April 7, 2022

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY live from Kyiv.

Here’s what’s coming up.

Russia steps up its attack on the east, as a desperate humanitarian situation grows even more dire. I speak to the U.N.’s relief chief, Martin

Griffiths, just back from Moscow.

And echoes of Sarajevo 30 years later, Bosnia-born Dunja Mijatovic joins me. She’s the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe.

And then: maternity wards, hospitals all taking fire. Dr. Hans Kluge, the WHO’s Europe’s director, sounds the alarm on this medical catastrophe.

Plus, writer Jason Stanley talks to Hari Sreenivasan about fascism and the dangerous spread of autocracy.

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

Weapons, weapons and weapons, that was the Ukrainian foreign minister’s stated goal ahead of today’s meetings with his NATO counterparts in

Brussels. As Russia regroups and puts its firepower to the south and the east,military experts say the now is the window of opportunity to give

Ukraine the wherewithal to defend itself for the rest of this fight.

Ukraine’s military commander says Russian forces are trying to wipe the southern city of Mariupol off the face of the earth.

And our Ben Wedeman was in Mykolaiv, where he saw the devastating impact of constant bombardment.

Here’s his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This has become Mykolaiv’s daily routine, picking up the pieces, sweeping away the

wreckage from Russian missile attacks, random shelling throughout the city with what appear to be cluster munitions.

Glass shards and shrapnel tore into Marina. As she lives in a hospital, her thoughts are with her teenage daughter, also injured, now at a children’s

hospital.

“My daughter and I were caught between two bombs,” she recalls. “It’s a miracle we’re still alive. It was terrifying.”

The hospital where Marina is recovering was hit in the morning. Dirt covers the blood from one of the injured. Closed-circuit television video from the

city’s cancer hospital captures the moment it was struck. Earlier this week, a missile barrage killed nine people and wounded more than 40 at this

market.

(on camera): We were able to count 23 impact points in a radius of just 100 meters. And each one of these incoming rounds sprays shrapnel in every

direction.

(voice-over): Danilo was working in this store and rushed outside when he heard the blasts.

“Over there, a woman was screaming help me. Her leg was shattered,” he says. “Behind the store, two people were killed.”

Dried blood and flowers mark the spot where people died. Last week, a bomb struck the regional governor’s office, killing 36 people. Every day in

Mykolaiv, this relentless bombardment shatters any semblance of normal life.

Mid-afternoon, and people line up to escape the danger, this bus bound for Poland. Victoria cradles her 1-year-old daughter, Ivana. Her husband stays

behind.

“Soon we will be back home,” says Victoria. “Everything will be all right.”

How soon that will be, nobody knows.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And joining me now is Martin Griffiths. He’s the U.N.’s relief chief just back from Moscow.

Of course, bearing the brunt of all of this, as we have seen, are the civilians. I mean, that is just the case. Tell me, I mean, your reaction to

a report that we have just seen and heard from Mykolaiv, your reaction to what the mayor of Mariupol has been saying.

(SIRENS BLARING)

AMANPOUR: And you can hear in the background the air raid sirens even here over Kyiv, where the Russians have pulled back, but we were always warned

that they would continue to try to harass, even as they shift their real agenda to the east.

So, let’s carry on.

MARTIN GRIFFITHS, U.N. UNDERSECRETARY FOR HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS: Well, I think what’s really the humanitarian priority right now, Christiane, is

getting people out of those places of danger in the southeast, Mariupol, obviously, but also the Donbass.

And getting them out safely seems to be an almost impossible task. We spent two weeks, ICRC in the lead, trying to get safe passages for those

corridors. I discussed this in Moscow on Monday. I discussed this here today with the prime minister and his leadership.

I’m convinced that we can do this better. And we need to.

AMANPOUR: Well, it’s an emergency.

So, when you say you discussed it in Moscow and here, are you saying both sides are preventing this?

Well, what’s the deal? Why is it being prevented?

GRIFFITHS: Look, I think both sides point the finger of blame at the other. Perhaps that’s not surprising.

I mean, I and you probably have views as to which of them is correct. But what is essential to…

AMANPOUR: But you’re not going to say that, because of being at the U.N.? OK.

GRIFFITHS: No, I’m not, because I’m trying to make it work.

AMANPOUR: All right.

GRIFFITHS: And what I think is crucial to make it work is for both sides to actually speak to each other, let’s say in front of me or in front of

the ICRC.

This is what we have committed for tomorrow. Or, even better for Mariupol, we will have a three day cease-fire, nothing will happen in that three

days, people can come out.

AMANPOUR: Because I think people don’t fully understand that you can’t just have a one-hour or two-hour cease-fire. And that’s kind of what’s been

mooted over these last few weeks, that, oh, let’s just stop shelling for a couple of hours and get people out.

But it doesn’t actually work like that, does it?

GRIFFITHS: It doesn’t work. And we have so much experience around the world that that doesn’t work.

