of foot here to basically make it very clear that Ukraine sovereignty and independence and territorial

integrity has to be the starting point that anything we might ultimately do down the line in the negotiation. So, we’re trying to strengthen Ukraine’s

position on every frontier.

AMANPOUR: And you’re right, we will further explore that with Josep Borrell in a second. But can I ask you, because, you know, you’re obviously so well

familiar with the U.S. national security and the diplomatic process from there. It is the U.S. that essentially leads, obviously along with the

European Union and NATO, but the U.S. essentially leads — and I’ve been led to understand that governments around the world are waiting and take

their lead from the U.S.

So, what do you think after a year and a half will be the position of the United States in the next few months, in the next year, if the parties

change in the next election?

HILL: Well, look, it’s not just will they change in the next election, but just the — which I think you’re already hinting out and talking about

here, which is the presidential campaign. We’ve already seen from the Republican Party debate that this has become an issue about support for

Ukraine, it’s become a party’s issue in some respects, but it’s become, you know, something that’s being kind of kicked about in U.S. domestic

politics. It needs to be taken out of that context.

And I would just basically say, as you move on to talk to Mr. Borrell and Mr. Stoltenberg that other institution and mechanisms and other players

have to step up here and to also take on a lot of responsibility for pushing forward on the diplomatic front, as well as thinking about

Ukraine’s security.

This cannot be left to be the domestic political issue of any particular country. U.S. leadership is important. The current administration showing

leadership. There’s plenty of other leadership within Congress and the Senate. I know the support for Ukraine and its position here in the United

States, it’s not just an issue of debate within the Republican primary system at the moment, but we have to step up (INAUDIBLE). It can’t be just

left to the vagaries of the U.S. politics, to be frank.

So, we do need to see more action by the European Union, by NATO and by other players, Japan, South Korea, Australia, you know, G7, you know, for

example. There are other interested parties here and we need to have a full force diplomatic effort, including the United Nations as well. The

secretary general of the United Nations has also played a key role here. There are other players in the mix.

AMANPOUR: Let’s go back to Moscow. There are reports today that there are, you know, a fall in the ruble, rising prices, sanctions may be biting maybe

more than they did, and Putin has to deal with this. How do you think this is going to affect him? Do you see any threat on that level, the economic

level?

HILL: Well, not in the immediate term, no. So, look, we’re talking about a long-term play here. I can’t say what that long-term will be, but it’s over

the course of the next year, of course, because we often think in short- term about this week, next week, you know, for example.

There are all kinds of effects on the Russian economy, on Russian politics. We’ve seen all the episodes with Mr. Prigozhin, you know, for example, and

his, you know, horrific death, which is, you know, meant to also frame, you know, people’s thinking about this war inside of Russia and doubling down

on the conflict. But what we’ve got to really see here is a constraining of Russian’s options to keep continuing this.

The economy is one part of this. But again, diplomacy is pretty critical and getting that message out to Russia that other countries will not always

be providing lifelines and to cause of that conflict. So, again, we have to have a big effort to work with our partners in the African Union, in the

United Nations and to basically demonstrate, just as the fluctuations in the ruble are demonstrating, is that although, you know, Russia can

basically keep this war going for some time, it can’t keep doing it endlessly. And eventually, we’re going to have to come to some point where

Russia, Putin and the whole system, you know, decides what they’re going to do next beyond the battlefield.

AMANPOUR: And, Fiona Hilla, you mentioned the African Union, while there are a lot of African countries that have, you know, suffered coups,

military coups, I mean, just a few in the last few weeks. And today, the latest is in Gabon, this after Niger, after the collapse of Sudan, you

know, and on and on it goes.

How much is that going to complicate what you’re calling for, which is even African countries coming together in a, you know, global diplomatic effort

on — you know, to try to resolve this issue here?

HILL: Well, I think what this really gets down to is, what are we going to do as consequence of the war in Ukraine in other settings? And, you know,

many African colleagues and heads of countries and representatives here in the United States, Europe elsewhere, saying, what are you going to do for

us? How are you going to basically make a substantive change in the way that you conduct international affairs in the wake or in the course of this

war in Ukraine that will bring benefit to everyone else as well?

