Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: So you have been watching a wrap-up of President Biden’s attendance at this emergency NATO summit.
We will have many more details on AMANPOUR, which is up next.
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL: President Putin has made a big mistake.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Allies demonstrate their unity exactly one month after Russia invades Ukraine. As President Joe Biden joins an emergency
NATO meeting in Brussels, the NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, joins me on what weapons they’re providing Ukraine and what warnings
they’re giving Russia over WMD.
And:
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: For a naturalized citizen to have the opportunity to represent this amazing country abroad
and to be a part of history is unbelievably moving.
AMANPOUR: Remembering a titan on the international stage, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton how Madeleine Albright blazed a trail for her and
other women at the pinnacle of power.
Plus:
RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL: There is still an active war going on between Russia and Ukraine in cyberspace.
AMANPOUR: As President Biden pushes for greater cybersecurity, Walter Isaacson speaks to Richard Clarke, a top security adviser to three U.S.
presidents.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in Brussels on a day of intense activity at the emergency NATO summit.
President Joe Biden joined the 29 other leaders projecting ongoing unity against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And Biden said they had three main
goals which they are meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today marks one month since Russia began its carnage in Ukraine, the brutal invasion of Ukraine.
And we held a NATO summit the very next day. At that time, my overwhelming objective in wanting that summit was to have absolute unity on three key
important issues among our NATO and European allies. First was to support Ukraine with military and humanitarian assistance.
Second was to impose the most significant, most significant sanctions, economic sanction regime ever, in order to cripple Putin’s economy and
punish him for his actions. Third was to fortify the eastern flank of our NATO allies, who were obviously very, very concerned and somewhat at —
worried what would happen.
We accomplished all three of these. And, today, we’re determined to sustain those efforts and to build on them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, world leaders also issued a statement warning against any threat of the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or related
materials.
President Biden pledged another billion dollars in humanitarian assistance for people who’ve been impacted, and he says the United States will take up
to 100,000 of those who are fleeing the war.
Meantime, NATO says that it’s beefing up its posture to deal with this war and any future aggression, and it plans to reinforce its WMD defenses.
So, with more details, my first guest tonight is the NATO secretary- general, Jens Stoltenberg.
Welcome to the program.
So, this has been quite the exciting day. You have had a huge summit. President Biden has just left, a lot of activity going on. Is what you
decided here what you were going in hoping for? What did you really want to come out with?
STOLTENBERG: I wanted actually the very strong message that is coming from this summit, of unity, of support to Ukraine, of the importance of
strengthening the defense — the defense of the alliance, especially this important alliance.
And then, of course, that we need to put maximum pressure on Russia to end this senseless war.
AMANPOUR: So, a lot of people are very concerned. And I had an interview with President Putin’s spokesman and he talked about the nuclear option in
certain instances. And we have just said that you have discussed this.
And President Biden said the nature of the response by NATO would depend on the nature of the use, if there was a use of any kind of prohibited
weapons. Can you give us any more insight into where the line in the sand is, what you would do?
STOLTENBERG: First of all, I’m very careful about speculating, because we are in a very dangerous situation. And if you start to speculate, you only
add to the uncertainty.
What is clear is that any attack on a NATO country would trigger the full response from the whole alliance. That’s the core responsibility of NATO.
It’s one for all, all for one. That’s Article 5.
And to make sure that there is no room for misunderstanding or miscalculation in Moscow about that commitment, we have significantly
increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance, not least with U.S. troops. There are more U.S. troops in Europe now than have been for
many, many years. But, also, European allies are stepping up.
AMANPOUR: So you said that you had to reposture NATO, right, reposition it for the future.
And there’s — I think there’s something like 40,000 NATO troops around right now. What are you looking at for the future with these additional
formations that you have talked about, and where?
STOLTENBERG: These 40,000 troops under direct NATO command, together with 100,000 U.S. troops and other troops, they are part of imminent response to
the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
But we are now faced with a new reality. This will be with us for a long time, the consequences of this war. There is a new normal. And, therefore,
the leaders today tasked the NATO commanders to put forward options for more longer-term adaptation, a resettled NATO deterrence and defense.
That’s about more troops, but also more air capabilities and naval capabilities, to make sure that we provide credible deterrence also in the
future.
AMANPOUR: And where? What countries?
STOLTENBERG: Across the alliance, but mainly in the eastern part of the alliance.
This is partly about presence, but also partly about the ability to reinforce quickly if needed.
AMANPOUR: And do you think that’s going to tick Putin off more than he is right now?
STOLTENBERG: I think it will send a very clear message to Putin that he gets the opposite of what he wants. He wanted less NATO at his borders. He
is getting more NATO at his borders.
He wanted to divide us. He’s getting a more united NATO. This was actually the case also after 2014, when he invaded Ukraine for the first time. After
that, we have reinforced our alliance more than we’ve done for a generation. And now we build on top of that even further enforcement of…
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: And are you convinced? Because the president of Ukraine also addressed your summit. And it was behind closed doors, but he also — he
put out the video.