People need time to get ready to leave. They have to decide to leave. That’s not easy. They need to know exactly where they’re going. They need

to have — we need to have clarity about who to call when it doesn’t work. It’s clear to…

AMANPOUR: Like the hot line for the logistics.

GRIFFITHS: Like the hot line, exactly, that we discussed before.

What’s clear to us is that if you really want Mariupol and now the Donetsk and Luhansk to work, you have got to go beyond the one day, the next day,

the next — 10:00 a.m. the next day. That doesn’t work.

You need to be clear. Both sides need to be clear, from now until Thursday, nothing will get in the way, and we will allow people out.

AMANPOUR: So, can I ask you? Because we have less clarity from Moscow than we do from here. Because we’re here, we can ask the government officials.

There, we really can’t, because of all the regulations that have been put in place against the press.

So, when you have had your discussions, is it with the foreign minister? And whoever it’s with, do you get the sense that they actually intend to

let you do this? Or is their war effort, in fact, designed precisely for this reason, to basically maybe starve people out, bust their morale, sap

their will?

What do you — what sense do you get?

GRIFFITHS: Well, look, when I was in Moscow, I met the foreign minister and his deputy. I met the deputy defense minister and many of his senior

officials. We had a lot of conversations on exactly these issues that you’re describing.

Look, there is a common interest and a humanitarian interest in enabling and allowing the people of Mariupol to escape. There is a common interest

to getting the civilians…

AMANPOUR: Common between who and who?

GRIFFITHS: Between the Russians and the Ukrainians.

AMANPOUR: And you’re convinced of that?

GRIFFITHS: Well, I’m convinced that there is one. I’m not convinced that we have seen it reflected in practice.

AMANPOUR: Right.

GRIFFITHS: And that goes back to my earlier answer to you.

Now, you ask a fundamental question as to whether the two sides are serious and, in this case, the Russian side are serious about engaging with us. I

think the answer has been in every single conflict that I have been involved in, there’s always a deficit of trust, not just on the other side,

which is understandable, but also in the third party, in this case, us.

However, they both, I think, understand that, if they want to make a deal for what my secretary-general’s asked me to pursue, which is humanitarian

cease-fires, frankly, the U.N. is still the best vehicle to do that.

AMANPOUR: Well, I was going to say that. You are the best vehicle. And Russia is part of the Security Council.

I mean, clearly, or presumably, of all the institutions, they should trust the U.N.

GRIFFITHS: And I was very well-received. I know them well. They know us. We had very constructive conversations.

We didn’t have a breakthrough. And the reason why we didn’t have a breakthrough, I believe, is not because of a Russian undervaluing of the

U.N. — after all, they are a key part of it — but because this war is that at a certain moment in which it’s difficult to achieve this.

Two things I would add to that. One is…

AMANPOUR: Because there’s a war aim that they think they can still achieve.

GRIFFITHS: There’s a war aim on both sides, and there’s certainly a war. I’m from Russia.

AMANPOUR: By the way…

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: Yes, go ahead.

GRIFFITHS: Two things I would add to that.

One is, OK, maybe we can’t get a national humanitarian cease fire. Of course, we can’t. But maybe we can get local cease-fires.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

GRIFFITHS: And that will be a huge signal about the willingness of both sides to do the right thing.

And the other thing is, if we get lucky with those peace talks hosted in Turkey — God bless Turkey for doing that — maybe we will get a better

chance for those cease-fires.

AMANPOUR: Well, I’m interested know about that, because, just now, we have had a dispatch from Moscow where Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, who

you met, has basically thrown cold water all over those talks, saying that the Ukrainians, in his view, have shifted their goalposts.

In any event, that’s not what we’re here to talk about.

What I want to know is, do they know what’s happening in this country, the Russians, and particularly those in power? Because we have heard all these

intel reports that apparently Putin and his people are being, what, misinformed. They claim that there’s no shelling or besieging of civilian

targets.

What do you actually tell them? Do you set them straight?

GRIFFITHS: Well, we’re — look, because I was very straightforward, and there’s no reason why not. And, as a humanitarian, you can be

straightforward.

You may not judge, but you can communicate.

AMANPOUR: Yes. So, you tell them what is happening?

GRIFFITHS: Of course. Of course you do.

AMANPOUR: Do they sound surprised?

GRIFFITHS: They have a point of view. You know they have a point of view.

What was striking to me on this issue, I went today to Bucha and to Irpin. And, by the way…

AMANPOUR: These are the terrible, terrible results now that we have seen since the Russians have pulled back. And we have seen just the wanton death

on the streets, literally lying out in the open.

GRIFFITHS: Literally lying out.

Now, anybody who was guilty of that happening is — are people who we don’t understand. What I have said publicly, my secretary-general said, we need

to have accountability for that. We need to know who did it.

