Read Full Transcript EXPAND
> HELLO, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO 'AMANPOUR & CO.'
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
SO MANY CRISES SEEM TO COME OUT OF NOWHERE.
YOU WONDER WHETHER YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH.
FRANK ADMISSIONS FROM THE EU'S FIRST FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF.
SHE JOINS ME ON NEGOTIATING WITH PUTIN AND WHY SHE DIDN'T LIKE HER JOB.
> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE, YOU SEE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT.
ACTING LEGEND SIR IAN McKELLEN SERVES UP THE FUN ON STAGE IN A VERY BRITISH PANTOMIME.
> PUTIN'S PLANS TO INFLICT PAIN ON THE WEST.
'AMANPOUR & CO.' IS MADE POSSIBLE BY, THE ANDERSON FAMILY FUND, SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS, BERNARD AND DENISE SWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.
WE TRY TO LIVE IN THE MOMENT.
TO NOT MISS WHAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.
AT MUTUAL OF AMERICA, WE BELIEVE TAKING CARE OF TOMORROW CAN HELP YOU MAKE THE MOST OF TODAY.
MUTUAL OF AMERICA FINANCIAL GROUP, RETIREMENT SERVICES AND INVESTMENTS.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
THANK YOU.
> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.
EUROPE IS WELCOMING UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY WITH OPEN ARMS.
APPLAUDING THE WAR-TIME LEADER EVEN AS HE PUSHES AND PUSHES THEM FOR MORE POWERFUL WEAPONS.
IT IS AN EXTREMELY RARE VISIT OVERSEAS FOR ZELENSKYY, AFTER HIS SURPRISE TOUCHDOWN IN WASHINGTON, D.C. JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
IT HAS BEEN NEARLY ONE YEAR NOW SINCE VLADIMIR PUTIN TRIED TO TAKE KYIV AND THE REST OF UKRAINE.
IN REALITY, THE RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MUCH LONGER THAN THAT.
IT WAS NINE YEARS AGO IN 2014 THAT PUTIN INVADED AND ANNEXED CR CRIMEA.
KATHERINE ASHTON WAS THE FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF AT THE TIME.
HER BOOK IS CALLED 'AND THEN WHAT, INSIDE STORIES OF 21st CENTURY DIPLOMACY.'
SHE TELLS ME, PUTIN IS STILL TRYING TO RUN CIRCLES AROUND THE WEST.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU.
YOU WERE THE FIRST SO-CALLED HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS FOR THE EU.
THAT WAS IN 2009.
HOW DIFFICULT WAS NEGOTIATING AT THAT TIME?
YOU CAME AT IT WITHOUT A FOREIGN POLICY BACKGROUND BUT IN THE MIDDLE OF MASSIVE CRISES.
THERE WERE TWO TYPES OF NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON.
ONE WAS I HAD 28 COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.
EACH OF THEM HAD A FOREIGN MINISTER.
IT WAS A CONSTANT SET OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MEMBER STATES.
ADD INTO THAT EUROPEAN COMMISSION, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND, REALLY, IT'S A CONSTANT, PERPETUAL NEGOTIATION.
WHICH IS POTENTIALLY WHY YOU FOUND IT DIFFICULT.
WHEN PEOPLE ASK YOU, DID YOU LIKE YOUR JOB -- YOU HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS.
YOUR ANSWER IS?
NO.
IT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH CRISES -- AND YOU HAVE COVERED MANY OF THEM.
YOU KNOW YOU MEET SO MANY PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES ARE JUST DESTROYED.
WHO ARE LIVING IN DEEP DESTRESS.
WHO HAVE HAD TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPEN.
IT'S DIRE.
INEVITABLY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKED TO DO.
YOU WONDER WHETHER YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO BE THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO AT LEAST DO PART OF THE SOLVING THE PROBLEM OR HELPING WITH THE PROBLEM.
AFTER A WHILE, THAT RELENTLESS NATURE OF THE JOB KIND OF GETS UNDER YOUR SKIN.
I'M GOING TO GET TO ONE OF THE RELENTLESS, LET'S SAY, ADVERSARIES YOU HAD, THAT'S VLADIMIR PUTIN.
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.
MAYBE THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.
YOUR BOOK IS CALLED 'AND THEN WHAT' WITH A BIG QUESTION MARK.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I USED TO SAY IN THE OFFICE A LOT WAS, WHEN GIVEN PAPERS ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, I WOULD SAY, YES, AND THEN WHAT, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH FOREIGN POLICY DIPLOMACY WITH POLITICS GENERALLY IS THAT IT'S SHORT-TERM.
GOVERNMENTS THINK IN TERMS OF THE CYCLE OF THE GOVERNMENT.
SOMETIMES THEY THINK LONGER, PARTICULARLY IF THEY HAVE A GOOD MAJORITY OR IF IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD THEY PLAN TO STAY THERE.
OTHERWISE, IT'S A PRETTY SHORT-TERM SET OF VIEWS OR IDEAS THAT COME FORWARD.
I WANTED US TO THINK LONGER TERM.
DO YOU THINK THAT YOU DID, PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE RUSSIA SITUATION?
I WANT TO READ WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR BOOK ABOUT VLADIMIR PUTIN.
YOU FIRST MET HIM DURING YOUR FIRST YEAR THERE IN 2009.
YOU WRITE THAT POWER OOZES FROM HIM.
YOU SAY IN ALL MY MEETINGS WITH PUTIN, HE GAVE NO SIGN THAT HE RECOGNIZED A SHARED FUTURE ON THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT.
FOR HIM, THE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE WENT DEEP.
MOTHER RUSSIA HAD BEEN INVADED, SACRIFICED MILLIONS AND SUFFERED OVER CENTURIES.
HE WAS NOT THERE TO OFFER FRIENDSHIP.
THAT DOESN'T BODE WELL FOR WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
NO.
BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT EVEN THEN TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHERE HE CAME FROM.
YOU KNOW, RUSSIA HAD GONE THROUGH TURBULENCE FOR DECADES.
IT HAD IN HIM, SO IT THOUGHT, A LEADER WHO BROUGHT STABILITY OF A KIND.
HE WAS VERY PROUD OF HIS COUNTRY.
HE WAS VERY DETERMINED.
HIS COUNTRY WAS, IN HIS TERMS, A MAJOR POWER.
NOT A REGIONAL POWER.
I THINK IT'S AN ACCUMULATION OF IDEAS.
AND I THINK HE SAW THAT THE WEST, IN BROAD TERMS, DID NOT TAKE RUSSIA AS SERIOUSLY AS IT SHOULD.
YOU FEATURE ALONG WITH MANY OTHER PLAYERS IN A VERY, VERY EXHAUSTIVE SERIES ON PUTIN VERSUS THE WEST, WHICH IS ON BBC RIGHT NOW.
YOU AND OTHERS SAY VERY SIMILAR THINGS, THAT ESSENTIALLY PUTIN IS A LIAR.
THAT THAT'S PART OF HIS DIPLOMATIC TOOL KIT.
AND THAT WHEN YOU GO TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW HE IS LYING TO YOU.
KNOWING THAT, HOW DOES ONE EVEN NEGOTIATE WITH HIM NOW?
WELL, IT GOES BACK TO THE IDEA YOU HAVE TO VERIFY EVERYTHING HE SAYS OR DOES.
YOU HAVE TO START FROM THE BEGINNING THAT HE IS NOT TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.
HE IS TELLING YOU EITHER WHAT HE THINKS YOU WANT TO HEAR OR SIMPLY WHAT SUITS HIM TO SAY.
THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE GROUND.