And he said, amongst other things, just give us just 1 percent of what you have and we will be OK. Is he getting enough to defend his country?
STOLTENBERG: Allies listened very carefully to President Zelenskyy.
And we all admire his courage and the bravery of — he is demonstrating everyday and of the Ukrainian people. NATO allies are providing a
significant support to Ukraine.
And this support is making a difference every day, because that’s one of the reasons why they’re able to resist the invading Russian forces. It’s
first and foremost the courage of the soldiers, but modern equipment from NATO-allied countries, air defense, anti-tank, is making a huge difference
on the battleground everyday.
AMANPOUR: What can you tell us about any additional more sophisticated? I mean, they have got the Javelins. They have got the Stingers. There are
these other S-300s and maybe even 400s, right, the Turkish ones, or the ones that Turkey has.
Can you tell us whether they will get more sophisticated?
STOLTENBERG: I’m a bit careful going into all the details. So that’s for operational reasons.I don’t think we support Ukrainians by listing
everything we do, where and when and exactly which nations.
We are stepping up. That’s a message also from the summit today, that we need to continue to provide significant military support to Ukraine. I
think, also, we have to remember that NATO allies have trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the last years.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
STOLTENBERG: And these troops are now on the front line and making a huge difference.
The Ukrainian army, it’s much bigger, much better trained, much better equipped, and much better commanded now than in 2014. And that’s the huge
difference. That’s reason why they’re actually able to resist. And that was not the case in 2014.
AMANPOUR: So let’s talk a little bit now, then, about what’s happening on the other side.
Obviously, these sanctions haven’t deterred Putin. And President Biden address, that it’s meant to increase the pain, and finally maybe produce
some results. But there does seem to be word coming out of Russia. There’s certain officials who are resigning. There’s rumors of intelligence
officials under house arrest.
There’s — there have been maybe four or five leading commanders on the field in Ukraine killed and, according to U.S. intelligence, and the
Ukrainians themselves, maybe up to 7,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers dead.
Can you tell us a little bit about what you understand to be the Russian position in the field right now?
STOLTENBERG: So, they have totally underestimated the strength of the Ukrainian armed forces, the courage of the Ukrainian civilian population,
and the amount of support that NATO allies are able to deliver every day to Ukraine.
So, they have underestimated the resistance they were going to meet. And they have overestimated the strength of their own forces. And, therefore,
they have made a big mistake. This war is much more costly, much more painful for President Putin than he expected.
And that’s also the reason why we need to continue to put pressure, economic sanctions, but also continue to provide to support to Ukrainians.
AMANPOUR: Do you have any sense of how long they can keep it up? Or do you see — because all your intelligence was correct at the beginning, right?
Do you see that they’re doing anything that would change their battlefield capability?
Are they beefing up on the borders? Is Belarus coming in?
STOLTENBERG: So, first of all, it is an extremely unpredictable situation on the ground. And it’s very hard to predict with any accuracy exactly what
will happen the next week or the next month. Therefore, we need to be prepared for the long haul.
Second, yes, we predicted this. So it’s hard to imagine any invasion which has been so much forecasted and predicted in advance as this one. But now
we are in the middle of a battle, I mean, the war, and then it is much more uncertainty.
But we see that they are now trying to regroup and trying to encircle key towns. And we see a strategy which is more and more what we have seen, for
instance, in Syria, where they’re actually bombarding towns and civilian essential areas to try to crush the resistance within the Ukrainian people.
AMANPOUR: And they — I mean, they’re standing very strong still, and they refuse to surrender.
You just talked a little — well, we talked a little bit at the beginning about WMD. Again, the intelligence suggests, according to the Americans,
that they may use, they may resort to chemical weapons.
I know you’re not going to tell me how and what and when and what’s the red line, but what are you doing to beef up Ukraine’s ability to, I don’t know,
get through that kind of attack?
STOLTENBERG: So, we are sharing information with them.
But we’re also now going to provide some protective equipment, some technical means to detect chemical and biological attacks. And we are also,
of course, ready to also provide support to our own troops, if that is needed.
But most important thing, we are conveying a message to Moscow that any use of chemical or biological weapons will be absolutely unacceptable, will
totally change the nature of this conflict, and will be a blatant violation of international law.
AMANPOUR: That would be inside Ukraine?
STOLTENBERG: Of course, there’s a difference between a use of weapons inside Ukraine and any attack on a NATO allied country.
AMANPOUR: Right.
STOLTENBERG: Any attack on a NATO allied country will trigger Article 5, will trigger our defense — collective defense clause.
And to prevent any misunderstanding about that, that’s exactly reason why we have increased our presence in eastern part of the alliance with so many
thousand troops…
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: So, you could see chemical weapons being used in Ukraine and it not trigger a response?
STOLTENBERG: Well, President Biden and all the leaders have made it clear that that will have severe consequences.
But, again, I think if we start to speculate about all the potential consequences, we’re only adding to the uncertainty, which we want to
prevent.
