Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY.
Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the 20th and 21st century, freedom had no greater champion than Madeleine Korbel Albright.
GOLODRYGA (voice-over): America bids farewell to Madeleine Albright, the first woman to become secretary of state. We look back on some of her most
insightful conversations.
Then:
GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: If Russia gets away with this cost-free, then so goes the so-called international order.
GOLODRYGA: The U.S. digs in, as Russia’s war intensifies. I’m joined by the U.S. ambassador to the OSCE, Michael Carpenter.
And, as Russia cuts off gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria, the cost of this war with Russia and economist Sergei Guriev.
Also ahead, learning to live in an age of disaster. Former Homeland Security staffer Juliette Kayyem on navigating a world in crisis.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York City, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour, who will be back tomorrow.
Well, today, the heights of Washington paid tribute to a titan of American diplomacy, as presidents and diplomats past and president gathered at the
funeral of Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. secretary of state, instrumental in leading the U.S. and NATO allies to ending the genocide in
Bosnia and again in Kosovo.
She was the one who termed America the indispensable nation. Active and incisive to the last, in February, just one month before her death,
Albright wrote an essay in “The New York Times” about Putin and Ukraine, writing that: “Invading Ukraine would ensure Mr. Putin’s infamy by leaving
his country diplomatically isolated, economically crippled, and strategically vulnerable, in the face of a stronger, more united Western
alliance.”
Well, at 84, she was as prescient as ever. President Joe Biden delivered today’s eulogy, paying tribute to this trailblazing woman. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: When I got word Madeleine passed, I was in midair on my way to Europe to meet with our NATO allies in Brussels to help try to continue to
keep the strong, strong alliances together, our organization and the international response to Russia’s brutal and unjustified unjustifiable war
against Ukraine.
And it was not lost on me that Madeleine was a big part of the reason NATO was still strong and galvanized as it is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Christiane also attended today’s funeral.
And so we want to look back at some of our interviews with Madeleine Albright focusing on her experience with Putin, her insights into his
revanchist Russia, and what it was like to be the only woman in the room.
Their conversation starts in 2014, shortly after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: You know that a lot of the narrative has been that Putin feels personally, and on behalf of the great
Russian empire, affronted by the loss of the Soviet Union, by what he perceives to be Western and U.S. triumphalism.
Is he right?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: No.
I mean, let me just say this. The Russians are really good at revisionist history. And so having been there, let me tell you what the — what this is
all about.
The Cold war ends. We didn’t win the Cold War. They lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union disintegrated from inside. This was not something that the
West did. The Communist system simply does not work.
And so that is the genesis of the problem.
So one of the things that happened — and this was deliberate, Christiane. We were asked to do something that has never been done before, which is how
to devolve the power of your major adversary in a respectful way.
So this was part of what we were trying to do. And we brought them into the G8. We made a point of welcoming them into a variety of international fora
to be a part of that. We also helped them during a financial crisis.
The question was NATO. I know there are those who think that that was a mistake. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. There was
nothing…
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: And moving NATO toward…
ALBRIGHT: Moving NATO…
AMANPOUR: … Russia.
ALBRIGHT: … because what — and, in fact…
AMANPOUR: Because they need that.
ALBRIGHT: Well, they’re just misunderstood from the very beginning. I went to talk to Yeltsin about this. And I said, this is what we’re doing. And he
said, we’re a new Russia. And I said, this is a new NATO. It is not against you. And you can ultimately be a member of NATO.
So it is not something that is against them. So they have been bound and determined to be opposed to it. So there was that, and then, generally,
kind of a way to bring them in and respect them.
They are using this, oh, woe is me, in order to garner sympathy and have some kind of a way of recreating something that they destroyed themselves.
AMANPOUR: You’ve dealt with Sergey Lavrov. He was the U.N. ambassador when you were U.N. ambassador.
What kind of a guy is he? What was he like the last time you met him?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I dealt with him a lot at the U.N.
And he can be hot and cold. I mean he’s very, very smart. He argues very well.
But the last meeting we had was really peculiar. What happened was that I had been asked to chair this group of experts that were looking at a new
strategic concept for NATO. And so we had decided that we would have a dialogue with the Russians about that.
So I arrive at the Foreign Ministry. And I am known for my pins. So I had on this pin that is a knot. And he looked at the pin and he said, “So what
is that?”
And I said, “It’s our bond.”
So then we left the hall, we went to sit down at the shiny table. And he looks across the table and he says: “I know what it is. It’s James Bond.”
And I said: “No, Sergey, it’s our friendship.”
