Inside Zelensky’s War Room With Zanny Minton Beddoes

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, the Ukrainian president, today, addressed his 26th foreign government since the war began, that was Estonia. And “The Economist” editor in chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes, recently met Zelenskyy to discuss the world’s response to Putin’s war. Now, back from Kyiv, she spoke to Walter Isaacson about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And Zanny Minton Beddoes, welcome back to the show.

ZANNY MINTON BEDDOES, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “THE ECONOMIST”: Thanks for having me.

ISAACSON: You had an amazing interview with President Zelenskyy. You went to Kyiv. He said some amazing things with “The Economist”. But first of all, tell me, what it was like to get there? What was it like to go to his office? How did you get there?

BEDDOES: Well, I go to Kyiv. I flew to Warsaw, then took a car to the border and across the border to Lviv, that city in Western Ukraine where all of the refugees are coming through, and then took the overnight train from Kyiv — from Lviv to Kyiv which was quite an experience. And actually, the first time, Walter, that I really felt that I was in a country at war was at Lviv station where we arrived late at night. The lights were dim. It was full of people. Full of — absolutely full of people. Soldiers — but also huge numbers of refugees. Tired. We went past the anti-tank, traps, the barriers, through — up to a big metal gate, then we had to leave all of our — of course, all of our pens, phones, everything behind so that nothing that could possibly give away the location. Up, down corridors, and then eventually we ended up in a room that you would have recognized, which is the room from which President Zelenskyy addresses, you know, parliaments around the world. It looks a little, actually, like a corporate meeting when you’re there with a big formica white table and office chairs. While we were waiting there and then suddenly there was a little kerfuffle and some men with guys came and he walked. And we spent over an hour with him. And it was the most — probably the most extraordinary interview I’ve ever done. He is — he’s extraordinarily authentic person. You know, of course, he was an actor and he — but he– you can’t — I don’t think, keep up an act for more than an hour. He had no notes. He spoke in three languages, for my benefit. My — you know, he spoke in English a lot but then also in Russian and Ukrainian. One of my colleagues both fluent in Russian. And he was very, very genuine and authentic. And it was just — one of those times u come across someone who is absolutely the right man for the moment, and I really felt that.

ISAACSON: You’ve interviewed world leaders throughout your career. Does anybody come to mind like that or even in history like a Churchill?

BEDDOES: Well, you know, the interesting thing is that people compare him to Churchill. And that he is a modern-day Churchill. And I — at the end of the interview, I said to him, you know, you’re often compared to Churchill, President Zelenskyy. And you know, used to practice his speeches a lot. He was — he took his artry very seriously. And I said, do practice your speeches? And he looked, as though I was kind of crazy and he said, no. I don’t have time to do that. I just feel it. And it was actually, sort of, rather telling insight into how he is. I mean, I — he — of course, he has speech writers, I’m sure very good speech writers. But he really does seem to be feeling that. And he is channeling the sense of Ukraine. It’s — you know, he’s a kind of an everyman, and you know the story, right? The everyman, the actor who became president kind of almost by accident. And now, he is channeling that spirit of fierce resistance, the bravery, you know, his unwillingness to leave the capital when the invasion started. I asked him about that and he said, the protocol had been that he ought to leave but he refused to leave because he said it was very important that he be there in Kyiv. And he’s clearly an immensely brave man. But he’s channeling and is the sort of avatar for the entire Ukrainian people right now. And that comes through very, very clearly.

ISAACSON: You just referred to him as brave, but I remember he pushed back on you in the interview when you called him brave.

BEDDOES: That’s right. He said — I mean, you’ve obviously watched the interview. He said, I’m not so brave, but maybe I understand, he said. And he was — he came across as very humble and he wasn’t — there no kind of braggadocio, no, I’m the hero. He was very much just channeling what he felt he had to do. And as such, he was standing for, you know, all of the 44 million Ukrainians. He was the everyman who had been put into this situation and was now, you know, channeling and standing up to Vladimir Putin. And the other part which — of the interview which really struck me was when I asked him about Vladimir Putin. And I said, could there be a lasting peace with Putin and the Kremlin? And he paused, he paused for what seemed like a very long time, I think it was five or six seconds, and he said, I don’t know. And then he said, I don’t think he knows. And he went on to describe later in the conversation, Putin, and it was clear to me that he finds Putin’s cruelty and callousness literally almost incomprehensible. And he said, you know, they have lost 15,000 Russian soldiers. He says, Putin treats Russian soldiers like logs thrown into a train’s furnace. And as he said that to me, it was very clear from the impression — it was very clear from his face that he just couldn’t comprehend that kind of lack of humanity.