AMANPOUR: President — the European Council president, Charles Michel, yesterday told me that the goal is to defeat Putin for the sake of the
whole world, he said, to defeat Putin
That’s a pretty big goal. Is that your goal, NATO’s goal, is to defeat Putin, and what does that look like?
STOLTENBERG: So our goal — actually, we have two goals.
We have the fact that — the goal of supporting Ukraine…
AMANPOUR: Yes.
STOLTENBERG: … to help them to uphold their right for self-defense, a right which is enshrined in the U.N. Charter.
And, therefore, it’s absolutely legitimate, of course, for us to provide support to them. And the aim of that is to enable them to protect their own
country, their own territorial integrity, meaning that it has to lead to the failure of the Russian invasion.
Then — but our main responsibility, which is enshrined in our treaty, is to protect and defend one billion people living in NATO countries, 30 NATO
allied countries.
AMANPOUR: Right.
STOLTENBERG: And we are doing that with a historic reinforcement of our collective defense.
AMANPOUR: So I sort of — I guess I’m asking that because what happens — I mean, he shredded the world order, right? He just shredded it up.
What — you’re not going to go back to status quo ante, no matter what happens here. So what is — how do you envision — have you thought about
the endgame, the next world order?
STOLTENBERG: I think it’s too early to say exactly what our relationship with Russia will be in the future. But it will not be the same as it was
before. We will not go back to kind of the old normal. This is a new normal.
And there’s no way we can have the same relationship as we had. But we need to have some kind of engagement with Russia on issues like arms control,
but also risk reduction and deconfliction to prevent incidents, accidents.
AMANPOUR: Talking of which…
STOLTENBERG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: … we understand there’s nobody picking up the line on the deconfliction line. Is that true?
STOLTENBERG: So, we have lines, but you are correct that the Russians have not been very, as I say, ready to use those lines.
But we just assume that, if there is a need, they will be ready to communicate with us, because it’s neither their interests nor in our
interests that incidents or accidents happen, and especially that, if they happen, that they spiral out of control.
AMANPOUR: What about you? You’re going to extend your term.
STOLTENBERG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes?
STOLTENBERG: Yes.
No, I’m — I feel privileged to, for the third time actually, extend my term. My plan was to go back to Norway, but…
AMANPOUR: To be a central bank chief?
STOLTENBERG: Yes, that was the plan. But…
AMANPOUR: Is this is a better job?
STOLTENBERG: I feel it’s more important now, in the midst of this crisis, to stay here and to do whatever I can do to both support Ukrainians, but
also prevent this conflict from escalating to a full-fledged war, which will really be devastating and dangerous for all of us, if this becomes a
full war between Russia and NATO.
And if I can make any difference, then I feel that’s an extremely meaningful task to do.
AMANPOUR: And, very finally, we’re on the one-month anniversary of this. Do you think that’s more likely or less likely, a full-fledged?
STOLTENBERG: Well, so I think — I think it’s not likely that there will be a full-fledged war. But that’s also because we have been so clear about
the consequences, if Russia attacks a NATO allied country, not only in words, but also in deeds, by really demonstrating the unity of this
alliance with more troops and more committed troops at the border.
AMANPOUR: Secretary-General, thank you very much. Thanks.
So, the last time Europe’s security was so endangered was during the Balkans War 30 years ago. Then, the United States’ top diplomat was
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who would use — she would use these summits to passionately defend democracy.
Albright died yesterday. She was 84. Her family says the cause was cancer. Tributes have been pouring in since the news of her passing. She was
America’s first female secretary of state. She was appointed in 1997. And she paved the way for others like Hillary Clinton.
And I have been speaking to Hillary Clinton, discussing her legacy, both on the global stage and in promoting equality.
I reached Clinton by phone from her home in Chappaqua, New York, where she’s recovering from a bout of COVID.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you for your reflections, because Madeleine Albright was such a trailblazer. You were then — came off to her.
What do you remember of her that’s really fundamental to you and to your term as secretary of state?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, she was a great person and a wonderful friend to me and literally so many others.
What I remember his her clarity of voice. She had a way of cutting through all the mumbo jumbo to get to the heart of a matter. And at the heart for
her, based on her own immigrant experience, first escaping from the Nazis, and then escaping from Stalin’s communists, she understood viscerally the
value of freedom and all of the institutions and laws that undergird it.
So, when she faced any issue, she really could explain it to her students at Georgetown or to the diplomats on the world stage in a way that I think
everybody could grasp. And that was a great gift.
AMANPOUR: Secretary Clinton, she had her first major public office when your husband, Bill Clinton, was president. He made her U.N. ambassador and
then secretary of state.
That, of course, was during the Balkan Wars, which really is like a throwback in history, if we look at what’s happening right now. And she —
her voice was fundamental. And it cut through all the chatter from people who didn’t really want to do anything about restoring security and order in
Europe for the first time since World War II.
Do you remember that period and how influential she was in the Clinton administration?
CLINTON: I remember very well.
I was delighted when Bill asked her to be the U.N. ambassador, where I think she served with real distinction at a difficult time, as you point
out. There was a lot going on in the world post the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then, of course, the first conflict in Europe since World War
II, in the Balkans.