WHEN HE SAYS, WE HAVEN'T GOT ANYBODY IN UKRAINE AND YOU CAN SEE THEM, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS --
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID TO YOU AND OTHERS?
THAT HE SEES THINGS IN THE WAY THAT HE CHOOSES TO.
WITH ME, IT WAS ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO -- IF WE DO ALLOW UKRAINE TO HAVE THIS KIND OF TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE EU, WHAT'S TO STOP ALL THIS STUFF COMING ACROSS OUR BORDER, HE WOULD SAY, THAT'S CONTAMINATED OR IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH OR WE DON'T WANT IT?
THE ANSWER IS, YOUR BORDER CONTROLS.
THAT'S NOT THE POINT IN HIS VIEW.
IN HIS VIEW, IT'S ABOUT LETTING IN SOME FORCE THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE IN HIS COUNTRY.
AND YOU -- YOU WRITE IN THE BOOK THAT THE FIRST MAJOR SIGNS OF POTENTIAL CRISIS OVER UKRAINE AND THIS WHOLE THING THAT IS NOW -- EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT IT IS.
IT WAS OBVIOUS TO YOU IN NOVEMBER 2013, I THINK, ABOUT UKRAINE'S INITIAL ASK TO HAVE A STRONGER -- I THINK A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE EU?
YEAH.
IT WAS A SPECIAL AGREEMENT THAT WAS SORT OF TRADE PLUS CALLED AN ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT.
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THEN WAS DUE TO COME AND SIGN IT.
IT HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED FOR SEVEN YEARS.
ALL IT REQUIRED WAS FOR HIM TO PUT HIS NAME TO IT.
HE CAME TO THE MEETING AND SAID HE WOULDN'T SIGN.
IT WAS OBVIOUS PRETTY QUICKLY -- I WENT TO SEE HIM IN KYIV.
HE MADE CLEAR THE REASON WAS RUSSIA, BOTH IN TERMS OF WHAT RUSSIA COULD DO TO THEIR ECONOMY BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF HIS FEAR THAT RUSSIA --
OF PUTIN?
YEAH.
THAT RUSSIA WOULD SEE THIS AS A MOVE TOWARDS THE WEST.
IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS.
TO ME, THAT SHOWS THAT PUTIN HAS NEVER WANTED UKRAINE TO HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN EASTWARD VIEW, DIDN'T WANT UKRAINE TO HAVE ANY WESTWARD LINKS THAT WERE TOO STRONG.
WHEN HE SAYS THINGS AND HALF THE WORLD BELIEVES IT'S ABOUT NATO EXPANSION AND THIS AND THAT, IT'S BEEN GOING ON BEFORE THAT.
YEAH.
THE ORIGINAL REASON THAT HE MOVED INTO UKRAINE WAS TO DO WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION.
NATO HAS BEEN ADDED IN, BECAUSE AS HE SAYS, ALL THE COUNTRIES HAVE JOINED THE EU THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ALSO JOIN NATO.
HE SEES THE TWO -- HE CLAIMS TO SEE THE TWO AS INDIVISIBLE.
THE REALITY WAS, THIS WAS ABOUT TRADE AND ECONOMIC ISSUES.
IT WAS ABOUT UKRAINE'S DECISION TO TRY AND DEVELOP ITS ECONOMY IN A PARTICULAR MODEL OR STYLE WHICH WAS EUROPEAN.
AND THAT HE COULD NOT TOLERATE.
WHEN YOU MET HIM FACE TO FACE, WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU ABOUT YOURSELF OR THE WEST?
FOR INSTANCE, YOU DID GO TO KYIV RIGHT AFTER THIS ISSUE IN LITHUANIA, ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO LATER, YOU WERE IN KYIV.
IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING.
THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE WERE DISAPPOINTED AND PROTESTING.
THEY HELD SIGNS, EU AND UKRAINE OR THE LIKE.
YOU WERE THERE.
WHAT DID PUTIN SAY TO YOU ABOUT BEING THERE AND BEING SO INVOLVED?
WE SAW HIM IN JANUARY FOR WHAT WAS A REGULAR SIX MONTHLY SUMMIT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RUSSIA.
HE SAID TO ME THAT I SHOULDN'T BE IN THE SQUARE.
MY ANSWER WAS, I DO WHAT I FELT WAS NECESSARY.
AS I POINTED OUT TO HIM AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THE PEOPLE IN THE SQUARE, THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE.
FAMILIES, YOUNG PEOPLE, JOURNALISTS, ACTIVISTS, SURE.
BUT THERE WERE LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO JUST FELT THAT THE PROMISE MADE IN THE ELECTION TO TAKE THEM INTO THIS AGREEMENT HAD BEEN BROKEN.
I SAID, WHEN I GO INTO THAT SQUARE, THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL HOLDING EU FLAGS.
AS EU FOREIGN MINISTER, IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
I DIDN'T STAND ON PLATFORMS IN THE SQUARE.
I DIDN'T MAKE SPEECHES IN THE SQUARE.
BUT I DID GO AND TALK TO PEOPLE TO FIND OUT WHO THEY WERE AND WHY THEY WERE THERE.
PUTIN DIDN'T LIKE THAT AT ALL?
NO.
NO, HE DIDN'T.
OF COURSE, THE RUSSIANS PARTICULARLY DIDN'T LIKE WHEN THEY STARTED TO SEE POLITICIANS ARRIVING.
I REMEMBER SERGEI LAVROV SAYING IF I DID THAT IN A EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRY, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK?
IN RETROSPECT, DO YOU BELIEVE PUTIN HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED BY THE EU AND THE WEST'S TIMID REACTION TO HIS INVASION AND ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA?
YOU TALK ABOUT THE OFFICIAL EU POSITION ON RUSSIA'S INVASION.
I KNEW INVASION WOULDN'T STAND.
IT WOULD BE TOO STRONG FOR SOME COUNTRIES.
BUT IT WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START.
WE SPENT SIX HOURS DISCUSSING THE CRISIS WITH LOTS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXTS FROM MINISTERS.
THE WORD INVASION BECAME ACT OF AGGRESSION IN THE FINAL TEXT.
THE PROBLEM, I THINK, IN A WAY WAS WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
WHEN YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMETHING GOING ON, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO END.
I REMEMBER VERY CLEARLY SITTING IN THE OFFICE ON SUNDAY NIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING WHICH WE HAD TO DECIDE THE WORDS.
WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER RUSSIA WOULD STOP, WHETHER THEY WOULD KEEP GOING.
SO I THINK HOLDING ALL OF THE COUNTRIES TOGETHER AROUND A POSITION THAT ACCEPTED THIS WAS AGGRESSION WAS GOOD IN ITS WAY.
LOOKING BACK, IT TURNED QUITE QUICKLY INTO A SORT OF SEMI-FROZEN CONFLICT.
THE LAST PLACE I WAS BEFORE WE ALL WENT INTO LOCKDOWN WAS ACTUALLY IN KYIV AGAIN, LOOKING AT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
I WAS QUITE WORRIED THEN THAT WE HAD SORT OF NOT REALLY GIVEN THEM THE SUPPORT THAT THEY FELT THEY NEEDED.
THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT THEM.
WE HAD MOVED ON, BACK TO MY AND THEN WHAT.
THINGS HAPPEN.
YOU DEAL WITH THEM AS BEST YOU CAN.
AND THEN THE NEXT CRISIS HAPPENS AND THE NEXT.
PEOPLE MOVE ON.
IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE, I MEAN -- I GUESS IT'S OBVIOUS FOR A DIPLOMAT.