And he said: “No, it’s what you think of our pipelines.”
And I said: “No, Sergey, it is a sign of our relationship given to me by your predecessor, Igor Ivanov.”
And so he has this capability of seeing what he wants to see. And he does like to score points.
AMANPOUR: And, obviously, that speaks volumes as to what’s going on in their mind-set right now.
I might just close by saying you have a very optimistic looking sunflower on your chest right now, on your brooch area.
ALBRIGHT: Right.
AMANPOUR: Are you optimistic?
ALBRIGHT: I am. I really am. And I wore it…
AMANPOUR: Can this be solved?
ALBRIGHT: I wore it on purpose, because I do think that this can be solved. And there’s a combination of tools here. And the tools are
diplomatic, which are absolutely essential, and not just the United States.
I mean it has to be done with our European allies. And, Christiane, the Ukrainians have to be at the table. We can’t do to the Ukrainians what
happened to the Czechoslovaks at Munich, where they were just told to do something and the country was sold down the river.
So Ukraine has — the Ukrainians have to be at the table.
AMANPOUR: You were the first United States official to meet with President Putin when he first came on the stage, when he first became leader of
Russia.
What immediate impression did you form? And what do you make of the fact that he too, like the Chinese, is stepping all over America’s traditional
patch, let’s say, in the Middle East, in Syria and in those areas right now?
ALBRIGHT: The first time I met President Putin was at a meeting in Asia.
And he was very kind of small and unclear about who he was and what — tried very hard to ingratiate himself with everybody. Then, when I went
there in 2000 to prepare for a summit, it was very clear that he had begun to feel how much power he could have.
He is very smart. There’s no question about that. He was very well- prepared. He did not have talking points and he took notes and he was very determined. Then, when I went there with President Clinton, again, very
clear that he’s smart and dedicated to the cause.
I think, as one studies him — and I have — is, I think we can’t forget who he is. He is a KGB officer. He is very well-trained, and he has
identified himself with a lot of Russians who felt that they had lost their kind of stature in the world after the end of the Cold War. And he is very
tactical in terms of what he’s done. And he plays a weak hand very well.
And I think that what he — we have seen in him in the last 48 hours is him taking a victory tour around the Middle East, having been kind of let in to
the process of being a partner in dealing with Syria. And he is going to take advantage. Every time, again, that we move back, he fills the vacuum.
AMANPOUR: You say take advantage. I mean that was a Democratic administration. That was President Obama who allowed Vladimir Putin in to
that particular patch.
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think there was an issue in terms of dealing with the chemical aspect of what Bashar Assad was doing.
And I do think that he has taken advantage of that. I happened to have had a different view at the time. But I really do think that it is important to
understand that the Russians have wanted to have influence in the Middle East forever, and that they have regained it for a number of different
reasons.
AMANPOUR: So, now I want to shift lenses slightly shift gears.
The MeToo movement, it has swept the world really right now, and it’s having all sorts of domino affects. You very famously said that there’s a
special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.
And you were lambasted for that during the last round of primary elections. Do you feel vindicated today?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I do need — believe that women need to help each other.
By the way, everybody is kind of picking up this idea about a special place in hell. The bottom line is, everybody that is damned to hell, it’s going
to be very crowded, so they need to turn the heat up very quickly.
I do think that what is happening is that women do need to support women, that I really do think that MeToo Movement is a very important one, and
where the women are speaking and are being supported by other women and by some men, in terms of trying to figure out what this power game is about,
what is happening.
And we cannot stop now. I think that it is an essential aspect now of looking at what’s happening, not only in our society, but others also. And,
by the way, Christiane, so many women in our — in the developing world, various places are treated terribly. And we can’t forget about that, that
this is not just about American women, but also about women everywhere that are being raped or thrown out of windows or suffering in some way or
another.
AMANPOUR: And, actually, one way to make perfect sense of all this for the whole population, including men, is to make it a part of dollars and cents.
More women in the workplace, more gender equity actually raises, every country’s GDP.
But I want to ask you. You’ve been at the table for a long time, often as the only woman. What was it like? Did you ever feel you had to keep quite
to go along to get along? I mean, what was it like, and how did you finally find your voice?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think part of what happened with me is, it took me a long time to get my credentials together. And I didn’t have a full-time job
until I was 39 years old.
I had gone to get my graduate degree and taking caring of my children and done an awfully lot of volunteer work. So I really was 10 years older than
everybody. And I was the only woman in the room. And so the kinds of things against me were probably more subtle, although equally — they were
irritating, in terms of being told that I was too emotional when I spoke out that we had to do something about Bosnia, or sitting around with them
while they told most disgusting dirty jokes stories and trying not acting like a prude, and just being embarrassed.