And from the very beginning, I think Madeleine, more than many others, recognized that this was a threat. It was a threat to European stability
and unity. It was a threat to the transatlantic alliance. And she did speak out and was very, I think, bold and prescient in talking about the stakes
for America in this kind of aggression going unchecked.
And it took a while. It actually took the terrible genocidal behavior that culminated in Srebrenica, for NATO to act and for Europe and the United
States to really see it in the same way. But she saw it from the beginning.
And that’s what I mean about her understanding, Christiane.
And, of course, one of the last things she wrote was a book about fascism. And, again, she wrote it from her perspective, and she talked about the
threats that it posed, not only somewhere else, far from us, but inside our own country.
AMANPOUR: Exactly.
And she — in fact, one of the last last things, if not the last thing she wrote, was a column, an op-ed, on this crisis right now, which has so many
of the shades of the Balkans and, of course, the fight between fascism, dictatorship and democracy.
She was incredibly astute and prescient even a couple of weeks before she died, and told, basically, in writing, Mr. Putin, everybody has the right
to determine their own independence and sovereignty.
And I understand you and your husband, the president, had a call with her or conversation with her towards the end. And I don’t know whether you want
to tell us how that went and how she was feeling about this and other things.
CLINTON: Well, I had been in touch with her for the last several months. I knew that she was sick. I had no idea because she didn’t want to discuss
that at any length.
I knew that she was sick. I didn’t understand the gravity of it. But I stayed in touch with her. We are both very proud alums of Wellesley
College, she 10 years before me, and we always have something to talk about.
And then, about two weeks ago, we set up a call to talk about Ukraine. And she was so lucid and strong. She talked with Bill about the importance of
what President Biden was doing, rallying the world against Putin, making it clear that this wasn’t just a horrific, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign
nation, but it was a threat to the stability and peace of Europe and, in fact, threatened our own interests as well.
So, until the very end, Christiane, she was strong, lucid, and very much of the same mind she always had been, that — and I go back to her experience,
her family’s experience in Czechoslovakia.
I mean, she saw two bullies basically invade her native country. She saw Hitler, with the acquiescence and appeasement, sadly, of the West, take
over Czechoslovakia. She saw, post-World War II, Stalin’s Russia again trying to restore the Russian empire. This was before the collapse of the
Soviet Union. But it was clearly a part of the same mind-set that drives Putin today.
And she knew that you can’t turn your back on the dangers in your neighbor’s yard and expect them to stay there. So her clear-eyed view, both
in the conversation and then, of course, in her op-ed shortly before her death, is something that I hope all of us will pay attention to going
forward.
AMANPOUR: And, Secretary Clinton, she was the first official in the Clinton administration or of any American administration to actually meet
with Putin when he rose to power. And that was around 2000.
And then, when you were secretary of state, you were also part of an attempt to reset. I mean, that was the word the Obama administration used
for relations with Russia. And nothing seemed to work.
In retrospect, what do you think of that? I mean, what should we all have recognized maybe back then?
CLINTON: Well, I think we have to put what we tried to do into context.
I personally was very clear-eyed, as I do think others in the Obama administration were, about what we wanted from Russia. I had spoken out as
a senator against Russia’s invasion of Georgia. As secretary of state, we wanted some very important things .We wanted to try to get a New START
treaty to limit nuclear weapons, which again is a very dangerous topic facing us.
We wanted to create the environment for imposing sanctions, including Russia, on Iran to try to get to the negotiating table. And we wanted
Russia’s agreement to allow us to transit over their land supplies into Afghanistan for our soldiers.
And so the reason we called it a reset is that we knew we had to create something of a cooperative understanding with Russia in order to move
forward. Now, at the time we did that, Putin had switched positions with Medvedev, who became for a while the president, and that’s who we were
allegedly dealing with, although everyone knew Putin was still calling the shots.
But we were successful in all of the requests that we worked on with Russia at that time. But I personally just was constantly aware of how un — how
difficult and unpredictable Putin could be.
And, as we know, he took my warnings about him quite personally.
AMANPOUR: Yes, he did, indeed.
I guess last question about Madeleine Albright. She once said famously that there should be a special place in hell reserved for women who don’t help
women. And many women really, really liked that when she first said it. And then she said it again when you were running, and she got a little bit of
pushback because of the context of the time.
But she really was a champion for women, right?
CLINTON: Yes, she was.
And, look, I regret that, in the heat of the political campaign, she got any pushback at all. It is a strong and right statement that women should
support and congratulate and applaud other women who are breaking barriers, as she did when she became our first woman secretary of state, followed
then by one of her proteges, someone who had studied with her father, Condoleezza Rice, and then followed by me, a good friend and someone who I
considered a mentor.
So I think that it’s political campaigns. People make stuff into what it isn’t. But her statement was true then. It’s true now. And one of her
lasting legacies will be her generosity toward so many others, women and men, people that she mentored, her students at Georgetown who consistently
evaluated her as one of their most favorite professors, young diplomats, young political leaders, across the board.