I saw, as you have, the mass graves. What’s so what’s so appalling about those mass graves, Christiane, is that if you are a relative of any of

those 280 people dead, the bodies of which have been moved to a mass grave by the local people to get them off the street, and now those bodies are

subject to forensic examination, of course, for the — rightly.

And the relative still wait for a safe and respectful burial. God help us. That is not the world we want to live in. And, of course, it’s incumbent on

people like me and you to make sure that anybody, whether in Moscow or anywhere else, understands that.

AMANPOUR: They completely deny that they’re responsible, but, I mean, completely and despite the fact that there’s satellite imagery, there’s

video imagery, there’s drone imagery, there’s security camera imagery from whatever stores and things that were in the region.

Deny, deny, deny. It is fake news. Did you tell them about that?

GRIFFITHS: No, because I’d like to know what the actual result is. And I’d like to know that from an investigation, an independent investigation the

secretary-general has called for. The local authorities are now also making their investigation.

The sooner we have that result, the better we will be able to present that untested and on directly accountable conclusion.

AMANPOUR: Back to Mariupol, which, honestly, I mean, it just — is just so awful to look at and to hear whatever testimony we can manage to get out of

there.

There’s some 130,000 people still left.

GRIFFITHS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: How long do you think they can hold out?

GRIFFITHS: Well…

AMANPOUR: The mayor called it the new Auschwitz. They’re calling it on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe. Frankly, I thought they’d gone over

that brink already.

GRIFFITHS: I think it’s a really good question.

I asked, actually, the government here that question, because the answer to that question is important for those involved in trying to get safe passage

out, because if we have a week, it’s different from if we have three days, and, if we have two weeks, even more so.

And I don’t know what the answer is. And I think that nobody knows the answer to that. Therefore, it’s simply urgent. And, therefore, any

improvements that we can think of and I promised the Ukrainian prime minister today that we would suggest to the methods for evacuation need to

be communicated tomorrow, and need to be communicated to the Russian side also tomorrow, because we need action this day, not this week.

AMANPOUR: Martin Griffiths, you are a very senior U.N. official. You heard the president of Ukraine, I mean, lay into the U.N. Security Council the

other day. He just said it shouldn’t — what is the point if you can’t even guarantee or even get consensus on things like humanitarian and security,

obviously?

And we have also noticed that the United Nations has not taken the initiative to convene a peace conference or something. Why not? And how do

you react to the, some would say, very justifiable criticism of the U.N. Security Council at this point?

GRIFFITHS: Well, look, I’m fully aware of that criticism. I hear it in my own family. I hear it elsewhere.

The secretary-general was extremely clear and strong in his statements about the breach of the charter when this war started. Nobody can suggest

to him that he did not take his responsibilities, not as somebody with an opinion about the charter, but as somebody who pronounces on the charter.

He did that.

Secondly, he deliberately decided to send me off to do this assignment. Why? Because he believes, as I do, of course, that, in this respect at

least, the U.N. does have primacy. Humanitarian action is something we do, do well.

AMANPOUR: So let’s just go back to Bosnia for a second, because we’re going to turn to Bosnia.

In Bosnia, you did that. Why can’t you do it here?

GRIFFITHS: We are trying to do it. Here. We are trying to use humanitarian access as a building block to end…

AMANPOUR: What does it take, though? What does it take? What’s the logistics?

(CROSSTALK)

GRIFFITHS: What it — no, what it takes is, is actually quite simple. It takes a certain amount of confidence in both sides to make those deals to

get Mariupol out.

It takes professionalism to make those corridors happen, to escort them out. And then it takes a certain amount of creative diplomacy to use that

as a platform for confidence to actually resolve the conflict.

AMANPOUR: So, finally, do you think you’re in that phase? Do you think you’re building that trust and confidence?

GRIFFITHS: I do think so. But, as I said to the Security Council yesterday, it’s a long haul. It’s going to be a long road that we have to

travel.

You know this. You’re here in Kyiv. It’s not going to happen tomorrow. But I know — I’m somebody who has tried to pursue cease-fires in different

parts of the world.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

GRIFFITHS: It takes time. It doesn’t happen on the first round. And when I was in Moscow, it was the Russians who said to me, look, this is the first

round. You have got to come back. You got to go to Kyiv. I’m going to hope to go to Turkey.

Let’s work this. And let’s make incremental improvements for the welfare of people. That’s the great virtue of humanitarian action. You can help on the

edges, which helps individual families. But let’s make that help a centerpiece, I hope, of moving out of this war.

AMANPOUR: Let’s hope.

GRIFFITHS: Let’s hope.

AMANPOUR: And, again, Russia is a member of the Security Council. It has a big onus on itself.

GRIFFITHS: We all do.

AMANPOUR: Martin Griffiths, thank you so much, indeed, for joining us.

GRIFFITHS: Thanks very much, indeed. Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Now, another effort to isolate Russia on the world stage, the U.N. General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from its Human Rights

Council, this after the world saw the horrific scenes in Bucha that Martin Griffiths has just talked about. He saw them as well.