You know, right now, we have Putin taking initiative there, we’ve had the Wagner Group, we’ve had the paramilitary formations involving themselves in

Africa. Putin, Lavrov and other critical Russian players saying, look, we can make deals with you on wheat and grain and food and armaments, you

know, for example.

You know, we in the west, the collective West, including the United States and Europe and the NATO context and other players, have to also show that

we are seriously committed to full-on assistance to our counterparts in Africa and elsewhere in terms of sustainable development goals and also

tackling the kinds of problems, as you rightly point out, Christiane, that they are dealing with.

We can’t make this look as if we’re just interested in solving our own problems. We have to find a portal in which we extend the way we’re looking

at things through the conflict in Ukraine to then look for mechanisms that we can apply in other cases as well and work actively with other actors

like the African Union in finding a way forward. We have to be open to talking about other people’s problems not just our own.

AMANPOUR: Can I just read you something about Wagner and Prigozhin that was written in the F.T. Basically it says, Wagner became, in little more than

five years, a crucial plank in Russian power projection in Africa. The group launched election interference schemes, misinformation campaigns,

military activities while offering plausible deniability for the Kremlin when anything went awry. Wherever there was chaos to sow or anti-Western

sentiment to exploit, Prigozhin and his band of retired soldiers and ex- convicts were often found during the Kremlin’s bidding in countries across the continent.

So, Prigozhin is gone. We don’t know what’s going to happen to Wagner and whether it still going to have that role. But do you think, first about

Putin, that these sort of — the memorials, the popularity of Prigozhin is significant enough that it causes some kind of problem for Putin?

HILL: Well, look, it might cause some problems domestically. I’m not sure that it will in Africa. I mean, the role of the Wagner Group and other

paramilitaries there was propping up, you know, individual — individuals actually, sometimes in Africa but also individual regimes. It wasn’t really

doing something for the people, writ large. And you know, we know from a lot of the people that looked at this very closely, there’s been quite a

bit of popular backlash against Wagner and the kind of activities that they’ve also been associated with atrocities as well as kind of looting,

you know, on something of a significant scale in African countries.

On the domestic front, you know, I think that there is some risk there. We’ve seen, as you said, the memorials, they have to basically have

Prigozhin buried and in almost a clandestine quiet fashion, keeping people away from commemorating his burial.

I suspect, you know, sadly, that there’s going to be more cleaning up. You know, euphemistically put inside of the Russian system if the kind of

memory of Prigozhin or the idea of him as a martyr and as a fallen hero really get some traction and create some backlash.

So, y es, I think Putin is going to have to be mindful in the domestic setting that there may still be, you know, some people who are willing to

step up in the memory of Prigozhin. You’ve seen this in Russian history before as a kind of a folk hero personality that, you know, absolutely

leads to more insurgencies and uprisings. There is some risk there. I wouldn’t say it’s an enormous risk, but I think it’s something that Putin

and the people around him in the Kremlin are going to be very mindful of.

AMANPOUR: Fiona Hill, thank you so much.

And next, we do turn to Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. And he’s joining me

now from Toleda in Spain, where he’s meeting with E.U. defense and foreign ministers and with senior Ukraine officials. Josep Borrell, welcome to the

program.

Can I start by asking you then what you have come up with in your meetings with the senior European and, indeed, Ukraine officials regarding next

steps here in Ukraine for support of this war effort?

JOSEP BORRELL, E.U. HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Well, thank you. This was an informal meeting. You know, informal meeting (INAUDIBLE),

just a broad discussion about the situation, first in Ukraine, second in Africa.

But the main issue about Ukraine was how to continue supporting Ukraine, literally, politically, economically, diplomatically. And on the table,

there are, first, the continuation and increasing of our military training mission that has already trained 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers, and it will

continue until reaching the figure of 40,000 by the end of the year.

I proposed to my colleagues — and the discussion will continue, but my proposal is to create Ukrainian defense fund with an important amount of

money, but that the — it has to be taken by the ministers yet. And third, to provide ammunition to Ukraine, 155 millimeters. Because we have provided

a lot of guns, but the gun doesn’t work if it has no ammunition. And we have the commitment of giving to Ukraine 1 million of this kind of

ammunition in order to continue the fight.