You could count on her not only for sage advice, but for a good time, Christiane. And we had a lot of good times together.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: So, I will miss her.
But when I think about her, I just get a big smile on my face because she made such a positive impact on so many important things and issues and
situations, as well as the love that she created for so many of us.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And I think when you say fun, everybody will remember her dancing the macarena in the sacred halls of the United Nations.
Secretary Hillary Clinton, thank you so much for joining us.
CLINTON: Thank you, Christiane. Take care. Bye-bye.
AMANPOUR: A happy moment, these sad times. One remarkable woman and a trailblazer remembered by another one.
Now, in Ukraine, as we said, NATO estimates up to 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in a month of fighting there. The City of Dnipro in
eastern Ukraine says it’s collected the bodies of hundreds of Russian soldiers while also burying its own war dead and trying to keep the city
running.
Correspondent Ivan Watson has this report from there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The (INAUDIBLE) Military Cemetery stands on a windswept field on the outskirts
of the Ukrainian City of Dnipro. Rows of graves, a reminder of the stark reality Ukraine has lived with for years.
WATSON (on camera): All of these crosses mark the graves of Ukrainian soldiers killed fighting against Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas
region since 2014. And these are new graves for Ukrainian soldiers killed since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th of this year.
MIKHAILO LYSENKO, DEPUTY MAYOR OF DNIPRO, UKRAINE: A lot of Ukrainian guys.
WATSON (voice-over): My guide here is Mikhailo Lysenko, deputy mayor of the City of Dnipro.
LYSENKO: It’s a, Mihlo (ph).
WATSON (on camera): Yes.
LYSENKO: A very, very young man. A very, very young man.
WATSON: Born in 1997.
LYSENKO: Yes, yes, yes, yes. It’s very hard for us, for our city and for people from Ukraine.
WATSON (voice-over): Nearby, rows of freshly dug graves that are so far empty.
WATSON (on camera): These are preparations in case there are more casualties?
LYSENKO: Yes.
WATSON (voice-over): This deadly war presents a bizarre challenge to Ukrainian officials like Lysenko. On the one hand, they have to fortify
city defenses and support the armed forces. And at the same time, provide basic services like garbage disposal and running city buses.
LYSENKO: If you look on our street, now, we have a clean street.
WATSON (on camera): How do you manage a city and fight a war at the same time?
WATSON (voice-over): It’s complicated, he says. But we have experience because this is the second war we fought against Russia.
The ground war has yet to reach the Eastern City of Dnipro and its population of nearly 1 million inhabitants. Sometimes, the city looks
almost normal. Though there is a strict 8:00 p.m. curfew. And instead of advertisements, billboards defiantly curse at the Russian military.
These days, city officials carry guns.
WATSON (on camera): This is because of the war that you have weapons?
LYSENKO: Yes, yes. It’s normal for me. It’s normal for me.
WATSON: Well, why is Ronald Reagan, his portrait, in your office?
LYSENKO: Yes. Because this guy, he a very charismatic guy. And this guy destroyed Soviet Union.
WATSON (voice-over): To see another side of the conflict, the deputy mayor brings me here, to one of the city’s morgues to see a parked refrigerator
truck.
LYSENKO: And this fridge, we have 350 dead Russian soldiers. In another morgue, we have 400. I cannot open this truck, because in this truck, this
freeze truck, a lot of dead guys. I don’t want to show his face, his legs, his — any pieces of body.
WATSON (voice-over): Lysenko says, all of the dead Russian soldiers gathered from frontlines across Eastern Ukraine are stored here (INAUDIBLE)
before eventually being shipped to Kyiv.
WATSON (on camera): Why is the Ukrainian government collecting bodies of Russian soldiers?
LYSENKO: We cannot leave these bodies on our fields, on our streets, or another place. It’s not normal.
WATSON (voice-over): As we speak, we hear something in the sky.
LYSENKO: — these guys was innocent.
WATSON (on camera): What’s that noise?
Where do we go?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where? Where?
WATSON: Just now, we had a little alert because there was a sound that Mikhailo says was — sounded like a Russian drone.
WATSON (voice-over): War dead and the threat of enemy drones, part of everyday life now in Eastern Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Next, how will Putin respond to sanctions? Will it make him escalate or look for a diplomatic solution? Former counterterrorism
official and novelist, Richard Clarke, served three presidents on the National Security Council. And he joins Walter Isaacson to discuss the
alarming threat of cyber war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christian. And Richard Clarke, welcome to the show.
RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR SECURITY AND COUNTER TERRORISM: Good to be with you, Walter.
WATSON: There are different levels of cyber-attack, which Biden has warned us about that could one along because of what’s happening in Ukraine. The
first is Russians using cyber warfare against the Ukrainians. To what extent has that happened and what are we doing to help the Ukrainians?
CLARKE: There’s been a massive Russian cyber-attack for a month now going on against Ukraine, against their military communications systems and
against their civilian infrastructure. The United States has been helping behind the scenes as have other European governments, and as have private
sector companies, cybersecurity companies, helping Ukraine to restore services. But there is still an active war going on between Russia and
Ukraine in cyber space.