Covering this conflict here in Ukraine, I’m also seeing some painful comparisons to what we all witnessed covering the Bosnian war. This week is

the 30th anniversary since the siege of Sarajevo began. That was the longest blockade of any city in modern warfare, almost four years. More

than 11,000 people were killed in the capital alone.

The human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe is Dunja Mijatovic. She herself was born in Sarajevo. And she joins me now from Rome.

Dunja Mijatovic, thank you very much for joining me.

I don’t know whether you were able to catch some of what Martin Griffiths was saying about trying to establish under the U.N. auspices humanitarian

corridors and relief for places like, of course, Mariupol.

I wonder, 30 years after what you all witnessed at home, how you react to that.

DUNJA MIJATOVIC, COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, COUNCIL OF EUROPE: It brings memories, particularly now, when we are marking 30 years since the

war started.

It seems that history repeats itself in Ukraine. In a way, I do not like to compare, but there are so many similarities. And it also brings many

memories and suffering of people at that time.

What I would like to see now, us, all of us really helping Ukraine and Ukrainian people in this very difficult time. Humanitarian green corridors,

of course, are crucial and important. And I worked and I discussed all this. And I called for establishing it at the very beginning of this

horrific war.

But it seems to me that we are all talking and trying to achieve something that is still far away. And, as we speak, people are suffering, people are

dying. And it seems, with all the mechanisms that we have at our disposal, that we are somehow failing.

That is why I try to do my best, particularly because of everything that happened to us — and you were a witness to this, you know how it was — in

order to move forward and to do more in order to help Ukrainians in this very difficult situation. I think there is a need to show more political

will on all sides — pardon me — in order to see some light and to help people that do want to leave Mariupol now for more than a month, Donetsk,

and many other places in Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: Dunja Mijatovic, you heard that the U.N., Martin Griffiths, wouldn’t and couldn’t discuss the politics of it all.

But, of course, the European Union has been very, very clear. And they have launched all sorts of punitive measures against Russia and against the

Putin regime, including the U.N. Human Rights Council has actually managed to isolate Russia a little bit further internationally by having it suspend

itself from or suspending it from that council.

What is your reaction to that? And how do you think that will be effective?

MIJATOVIC: Well, I do hope it will be effective.

There is a need — and I think these were strong, strong political signals. I can talk about myself and my engagement with Russian Federation. I think

we all, in international organizations, we reached the limit. We tried everything. And these measures, excluding or suspending member states from

different international organizations, of course, is not something we’d like to see.

But if you have a member state starting the war, bombing the cities, then, of course, there are measures that need to be taken in order to really

raise the alarm and to say, stop the war, stop the killing. I was on my way to Zugdidi, to Abkhazia.

I was in Georgia when a colleague of mine told me in a car they’re bumping Kyiv. And, of course, it brought the memories of Sarajevo being bombed, and

all these horrifying scenes that we saw in Bucha and other places. And it is extremely difficult to understand the reasoning behind it.

What can be more important than human life? No politics, no issues related to all these excuses that we heard in the last month-and-a-half on why this

war has started. I mean, this is not going to bring any happiness to people or to societies as a whole.

So I think this is the moment that there are also certain changes in order to see international organizations being more capable of achieving peace

and helping countries that are in a similar situation as Ukraine.

Of course, my mandate is very limited. I’m a human rights commissioner. I work with human rights defenders, with journalists. I make sure that

journalists can be safe. And there are already cases of journalists being killed in Ukraine `and also attacked, including a CNN crew.

So this is also something that I can engage with. But none of this is going to be fruitful. And we will not see the real results if the shooting and

bombing does not stop. And this is also, for me, an opportunity to call for it, because people I met in Moldova, in Poland, in Hungary, in Slovak

Republic, in Czech Republic, all these countries bordering Ukraine that I visited, and I spoke to them, they all want to go back home.

And I can understand this. But they cannot go back home because of shooting and bombing, and people are becoming even more traumatized. And they will

have to deal with the scars, like we have to deal with them. We are still dealing with the scars from the Bosnian war.

AMANPOUR: Right.

So, let me ask you, then, because you are still dealing with it, and not only that, still dealing even, despite the peace process of Dayton, which

really just froze the conflict lines. There is now a renewed threat from Serbia and the Bosnian Serb republic to try to secede, essentially, I mean,

that’s the bottom line, with support from Vladimir Putin.

What do you think needs to be done to prevent that, to ward that off, so that we don’t see in Bosnia again 30 years later what we’re seeing then and

now here in Ukraine?

MIJATOVIC: I think the international community is already doing a lot, but not enough. I think it’s a bit too late.

For many years, I think Bosnia and Herzegovina was abandoned by the international community.