AMANPOUR: Yes. So, can I read something? Because you recently voiced some criticism of your western colleagues, the pace of support for Ukraine. And

in Santander, Spain last week, you said, had decisions been taken faster and with more anticipation on some of the weapon systems which we ended up

sending, probably the war would have taken a different path. And in any case, we would have saved lives.

Obviously, I hear this all the time here in Ukraine from ordinary men and women who are on the front and from their officials. Tell me a little bit

more about that, given where we are in the counteroffensive.

BORRELL: Yes, we have been discussing a lot about it. You know, we have done a lot, but for sure, you can always do more and quicker. And this is

the reflection that in which we are engaged today, you have to do more and quicker. But keeping in mind that what European Union has done to support

Ukraine was something that it was inconceivable a month before the war. We had breaking a lot of the rules.

Yes. Certainly, we have been discussing a lot here in Europe and also in Washington about, do we have to provide tanks, do we have to provide anti-

air defense, do we have to provide fighters? And the discussion has taken, in some cases, from my point of view, a certain time. But the decision has

been taken, the tanks have been provided and the ammunition is coming.

So, yes, we have to continue supporting Ukraine and trying to do it quicker and better. But we should not dismiss the incredible effort that the

European Union and the member states has done to support Ukraine. About 75 million euros have already been allocated to Ukraine. 75 million euros. 75

million euros. 75 billions.

AMANPOUR: Yes, billion. Yes. Indeed. So, listen, that’s absolutely correctly. But again, I take your point that there’s been hesitation and

some slowness on very key military systems that they need. And I ask about it because you also — and you heard Fiona Hill say there has to be some

kind of stepping up in order to prepare the ground for diplomacy.

So, I want to ask you whether you think the ground is prepared enough for Ukraine to be able to come to the table? And if so, what are the next steps

from your point of view?

BORRELL: Look, it will depend very much on how things are going on the ground. Today, Russia has continued bombing civilian targets and killing

civilians. It’s difficult to believe that these negotiations can take place on this situation.

Yesterday, I was in the Satellite Center here in Madrid and I could so see satellite images on three dimensions of how Ukrainian cities has been

destroyed. And it was a landscape for the second World War II, you know. It looked like the German cities and the European cities being bombed

massively during the Second World War.

This country is being destroyed and Russia continues the war. So, yes, we have to prepare and to work on looking for peace. But this peace has to be

a just peace. Recognize it that there is an aggressor and an arrest. And the aggressor has to withdraw their troops, Ukraine has to recovery its

sovereignty and territorial integrity. And the aggressor has to pay for the consequences with the aggression.

Do you think that it is possible now with the rockets falling in Kyiv and people dying in the streets of Ukrainian cities? No, I don’t think so. But

we have to continue working and the Jeddah process, what you said, and Ukrainian elite process was a good step forward, because more than 40

people went. And I think this kind of meetings increases the support of Ukrainian and prepares the ground for the future high-level conference to

work for peace. But today, what’s happening in the ground, trying to expect don’t seem possible.

AMANPOUR: And let me ask you a question about Africa, obviously, because you’re very involved as the E.U., you know, foreign policy chief. Today,

another coup. There’s been nine in the last several years, the last three years. And obviously, this is a real worry, presumably, for this fight for

democracy. I mean, these military coups in all these countries.

You’ve said the one in Gabon caught you all surprise, I assume it did in Niger and elsewhere. But what can you do about it? I don’t mean — I mean,

I don’t know about reversing it, but somehow shoring up the possibility that democracy can reemerge doesn’t look hopeful.

BORRELL: Look, let me say one thing first. The situation in Niger and Gabon are not at all equivalent. In Niger, the president was a democratically

elected president. In Gabon, hours before the military coup, it was an institutional coup, because the elections were stolen, because the election

had so many pitfalls that it was also seizing the power illegitimate. And no military coup is a solution, but no military coup is equal to the other.

And it has to be judged according with the circumstances.

I cannot say that Gabon was a full democracy with a family ruling the country for the last 50 years.