But I wasn’t — I, fortunately, was not harassed with the kinds of things that we are reading about now. But it’s not easy to be the only woman in
the room.
And one of the reasons I made my statement initially about special place in hell is that we need to help to get more than one woman in the room, get
more women elected, because it’s very important to have that kind of support system and know that the men, when — I mean, I’m sure that so many
of viewers know, if you are the only woman, you think you’re going to say something in a meeting, and then you think, well, it’s going to sound
stupid.
And then some man says it and everybody thinks it’s brilliant, and you’re mad at yourself, and because the men say, “As Joe said,” and I need to be
in a meeting and be able to say, “As Christiane said,” so that there really is that kind of a support system. So we do need to help each other.
AMANPOUR: And, finally, what is that pin you’re wearing? I always ask you. You always have some reason for wearing the pin on your lapel. What is that
one?
ALBRIGHT: Well, this is the colors for the suffragettes. This is my suffragette pin.
And I think that this is the time to really stand up, so that we can not only vote, but participate and be respected and not be victims of some kind
of a power game.
AMANPOUR: Well, I’m glad I asked you that. Madeleine Albright, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
ALBRIGHT: Great to be with you. Good luck.
AMANPOUR: I want to turn now to your book that’s just being published now, “Fascism.” And the subtitle is “A Warning.”
You mentioned a load of world leaders who, even in democratic countries, are becoming very authoritarian, if not dictatorial. You even have a
chapter talking about President Trump.
Do you put President Trump in the same basket as a Putin or an Erdogan or Duterte, all these people who are elected, but have shown very, very
authoritarian tendencies?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I — really, what I see in President Trump is a president that is — doesn’t really seem to respect democratic institutions.
And that is what I’m warning about and troubled about, the role of the free press, which is absolutely essential to a democracy, the understanding of
what the other parts of the government do, the judicial system, the legislative branch, an understanding of — that one has to respect the
ideas of a minority group or a different group, not to just identify yourself with one group, to want to hear what the different opinions are.
And so the thing that I did in the book was really spend time looking at a historical study. I was really, frankly, troubled and surprised that even
Mussolini and Hitler and now Erdogan and most recently Orban in Hungary and then in Poland and in Turkey generally, Venezuela, Philippines, are people
that either were elected or, in fact, power was transferred to them constitutionally.
And so I think it’s important to understand how that happened and that you have to have a president or a leader that respects the law, does not just
identify himself with this one group, and is not willing to use a variety of means in order to be sure that he has central power. So that’s why the
book is called “A Warning.”
And I don’t really put labels on President Trump. I’m just writing about the signs. And I — there was a quote that Mussolini used that I think
really is so really visual, which is that you can pluck a chicken one feather at a time, and it isn’t noticed.
And so it’s these steps that I’m pointing out.
AMANPOUR: What do you hope the book accomplishes?
ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I do think it’s important to have this historical approach to it.
And, by the way, Christiane, this comes out of my own experience. I was born two years before World War II. And when the Nazis took over the
country I was born in, we moved to England and were there all through the Blitz. We came back to Czechoslovakia, hoping to live in a free country.
And then it was taken over by the communists, and then we had to leave for the United States.
So I know what fascism is about, and how it can really destroy people in so many different ways. What I also wanted to do — there’s this saying now,
which is, see something, say something. And I have added to it, do something.
And my to-do list is basically some of the things I have mentioned, which is to really understand the importance of a free press, to demand that
there be a president that is not above the law, to encourage people to be participants in the system, to run for office and to speak out.
Then, also something that seems to be missing at the moment is to have a civil discussion with people that you disagree with, and then I think take
heart from the marches by the children who are dealing with the issue of trying to have gun sanity, so that they don’t have to go to school wearing
flak jackets.
And so that’s my to-do list. And I decided that what I would do would be to write the book and call it out.
AMANPOUR: Secretary Albright, before I let you go, as I always do, I would like you to explain the significance of your brooch today.
ALBRIGHT: Well, I was given it as a present, and I thought it was perfect for this trip and for this time, is because it is Mercury, the messenger.
And I think that what I’m trying to do is deliver a message as strongly as I possibly can, because this is a time to absorb what is happening and to
make sure that that chicken doesn’t get plucked one feather at a time. I could wear a chicken.
(LAUGHTER)
ALBRIGHT: But, at the moment, I’m going to wear Mercury.
AMANPOUR: Well, Madeleine Albright, still fighting and still fighting to keep America the indispensable nation, thanks so much for joining us.
ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: She really did have the best brooches, always fun, often hilarious, and, as a stateswoman, very much missed today, as the world
faces the crisis in Ukraine.
Russia has escalated tensions with the West, abruptly cutting off gas to E.U. nations Bulgaria and Poland. Meantime, the situation within Ukraine is
intensifying, Ukraine saying so several towns and villages in the east have been lost to Russia.
I discussed all of this with Russia expert U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Michael Carpenter.
I started by asking him about fears that Russia might hold a sham referendum in the Ukrainian city of Kherson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL CARPENTER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO- OPERATION IN EUROPE: So, we are seeing indications that the Russian invading forces in Ukraine are planning a sham referendum in Kherson
Oblast.
And I think your viewers should understand that the Russians have done this over the course of many decades. They did it with a Kremlin-imposed
Constitution in Chechnya that was miraculously approved by 96 percent of the voters. They did it in Crimea, where, again, the figure was 96 percent
support.
They’re very good at fabricating these sham referendums. In Kherson Oblast, I think probably 96 percent of the population or more, maybe 100 percent,
is absolutely opposed to Russia’s invading forces. So this would be a pure fantasy on the part of the Russian occupiers.
But we do have indications that planning is under way to announce some sort of referendum that would try to legitimize Russian occupation.
GOLODRYGA: What has changed, in your opinion, in terms of the U.S. narrative, the U.S. approach and the U.S. perspective on the significance
of this war?
CARPENTER: Well, Bianna, to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t think anything has changed.
We were saying very clearly in the lead-up to February 24 in December and January that this was much bigger than Ukraine. This was absolutely about
the rules-based international order. This was absolutely about a world in which, if we allowed for one nation-state to violate the borders of another
and take away its sovereignty and its territorial integrity, that that would be a world that nobody would want to live in.
And so, yes, since the beginning of this conflict, we have been saying that we want Ukraine to win. And now we’re giving them all the capabilities and
pressing our allies and partners to do the same, so that they have those tools to enable themselves to defend their country against this brutal
Russian onslaught.
GOLODRYGA: And the onslaught, we should be, clear continues, and even Ukrainians today acknowledge that Russia has taken some more territory
there in the east as they start the so-called second phase of this war.
What are you most concerned about at this point in terms of what Russia’s military is capable of unleashing?
CARPENTER: Well, to be honest with you, my number one concern is the humanitarian situation and just the terrific human toll that this conflict
is taking.
We have all seen the just absolutely monstrous images coming from places like Bucha and Borodyanka and Irpin. But I hate to say this, but I think
those will pale in comparison to what we see when the international community eventually gets access to places like Mariupol, where you had —
it was a city of some 430,000 people before the war.
And so that’s my number one concern. Militarily, look, the conflict is going to change course. It’s now in the Donbass, where the Russians have a
bit of an advantage. It’s also open plains, so it’s more of a conflict of artillery and shelling.
And so we just simply have to get the Ukrainians the artillery and the equipment that they need, the radars and the UAVs and the other types of
equipment, to prevail in that sort of terrain.
GOLODRYGA: And it’s coming in at rapid speed, not only, we should note, from the United States, but also from Western allies, including Germany,
which announced that it would be stepping up in its defensive weaponry that it would be delivering to Ukraine, quite a change, from that perspective.
Can I get you to respond to something Vladimir Putin said today? And I think the timing is significant coming on the heels of the defense
secretary meeting with his counterparts from 40 nations in Germany just this week, saying that Russia can be weakened, that is the goal, and that
Ukraine can win, because Vladimir Putin said and warned that: “If somebody intends to intervene in the ongoing events in Ukraine from outside and
creates unacceptable strategic threats to us, then they should know that our response to those strikes will be swift, lightning fast.”
He went on to say: “We ought we have all the tools for this ones, no one needs to brag about, and we won’t brag.”
Are you worried at all that, if given the opportunity, if pressed enough, if cornered enough, Vladimir Putin could use chemical weapons or tactical
nukes?
CARPENTER: Well, look, we have warned against the threat of chemical weapons, because whenever we see Russia deploying rhetoric that they
suspect that there may be chemical weapons used, immediately, I think everybody’s Spidey Sense goes up, and they are right to be concerned that
Russia could well use them, because we saw what Russia did in Salisbury with the use of Novichok.
So, this is a concern. But, look, this is deflection. Nobody is threatening Russia’s strategic interests, nobody, absolutely nobody. What Russia has
done is, they have invaded their peaceful neighbor, with absolutely no pretext, no rationale, no justification whatsoever.