YOU ACTUALLY NEEDED THEM AND WORKED WITH THEM CONSTRUCTIVELY ON OTHER ISSUES.
ON IRAN.
RUSSIA WAS INSTRUMENTAL TO GETTING THE NUCLEAR DEAL.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I WAS FLYING FROM VIENNA WHERE I WOULD BE SPENDING A WEEK WITH THE RUSSIAN TEAM, INCLUDING THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, DIRECTLY TO KYIV WHERE I WAS STANDING ON A PLATFORM CONDEMNING RUSSIA FOR WHAT IT HAD DONE AND FLYING BACK.
LITERALLY, WE COMPARTMENTALIZED.
WHEN I MET PUTIN, HE MADE THE POINT IT WAS NOT ABOUT IRAN WHERE WE WERE WORKING TOGETHER AND WHERE THEY WERE CONFIDENT IN WHAT WAS GOING ON AND I THINK IN WHAT I WAS DOING.
IT WAS BIZARRE.
I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD HAPPEN ABOUT TRYING TO START UP NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN TODAY AS IT IS HAMMERING PROTESTERS AND AS IT IS EXECUTING PEOPLE PUBLICALLY AND HUMAN RIGHTS FINALLY UNDER THE MICROSCOPE AND THERE'S NO DEAL AND THERE'S NO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE AMERICANS ARE SAYING, AND EVEN THE EU -- THE EU PRESIDENT SAID TO ME, THERE'S NO NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NUCLEAR DEAL RIGHT NOW.
IT'S SHOCKING.
WHAT IRAN IS DOING TO ITS PEOPLE.
IT'S TRULY, TRULY SHOCKING.
A SITUATION WHERE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SHOCKED.
I AM.
BY WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
IT'S BACK TO THIS POINT ABOUT DIPLOMACY IS FOR ME THE DRIP, DRIP, DRIP STUFF.
IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON.
I NEGOTIATE WITH IRAN FOR 4 1/2 YEARS.
I NEITHER STARTED NOR ENDED THE TALKS.
THAT'S HOW IT HAS TO BE.
YOU NEED TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION IN SOME WAY AT SOME LEVEL SOMEWHERE MOVING IN ORDER THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THE MOMENT THAT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE AGAIN, YOU ARE THERE AND YOU ARE READY AND YOU CAN MOVE.
IT MIGHT NOT COME.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU LIKE IT.
THE WHOLE POINT OF A NEGOTIATION IS YOU DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COFFEE WITH.
YOU NEGOTIATE WITH PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
ON THAT LEVEL, THE IAEH CHIEF SAID IRAN, SINCE TRUMP PULLED AMERICA OUT OF IT, AND IT COLLAPSED, HAS ENRICHED ENOUGH URANIUM FOR SEVERAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
WE ARE IN A WORSE POSITION THAN WHEN I STARTED THE TALKS ALL THOSE YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT HOW CLOSE IRAN WAS TO BEING ABLE TO BUILD A NUCLEAR DEVICE.
WE ARE MUCH CLOSER NOW.
THE TRAGEDY IS IN PART THAT THE U.S. DECIDED TO PULL AWAY FROM THE DEAL, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF BUILDING ON IT, IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE THE ONLY DEAL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS WAS A MASSIVE ISSUE WE WANTED TO TACKLE, WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT, WE WANTED TO PUT PRESSURE ON.
BUT WE HAD TO GET RID OF THIS URGENCY THAT WAS THE IDEA THAT IRAN COULD HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
LET ME GO BACK TO YOUR PERSONAL JOURNEY.
WHEN YOU WERE FIRST NAMED, YOU GOT PUSHBACK.
AT THAT TIME YOU HAD NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE, CERTAINLY NOT AT THAT LEVEL.
IN 2011, A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER YOU WERE THERE, THE UK FOREIGN OFFICE MISTAKENLY PUBLISHED A CONFIDENTIAL MEMO SUGGESTING YOU WEREN'T READY TO BE FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF.
HOW DID YOU REACT TO THAT KIND OF CRITICISM?
I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT UNTIL YOU JUST TOLD ME.
REALLY?
THERE WERE PLENTY OF OTHER CRITICISMS.
THERE WERE QUITE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO FELT THE JOB SHOULD HAVE GONE TO A FOREIGN MINISTER OR SOMEBODY WITH EXPERIENCE.
THAT WAS FAIR ENOUGH.
IT WAS PERSONALLY VERY DIFFICULT AND VERY TOUGH.
IT'S NOT EASY TO HAVE THAT KIND OF STUFF THROWN AT YOU, NOT LEAST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.
I WANTED TO BE JUDGED ON WHAT I DID.
I DECIDED THE ONLY WAY WAS TO GET ON WITH IT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY INTERESTING.
YOU DESCRIBE MEETING THE THEN COMMISSION PRESIDENT WHO TOLD YOU FOR THE HRVP, WE NEED A BRIT AND A WOMAN FROM LEFT OF CENTER POLITICS.
EXACTLY.
HE SAID THIS TO ME.
WE WERE IN INDIA TOGETHER AT A CONFERENCE.
HE VERY SWEETLY SAID, HAVE YOU THOUGHT AT ALL ABOUT THIS ROLE?
I HADN'T IN THE LEAST.
I WAS READY TO GO HOME.
I HAD DONE MY YEAR.
I HAD ENJOYED IT.
YOU WERE THE TRADE MINISTER TO EUROPE FROM THE UK?
THAT'S RIGHT.
I WAS THE FIRST WOMAN SENT BY BRITAIN TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.
I WAS THE FIRST WOMAN TO BE GIVEN THE TRADE PORTFOLIO.
I FELT I HAD DONE SOMETHING OF HOPEFULLY VALUE.
I WAS READY TO GO HOME.
HE JUST SAID, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THIS?
I SAID, NOT IN THE LEAST.
THERE WERE LOADS OF PEOPLE MORE EXPERIENCED THAN I AM.
I FELT THAT.
HE JUST SAID, LOOK, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE THE BRITS A BIG JOB.
THE OTHER JOBS ARE GONE.
IT NEEDS TO BE A WOMAN, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO WOMEN IN THE MIX.
IT NEEDS TO BE SOMEBODY NOT A CONSERVATIVE, BECAUSE A CONSERVATIVE HAS TAKEN THE PRESIDENT JOBS.
THAT WAS YOU.
AN AMAZING PERCH ON THAT WINDOWSILL OF HISTORY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
> TURNING NOW TO THEATER ROYALTY.
HE MAY BE KNOWN TO MILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD AS GANDOLF, BUT THIS BRITISH NATIONAL TREASURE'S BIG LOVE IS FOR THE STAGE, ESPECIALLY SHAKESPEARE.
HE IS SIR IAN McKELLEN.
HE HAS TAKEN ON A PANTOMIME, STARRING IN MOTHER GOOSE.
IT'S FULL OF HIJINKS, CROSS DRESSING.
HE IS TAKING THE COMEDY ON TOUR AROUND THE UK AND IRELAND AFTER A SOLD OUT WEST END RUN.
WHEN HE JOINED ME IN THE STUDIO, HE EXPLAINED WHO HE WANTS TO REACH.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PANTOMIME.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, WHAT'S THE MORAL STORY OF MOTHER GOOSE?
VERY HAPPILY IN OUR VERSION MARRIED.
SHE'S RUNNING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY.
SHE'S A GOOD PERSON.
GOES AROUND DOING GOOD DEEDS.
SHE HAS A SECRET DESIRE WHICH SHE KEEPS BANKED DOWN, WHICH IS TO BE FAMOUS.