AMANPOUR: OK. But, I mean, is a military coup the way to go? And you’ve seen what’s happened — OK. Niger maybe difference, but what about Sudan?

BORRELL: I said no. I said no. I said no military coup is a solution. The solution goes through building and democratically functional political

system, inclusiveness, human retrospective, the whole process. But I want to make the difference, because I want to repeat that, before the military

coup, it had been another coup, an institutional coup nobody talks about it. But when you talk power —

AMANPOUR: OK.

BORRELL: — by altering elections, this is a coup also.

AMANPOUR: So, very quickly, what can — what does the E.U. need to do now to mitigate the instability there? What are you planning to do?

BORRELL: African solution for African problems. I think that’s a moment for the African region and institutions and the African Union to take the lead.

And this is an African problem that has to be solved by the Africans. We will support and we have said, we will support the effort of the ECOWAS.

How we will consider, consider, the request that we could receive in order to support the ECOWAS on what they want to do. They have to take in

decisions about sanctions. We will do the same thing, taking into account the humanitarian consequences of the sanctions. I think that some kind of

humanitarian exemption has to be taken in order to avoid humanitarian crisis in Niger.

But, you know, we Europeans, we cannot intervene and solve the country, this kind of problem. And by the way, you would have to rethink the whole

Sahara (ph) or African policy that we have been developing in the last 10 years.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

BORRELL: (INAUDIBLE) —

AMANPOUR: It’s a conundrum. I’ll have to come back to you on this, Mr. High Representative, because we’ve run out of time. Thank you so much to be —

for being with us.

Now, as secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg is charged with trying to hold the military alliance together in the face of Russian aggression

and other threats to global democracy. We talked earlier about all of that when I spoke to him from NATO headquarters in Brussels.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Secretary General, welcome back to our program.

STOLTENBERG: Thank you so much for having me, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So, look, we are here in Kyiv, we are watching and listening to the authorities talking about gaining in the south in the Zaporizhzhia

region, Robotyne, et cetera. And yet, there’s a discussion about whether this counteroffensive is going quick enough? Is enough being achieved? Can

I understand from your perspective, as NATO of secretary general, how do you assess what’s happening on the ground?

STOLTENBERG: The Ukrainians are gradually gaining ground. Meaning, that there are pushing back the Russians. They are able to get through some of

these heavily defended territories, at least, mine fields. And therefore, it is just even more important to support them. Because we all know that

this is fierce fighting, it’s a tough fight, and it’s not easy way for the Ukrainians, but they are making achievements. They’re gaining ground.

AMANPOUR: So, what are you hearing from your, you know, member nations, because there’s a lot of talk that NATO, the U.S., allies, want to see

Ukraine conducting slightly different maneuvers, in other words, throwing everything and pushing all the way to the south. Are you hearing that kind

of grumbling in capitals?

STOLTENBERG: There’s a constant dialogue going on between the NATO allies and, of course also, a dialogue with Ukraine, and NATO allies are

delivering unprecedented level of military support, so training and allies also advising. But at the end of the day, it has to be the Ukrainians,

their commanders on the battlefield that are making those difficult and tough decisions.

Once we have seen is that Ukrainians have exceeded expectations again and again. We have to remember where the whole thing started, last year, with

the full-fledged invasion by Russia into Ukraine. Then experts believed that Ukraine will only last few days or a few weeks. Now, they have

liberated the north around Kyiv, the east and on Kharkiv and also territory in the south, Kherson. And now, they’re making even more gains. So, we need

to trust them. We advise, we help, we support. But at the end of the day, this is the Ukrainians that has to make those decisions?

AMANPOUR: So, look, I’ve talked to soldiers, including those who are wounded and are being rehabilitated in various recovery centers, I’ve heard

also from commanders, we can see the reports, and they say they’re very grateful, obviously, for everything that they’ve got. But for instance,

General Zaluzhny, who is the war-time battlefield commander, has said, no army would be able to push so rapidly and so intensely on the ground

without first having air superiority or even air supremacy. And they do not have it.

Do you believe that they — you know, are they going to get it in time? We understand the F-16s from Norway, from Denmark, from the Netherlands may be

coming but not in time for this offensive, this counteroffensive.