ISAACSON: Give me an example what’s happening.
CLARKE: Russian cyber-attacks have knocked out most of the government’s services. So, you can’t, as citizen of Ukraine, go online and communicate
with your government. Learn from your government. You can’t access news very easily. You can’t call 911. You can’t call a hospital.
And on the military side, there’s been a degradation of communications, command and control in the Ukrainian military. Now, they’ve overcome a lot
of that, because it’s been going on for over a month, but it’s the most significant Russian cyber-attack on the country we’ve ever seen.
ISAACSON: Now, a lot of these attacks are done through vigilantes or cutouts in both ways. Sometimes vigilantes like Anonymous, as it’s going
after the Russians sort of on behalf of the Ukrainians, and there are volunteers probably in the United States trying to do denial of service
attacks. I assume that’s happening on the Russian side, too? So, tell me about this sort of unofficial proxy war?
CLARKE: Well, the difference is that in Russia, the unofficial hackers are known very well by the government and do what the government wants them to
do. It’s kind of a reserve army that the Russians have.
In Europe, in the United States, we have no control over the hackers, white hat or gray hat even black hat hackers. And there’s a lot of activity, and
we don’t get to see the full dimension of that in media reporting, but it’s happening. A lot of people in the United States and Europe are attacking
Russian websites, primarily to get news to the Russian people.
But there are also, as you say, denial service attacks that are preventing the Russians from getting to essential services. This is a dangerous thing
because it’s not our government that’s doing it. The Russians may or may not know that, but the Russians may mirror image and think that the United
States government, the Europeans, and their governments are trying to get the hackers do this.
ISAACSON: So, in other words, the hackers doing it on behalf of Ukrainians, sort of white hat American hackers doing this, could get on a
slippery slope or a way that this just spins out of control, and should we stop them from doing it or is there some add strong having them do it?
CLARKE: I would ask them not to do it. It’s better if the government controls the level of attacks that we do on other countries. We don’t want
to give the Russians an excuse or a reason for attacking our cyber space. So far, they haven’t done that, but they could. And we don’t want to make
it easier for them to justify that. We don’t want to provoke it.
ISAACSON: You just said that they haven’t attacked our cyber space. We have not yet had an official Russian attack on cyber space in the United
States. Biden has issued warnings that it’s going to happen. It’s going to happen. Tell me where you think it might happen and why is Biden issues
these warnings?
CLARKE: Well, Biden says he has evolving intelligence that the Russians are planning to do that. Our intelligence agencies, particularly NSA,
probably have a capability of watching the Russians set up for attacks, some of them at least. And therefore, might be able to block them. But not
all of them.
The attacks could come in two kinds. They could be targeted after specific infrastructures like, for example, what if they went after the colonial
pipeline again, as they did — as Russian hackers did earlier. And instead of $5 a gallon, our gas was $10 a gallon. What if they went after the
refineries? So, they could do these targeted attacks.
They could also do indiscriminate attacks, like what’s called the software supply chain attack. They once went after — Russian military intelligence,
once went after a company called Solar Winds, which supplied software to 14,000 companies. And in the software supplied, the Russians inserted
malware that allow the Russians to get into those companies, as sort of back door, a very sophisticated back door. So, they could do that. In which
case they wouldn’t know — probably, all the companies that would be hit, they wouldn’t know all of the effects that would happen.
ISAACSON: Do you think some of that malware is still in corporate service?
CLARKE: Absolutely.
ISAACSON: And how would a corporation figure out Russians have put malware in?
CLARKE: They probably couldn’t. We were very lucky in the case of SolarWinds that a company called FireEye (INAUDIBLE) discovered it almost
by chance, because they were one of the people who got the software. And they noticed — one of their people noticed a slight anomaly. And it had
been going on for months, and no one had noticed.
And frankly, I do not believe SolarWinds was the only company that they did that too. So, I think they are probably already have backdoors into
thousands of American companies.
ISAACSON: Do you think we have backdoors into their companies?
CLARKE: Oh, most certainly. Most certainly. And into their infrastructure. Things like their power grid and whatnot. But if we are attacked by them,
let’s say, and they knock off the power grid in the Central Atlantic region, for example, I’m not sure if I lose power here in Virginia, it’s
going to make me feel any better to know that people in (INAUDIBLE) don’t have power either.
And there’s an asymmetry. We are much more dependent as an economy on our technical infrastructure, on the Cloud, on the Internet, than the Russian
economy is.
ISAACSON: So, should it be our doctrine and is it or doctrine that if they attack our infrastructure, such as our electricity grids, using cyber, we
can attack back, not just using cyber, but using kinetic real physical attacks?
CLARKE: Well, that is our doctrine. That’s been the Pentagon’s doctrine for over 10 years, that we will judge the nature of the attack by the
effect, the magnitude of the effect, not the method. And therefore, we reserve the right as a government to respond to a major cyber-attack in any
way.