And this — in this period, there were all those forces that actually started the war, they were returning and, again, working on the division,

injecting hatred among people, talking again about different nationalities, ethnicities. And this is something that is still happening.

The story you hear now in Bosnia and Herzegovina is more related to who is Bosnian, who is Serb, and who is Croat. Luckily, we had a very

extraordinary marking of the 30th anniversary, with all the photographers, journalists from all around the world joining and really talking about the

importance of Bosnia and Herzegovina being multicultural, multiethnic society.

But, then again, if this is not understood in real terms, and the threat to Europe and beyond, if it starts again in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then we

are going to face even bigger problems in Europe. So, now my sort of focus is really to work in Ukraine, but, at the same time, also in the Western

Balkans, because it’s not only about Bosnian and Herzegovina. It’s much more than that.

It’s Croatia, it’s Serbia, and it’s Montenegro.

AMANPOUR: Well, Dunja Mijatovic, thank you so much indeed for joining us on this pretty auspicious date.

Now, with hospitals and medical facilities destroyed in many Ukrainian towns and cities, the health care system is in crisis here, forcing

thousands of people to forego help, despite catastrophic needs.

Today is World Health Day, and the World Health Organization’s Europe director is in Lviv in the west of the country.

Dr. Hans Kluge, welcome to the program.

Let me just start by asking you, I assume it’s deliberate that you decided to mark World Health Day today in Ukraine. What’s your message today?

DR. HANS KLUGE, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: It’s an act of solidarity, I would say, to the minister of health, Dr. Viktor Liashko, to the health

care workers.

They were proudly telling that no any health care workers has left the country. They want to stand with the people, protect the health, and that

in spite of the fact that a very tragic threshold have been passed today of more than 100 health care facilities being attacked, according to the WHO

verification.

So I thought that my place as the WHO elected official for the region is really with the Ukraine people today.

AMANPOUR: And dozens of — you mentioned 100 health care sites and centers have been targeted, and we have been seeing, our reporters, us, everyone

reporting on that regularly. And, also, dozens of health care workers have been killed.

On a practical level, what is the ability of this country today to meet the health care needs of all the people who have been wounded and all of those

who actually had preexisting conditions and need ordinary, persistent health care?

KLUGE: Well, it’s definitely a tremendous burden, a humanitarian catastrophe.

But to start with the positive, I went to visit health facilities, talked to the doctors, to the nurses, to the patients. And there is a tremendous

resilience. I mean, the health work force, not only in Ukraine, but in European region, is tired of the two terrible pandemic years.

And now there is the war. And it’s a complex picture, because there’s, of course, the mental health. People have been seeing really atrocities.

Families are being torn apart. There is the communicable disease burden, but also good news. Together with the United States PEPFAR program, since

yesterday, we assured for 12 months complete treatment for the 120,000 people on antiretroviral treatment for HIV.

And then there’s also the chronic disease burden, like cardiovascular diseases. And the minister was telling, it’s very difficult to plan,

because, if a certain pharmacy is being bombed tomorrow, it means you have to shift your response. So, agility is a very important aspect of the

response.

AMANPOUR: And what about — what do you know about the health situation — I mean, it’s almost bizarre to talk about that, because it’s a catastrophe

in Mariupol — but the actual situation in your field in Mariupol?

KLUGE: Well, it’s a very difficult situation, of course.

I mean, there is a — it’s an Mariupol. It’s also in places in Luhansk, where the facilities are being destroyed. So, the top priority — I always

say that the most important lifesaving medicine that Ukraine need today is peace. We need a humanitarian corridor and the lifesaving supplies really

to Mariupol. That’s the number one priority to help the people.

AMANPOUR: We were just showing a picture while you were talking.

And we remember that, early in this conflict, a hospital, a maternity hospital, among many others, was bombed, we believe either from the air or

heavy artillery, long-range. And, you know, pregnant women, children were also — babies were also killed. The Russians deny it. They say it’s fake

news. Have you spoken to Moscow, like Martin Griffiths of the U.N. Relief Organization has been to Moscow? Has your organization, the W.H.O. appealed

to Moscow, talked about, you know, the sanctity of actual health care facilities and to lay off this kind of targeting?

DR. KLUGE: Well, first and foremost, we are, of course, horrified as well as the pictures coming out. And both Dr. Tedros, the W.H.O. director

general, and myself have been always been very vocal that attacks on health, as we call it, is a breach of international humanitarian law. And

this has — what I was hearing from the people here today as one of the consequences that hospitals are no longer seen as a safe place. Which, of

course, is a terrible thing in itself.

Now, we are talking to all parties through the lens of health for all, that all vulnerable people need to have health care and that those attacks

really need to stop. And, of course, yes, I think it is not a surprise, that when you are talking to different parties, there is often a different

vision and a different reality of the situation.

We are mandated to verify attacks. We don’t have the capacities nor the mandate to attribute because for this, there are other bodies like the

Security Council, like the International Criminal Court. But if and when we will be asked as a World Health Organization to contribute as part of the

U.N. family, we definitely will do so within our mandate.