STOLTENBERG: NATO allies have delivered a lot of capabilities that also helped them to control their air space. Advanced air defense systems, which

have proven extremely effective because the Ukrainians are very skillful in operating these systems, but also drones and also long-range cruise

missiles.

Then I welcome the decision by several NATO allies, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, to deliver F-16s and also the United States and

others to make that possible and to start training. This will take some time, but it demonstrates the commitment of, at least, European allies to

also go alongside the U.S. in providing military support to Ukraine and also support that will have an enduring and lasting impact on the

battlefield, but will take some months before the planes and the pilots can operate over the air space in Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you to just reflect back on the latest NATO summit that was held in Vilnius in July? You were there, so you know, President

Zelenskyy was really out of sorts. I mean, he was very upset not to be given a concrete invitation or even a date or even a parameter by which he

might be able to join NATO. And he was very, very blunt about it. Were you surprised?

STOLTENBERG: Well, I think we have to see what President Zelenskyy said at the end of the summit. We were together there. And he praised NATO. He

thanked for the enormous support NATO and NATO allies are delivering. And we made decisions at the summit in Vilnius, which are historic, at least,

when it comes to the path forward for Ukraine to join the alliance. Ukraine has never been closer to NATO membership than now after the summit in

Vilnius.

First of all, because we agreed that we turn to the process for Ukraine to join from a two-step process to a one-step process by removing something

called a requirement for Membership Action Plan. We strengthened their political relationship by establishing the NATO-Ukraine Council, which is

actually decision-making (INAUDIBLE). This council already met addressing the situation in the Black Sea. And then, we also agree the package of

millions of U.S. dollars to help them improve their interoperability to establish full interoperability between Ukrainian forces and NATO forces,

and this also moves Ukraine closer to membership.

So, at that end of the summit, I think we recognize, also Ukraine, that this was historic and that we made important decisions, and President

Zelenskyy also recognized that.

AMANPOUR: He said this week that he hopes that NATO, the U.S. will designate Ukraine a major non-NATO ally, a little bit like Israel. In other

words, that’s not part of NATO but it gets unprecedented military — certainly from the United States, military, financial, intelligence help.

Do you see that happening for Ukraine?

STOLTENBERG: In one way, it has already happened. Ukraine is in unique position towards in the relationship with NATO. All the support, all the

advice, all the sharing of information we do with Ukraine is unprecedented.

AMANPOUR: And finally, obviously, Finland has been cleared to join NATO. Turkey, President Erdogan dropped his opposition to Sweden joining. Do you

think it will happen? Apparently, it’s got to be ratified by their parliament. Are you convinced that it will happen? I think they gave you

assurances. And is Sweden in NATO kind of your swan song? You’ve been extended for an unprecedented 10th year as secretary general. What more is

there to accomplish for you?

STOLTENBERG: So, first of all, I welcome the fact that we agreed and President Erdogan announced that the summit in July, NATO summit in July,

that Sweden will become a member as soon as possible. Meaning, that the day will finalize the ratification process in the Turkish parliament as soon as

possible. And I expect that to happen shortly after the Turkish parliament convenes again later this fall.

To have Sweden as a full member of NATO, together with Finland, will strengthen NATO. It will be good for the Nordic region, for the whole of

NATO. It will also send — it is sending a very clear message to Moscow that when President Putin tried to close NATO’s door, he achieved the

opposite. He demonstrated that NATO’s door is open, that we allow new members to join the alliance. He wanted less NATO. He’s getting more NATO

in Europe. The exact opposite of what he wanted.

Then as a Norwegian, of course, it’s a good thing to see our Nordic neighbors joining NATO, but there are many, many challenges ahead for NATO,

because as long as we live in a world with conflicts, with countries like Russia, we need to stand together. One for all, all for one in NATO.

AMANPOUR: You slightly swerved. Is this last year really your last extension?

STOLTENBERG: Yes, this is my last extension. It’s a privilege to serve as secretary general of NATO and it’s extremely meaningful, especially now

when there’s a full fledge war in Europe. We need to mobilize our solidarity. We need to stand together. And at least, we need Europe and

North America to stand together. And to be secretary general, to help that happen, has really been a great, great privilege.