ISAACSON: He said something that really surprised me when you asked the question of what a Ukrainian victory would look like, and he said, victory is being able to save as many lives as possible. And to me, that was surprising. My head snapped because he’s not saying, victory would be we would protect all the territory of Ukraine, it seems almost he’s willing to sacrifice some territory, that his primary goal is to save lives. Is that right?

BEDDOES: Well, he did then — that’s — he did — you’re absolutely right. That’s what he started with. And then, he went on in the answer to say that, we will fight until the last city, I’m paraphrasing. So, he does care about territory. But you’re right, his first answer was in terms of lives and he clearly cares about lives. He wasn’t giving away to me what his bottom line would be in any peace agreement. And I think as Ukraine has made strides militarily so there is a sort of — there is greater optimism and sense that the peace will be on Ukrainian terms. But you are absolutely right, that for him this is about lives, this is about Ukrainian’s dignity, Ukraine’s agency, Ukraine’ freedom.

ISAACSON: The Economist today comes out with amazing leader, an editorial that says that this war is not just being fought for Ukraine, but for the principal that all countries are sovereign. And you say, it’s a fundamental argument for how the world should work. And then, there’s a sentence that just knocked me back. You said, this is an argument the West is losing. Most of the emerging world either backs Russia or is neutral. That is a stunning rebuke. It’s also taking the world down a dangerous path. Why is this happening?

BEDDOES: So, that’s exactly what we were trying to look at in this week’s editorial and with a big accompanying piece. And I think there are a number of factors. One is that I think there are many countries in the emerging world that think the West has double standards. They remember the hubris of the invasion of Iraq and they think, well, that didn’t have U.N. support and the West thinks that that’s fine. But now, when there’s another invasion, you know, what is so different about that? They think there are double standards in, you know, the way the West treats refugees. A huge amount of focus on Ukrainian refugees but they remember when Syrian refugees came, the Europeans were much less welcoming. They also see double standards in things like climate change. You know, the West which caused a lot of the problems of climate change, they now think that the West is expecting other countries in the world to, you know, sort out the problem that they created. So, I think there’s a sense in much of the world that the West is — you know, has double standards. It’s somewhat decadent, has been kind of focused on itself, has let the rest of the world down. And there’s also, of course, some self-interest, you know, with rising fuel prices, countries are — you know, want to maintain access to Russian fuel and particularly important countries like India, you know, they rely on — get a lot of weaponry from Russia. Russia, they play, you know, an important role in India’s position, vis-a-vis China. So, I think there’s a sense that the West has been both decadent, self- serving, had double standards. And some of that — frankly, some of that is — there is a bit of truth to it. I think it is exaggerated but there is somewhat —

ISAACSON: Well, wait. Tell me what the truth — you think the truth —

BEDDOES: If you look at — say what happened in Afghanistan last year, where the United States, you know — and whatever you think about the merits of leaving, the manner in which the United States left, left a lot to be desired. And so, I think —

ISAACSON: But do you think what happened in Afghanistan’s withdrawal is the reason that countries like India are not supporting our efforts in Ukraine?

BEDDOES: No. I think there is a sense — I think it is weighed into the sense that the West’s, you know, toxifying game in terms of, you know, sovereignty, universal values, human rights but actually is fairly kind of elastic in what it stands up for, which — what — how far it is willing to go. I’m not — I’m absolutely not suggesting, you know, all of this is justified, and that’s why we wrote our editorial. But the point that we wanted to make was to say that, even if there is something to some of these criticisms, even if the West has fallen short, the alternative world that Russia and China, like particularly Russia in this case are, you know, showing us, which is a world where might makes right, where it’s OK to kind of invade another country where sovereignty doesn’t matter, every country in the world, particularly emerging countries, are worse off in that world. And so, even if you think the West has not been as, you know, powerfully standing for the principles that it espouses, that it could be, you are still better off in a western led, you know, the rules-based system of the sort that we build up since 1945. And that is really, I think, you know, being tested right now. And that’s why it’s important and that’s why it’s, quite frankly, deeply worrying that so many countries are sitting on the fence. The point of our editorial was to argue that it is in country’s self- interest to get off the fence. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is not the kind of world that any county should want to live in.

ISAACSON: One of the other surprising things is Saudi Arabia not being helpful here. Saudi Arabia not starting to pump more oil when we’re faced with an oil crisis. You’ve been there a couple of times. You even drove a car in Saudi Arabia when they first let women drive. Why is it our relationships, meaning the relationships between the West and Saudi Arabia have deteriorated so badly and how do we fix that?