Now, that’s why it’s a slippery slope. We talked earlier about the slippery slope of vigilantes. There’s also this more significant one, which is
people think cyber war is antiseptic, it’s clean, there are no body bags. But it could very quickly lead to a kinetic war if the damage get
significant, and the damage can get significant.
Just because we haven’t seen that happen, because there hasn’t yet been a major cyber war between two powers, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It
doesn’t mean it won’t be very significant if it happens. So, cyber war is not a safe no body bag kind of approach. It’s, in fact, an escalation.
ISAACSON: We have rules. We have doctrines, and so do the Russians, that we have all known, that we’ve negotiated over 50 years, whether it will be
conventional forces in Europe or tactical nuclear weapons. Do we have doctrines? And do we have rules of the road? Do we have Geneva Conventions
about the use of cyber weapons? And if not, should we?
CLARKE: We don’t. Lawyers will tell you that the Geneva Convention applies to any weapon. And therefore, perhaps to cyber weapons. But no — the
answer is, no. We have never worked out rules of cyber war, because we don’t want to the reveal what we could do and neither do the Russians or
anybody else.
If we get into a cyber war with them, this will be the first major cyber war between two powers. It is terror incognito. We don’t know what the
rules are. We don’t know what would happen.
ISAACSON: Are those rules that are sort of vague covered by NATO and specifically, Article 5, which says any attack on a NATO country is an
attack on all of us NATO countries? For example, if there were some cyber interferences in Poland, do you think this would trigger a NATO response
and that would help escalate this war?
CLARKE: The NATO secretary-general, Mr. Stoltenberg, has addressed that issue and he said, yes. That cyber war is covered by the NATO mutual
defense arrangement. The so-called Article 5. So, that if there were a major cyber-attack on Poland, NATO would consider that an attack on all
NATO’s 30 nations.
ISAACSON: Do you think we should have methods to respond to a cyber-attack short of using real physical force that would be an effective response? In
other words, the major cyber-attack on them that would be more than commensurate?
CLARKE: Biden has said publicly that we would respond in kind, at least initially. He didn’t say, at least initially. He said, we could respond in
kind. And I have reason to believe that we have packages already designed. Somewhat like the list, the menu of nuclear options. We have a menu of
cyber options that the president could choose from.
ISAACSON: Give me a couple examples of that so we know what you’re talking about.
CLARKE: You know, would you like to turn out the electric power grid? Would you like to turn that out in Moscow? Would you like to turn that out
in Siberia? Would you like to blow up their pipelines? Would you like derail trains? Would you like to bring down their air traffic control
system then make it impossible for them to fly? Would you like to bring down telephone system? Their stock market? There’s a whole series of things
that we could do with cyber weapons and we probably have plans and capability to do that.
ISAACSON: What should we be worrying about for our election coming up? The Russians have already shown a propensity to meddle with our elections?
CLARKE: So, the Russian have this concept of hybrid warfare, which is warfare short of conventional attack. And two key elements of hybrid
warfare are what we’ve been talking about, cyber war, and the other one is disinformation and creation of a so-called fifth column. People inside the
country to whip up dissent.
Frequently, those people don’t know that they’re being used by foreign powers. But I think it’s pretty clear that Russia has, through its
disinformation arm, been feeding talking points, been feeding information to Americans that sometimes show up — in fact, frequently show up on some
mainstream media. And that perhaps some of the people involved in the January 6th insurrection were unwilling dupes of disinformation.
We can expect to see more of that kind of thing as the tensions between the United States and Russia get higher.
ISAACSON: Are you saying that some of the people we’ve seen on TV spouting, talking points, supporting Russia, or denigrating Ukraine are
either unwilling or even willing dupes of Russia or been supplied misinformation by Russia?
CLARKE: Certainly, they’re at least unwilling or unknowing. Some of them might know. But you can track talking points that originate on Russian
sites migrate to the extreme right-wing sites in the United States, and then, migrate from the extreme right-wing sites into certain congressmen
and senators, and from there, onto certain television networks.
ISAACSON: Can you be a little more specific on that? And then, give me an example.
CLARKE: You can see stories, for example, that Russians have been trying to put out, a story that the United States was helping Ukraine develop
biological weapons, which is pure nonsense. That begins on Russian sites. And it — we’ve now been able to monitor that moving into certain right-
wing sites in the United States. And certain commentators have begun discussing, well, you know, was that — is there any truth to that?
These ideas permeate and they flow from Moscow’s disinformation program, which is extensive and elaborate and very well established and old, into
countries all around the world. They don’t just do this to us.
ISAACSON: There’s a big controversy now, especially in Israel, and in all the papers about Zelenskyy — President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, asking for
Pegasus, which is a system that allows a country to hack into cell phones which the Israelis have, and Israelis saying, no, we’re not going to sell
it to you.
To what extent is that a real problem and what type of software like that should those of — those countries rooting for Ukraine be willing to sell
to Ukraine?
CLARKE: Well, Israel has very surprisingly and very disappointingly pretended to be Switzerland in this conflict. Even the Swiss’s haven’t
pretended to be Switzerland. But Israel has maintained neutrality and say they’re not selling arms and that they say they’re selling cyber weapons.