BY CHANCE, IT COMES ABOUT THAT SHE CAN SWAP THE GOLDEN EGGS FROM HER GOOSE IN EXCHANGE FOR FAME AND FORTUNE.
NO SPOILER ALERT.
IT'S A VERY SUITABLE MORALE STORY.
IT'S THIS MISHMASH.
I COMPARE IT TO THE CHRISTMAS PUDDING THAT WE EAT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
IT'S FULL OF ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
UNEXPECTED THINGS.
CHERRIES AND RAISINS AND NUTS.
YOU NEVER KNOW.
IN OUR PANTOMIME, YOU KNOW BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN IT, YOU GET A BIT OF SHAKESPEARE AND THE ACTUAL WORDS.
THERE'S SOME SENTIMENT.
WE HOPE IT'S MOVING AS WELL AS HILARIOUS.
IT'S HILARIOUS.
I WANT TO PLAY SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN I LAST INTERVIEWED YOU WHEN YOU PUT ON YOUR SPECTACULAR KING LEAR THAT WAS IN 2018.
YOU SAID THIS ABOUT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ALL GENERATIONS COME TO SEE YOU.
OF COURSE, IT'S A THRILL TO PLAY TO OLD PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF, PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN MANY KING LEARS AND FEEL THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOT IT.
THEY WANT MORE.
THEN TO CAPTURE THE MIND AND THE HEART AND AFFECT THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON, AND THAT THEY DISCOVER LIVE THEATER EARLY ON, I JUST THINK THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME THE MOST EXCITEMENT.
STILL?
HE IS A NICE CHAP.
SPEAKING A LOT OF SENSE.
YEAH, YEAH.
I AGREE WITH HIM.
WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE ADDED IS WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN IS THAT BRITISH FAMILIES GO TO SEE PANTOMIME, REGARDLESS OF CLASS OR INCOME.
PANTOMIME IS A MUST.
YOU GO WITH YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR SIBLINGS AND YOUR AUNTS AND UNCLES AND GRANDPARENTS.
ALL THE GENERATIONS ARE THERE LAUGHING.
NOT PERHAPS ALWAYS UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE LAUGHING AT IN THE CASE OF THE CHILDREN.
SOME OF THE JOKES CAN BE RISQUE.
BUT MANY NOT.
IT'S A CONFIRMATION OF THE FAMILY, BUT FAMILY IN PUBLIC.
NEXT DOOR TO OTHER FAMILIES DOING THE SAME THING.
THAT'S WHAT THEATER CAN DO.
IT CAN TAKE GROUPS OF STRANGERS AND TURN THEM INTO A HOMOGENOUS FAMILY.
A LARGER FAMILY.
A NATION, REALLY.
THAT ENJOYS WHAT IT SEES.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING TO DO, I THINK.
IT IS ALSO VERY GOOD INTRODUCTION TO THE POSSIBILITIES OF THEATER.
PANTOMIME, YOU GET SINGING, DANCING, A STORY, AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION, SOMETIMES THE AUDIENCE ON THE STAGE.
THE AUDIENCE IS ANOTHER CHARACTER IN THE STORY.
THAT IS NOT UNLIKE WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN A SHAKESPEARE PLAY WHERE A CHARACTER WILL SPEAK --
YOU DID A BIT OF SHAKESPEARE IN THERE.
WE WILL GET TO THAT.
YOU ARE AS MOTHER GOOSE DRESSED IN A PHENOMENAL SET OF FANTASTIC DRESSES.
I GUESS IT'S AUDREY HEPBURN.
IT LOOKS LIKE JULIA CHILD.
YES.
THAT'S MY FAVORITE.
HILARIOUS.
THE HOUSEKEEPER, THE CLEANER.
I ALWAYS THINK MOTHER GOOSE, DAFT AS SHE IS, HAS A HEART OF GOLD.
AND PERHAPS IS A MAGISTRATE AT THE LOCAL COURT.
OR A GUARD AT THE TOWER OF LONDON.
SHE BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE TOWER OF LONDON WHEN RICHES COME HER WAY.
LIKE HER BEST --
THERE.
SHE'S VERY WISE AND FUNNY.
I WANT TO ASK YOU FOR OUR GLOBAL AUDIENCE THE ENERGY COMPANY IS THE BIG BAD BOOGIE MAN OF THE PLAY.
EVERYONE HAS TO REACT AND REPEAT IT AND ALL THE REST.
THEN YOU TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE RATHER HARDLINE MINISTERS IN CHARGE OF POLICE AND OTHERS AS CRUELLA.
YOU HAVE A PIG IN A SCHOOL TIE YOU CALL BORIS.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
IT'S A POLITICAL TIME, EVEN AS WE SPEAK.
PEOPLE ARE OUT ON STREETS IN HUGE STRIKES.
THERE'S SO MUCH COST OF LIVING AND SOCIAL DISCONTENT.
THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO PUT THIS SHOW ON ARE FED UP TO THE TEETH WITH GOVERNMENTS OF LATE.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT COMES IN FOR OUR JOBS RATHER THAN THE OPPOSITION WAITING TO BE THE GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE NOT FAIR.
IT'S ALSO TO THE RIGHT WINGERS.
THE AUDIENCE REACTION IS CLEARLY ON OUR SIDE AS WELL.
WE ARE SPEAKING TO THE CONVERTED AND NOT REALLY GETTING INVOLVED IN POLITICS.
I THINK PANTOMIME BRINGS OUT THE CHILD IN NOT JUST THE PERFORMER BUT THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.
IT'S JUST BEING THAT --
THUMBING YOUR NOSE.
ONE OF THE MORE RIGHT WING, LET'S SAY, CONSERVATIVE BROADSHEETS GAVE YOU A FIVE STAR REVIEW.
THAT'S THE MOST STARS.
BECAUSE THAT CRITIC, AS A CHILD, HAD BEEN TO PANTOMIME AND I HOPE BEEN REMINDED IN OURS THE JOY THAT SHE HAD SOME YEARS AGO AND PROBABLY WHY SHE DECIDED TO BE A DRAMA CRITIC.
YOU ARE 83 YEARS OLD.
AM I REALLY?
APPARENTLY.
YOU DON'T LOOK IT.
YOU DON'T ACT IT.
WHICH IS WHAT MY QUESTION WAS.
HOW DO YOU -- DO YOU TRAIN?
THIS IS VERY PHYSICAL, MOTHER GOOSE.
YOU ARE ALWAYS ON THE STAGE.
YOU ARE RUNNING IN, RUNNING OUT, CHANGING CLOTHES.
AT ONE POINT I SAW YOU BARED YOUR CHEST OR SOMETHING BECAUSE I SAW YOUR ARMS.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
I THINK MOST OF THAT IS GENETICS.
I HAVE TO THANK MY FATHER AND MOTHER FOR A STRENGTHY FRAME.
I WOULDN'T SAY I HAVE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.
I DO A LITTLE BIT OF TRAINING.
I DO PILATES, THAT STRETCHES THE FORM.
MOST OF ALL, A TRICK I LEARNED A LONG, LONG TIME AGO IS I ALWAYS SLEEP BEFORE WORK.
YOU MEAN LITERALLY JUST BEFORE?
YES.
I WILL GO TO BED IN THE AFTERNOON FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF AND GET UP AND HAVE SOMETHING TO EAT, A SHOWER AND I'M READY.
WHERE DOES HE GET HIS ENERGY FROM?
HE HASN'T BEEN WASTING HIS ENERGY ON LIFE.
HE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR THE MOMENT WHEN HE WILL COME ALIVE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
THAT'S WHERE MY ENERGY GOES.
THEN I FLOP.