So, I’m sorry to say, but what we just heard there is complete deflection, trying to shift the blame.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
And, at the same time, we also see them weaponizing their natural resources, something that they — many had predicted they would do. And,
today, they cut off oil and gas delivery to Poland and Bulgaria. And many view that as a sign, perhaps a warning, to Germany, Europe’s largest
economy, that Russia could do the same if Germans don’t pay in rubles, as Vladimir Putin had demanded.
You know, 40 percent of Germany’s natural gas comes from Russia. Are our European allies prepared with contingency plans in case we see this happen
to more countries?
CARPENTER: Well, I think there are contingency plans in place. And Poland is, I think, actually very well-positioned.
The Greek prime minister has just announced that Greece is willing to help its neighbor Bulgaria through the Interconnector pipeline that runs between
those two countries. So there are other mechanisms. And Poland was actually farsighted enough to build an LNG terminal in the town of Swinoujscie on
the Baltic Sea.
So they have as well the capacity to import LNG. But if this war hasn’t done anything, it’s to provide a wakeup call to our European partners and
allies that they need to diversify their energy supplies away from Russia, and look at other suppliers.
GOLODRYGA: And to be fair, this is a warning that the United States has been giving to Europe and our allies for many years now, that they need to
diversify their energy resources.
What do you make of Transnistria in Moldova and the threats? First of all, we have seen multiple explosions there in that region, in Transnistria,
where separatists take hold in that disputed territory in Moldova.
And you have a Russian commander just this week signal that Vladimir Putin’s plans extend beyond just Southern Ukraine, and into Moldova and
Transnistria. How concerned are you that we could see this war expand beyond Ukraine’s borders?
CARPENTER: Well, look, Bianna, we got to watch this very carefully.
We haven’t concluded exactly what is behind those explosions. But we’re very worried about the escalation of tensions. We have been supportive of
the Moldovan government, which has really undertaken huge strides to consolidating its democratic institutions and strengthening rule of law.
And they have been — they have been engaging with the de facto authorities in Transnistria over the years. So we’re going to continue to monitor this.
Of course, it’s concerning. And, in the meantime, we’re going to continue to support Moldova, which also has a huge number of refugees from Ukraine
and is dealing with economic challenges.
So we have provided, I think, $30 million in humanitarian support, about $100 million in developmental assistance. And we’re going to continue to do
that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Listen, that’s the country where I was born, poorest country in Europe, total population 2.5 million, right? They have taken in
over 400,000 refugees. I believe 120,000 have permanently stayed in that country.
Is it time for the U.S. to step up its assistance, perhaps militarily as well, to help defend against any possible Russian attacks or infighting
within Transnistria?
CARPENTER: Well, Bianna, as you know well, Moldova is constitutionally neutral.
And so I think it’s important that we try to just maintain a steady hand here, continue to support the government in all ways possible, especially
on the humanitarian side and with assistance for all those refugees.
I saw a startling statistic just the other day that 10 percent of all schoolchildren in Moldovan schools are refugees from Ukraine. That’s a huge
— obviously, a huge impact on a small and very poor country, as you just pointed out.
So, we need to continue to support. I think, in terms of military assistance, we need to be cautious.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And our thanks to Ambassador Michael Carpenter.
Well, as we mentioned earlier, Russia’s natural owned — Russia’s state- owned natural gas giant, gas prom has turned off the taps to Bulgaria and Poland, triggering a furious reply from E.U. leaders who have accused
Russia of blackmail.
It’s another economic hit for Europe and the world. And as the conflict drags on, the IMF is slashing global growth estimates and the World Bank is
warning that we are in for the biggest commodity price shock in 50 years.
Joining me now on this is Russian economist, Sergei Guriev, co-author of “Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century.”
Sergei, always great to have you on.
You were the first person I wanted to talk to about this because we have all of these warnings from the IMF, from the World Bank, and you have
Vladimir Putin coming out today once again stating that these international sanctions are failing and they are not impacting the Russian economy, that
it’s withstanding some of the incoming. He has acknowledged that there is some inflation, but suggests that the country can weather the storm.
What is he basing this on base off of, given that, you know, the last time I spoke with you, you had predicted a 10 percent decline in GDP for the
year?
SERGEI GURIEV, RUSSIAN ECONOMIST: And I still stand by this forecast. Actually, the official Russian forecast is already 9 percent declined and
some people within Russian government would say 10 or 11 publicly. So, what Putin is saying is strange.