Pegasus is a system that would allow Ukrainian’s intelligence to get into specific cell phones. And we know that the Russian commanders are using
cell phones to communicate, because somebody, and I assume it’s Ukraine, has interfered with their regular communications, their encrypted
communication system.
I don’t think it will make a big difference that they don’t have Pegasus. They’re already apparently following the location of Russian generals by
intercepting their cell phone signals.
ISAACSON: I know you were very close to — and certainly, we all miss Secretary Madeleine Albright. I remember seeing you all together at times.
I was just wondering now, as we all mourn her passing, if you have any particular memory of her you’d like to share?
CLARKE: Oh, so many. I absolutely loved that woman. She had such grit, such determination, such courage. And she was such an American patriot,
even though she was born and spent the first 10 years can of her life in what was then Czechoslovakia.
I could go on all night. But one moment, sticks in my mind. We were sitting in her office at the U.N., when she was U.N. ambassador, and we were
complaining about Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, and how ineffective he was how — and frankly, anti-American he was. And somebody said — I think
may have been Jamie Ruben who said, well, you know, he has to be re-elected this year for a second term.
And Madeleine looked at me and I looked at her, and, you know, there was a twinkle in her eye. And she said, are you thinking what I’m thinking? And I
said, it’s going to be hard to deliver to the president, it’s going to be hard to deliver to Washington, to — we may be the only one that opposes
him. And she looked at me and said, but we have the veto.
ISAACSON: All right. Thank you so much, Richard Clarke, for joining us this evening.
CLARKE: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Many great memories about Madeleine Albright. And I’ll have a final note end of the program.
But first, in all of this focus on Ukraine, we cannot forget about Afghanistan. The Taliban have (INAUDIBLE) on their vow to allow girls to
attend high school despite repeatedly making that promise since taking power last August. The U.N. secretary-general described the decision as
deeply damaging for Afghanistan.
Here’s correspondent Paula Newton with that story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time in more than seven months, Afghan schools reopened Wednesday for a much-anticipated
return. But it was a day that ended in heartbreak, tears and anger for many after the Taliban announced girls above sixth grade must stay home. That
decision came just hours after schools had reopened. Many eager female students arriving back only to find they wouldn’t be let inside.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Why are they playing with ow future? We have rights. They are humans from this country. We want to be
free. We just want to continue our education. Is it a sin that we are girls?
NEWTON (voice-over): A Taliban news agency said the delay is so uniforms can be designed according to Sharia and Afghan customs, but the decision is
viewed by many as an excuse, as condemnation rings out across the globe.
NED PRICE, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: This is a betrayal of public commitments that the Taliban leadership made to the Afghan people
and to the International Community.
NEWTON (voice-over): In a tweet, (INAUDIBLE) Malala Yousafzai says, I had one hope for today, that Afghan girls walking to school would not be sent
back home. But the Taliban did not keep their promise. They will keep finding excuses to stop girls from learning because they are afraid of
educated girls and empowered women.
Others also expressing dismay.
RAVINA SHAMDASANI, SPOKESPERSON, U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: This is of grave concern at a time when the country desperately needs to
overcome multiple intersecting crises.
STEPHANE DUJARRIC, SPOKESPERSON, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: No country can grow by excluding women and girls from education. I mean, the fact that we
still have to say this in the 21st century —
NEWTON (voice-over): In recent months, the Taliban have repeatedly insisted they would not go back to how things were in the late ’90s and
early 2000s when women and girls were banned from working or going to school.
It has been seven months since this now iconic scene of thousands stranded at the airport in Kabul desperately trying to leave after the Taliban’s
takeover. Now, those left behind seeing human rights withering away. Among them, the tearful schoolgirls whose hopes of an education are now
shattered.
Paula Newton, CNN.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, of course, empowering young girls all over the world was one of Madeleine Albright’s legacies as U.N. ambassador, as
secretary of state. But she also had this amazing legendary pin diplomacy. She could wield a brooch as an olive branch or a warning. Here’s what she
told me a few years ago about Russia planting a spy near her office at the State Department.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You discovered you were spied on when you secretary of state?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: What they found was that a room on seventh floor of the State Department near office of the secretary
of state was being bugged by Russians. There was a Russian man sitting outside actually listening to us.
AMANPOUR: Sitting outside, where?
ALBRIGHT: Outside the State Department somewhere. They found him. Then, we did what you normally do when you find something like you do, a demarche
and tell Moscow, you shouldn’t do this. But I think you know that I have my pin diplomacy. So, the next time I met with Russians, I wore a very large
bug pin and they knew exactly what I was saying.
AMANPOUR: And did it stop?
ALBRIGHT: Presumably.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It’s probably safe to say, Moscow did get that message loud and clear.
And coming up tomorrow, the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, joins me. We’ll discuss the route out of the economic
pain which is being caused by Putin’s war on top of all of that COVID pain. Plus, my conversation with Penelope Cruz who is up for a best actress Oscar
at this weekend’s ceremony.
That’s it for now though. Thank you for watching, and good-bye from Brussels.