And I think it’s important message that, yes, the United States is delivering a lot of support to Ukraine, but European allies are also

delivering billions of billions of U.S. dollars, euros in support for Ukraine and also with training and very advanced equipment, the F-16 is the

last example. So, to be a secretary general that keep this big alliance together, that has been extremely meaningful.

AMANPOUR: On that note, thank you for much for being with us.

STOLTENBERG: Thanks so much for having me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And as we said, we conducted that interview earlier before the overnight strikes on Kyiv, and certainly, those we believe Ukraine

conducted against Russia.

Now, our next guest is a trailblazer who served as the first female president of Harvard University. In her new memoir, Drew Gilpin Faust,

shares her experience grappling with race and gender in the Jim Crow era. She joins Walter Isaacson to discuss her life and the Supreme Court’s

decision to overturn affirmative action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. Drew Faust, welcome back to the show.

FAUST, AUTHOR: Thank you, Walter. It’s great to be here.

ISAACSON: In this wonderful memoir, you described growing up in the ’50s, in this very privileged, but not excessively wealthy rural county in

Virginia. Describe it to me.

FAUST: It was a county in the Shenandoah Valley. It had originally been settled, interestingly, by the kind of younger sons of tide water gentry in

the 18th century, the younger sons who couldn’t find the appropriate property and the tide water carters and boroughs and so forth moved up to

this county. So, it had certain aspirations of gentility, long enshrined in the history of the county.

It was about 20 percent black. So, I grew up in an environment where I was constantly interacting with black people, but always in situations of

tremendous inequality. They were the farm workers, the maids, the people who worked in white households. So, I did grow up in a world that was

southern, even though it was not all that far, it was about 60 miles west of Washington, D.C. It’s now become something of a kind of exurban

Washington community, not really a commuting community but just one step beyond that.

But in my day, it took forever with the roads that were in existence to get to Washington. So, we didn’t feel that we were part of kind of orbit around

Washington. We were a rural community of farms and a little tiny village that had about 200 people in it named Millwood and another little tiny

village in the county named Voice (ph) and then, all these farms and fields around them.

ISAACSON: You write about your epiphany on race being intertwined with one about gender and being a girl and a family of boys. Your father, Mr.

Gilpin, you know, was a military and so was a lot of the family. Tell me about when you first made the connection between what you saw as gender

discrimination and racial discrimination.

FAUST: I think that connection came along with the epiphany when I felt that unfairness expressed itself in a variety of forms, different but

analogous. And when I was growing up, I was made so clearly aware that, as my mother put it to me, it’s a man’s world, sweety, and the sooner you

figure that out, the happier you’ll be.

So, the kinds of constraints that I faced were obviously very different from the kinds of constraints that black residents of my county

experienced. But I felt that we were similarly marginalized or similarly pushed aside in the centrality of white men in that society, and the

openness that white men had to opportunities and freedom of choice and so forth, that I would not have.

I was expected to be a lady. I was not expected to work outside the home. I was expected to marry and have children and to learn to behave in certain

decorous ways that were completely at odds with my spirit. I was not particularly well behaved in those dimensions.

ISAACSON: Nowadays, we have this sort of nostalgia about the ’50s and even as reflected in our make America great again type politics. We need to go

back to those values. Your memoir is both an antidote to that false nostalgia about the ’50s, yes, and in some ways it’s also a pay into some

of the things that happened in the ’50s and ’60s. Explain that duality to me.

FAUST: I wanted to offer a portrait of the ’50s that was more complete than I feel most people younger than I understand. And a lot of what I wanted to

show was just how awful the ’50s were, the extent of constraints on African-Americans, on women, on everybody really, as the rules were so

ridged in terms of family life and expectations of young people in particular.

And I also wanted to portray some of the other things about the ’50s that seem just unimaginable now. I went through Life magazine for the ’50s, read

it cover to cover and was so astonished to see some of the products being advertised that I remember, haven’t (ph) existed for years and years. But

you see things in Life magazine like food, what people ate. And, for example, advertisements saying, put 7Up in your baby’s bottle and the baby

will drink it faster, or a picture of a woman smoking while she’s delivering her child. Things that are so beyond any possible occurrence in

our world today.