SOMETIMES TWO PERFORMANCES A DAY.
DO YOU DO A MATINEE AND NIGHT?
OFTEN I SLEEP BEFORE BOTH PERFORMANCES.
WOW.
THAT'S THE TRICK, REALLY.
THE AUDIENCE HAS BEEN WORKING ALL DAY LONG AND THINK IT'S AMAZING ANYONE HAS ENERGY.
THAT'S TRUE.
NOW WE KNOW.
NOW WE KNOW.
YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE'S SHAKESPEARE AND THIS AND THAT.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS ALWAYS OR JUST IN THIS BECAUSE OF YOU.
THERE'S A REFERENCE TO GANDOLF.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY -- YOU DO SHAKESPEARE.
JOHN BISHOP, WHO PLAYS FATHER GOOSE, WHO IS HILARIOUS -- YOU PLAY OFF EACH OTHER SO WELL.
IT'S LEGACY STUFF.
RIGHT?
YES.
YOU HAVE IN A PANTOMIME THE RIGHT IF NOT THE DUTY TO THROW IN ANYTHING YOU WANT.
IF YOU CAN DO SPLITS, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE.
IF YOU CAN DO A BIT OF SHAKESPEARE CONVINCINGLY, THAT'S MY TURN.
I GET TO SING, WHICH PROBABLY I SHOULDN'T.
THE THING IS, I'M PLAYING NOT JUST A WOMAN, MOTHER GOOSE, OF A CERTAIN AGE, I'M PLAYING A VERSION OF A WOMAN, AN EXAGGERATED MASCULINE VIEW OF A WOMAN.
I'M A MAN IN A FROCK.
I AM ALSO IAN McKELLEN.
I'M ALSO PEOPLE'S MEMORY OF OTHER DAMES, OTHER MEN DRESSING UP AT WOMEN AND TRYING TO BE AMUSING.
THERE'S A MOMENT THAT PERHAPS YOU REMEMBER WHEN MOTHER GOOSE HAS BEEN PROMISED A CHANCE OF FAME, WHICH IS WHAT SHE ALWAYS WANTED, AND SHE REMINISCES WITH THE AUDIENCE ABOUT THE FIRST TIME SHE SAW A PANTOMIME.
SHE SAYS, IT'S WONDERFUL, BUT THIS MAN CAME ON IN A FROCK AND A WIG AND PAINTED FINGERNAILS, WHICH I HAVE AS MOTHER GOOSE.
IT'S NOT MY TASTE REALLY.
THE AUDIENCE LAUGHED, BECAUSE THEY KNOW I'M IAN McKELLEN AS WELL AS MOTHER GOOSE.
THERE'S A DUALITY.
IS IT MOTHER GOOSE'S STORY OR IAN McKELLEN'S STORY?
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE WHEN YOU READ A NOVEL OR WATCHING A BALLET, PROBABLY, OR CERTAINLY WATCHING A FILM.
CINEMA DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO THAT COMPLICATION.
YOU TAKE IT IN YOUR STRIDE IN THE THEATER.
IT SETS YOU UP FOR THE DAY WHEN YOU SEE MIGHTY WORK LIKE SHAKESPEARE, WHERE THOSE PRACTICALITY BECOME MORE IMPORTANT.
TALKING ABOUT BALLET AND SHAKESPEARE, YOU HAVE DONE TWO HAMLETS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
IN 2021 AND LAST YEAR.
THE LAST ONE INVOLVED DANCING.
YOU WERE DECLAIMING BUT THERE WAS BALLET GOING AROUND.
THERE WAS.
YOU DO LIKE TO MIX IT UP A BIT.
IT'S QUITE EXPERIMENTAL.
RIGHT?
THESE ARE JUST THINGS I WANT TO DO.
THE COLLABORATOR SAYS, WHY DON'T YOU PLAY HAMLET?
NO.
HE CONVINCES ME.
I DO IT AND ENJOY IT.
WE FILM IT.
I ENJOY THAT, TOO.
THAT'S OVER.
PETER SAYS, COME TO MY DANCE COMPANY.
SPEAK HAMLET WHILE THE YOUNG PEOPLE DANCE AROUND YOU.
WHY WOULDN'T I WANT TO GO AND SEE HOW A BALLET IS DEVISED AND PERFORMED?
I FOUND MYSELF CONTRIBUTING.
IT IS EXTRAORDINARY.
NOW I'M DOING BALLET.
THERE'S NO SENSE TO IT OTHER THAN, THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO DO.
IT'S VERY -- IT'S LIKE -- WHAT CAN I SAY?
YOU ARE SO ESTABLISHED AND YET YOU ARE WILLING TO TAKE ON ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE, YOU SEE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT.
IF I EVER WAS.
I'M TRYING TO GIVE THE AUDIENCE A GOOD TIME, HONESTLY.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE TOURING.
I THINK THE REGIONS GET LEFT BEHIND IN THIS COUNTRY AS FAR AS THEATER IS CONCERNED.
I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN GRATEFUL FOR THOSE ACTORS WHO TOURED AROUND WHEN I WAS LIVING THERE AS A BOY.
I NEVER GOT TO LONDON.
THEATER, I THINK, IS REALLY, REALLY -- TO DISCOVER THEATER, YOU WILL HAVE DISCOVERED SOMETHING FOR LIFE.
IT WILL REPAY YOUR ATTENTION AND YOU WILL BE DOING IN THE COMPANY OF OTHER PEOPLE, IT'S A VERY SOCIABLE ACTIVITY.
IT'S GOOD NOT JUST FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BUT FOR THE WHOLE NATION.
I LIKE IT THAT BRITS ARE GOOD AT THEATER.
YOU KEEP US ALL LAUGHING.
EVEN NOW, YOU ARE JUST FUNNY, VERY FUNNY, PROBABLY NOT WHEN YOU ARE DOING THE MOST TRAGIC PARTS OF HAMLET.
BUT YOU ARE VERY, VERY FUNNY.
CLEARLY, YOU ARE IMPASSIONED BY SHAKESPEARE.
PEOPLE SAY, WAS THAT HIS LAST SHAKESPEARE?
I REMEMBER KING LEAR, WORD WAS PUT OUT MAYBE THE GREAT WOULD NOT DO SHAKESPEARE ANYMORE.
THEN BOOM.
GREAT ACTORS WAITING --
I KNOW.
WILL YOU KEEP DOING IT?
MORE SHAKESPEARE?
I THINK I AM GOING TO DO MORE SHAKESPEARE.
WHICH ONE?
TELL US.
BREAKING NEWS.
WELL, I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PLAY A MIGHTY PART, HENRY IV.
THE CENTER OF THE ACTION THERE.
IT'S A PART I HAVE RESISTED AND MAY STILL RESIST.
WHY?
I AM CONSIDERING IT.
I THINK IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT PART.
DO I WANT SOMETHING DIFFICULT AT THE MOMENT?
PERHAPS I DO.
I WOULD LIKE THE CHALLENGE, YES.
AS LONG AS MY BRAIN KEEPS GOING AND MY KNEES KEEP WORKING, I WILL GO ON DOING THEATER.
WHICH IT IS.
YOU CAN LEARN YOUR LINES?
YES.
YOU DON'T HAVE THEM PIPED INTO YOUR EAR?
NO.
SOME PEOPLE DO.
YES.
I KNOW.
NO.
I WOULD RATHER IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS COMING AND INVENT SOMETHING.
IMPROVISE.
I DON'T WANT ANYONE SITTING IN MY EAR.
FILM OR THEATER?
WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE?
AS AN AUDIENCE AND A PARTICIPANT, THEATER.
THEATER IS IN MY BLOOD.
I KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN I DO THE CINEMA.
I DON'T FEEL I'M IN A CINEMA TRADITION.
EXCEPT EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU.
I DON'T THINK I CAN HOLD A CANDLE TO.
I WILL STICK WITH WHAT I CAN DO.
FAVORITE ROLE?
FAVORITE THEATRICAL ROLE?
I HAD A BIG SUCCESS IN THE SCOTTISH PLAY WITH JULIE DENCH.
IT'S MACBETH.
IT WAS A WONDERFUL PRODUCTION.
IT HAS ILLUMINATED MY DAYS OF HOW TO ACT.
IT WAS DONE IN A SMALL THEATER.
I LEARNED A LEVEL OF PLAYING WHICH I HADN'T DONE BEFORE WHICH FITTED WHAT THE CAMERA REQUIRED.
THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT STEPPING STONE TO THE FILM WORK I DID, WHICH I'M VERY PLEASED TO HAVE DONE.
IT'S VERY SWEET WHEN I MEET PEOPLE OF ALL AGES, YOUNGSTERS AND MUCH OLDER, WHO HAVE FEEL THEIR LIVES HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY 'LORD OF THE RINGS.'
EPIC.
MY LIFE CHANGED.
LUCKY TO LAND IN A CLASSIC.
IT WAS A CLASSIC.
LET ME ASK YOU FINALLY ABOUT QUEER REPRESENTATION IN THE ARTS.
YOU FAMOUSLY CAME OUT IN A DRAMATIC INTERVIEW 35 YEARS AGO WITH BBC.
NOW THERE'S SO MUCH PROGRESS MADE.
IN THE ARTS PARTICULARLY, EVEN IN THE OSCARS RIGHT NOW, DO YOU THINK -- IT'S OBVIOUSLY HERE TO STAY.
SOME PEOPLE IN SHOW BUSINESS HAVE BEEN IN THE VANGUARD OF SOCIAL CHANGE.
SUCH AS YOURSELF.
WELL, BUT I WAS ONE OF MANY IN YOUR COUNTRY AND MINE.
I DON'T KNOW -- YOU NOTICE THE CHANGE WHEN IT'S HAPPENED BUT PERHAPS NOT WHILE IT'S HAPPENING.
AT THE END OF THIS PANTOMIME, THERE ARE THREE MARRIAGES.
THE RE-MARRIAGE OF MOTHER GOOSE AND HER HUSBAND, TO RENEW THEIR MARRIAGE VOW.
THE MARRIAGE OF THE HETEROSEXUAL SON TO THE GIRLFRIEND.
THE MARRIAGE OF TWO FAIRIES, GOOD AND EVIL, WHO DECIDE TO GET MARRIED AS WELL.
WE HAVE A LESBIAN MARRIAGE AT THE END OF MOTHER GOOSE.
JUST BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE JOHN BISHOP PLAYING MY HUSBAND KISSING ME FULL ON THE LIPS TO THE ROARING APPROVAL OF THE CROWD.
AND THE KIDS?
INCLUDING THE KIDS?
INCLUDING THE KIDS.
THEN WHEN I SAY IN A DEEPLY MASCULINE VOICE BUT DRESSED IN A FEMININE WAY, WAIT UNTIL I GET YOU HOME, THE AUDIENCE RECEIVED THAT NEWS WITH SOME HILARITY BUT DELIGHT.
I THINK WE HAVE GROWN UP.
WE CAN NOW ALLOW MEN TO BE MEN IN WHATEVER WAY THEY WANT AND WOMEN TO BE WOMEN AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
PANTOMIME EMBRACES IT ALL, CROSS DRESSING.
IT BRINGS IT ALL TO A VERY HUMAN LEVEL SO THAT PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE AT A PANTOMIME CAN MAKE REFERENCE, OF COURSE, TO THEIR OWN LIVES AND THE DELIGHTS AND MISERIES OF IT BUT FORGET IT AND INDULGE IN A FANTASY WHERE EVERYONE LAUGHS AT THE SAME THINGS, AT THE SAME MOMENT AND TAKES PLEASURE FROM THAT COMMUNITY.
IT IS PLEASURE, INDEED.
THAT'S YOUR GREAT GIFT.
TO BE ALLOWED TO BE THE LORD OF MISRULE CONDUCTING ALL THIS NONSENSE IS A GREAT, GREAT SATISFACTION.
THANK YOU.
IT'S A WONDERFUL SHOW AND DELIVERS LOADS OF MUCH NEEDED LAUGHTER.
RETURNING NOW TO PUTIN'S PLANS TO KEEP TRYING TO INFLICT PAIN ON THE WEST AND STOP ITS DIE DEFENSE OF UKRAINE.
JULIA DUFFY IS THE WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT FOR PUCK.
THANK YOU.
WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE, BIDEN HAS THE UKRAIIAN AMBASSADOR THERE AND SAYS, WE WILL STAND WITH YOU AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
I GOT THE FEELING IT WAS DOWNPLAYED A BIT.
IT WASN'T THAT MUCH OF A PUSH THERE.
WHAT'S HAPPENING?
IS THERE SOME FEELING THAT MAYBE WE ARE TIRED OF THIS?
I THINK ONE YEAR IN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RIGHT FLANK OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND MAYBE THE LEFT FLANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SKEPTICAL OF SO MUCH AID AT THIS POINT, WELL OVER $100 BILLION OF AID GOING TO UKRAINE, IT'S PROBABLY -- IT WAS PROBABLY BEST FOR BIDEN TO SAY, YES, WE ARE COMMITTED TO UKRAINE, YES, WE ARE BACKING UKRAINE AS LONG AS IT TAKES, AND THEN MOVE ON, BECAUSE, FRANKLY, GETTING THE AID IN WHILE NOBODY IS REALLY PAYING ATTENTION IS PROBABLY BETTER FOR UKRAINE.
180,000 RUSSIAN TROOPS HAVE BEEN KILLED ALREADY IN A YEAR.
I THINK 100,000 UKRAINIAN ONES.
THAT'S, LIKE, FIVE TIMES THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS KILLED IN VIETNAM.
HOW CAN THIS WAR BE SUSTAINED THAT MUCH LONGER?
THAT IS THE QUESTION ON EVERYONE'S MINDS.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING THAT WE ARE HITTING -- WE ARE COMING UP ON A YEAR OF THIS WAR.
THE COLLECTIVE DEATH TOLL FOR RUSSIA AND UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS, UKRAINIAN CIVILIANS, THE TOTAL NUMBER IS HITTING HALF A MILLION PEOPLE IN A YEAR IN THE 21st CENTURY.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A MIND-NUMBING NUMBER.
UNFORTUNATELY, PUTIN SEEMS TO BE FOLLOWING THE AGE-OLD RUSSIAN TRADITION IN WHICH THE LIVES OF EVERYBODY BUT THE RULER DO NOT COUNT AND DO NOT MATTER.
HE SEEMS ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO THROW COUNTLESS BODIES AT THE MEAT GRINDER AND HOPING TO WIN THAT WAY, BY SHEER NUMBERS.
TELL ME HOW THIS COULD END IN A NEGOTIATED WAY.
IT'S HARD TO SEE IT ENDING, FRANKLY, AT THIS POINT, IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE IT ENDING IN A NEGOTIATED WAY.
I DON'T THINK EITHER SIDE IS EXHAUSTED ENOUGH OR WANTING THIS TO END.
RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT TO NEGOTIATE.
RUSSIA THINKS IT CAN WIN THIS THING.
UKRAINE STILL THINKS IT COULD WIN THIS THING.