AMANPOUR: And of course, we heard from Martin Griffiths and others that despite being part of the U.N. Security Council, Russia continues to do

this kind of thing. That’s what we are observing. And of course, it says that it is not part of the International Criminal Court. Therefore, nothing

to do with that.

So, on that issue, you have heard the United States, some Ukrainian officials, NATO officials warning that potentially they’re concerned that

President Putin might allow or might order the use of chemical weapons. Is that something that you as a W.H.O. are taking into consideration and

trying to prepare people here for in a medical way? Is that something that you’re doing?

DR. KLUGE: Well, I always say, we hope for the best, but we have to prepare for the worst. And if you look at the situation, I mean, one

figure, 80,000 babies are going to be born in Ukraine the next three months with pre- and post-natal care, which is very suboptimal. You have measles,

you have the polio.

So, yes, we are working closely with the national and local authorities to prepare for any eventualities, be it including chemical attacks or

radiological, not necessarily from an attack, but to all other threats. But in partnership with all organizations, like, for example, the International

Atomic Agency in Vienna, we’re issuing norms, guidance, and together with the Minister of Health, doing a lot of capacity strengthening, yes.

AMANPOUR: It’s a very grim prospect. Can I ask you, because I think your organization has said and has sort of overseen a pretty robust effort

before this war to reform the Ukrainian health system as a whole? All the health services so that it better meets the need of the people here. Can

you explain that, how extensive was that effort? What was the success. And what’s the setback now given this war?

DR. KLUGE: Absolutely. Since many decades, W.H.O. had a big footprint here. And to give one example, Ukraine was one of the best practices in the

region on tuberculosis control, introducing new innovative technologies to be able to rapidly detect TB infection. But we worked very, very close

together on primary health care to bring care out of the institutions closer to the homes of the people on health financing. And that’s another,

indeed, a very big collateral that those hard-won gains have no setback.

At the same time, again, I have a lot of admiration to the minister of health, Dr. Viktor Liashko, and his people when we discussed that

determination today already to work with the World Health Organization on building back better for the future.

And when we shook hands at the end, there was this kind of, let’s say, light of optimism that it’s a terrible situation, but looking forward,

let’s build back better.

AMANPOUR: Dr. Hans Kluge, W.H.O.’s Europe director, thank you very much for joining us from Lviv, Ukraine tonight.

DR. KLUGE: My pleasure.

AMANPOUR: Now, manifestations of fascist ideology infiltrate democratic nations and illiberal democracies have gained a solid foothold in some

parts of Europe. Jay Stanley is the author of “How Fascism Works.” And he examines Putin’s brand of that ideology in his latest piece for “Tablet”

magazine. He joins Hari Sreenivasan to explore this version of fascism and how it targets the West’s vulnerabilities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Jason Stanley, welcome back to this program.

You have written authoritative book on fascism. I want to look a little bit at the type of fascism that maybe is playing out in front of our eyes in

the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and how that’s different from the definitions that we might have seen in our text books.

JASON STANLEY, AUTHOR, “HOW FASCISM WORKS”: So, Russian fascism, and I think it’s just an almost unmistakable species of fascism, it is a classic

kind of fascism in its colonial aspects. So, fascism is typically linked to empire, the desire to restore empire. We find fascism — fascist leaders

gaining popularity, when they can talk about lost empire and tell their citizens that they’re going to be the leader who’s going to violently

restore their empire and their place in the world.

So, in that sense, it’s a classic kind of fascism, and in its violence and militarism, it’s a classic kind of fascism. And in the way that it appeals

to anti-LGBT sentiment in a number of other ways, it’s classic fascism.

But Russia seeks to, as it were, because it cannot dominate the world militarily anymore, economically, it’s really not a super power like China

or the United States, it’s really seeking to dominate the world ideologically. And what does that mean here? What it means is Putin seeks

to be the leader of the world’s traditionalists, the ethnonationalists, the patriarchal, antidemocratic, in the United States white supremacists. He

seeks to say, I am going to defend traditional values against decadence and weakness.

And so, in this way, he’s going to gather all the different ethnonationalist movements to him. And also, he’s traditionalist members of

minority groups who might not be led to follow a kind of strict ethnic nationalism.

SREENIVASAN: One of the rationales that Vladimir Putin explicitly gave anyway was that he wanted to denazify Ukraine and almost indemnify himself

from this idea that he was perpetrating an aggressive act.

STANLEY: This is classic fascism. Classic fascism involves what calling your enemy — calling your enemy what you yourself are. So, Putin is

clearly doing this in Ukraine. By denazification, Putin means that he’s going to go into Ukraine. He’s going to take the democratic ideology that

Ukraine has embraced since the Maidan Revolution of 2014. He’s going to remove it from institutions and schools and politics. He’s going to place

the leaders on trial, in show trials, reminiscent of Nuremberg, execute or imprison them, and replace them with Russian fascist ideals, and extinguish

Ukrainian democratic identity and Ukrainian identity full stop.