So, the ’50s are a foreign country in so many ways. And I think the nostalgia for them is misplaced because it does not take into account of

how constrained everyone’s lives — life was under this regime of expectation.

But it also is a time when young people are beginning to challenge that and to see the misrepresentations of the lives that they are expected to lead.

And so, the ’60s, as they’re commonly known as a time of rebellion and a time of change, begin, in my mind, in the 1950s and I try to show that in

my book.

ISAACSON: What I — you know, have nostalgic feelings about the ’50s, I think of the civility that happened back then and the politeness that

happened then. But then a phrase in your book popped out at me, which was that you write that, prejudice was hidden beneath a surface of politeness

and civility. Peel that onion back for me.

FAUST: Well, the civility that was a part of interactions in my experience in Virginia was one that it was a veneer. For example, if civility is a

mask for unfairness or subordination, how deep is that civility? And in much of the south, less on Virginia, Virginia tried to operate its racial

prejudice through what it called the Virginia way, which was to try to extract consent and submission from black Virginians, rather than have

direct confrontation.

But of course, in much of the south, lynching (ph) still continued in these years, violence was a part of interactions in southern society. And so,

that civility had its limits and it existed in parts of society that were privileged enough to afford to seeing civil, except when they needed not

to.

ISAACSON: Here’s another sentence from your book, nearly a century after Appomattox, Virginia was still breathing the air of war and defeat. And it

really ties into when you were growing up, when I was growing up, we Lee Circle, you had monuments of Robert E. Lee. It was all Robert E Lee and

that lost cause. What do you feel now when people are trying to change the way we teach history back to almost this notion of the lost cause, we’re

seeing all sorts of history curriculums being attacked?

FAUST: It’s terrible, Walter. It’s terrible because we’ve spent half a century trying to get to a better truer notion of our history. And my

career as a historian has paralleled those years of exploring African- American history, finding the sources that will show us a more complete view of what that era was like. Understanding what Lee was like as a slave

holder, for example, and that’s part of it too. And to just erase all of that and say, it never happened, it didn’t exist, and we’re going to go

back into this rosy view of our past, that leaves us ill-equipped to understand the present.

We have to confront that history, to see who we are now. Because who we are now is about where we come from. And if we deny where we’ve come from, we

mislead ourselves and end up undertaking actions and policies that are destructive rather than constructive in getting the United States to a more

perfect union at a better place.

ISAACSON: You write about that March of 1965, spring of 1965, the civil rights marches that ended and what became known as Bloody Sunday. And your

book really has a turn there where you decide you’ve got to go, and you go down there. Describe that.

FAUST: I was in college at the time. And I had been involved in the south, the summer before. So, I had gotten to know a lot of young people who —

African-Americans who were involved in the movement. And so, what I was seeing on television seemed very real and personal to me. Not that the

individuals I knew were on television but I knew people so like them, and it felt very immediate to me.

So, when I saw the videos of Bloody Sunday, of John Lewis and others being hit on the head and knocked to the ground and tear gassed because they

wanted to go across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and march for voting rights, I just felt it was a moral challenge to me as a person that when you see this

and do nothing, you somehow degrade your own humanity.

So, it was, of course, about the rights that I wanted African-Americans to have. But it was also a question for me of who I am and who I would be. And

so, I went and brought a car, together with my boyfriend, and we drove down to Selma and we marched the — with the next march. There was a follow-up

march. And so, we joined that. And I skipped various obligations in college, including a big, big paper for freshmen that was kind of a cap

stone for the freshman year, and I just wrote some nonsense and left it for a friend to type and left for Selma.

I had one wonderful professor, a sociology professor I went to see and said I’m going to cut your midterm. And he was very paternal. He was very

concerned. He said, do your parents know about this? I sort of said, are you kidding? Of course not. He said, I want you to call me every 24 hours

while you’re down there so I know whether to send in the cavalry. And I said, what does that mean? And he said, I don’t know, but call me. So, he

was aware of what I was doing. And when I came back, my paper had indeed been a disaster.