SO I THINK WE ARE VERY FAR AWAY FROM ANY KIND OF EVEN BEGINNING OF A NEGOTIATION.
WHEN YOU SAY RUSSIA STILL THINKS IT CAN WIN THIS THING, I ASSUME YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTIN STILL THINKS THAT.
WHAT DOES WIN MEAN?
DOES HE THINK HE CAN CAPTURE ALL OF UKRAINE, OCCUPY IT AGAIN?
I THINK THE GOALS ARE FLUID.
I THINK RIGHT NOW RUSSIAN TROOPS ARE MAKING PROGRESS IN THE DONBAS.
THEY ARE GETTING CLOSE TO TAING A CITY THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, VERY BIG SIGNIFICANCE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE, BUT IT HAS ACQUIRED THIS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
THEY ARE ON THE VERGE OF TAKING THAT.
I THINK THAT MIGHT GIVE THEM SOME POLITICAL MOMENTUM.
I THINK ONCE THEY -- IF THEY TAKE THE DONBAS, THEY CAN TRY AGAIN FOR KHARKIV OR KYIV.
THIS IS NOT A MAN WHO THINKS THAT HE SHOULD STOP.
I THINK HE THINKS HE HAS TIME ON HIS SIDE.
HE HAS NUMBERS ON HIS SIDE.
AGAIN --
IS THAT TRUE?
MAYBE HE DOES HAVE TIME ON HIS SIDE OR NUMBERS ON HIS SIDE.
OR HE MIGHT NOT.
HE MIGHT ALSO DROP DEAD TOMORROW.
YOU KNOW?
WHEN JOSEPH STALIN DIED, THE PEOPLE BELOW HIM DECIDED TO WRAP UP THE KOREAN WAR.
THEY DIDN'T SEE MUCH POINT IN CONTINUING THEIR OLD BOSS' WAR.
WE HAVE NO IDEA.
I DON'T -- AS LONG AS PUTIN IS IN CHARGE, I DON'T SEE THIS GOING TO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT ANY TIME SOON.
PUTIN WANTS TO KEEP GOING ALL THE WAY.
HE WANTS UKRAINE.
SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE ISSUES, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING JUST A CEASE-FIRE IN PLACE AND PUSHING DOWN THE ROAD MAYBE A FEW YEARS THE LARGER ISSUES?
THAT'S WHAT WE HAD BASICALLY IN 2014, 2015 WITH THE VARIOUS MINSK AGREEMENTS.
WHAT IT GAVE US WAS FEBRUARY 24, 2022.
WE HAD A KIND OF LITTLE WAR THAT STRETCHED ON A FROZEN CONFLICT THAT TOOK 13,000 LIVES IN EIGHT YEARS.
BUT IT WAS MANAGEABLE.
THE WORLD SAW IT AS MANAGEABLE.
I THINK UKRAINE CAME TO BASICALLY SEE IT AS MANAGEABLE.
IT GAVE US A MUCH BIGGER WAR IN THE END.
IT GAVE RUSSIA THE TIME AND THE SPACE TO ACCUMULATE, TRAIN FORCES AND TO PLAN THIS BIGGER WAR.
THE WORRY IS THAT YOU FREEZE THE CONFLICT IN PLACE AS IT IS NOW, AND THEN THAT BECOMES THE STARTING LINE FOR THE NEXT WAR.
WHICH CAN BE MUCH BIGGER AND EVEN MORE DESTRUCTIVE AND EVEN MORE DEADLY.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM NOW IN THE PRESENT INSTEAD OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD EVEN MORE.
IF YOU THINK THIS WAR IS JUST DESTINED TO DRAG ON, DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD BE GIVING A LOT MORE TANKS, LONGER RANGE MISSILES, AIRPLANES?
I THINK THE FASTEST WAY TO END THIS WAR, FRANKLY, IS TO GIVE THE UKRAINIANS THE WEAPONS THEY NEED TO WIN THIS WAR.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO END THIS WAR.
AND IT'S THE FASTEST WAY TO END IT, FRANKLY.
THE WORSE THING THE WEST CAN DO IS TO DO WHAT THE WESTERN POWERS DID IN SPAIN IN THE LATE 1930s.
THEY GAVE THE SPANISH REPUBLIC JUST ENOUGH, WITH THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR, JUST NOT NOT TO LOSE BUT NOT ENOUGH TO WIN.
THEREBY, DRAGGING OUT THE FIGHT, TAKING MORE LIVES, MAKING IT BLOODIER, LONGER AND NOT PREVENTING THE INEVITABLE LOSS.
SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO GO ALL IN FASTER.
IF WE GO ALL IN AND REALLY SUPPORT UKRAINE -- YOU SAY THERE'S A POSSIBILITY UKRAINE COULD JUST WIN THIS WAR.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY WOULD EVEN RETAKE CRIMEA AND EVERYTHING?
OR COULD THEY DECLARE VICTORY BY JUST RETAKING THE DONBAS REGION?
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A POLITICALLY VIABLE SOLUTION FOR THEM RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IF YOU WERE TO ASK UKRAINIAN PEOPLE IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THAT, I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT, UNFORTUNATELY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT PUTIN HIMSELF HAS MADE THAT A NON-VIABLE OPTION.
MAYBE THEY WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT PRE FEBRUARY 24th OF 2022.
THE ABSOLUTELY VICIOUS, DESTRUCTIVE, BRUTAL WAR THAT HE HAS UNLEASHED ON THEM HAS DEEPLY RADICALIZED THE UKRAINIAN POPULATION UNDERSTANDABLY AND HAS MADE THEM ABSOLUTELY UNWILLING TO COMPROMISE WITH THE POWER THAT'S BRUTALIZING AND DESTROYING THEIR COUNTRY AND KILLING THEIR COUNTRYMEN AND WOMEN.
I UNDERSTAND THE UKRAINIANS WOULD NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN OUTRIGHT VICTORY, INCLUDING TAKING CRIMEA.
BUT IS THAT IN THE AMERICAN INTEREST TO KEEP THIS WAR GOING UNTIL SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS?
IS IT IN THE INTEREST OF THE WEST TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE NOW NEED A SOLUTION?
I THINK IT'S IN AMERICA'S INTEREST TO GET PEACE AND A LASTING PEACE HAS TO BE A JUST PEACE AND IT HAS TO BE A PEACE WHERE BOTH SIDES WALK AWAY FROM THE TABLE FEELING LIKE THEY DON'T NEED TO GO TO WAR AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK THE CONDITIONS ARE THERE YET ON EITHER SIDE TO GET THERE.
IMPOSING THE U.S. COULD DRAG THE UKRAINIANS TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.
I DON'T THINK THE RUSSIANS WILL BE THERE.
I DON'T THINK THE RUSSIANS WOULD NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH.
I THINK THE RUSSIANS WOULD USE ANY SETTLEMENT AS TIME AND SPACE TO AMASS MORE FORCES AND TRY AGAIN FOR KYIV, TRY AGAIN TO TAKE OVER MORE UKRAINIAN TERRITORY.
UKRAINIANS KNOW THAT.
AGAIN, THE U.S. CAN'T JUST WAVE ITS WAND AND MAKE THE PARTY DOZEN WHAT IT WANTS.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY HAS BECOME AN AMAZING PLAYER ON THE WORLD STAGE.
JUST THIS WEEK, THERE WERE SCENES OF HIM MAKING A SURPRISE TRIP TO ENGLAND.
DO YOU THINK THAT HE HAS BECOME SUCH A FORCE THAT IT WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THE BRITISH, THE GERMANS AND OTHERS KEEP SUPPLYING WEAPONS EVEN IF SOME IN THE UNITED STATES WANT TO PULL BACK?