SREENIVASAN: So, what can the democracies that are standing around the planet do in the face of this? In the absence of a military intervention,

we obviously have put in economic sanctions that are slower working than many people would like. But how does ideologically democracy stand up in

the face of this?

STANLEY: So, recall from our — the beginning of our discussion that Putin’s version of fascism is not specifically about Russian ethnic

Russians dominating the world, as German fascism was. German fascism was about Aryans dominating the world. It’s about traditionalists

ethnonationalists dominating each of their countries with a strong, powerful, masculine leader.

So, it could be a woman, I suppose as we see in France’s elections. But it’s about a kind of — it’s about protecting supposedly traditional values

against democracy, decadence, et cetera. So, what democracies must do is that they must show that they’re not corrupt decadent and weak. That’s what

Putin believes. That’s what Putin fosters. And I don’t want to say Putin is the singular agent here. The United States has long had antidemocratic

forces of this sort that Putin allies with.

But democracies have to show that they are strong, and democracies can show they are strong. Ukraine is showing that it is strong. I remember my

grandmother in her book, “The Unforgotten,” a 1958 book, talks about how she’s with my father in New York City, they had just come from hitter’s

Germany. And my father is looking at these soldiers marching down Broadway, it’s 1941, chewing gum and slapping each other’s backs. And my father says,

they’re never going to beat the Nazis, because he had seen the Nazi army march down the Kurfurstendamm in Berlin in strict order. And my grandmother

said, no, that’s exactly why they will beat the Nazis.

And that’s what Ukraine is showing right now. Ukraine is showing that democracies have strength and democracies have value. Democracies have

strength when they stand up for their values, when they prove accountability. And what Putin thinks, you know, rightfully so, is that

democracies have proven themselves to be hypocritical and weak.

Look, our democracies have always been partial. So, the best thing we can do is we can show that our democracies stand up for the values that they

represent, freedom, and equality.

SREENIVASAN: Do you think that the events of the past few years in the United States has weakened the brand of democracy that we’ve been exporting

around the world? And does Putin pick up on that and say, look at this, you can meddle with an election, you can cause, you know, internal strife, but

then you can have people attack its own capitol, and frankly, you know, not be held accountable?

STANLEY: That’s exactly right. I don’t think like the language of exporting because, frankly, when we tried to export democracy, it’s

typically been at the barrel of a gun, and that is not how you export a democracy. You export democracy by standing up for its values at home, and

we failed to do that.

From our own, we failed in accountability, from our own imperial wars of aggression, like the Iraq war, we failed with accountability for the

financial crisis, and we failed most recently with accountability for the attack on our own democracy.

So, obviously, Putin is right to think that democracies are weak and don’t stand up for their values. If we can’t hold accountable the figures who led

us into wars that caused terrible devastations, if we can’t hold accountable business leaders who destroyed our academy, and if we can’t

hold accountable a president who tried to steal the election and destroy American democracy together with the numerous senators and congressmen who

helped him, then in what sense are we a democracy, where we don’t have the rule of law? And so, in what sense do we have free and fair elections? The

threat to autocracies is free and fair elections.

You know, Putin can look at the United States and he can direct the world’s gaze to the United States, and show — and say, see, look at what they’re

doing. They have nonexistent voter fraud, yet, they’re fighting it with electoral police, with numerous legislations, essentially, to restrict

voting and to potentially steal another election. So, democracies do seem openly hypocritical and weak. And that is obviously — that is what Russia

wants. Russia’s not going to dominate the world. Russia is not a world power. But Russia can help destroy democracy worldwide, and thereby,

preserve its own autocratic regime at home.

SREENIVASAN: One of the chapters in your book deals with sexual anxiety that is often used in fascism. And I wonder what you think when you look at

the number of laws that are now making their way through state legislatures, either restricting women’s control of their bodies or LGBTQAI

rights in the United States.

STANLEY: Right. So. we should always remember, we citizens of a democracy, that the principal values of democracy are freedom and equality. And among

the freedoms that citizens of a democracy enjoy are the freedoms for — the freedoms to identify how they want to have the partners — to have the

adult partners they want. And this freedom is under attack.

Now, this kind of attack on LGBT citizens is very Eastern European in character. It comes in the wake of an attack on so-called critical race

theory, but the attack is really not on a critical race theory, it’s an attack on the teaching of our history, the teaching of our antidemocratic

racist history. And now, we have an attack on LGBT rights. And this is extremely — this puts us into the worldwide autocratic context.