You mentioned World Bank and IMF forecast, they said, the global economy will suffer because of this war and they downgraded the global economic
forecast, global GDP growth forecast by 1 percentage point or less in 2022. Russian forecast used to be, before the war, plus 3 percent, now, it is
minus 10 or minus 11 percent. And it’s going to be the worst recession Russia has had since the early 1990s.
So, in that sense, no, it is not going to be a great year for Russia. Vladimir Putin is going to face an unprecedented challenge. Remember,
Vladimir Putin has been pro-every. But in every crisis, he will come into the crisis with a stock of cash. The reserves, the stabilization fund,
national welfare fund, this is not what is happening right now. He’s going to face a budget deficit already. Today, the finance minister, Anton
Siluanov, suggested that even without Poland, Russia is facing 1.5 percentage points of GDP fiscal deficit. And this is the first time on
Russian reserves are actually sanctioned and frozen.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
GURIEV: So, Vladimir Putin is just pretending to have a good 2022 in economic sense.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. He went into this war assuming that he had and impenetrable fortress built around him with some $600 billion in reserves.
And then, all the sudden, the U.S. comes in and almost unilaterally freezes half of that asset.
Talk about, though, the response today from Russia living up to its promise, it’s threat to cut off some European countries that aren’t paying
for gas in rubles. Today, that was Poland and Bulgaria. Obviously, the big question is, what country’s next? Is it Germany? Is that not self-defeating
for Russia as well?
GURIEV: It is self-defeating. You mentioned the sanctions by the United States against the Russian reserves, I think it’s not just unprecedented
result by the West but also unity. I would emphasize that the U.S. was joined by Europe and by countries like Switzerland. Switzerland is a
neutral country, which would never join sanctions like this. So, it is quite new and this is not something Vladimir Putin has expected.
Talking about the gas, indeed, it’s a huge warming for Germany. And this is probably related to what Germany’s (INAUDIBLE) said yesterday that Germany
is going to produce an oil embargo in the coming days. He also said that Germany has already decreased itself (INAUDIBLE) of Russian oil by a great
amount.
And so, part of this — a part of this story is his visit today to Poland to discuss the remaining imports of Russian oil being substitute by Polish
supply. So, this is something that Vladimir Putin doesn’t like, and that is why he is sending this message.
But for Russia, of course, gas export revenues are much more important than gas is for Germany. And German economists have run a lot of models and
estimates, which suggest that, yes, if Russia stop supplying gas to Germany, Germany will suffer. But this cost will not be as painful for
Germany as they will be for Russia.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you have been part of that analysis in suggesting while, yes, it would be painful for Germany. I think their recent estimate
said that their GDP could be hit as much as 5 percent if they were shut off from Russian oil and gas that it would be far worse for Russia. That having
been said, it is pretty clear that Vladimir Putin isn’t prioritizing the fate of his people in terms of achieving his grand plan.
At this point, do you think there is anything that can be done as far as any oil or gas embargo that could change his mind about the trajectory of
this war?
GURIEV: I think his mind is set on achieving as much as possible in the coming weeks. And Mike Carpenter who you talked to just before me, is right
that Putin is trying to push as much as possible before May 9th.
But the goal is not to change his views, the goal is to deprive him of resources to pursue this war. And so, to make sure that he doesn’t have
cash to pay his soldiers, officers as well policemen who fight Russian protesters in the streets of Moscow and (INAUDIBLE). We have also his
protagonist (ph) who try to convince Russian that Putin is going to withdraw. And in that sense, oil and gas embargo is the next — is
important next step. And we see that Germany has actually changed its mind and has done a lot to pursue oil and gas embargo.
And I think, you mentioned 5 percent, 5 percent is the extreme estimate, the mid-range estimate, it’s more like 1.5 percent for Germany, maybe 2
percent decline in GDP. I would also refer to the prime minister of Italy, a country which also depends on Russian oil and gas. Mario Draghi said,
when could choose between peace and air conditioning.
Now, later on, he clarified what he meant. He said air conditioning is important. And if we want to introduce oil and gas embargo, we will suffer.
But can live without air conditioning. Which means, if we want to pay this cost, we will be able to pay this cost.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It was also interesting to hear Janet Yellen, treasury secretary of the U.S., say that while in the long-term, the western
countries there in Europe should wane themselves off of Russian gas and oil, they should do so smartly and not abruptly because that could have a
global impact. And we are seeing, as you talked about, these forecasts that not only impact Russia and its neighbors, but international countries, the
United States, South America, developing countries are all impacted by this war, by the uncertainty, and by not having certain imports and exports
delivered to the country. Ukraine, the world’s bread basket.