I THINK SO.
I THINK HE HAS BECOME AN INCREDIBLE SPOKESMAN FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE, BOTH INSIDE HIS COUNTRY WHERE HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO RALLY THE POPULATION AND UNITE THE POPULATION, WHICH IS INCREDIBLE BECAUSE GOING INTO THE WAR, HIS APPROVAL RATING WAS SOMETHING LIKE 25%, 28%. HE HAS BECOME AN INCREDIBLE WAR-TIME LEADER AND IS AN EFFECTIVE MESSENGER FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE ABROAD, INCLUDING HERE IN THE U.S.
I ALSO DON'T -- I DON'T SEE THE U.S. FATIGUING AS QUICKLY AS YOU ARE SUGGESTING.
I THINK IT IS STILL THE MAINSTREAM POSITION OF BOTH THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.
I KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE, THE BIDE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE SEES MITCH McCONNELL AS A STRONG SUPPORTER.
HE SEES IT AS KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.
I DON'T SEE AID TO UKRAINE BECOMING A PROBLEM.
IT MIGHT NOT BE IN AS BIG NUMBERS AS WE SAW IN THE FIRST YEAR, WHICH IS NATURAL.
I DON'T SEE IT COMPLETELY GOING AWAY IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE WAR.
KEVIN McCARTHY SEEMS TO DISAGREE WITH HIS FELLOW REPUBLICAN MITCH McCONNELL.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE A BLANK CHECK.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS?
I THINK HE IS PLAYING TO THE RIGHT WING OF HIS PARTY WHO HAS -- WHO HELD HIS SPEAKERSHIP HOSTAGE AND HAS DONE THIS TO HIM.
THE QUESTION IS, CAN THESE PACKAGES GET ON THE HOUSE FLOOR FOR A VOTE?
IF THEY DO, THEY WILL HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES, BECAUSE IT'S STILL THE MAINSTREAM OF BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES IN THE HOUSE AS WELL.
IT'S STILL THE MAJORITY POSITION TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.
I DO THINK IT IS A COMPLETELY DISINGENUOUS POSITION.
THE U.S. HAS NOT IN ANY WAY BEEN SENDING UKRAINE A BLANK CHECK.
IN FACT, A LOT OF THE MONEY, MUCH OF THE MONEY THAT THE U.S.
HAS BEEN SENDING TO UKRAINE STAYS IN THE U.S.
IT IS SPENT ON REPLACING, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT THE PENTAGON HAS SENT FROM ITS OWN STOCK.
SO IT'S JUST SPENT ON REFILLING PENTAGON STOCKS OF WEAPONS.
IT IS SPENT AT AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS OF WEAPONS.
LOCKHEED --
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS LIKE THAT ARE PUSHING THIS?
NO.
I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE JUST SENDING, YOU KNOW, CASH TO UKRAINE IN UNMARKED BILLS IS A DISINGENUOUS AND NOT FACT-BASED POSITION.
WHEN WE WERE GOING INTO THIS WINTER, WE THOUGHT THIS IS GOING TO BE A BRUTAL TEST FOR EUROPE, WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEED FOR RUSSIAN ENERGY SUPPLIES, IT'S GOING TO BE A BRUTAL TEST ON THE BATTLEGROUND.
WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THIS WINTER, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAME TO EUROPE AND ITS DEPENDENCE ON RUSSIAN ENERGY SUPPLIES?
WE LEARNED THAT PUTIN MASSIVELY OVERPLAYED HIS HAND AND THAT THIS WAS ONE OF SEVERAL MASSIVE MISCALCULATIONS THAT HE MADE GOING INTO THIS WAR.
HE THOUGHT UKRAINIANS WOULD GREET RUSSIAN TROOPS AS LIBERATORS.
THEY DIDN'T.
HE THOUGHT HE HAD A STRANGLEHOLD OF EUROPE IN TERMS OF ENERGY, AND HE DIDN'T.
IT WAS AMAZING TO SEE HOW QUICKLY EUROPE PIVOTED FROM ITS HEAVY DEPENDENCE ON RUSSIAN ENERGY.
GERMANY WENT FROM IMPORTING TWO-THIRDS OF ITS NATURAL GAS FROM RUSSIA TO IMPORTING ZERO OF ITS NATURAL GAS FROM RUSSIA IN A MATTER OF MONTHS.
EUROPE WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY STORE UP GAS, OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY.
THE RUSSIAN BUDGET IS TAKING A MASSIVE HIT.
IT IS THE RUSSIAN FEDERAL BUDGET RUNNING AT A DEFICIT.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME.
AGAIN, PUTIN THOUGHT THAT HE HAD ALL THIS CONTROL OVER EUROPE.
AS I SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, PUTIN NEEDED EUROPE JUST AS MUCH AS EUROPE NEEDED HIM FOR ENERGY, BECAUSE IT WAS RUSSIA'S BIGGEST, MOST IMPORTANT ENERGY MARKET.
IT IS ONE THAT THE SOVIET UNION AND RUSSIA HAD SPENT THREE GENERATIONS BUILDING.
ALL OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, ALL OF THOSE PIPELINES GO WEST AND NOT EAST.
IT TURNS OUT, YOU CAN'T JUST THREATEN YOUR CLIENTS INTO BUYING FROM YOU.
THEY HAVE TO VOLUNTARILY COME TO YOU AND BUY FROM YOU.
IF THEY DON'T, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A BIG HOLE IN YOUR BUDGET.
YOU WROTE IN ONE OF YOUR ESSAYS THAT THE FAR SCARIER OPTION THAT WE COULD FACE IS THAT OF ASSASSINATIONS.
PUTIN COULD ORDER THE ASSASSINATIONS OF WORLD LEADERS, JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS.
TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
HOW POSSIBLE IS THAT AS A PUTIN ACTION?
THERE'S A WORRY INSIDE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION THAT BECAUSE PUTIN CAN'T ACHIEVE HIS GOALS ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT SINCE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE MILITARY CAPABILITY TO CAPTURE UKRAINE BECAUSE HIS MILITARY IS SO DEGRADED IN THE FIGHT FOR UKRAINE, THAT HE CERTAINLY CAN'T TAKE NATO ON MILITARY, THAT HE WOULD FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE WEST FOR ITS SUPPORT OF UKRAINE BY OTHER MEASURES, BY ASYMMETRICAL MEASURES.
WE HAVE SEEN IT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THEIR ALLEGED ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE SWEDEN'S ASCENSION TO NATO AND OTHER -- YOU HAVE SEEN MAIL BOMBS ACROSS SPAIN.
MAIL BOMBS FULL OF ANIMAL EYEBALLS.
THERE'S A WORRY THERE MIGHT BE ASSASSINATIONS ACROSS EUROPE.
THEY ARE NOT VERY DIFFICULT TO CARRY OUT.
ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES ACROSS EUROPE HAVE BEEN SEVERELY DEGRADED IN THE WAKE OF THE INVASION.
WESTERN COUNTRIES HAVE MADE OVER 400 RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS PERSONA NON GRATA.
SO THAT LIMITS ACCESS.
THEY CAN TRAVEL INTO EUROPE UNDER OTHER GUISES.
WE MIGHT -- IT MIGHT BE EASY TO CATCH THEM AFTER THE FACT, BECAUSE THEY TEND TO BE VERY SLOPPY OPERATORS.
AS WE SAW IN THE POISONING IN 2018 IN THE UK.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WON'T TRY.
THAT'S THE CONCERN.
ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
THANK YOU.
> THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.
THANKS AGAIN FOR WATCHING AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.