BEDDOES: So, I think there is a — the main reason is that Saudi Arabia and many other countries in the Gulf see, I think, Iran as the biggest threat and think that the U.S. has been less than helpful in sort of dealing with that threat. And again — so, that’s one important reason. The other is, I think, that the Saudis feel that the Biden administration, in particular, treated them as a pariah state, was pushed — you know, was less than open and friendly. And so, that kind of — you know, I’m going to paraphrase, but now, you know, you want us to help you when it suits you, but you’re tough on us when it suits you, too. And that, I think, is very much the view in many of the Gulf states. And I think that’s also —

ISAACSON: Well, isn’t there an odious smell of truth to that feeling?

BEDDOES: Yes. There is a bit of truth to that. That’s why I said earlier, there is some truth to many of these criticisms of hypocrisy, double standards that you hear in the emerging world. The West has been, you know, less than living up to the ideals that it espouses. But nonetheless, the world would be worse off in the world of the sort that Russia is now exemplifying by invading Ukraine.

ISAACSON: You know, we are in a war for the soul of the international order and we also have a food crisis, we also have an inflation crisis, we have a refugee crisis, we have an energy crisis going on, and all of this is coming together into a perfect storm. As somebody who has watched history, how do you assess this moment in history?

BEDDOES: Well, I think you’re right in pointing to all of those as being very serious challenges. I think collectively this is one of the most challenging geopolitical and indeed, economic times we’ve ever faced. Certainly, in my lifetime. And we’ve been through some. You know, we’ve had the financial crisis, we had a number of other very challenging episodes. But right now, if we put together this war in Europe and its ripple effects, which are already soaring energy prices, soaring food prices, and I think much, much big eruptions, politically globally thanks to soaring food prices, we are in for a very rough time because it is, as you say, against the backdrop of this very big challenge that is comes from a rise in China to our western- led system. It is being tested. But, you know, Walter, one of the things that gives me optimism now, and I’ve had that, you know, reinforced really dramatically when I was in Kyiv, seeing the Ukrainian people come together, seeing the determination with which they are willing to fight for freedom, the kind of things that you and I take for granted, the determination they have to repel this aggressive invasion by Russia. When you hear that Poland has taken more than 2 million Ukrainian refugees, they are staying in people’s houses, they are going to local schools, they are squashing in, that gives you, I think — it gives me hope that we are willing to stand up for the western principles. And so, there is, I think, a moment of optimism amidst these incredible challenges that you laid out.

ISAACSON: And this moment of optimism, does it extend to the rest of the western world? Do you think this is going to inspire a renewed belief in democracy and world order and strength among the West or do you worry that, say the French elections show that it’s a close call?

BEDDOES: Both of those. I worry a lot. I worry about the French election. I worry about the U.S., frankly, what’s going to happen later this year, what’s going to happen in 2024. But at the same time, you know, I hope that the optimism that I felt in Ukraine is one that can sustain and last and that we will prove able to, you know, withstand and overcome these challenges. Because, look, I’m an English classic liberal to my core. That’s — you know, that’s where I spend my career at The Economist. I believe in individual freedom, free markets, open societies. And I think that, you’re right, they are being tested right now, but it is a test that I fervently hope that we succeed.

ISAACSON: There is a backlash against that sort of form of old-fashioned liberal order, a backlash against free trade, free immigration, individual liberty. We see it with Viktor Orban in Hungary winning so well, we see it with Marine Le Pen coming up as a strong challenger in France in the coming weeks. What is causing this populist authoritarian backlash?

BEDDOES: So, there are a lot of reasons. There are — right now, cost of living is a large part of it. People are feeling that their living status are being eroded. The rapid pace of technological change. People feel the world is changing and that, you know, in many countries, majorities of people feel their children will be worse off than they were. That’s a very, very corrosive environment. And so, we’re in the midst — and, Walter, you’ve written about this. We’re in the midst of, you know, dramatic technological change, we’re in the midst of dramatic social change. People feel worried. They feel nervous. They feel that the world has been unequal. Too many of the benefits have gone to the very healthy. You know, globalization is now a dirty word. It’s called globalism and it’s a pejorative word. And I understand that. I think there’s some truth to it. And people who believe in the benefits of, you know, open societies and free marks, it’s incumbent on them to, you know, provide the kind of policy framework which ensures that people don’t get left behind. Better education, better tax system, greater equality, all of the things that, you know, people perhaps have ignored or haven’t paid enough attention to. But nonetheless, I think, you know, no one suggests that where we are right now is the perfect world. There are plenty of things that need improving. But what I’m very clear about is that a world where you don’t have freedom, you don’t have open markets, you don’t have individual freedoms is a much worse world.

ISAACSON: Zanny Minton Beddoes, thank you so much for being with us.

BEDDOES: Thank you for having me.