Talk about your concern that the longer this war goes on, the greater damage will be done to some of the most vulnerable countries in the world.
GURIEV: You just said it, Bianna, that is exactly the concern every economist has in the world today, that experts of grain from Russia and
Ukraine are very important for many developing countries. For achieve (ph) by high oil and gas prices and high grain prices. And this is now when
Ukrainian farmers were supposed to put their seeds into the ground. And, of course, half of the country is not accessible because of bombardments,
because occupation, because of mines which Russian troops left in the field.
And in that sense, we should all worry about developing countries. And that’s why Secretary Yellen was so worried because United States, G7, World
Bank, IMF should have (ph) resources to help those countries, we just don’t have this fiscal capacity. When we worry about the West, a country like
Germany, Germany has this fiscal capacity to help its own low-income households who suffer from higher oil and gasoline prices. This is not the
same in Egypt.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, exactly. And unfortunately, we are out of time. But it is also another reason why it is so important that Ukraine is asking the West,
including the United States, for billions of dollars in economic aid, not just military aid, as it is suffering greatly due to this war.
Sergei, always great to have you on. Thank you for your expertise.
GURIEV: Thank you very much, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Ukraine is not the only crisis that the Biden administration has had to face. Our next guest is one of today’s foremost
thinkers in disaster management, Julia Kayyem is an author and former assistant secretary for Homeland Security. Her latest book, “The Devil
Never Sleeps,” is a guide on what to do when things go wrong. She sat down with Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how he learn from dealing with
catastrophe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Juliette Kayyem, thanks so much for joining us.
Now, in this book, here we are a couple of years into the pandemic, we have all lived through a very long, slow-moving disaster. But in your book, you
go through a whole range of them and you find pretty interesting patterns. What is something that we consistently get wrong about thinking about
disasters?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, AUTHOR, “THE DEVIL NEVER SLEEPS”: So, the book exactly goes from the Trojan War to even Surfside, Florida to basically look at the
connective tissue of these disasters rather than thinking of each of them as sort of like the surprise and shock.
And I think that the most important sort of lesson out of all of them is that we can measure success differently. In my field, we tend to divide the
world into two phases, just, you know, before the boom or left of boom and right of boom. And the boom is agnostic, it is this pandemic, a
cyberattack, a terror attack.
And what I wanted to teach people is that we actually can learn to fail safer, that are our investments and anticipating the debt disaster actually
end up protecting lives and property and our communities. And I wanted to give people that sense of agency over their ability to make things less
bad. It’s — you know, it is a strange standard, but less bad ends up being pretty good in a world in which lots of bad things keep happening.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. You know, there are situations like earthquakes or a tsunami where people could be at the wrong place at the wrong time and you
can’t help them. But what you figure out a way to say in this book is that we can prevent a lot of kind of the stupid deaths, the ones that we
could’ve stopped.
KAYYEM: Yes. Exactly. And stupid deaths is the term that comes out of Haiti and the Haitians and what they have dealt with. And it obviously it
doesn’t apply to the victims. Stupid deaths are those deaths that could be avoided if we had only gotten resources there fast enough, protected people
fast enough. Water, electricity, whatever it is.
And it’s not just in Haiti or countries that we think don’t have infrastructure. To this day, we still do not know how many Puerto Ricans
died in Hurricane Maria. We know how many died at the moment of the hurricane, but what we call stupid deaths, because of the inability to get
electricity and other sort of essentials to them.
So, one of the goals is, how do you stop those what we call, you know, cascading losses, right? There’s that moment that you may not be able to
help people, but how do we make sure that we can stop more harm from coming?
One of my favorite stories — I tried to reframe the stories that we think we know about disasters. And so, we look at Fukushima, for example, nuclear
facility radiation leak in 2011 after the earthquake and tsunami. And we think, oh, you can’t do anything about an earthquake and tsunami. But what
I learned is just a couple of miles down the street, there actually was another nuclear facility, it also got hit by the earthquake, it got water
rushing in from the tsunami. And it had trained to fail safer. And it was able to stop the radiation leak.
So, there’s two stories out of that day in 2011, one is Fukushima, but one is the other facility. Now, I want people to look at that facility and say,
what can we do to protect lives and stop the worst thing from happening, which, of course, in that case is the radiation leak.
SREENIVASAN: You know, we all remember the visceral images that came out of the Boston marathon. And that was one of those moments where it could
have gotten so much worse in hindsight. But at the time there was so much chaos. Tell us a little bit about now just what happened, but how Boston
kind of pivoted from that?