ISAACSON: Your paper, you say in the book, was on Kamoo (ph) —

FAUST: Yes, it was.

ISAACSON: — a bunch of lessons you could have had for that trip.

FAUST: So, when I came back and got these terrible comments on the paper from my professor saying, well, you may have made the right decision to go

to Selma but it had disastrous consequences for this paper. I sort of felt proud. I thought, Kamoo (ph) would approve. He would have much rather have

bad paper written by someone who went to Selma than a good paper written by someone who stayed home.

ISAACSON: The marches in Selma, of course, led by John Lewis. You ended up getting to know him pretty well. I think you probably gave him an honorary

degree when you were president of Harvard or something. And the title of your book, “Necessary Trouble,” comes right from him. Tell me about your

relationship with John Lewis and why you chose that title.

FAUST: I got to know John Lewis when I was president of Harvard. And he got involved in a number of activities with me and with Harvard. Possibly the

most notable was when he came to dedicate the plaque that we put up on our 18th century building where African-American enslaved people had worked for

Harvard presidents. And it was the kind of first significant step in Harvard’s movement towards acknowledging its past with slavery.

And he came again when I was — my last commencement. He was the commencement speaker. And he got up at the commencement and — in the —

you know, his opening words when you thank people. He turned to me and he said, thank you for making necessary trouble. And when I was thinking about

this book and what to call it, I thought, those words are perfect encapsulation of what I talk about in this book, which is, I just had to

burst out of what was expected of me as a young woman and segregated Virginia.

And I had to make necessary trouble to survive. And so, I thought it would be an ideal title for the book. But I asked him if it would be OK if I

called the book that, and he, of course, being the gracious person that he is, said he would be honored. So, I fell as if I had his blessing in

choosing this title. But it was also to pan to him, it’s to honor him, but it also so perfectly captures how I see the years that I chronicle in the

book.

ISAACSON: You’re a beneficiary of affirmative action. I think you probably got your University of Pennsylvania tenured professorship early on partly

because of affirmative action, bringing more women into the faculty. Is that right? And how does that shape your view on what’s happening now to

affirmative action?

FAUST: I was a graduate student at Penn between 1970 and 1975, and that was an era in which affirmative action was really first being implemented. So,

between the time that I entered, and I had not one female professor while I was in graduate school. And the time I left, in ’75, with my degree, there

were widespread efforts at Penn to increase the numbers of women on the faculty.

And so, when I was eligible for a job, my department, which was the Department of American Civilization, was told they could have an additional

line, an additional position if they hired a woman. And so, they hired me. And that enabled me to start my academic career and to spend 25 years, very

happy productive years on the Penn faculty. So, I’m very much a product of affirmative action.

I don’t think that’s the only reason that I support affirmative action, but I have seen throughout my time on both the Penn faculty and the Harvard

faculty a transformation in the makeup of university communities and a diversification of student bodies and faculty that has important social

justice implications but important educational implications as well. Because we’ve learned so much more if we have a variety of people around us

and not just a homogenous group reenforcing its own understandings and its own experiences.

And so, I believe that universities are much richer environments in their intellectual capacity and what they teach individuals about how to lead a

life and what they enable us to contribute to American society and the world because of affirmative action. So, we were active in fighting against

the lawsuit, the SSFA lawsuit, that just resulted in the Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action.

While I was president at Harvard, our opposition to that case, that suit began, and we mounted our defenses and I testified in the court, the lower

court trial, and I attended the oral arguments a year ago, October, on Halloween last year, at the Supreme Court.

I was expecting the decision that came down, but it just felt like a gut punch nonetheless. I worry a lot about how we can continue this progress

that we’ve seen since the time I was in graduate school and I worry that we will lose both the educational contributions that affirmative action has

made by bringing so many outstanding individuals into our communities and also, I worry about what it means about us as a nation in the kind of fair

chance and openness we give to a diverse group of applicants, especially given the inheritance that we’ve been talking about, the legacies of

discrimination and slavery that still persist in our society.

ISAACSON: Thank you so much for being with us, Drew Gilpin Faust.

FAUST: Thank you, Walter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And that’s it for now. Thanks for watching from Kyiv and goodnight. See you tomorrow.