If you look at autocrats and would be autocrats all over the world, from Russia’s gay propaganda law in 2013 that prohibits teaching minors about

nonstandard life styles, of nontraditional lifestyles that was passed in 2013 and had a terrible effect on LGBT community in Russia. If we look at

Viktor Orban’s Hungary, the recent election was dominated by attacks on LGBT. We look at Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and he won election on — with

attacks on LGBT. We see the American right now embracing this worldwide, far-right, autocratic attack on freedom.

And so, this is just putting us in line with the rest of the fascist rights worldwide.

SREENIVASAN: What is it about this that you think historically has stuck, and even today, makes it something that people can campaign on?

STANLEY: In the United States, the base for this far-right politics includes white nationalists. But if you want to include some people who

aren’t white, go after a small minority, like transgender Americans, a tiny group of Americans, then you can gather a lot of people because, you know,

everyone is like, I’m not that, and so, maybe I can join the group and vilify them.

So, this group of traditionalists can then gather. And then, even though this — you know, in the United States, the audience here includes white

nationalists who very prominently want to return to sort of a white state that prioritizes white Christianity. You’re never — they can have

plausible deniability because they can say, look, we’ve got black members of our movement who also share with us this antipathy to LGBT.

So, it’s about gathering a larger coalition by ever greater vilification of a small minority while winking to the part of the coalition, the large part

of the coalition that this is really helping, in the case of the United States, that would be sort of white Christianity.

SREENIVASAN: There was a piece in the “New York Times” recently, I think it’s Elizabeth Diaz and Ruth Graham, talking about how the growing

religious fervor in the far-right movement is starting to include religious iconography, it is including praise music, it’s almost a little bit of a

little revival. Now, not everybody under the tense, so to speak, is coming for a church service but it’s certainly pulling in people who are devout.

STANLEY: So, that’s because the global far-right fascist movement presents itself as the defender of traditional values. And this is not new. This is

textbook fascist politics. If you look at Joseph Goebbels’ speech, “Communism with a Mask Off,” in 1935, Goebbels says that Jewish bolshevism

is threatening religious faith, Christianity, and that the only protection is national socialism.

So, what Putin is doing is he’s reviving these themes. He’s saying, liberalism is a threat to tradition. Of course, liberalism is not a threat

to tradition. Liberalism says that my orthodox Jewish cousins can live however they want, and other people who aren’t religious can also live

however they want. But the idea here is to create this fear among people who choose to live traditionally that other people’s choices threaten them.

And in particular, threaten their children.

And then, you say to them, look, they’re going after your children. You need us to protect you. And then, you say, look, you know, we can’t play

fair anymore. What democracy is — and this goes back really to some of the oldest and worst tropes of the 20th century, like The Protocols of the

Elders of Zion. What democracy is, is it’s this method for pretend equality, it says, everyone can live what they want — how they want. But

then, really what it does is these liberties allow them to get at your children and corrupt your children. And so, you create such fear among

traditionalists that they abandon democracy.

SREENIVASAN: There’s an example of that, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted the other day, “Democrats are the party of killing babies, grooming and

transitioning children, and pro pedophile politics.” In a recent poll, 49 percent of Republicans said it was “definitely or probably true that top

Democrats were involved in elite child sex trafficking rings, QAnon conspiracies.” These are going viral. And I’m wondering, this is not a

small population of people until the United States that believe these things.

STANLEY: Let’s be very clear. QAnon, as all scholars who have written on it have said, Thalia Lavan (ph), David Livingstone Smith, is connected

clearly — is clearly descended from blood liable, the conspiracy theory against Jews, that Jews were stealing Christian babies for their religious

rituals and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It’s this conspiracy that there’s a global cabal of elites, and the global cabal of elites is seeking to conquer the institutions, to get at your

children and control your children. And so, it’s not — there’s no fairness anymore, it’s just war, and you’re not a man if you can’t stand up to this

because they’re going after your women and children. It’s that level of fear and paranoia, that has seeped into — I don’t even think seeped into

is the right word anymore — that has permeated much of American politics.

And so, it’s a very extreme time when these sorts of old conspiracy theories have inflected the body politic.

SREENIVASAN: Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, thank you so much for joining us.

STANLEY: Thank you so much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Stark warnings indeed. And finally, tonight, on the road with one of the most dangerous concert tours in history, Ukraine’s biggest rock

star, Svyatoslav Vakarchuk, has been traveling across the country, aiding the war effort by performing and boosting morale amid this Russian

invasion.

Through it all, he has seen the fierce resilience of the Ukrainian people that continues to burn brightly. And just today, he was among ruins in the

City of Chernihiv, since the Russian forces have pulled back a few days ago now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SVYATOSLAV VAKARCHUK, LEADER SINGER, OKEAN ELZY: In the worst situation we can imagine, you’ve lost your relatives, someone who you loved, you lost

your home, everything, and you still have this optimism and readiness to go further and optimist for the future. That’s why I think Ukrainians are

undefeatable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And we want to leave you now with some of his music. Thank you for watching and good-bye from Kyiv. We’ll see you again tomorrow night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)