KAYYEM: Yes. So, I have been State Homeland security advisor overseeing the Boston response by the time the marathon attack happened, I’m out of
government and able to assess it differently and sort of knew what was working.
So, one reason I go back to the Boston marathon is to get us to get leaders and leaders of any type, parents, CEOs, managers, to think about how we are
measuring success. So, there was the failure, right, that we didn’t capture the brothers in time before, you know, there was evidence against them.
Three people perished at the finish line. But the number we often forget is over 280 people who had lost a hand, or a limb, or an arm, major injuries
and trauma survived. Over 280 people were taken to area hospitals in three states.
If you made it to a hospital, you lived. That is not lock, that is not Boston strong, that is not an attitude, that is the investments and our
capacity to pivot, our training and the health facilities that were ready for the people coming, that is the number I want people to look at because
that explains things like Boston strong.
What I found looking at these things horrors across the centuries is, there is one animating theme, and that is family reunification. It means there is
something that drives people after the disasters. Where my kids? It’s mostly, you know, where are my kids? And if you can, at home or at the
Boston marathon, focus on how are we going to get, in that case, the runners with their families who are on the other side of the Boston
marathon finish line, which now longer exists, of course, you will be able to protect them, get them from — away from a potential harm but also
relieve the public safety apparatus from family unification so that they can focus on the essential needs.
So, those are the kinds of stories that I look. And say, look, there is another story going on. We sometimes don’t tell the good news stories and
good news amongst the bad news during disasters. And I wanted to tell those stories in many ways to say, that is the story, that is the lesson learned,
right? That is why we invest in preparedness and anticipating the harm.
SREENIVASAN: One of the things that you mentioned here about preparedness, and I wonder how do we make these long-term decisions when it comes to
money? Because oftentimes, we start to trim the budgets of the things that are emergency preparedness for events that we can’t see.
KAYYEM: So, this is where I constantly say, never again is a tough promised to make at an age like ours. We are — I don’t say the word safe.
You’ll never — I never write about the word safe. I talk about safer. Is that what we are what we are trying to do is invest in preparedness so that
we can just minimize the harm.
So, how do we do that? I mean, the first is, of course, recognize that the harm is coming. If you look at budgets, whether it’s cybersecurity budgets
or physical security budgets, they are very much focused on, I’m going to stop the breach, bad things won’t happen. We call it guns, guards, and
gates, those are the investments, right? Those are the ones that we can see.
But we spend too little time thinking about, what if I get that breach, what if something bad happens and how will I minimize the harm? So, one of
the cases that I write about is, of course, colonial pipeline, which happened just a little while ago, in the last two years. Colonial pipeline
was delivering our energy resources too much of the East Coast, it is hit by a really stupid ransomware attack. It was not sophisticated. And it had
sort of invested in the notion that there would never be a breach.
So, when the breach happens, they only have one play. They turned off their pipelines for a week. That is not a sophisticated response capability. We
were able to sort of wean it for that week, but anything longer would have had disastrous consequences.
So, part of telling the stories of how preparedness benefits us is not to envision a world of unicorns and rainbows and resiliency and building back
better, this is a book about now, right? We can do this now. We can begin to focus on at the home level, the community level and the institutional
level, the investment communication, the training, that will help us to feel safer and safely because, you know, we are basically don’t have time.
SREENIVASAN: Yes, yes. You know, people are also going to ask, OK, I get that there are these acute disasters, these moments that we can try to
prepare for. But what about a longer-term inevitable problem like say climate change, which is already having some disastrous consequences to
different communities around the planet but not everybody might see it as something that is imperative today?
KAYYEM: Right. So — and they will see the moment of the hurricane or the tornado as the crisis but not climate range. I’m pretty clear to
distinguish between sort of the existential threat of climate change and the policy changes we have to make in terms of both mitigation and response
and what it means to be in a crisis or a disaster, and that’s to find as you have a limited period to respond. In other words, people — we call it
nine meals to chaos or anarchy that you really have three days to get communities the resources they need before lots of super bad stuff happens,
as we’ve seen in many of these disasters.
And so, I’m focusing on that very acute response, right? What can we do to minimize that immediate harm that gets us better for thinking about how we
are going to live, right? How are we going to rebuild after the disaster? Why are we paying people through disaster funds to live the way that they
work? Should we rebuild in paradise, which I’ve been to after their major fires. Those deeper questions will have to be answered. They will make us
safer if we answer them correctly, if we focus on climate change.
But there is also that acute need, which makes — which is the difference between say a crisis and the public policy challenge we have with climate
change.
SREENIVASAN: You mentioned the Surfside building collapse, what could’ve been done in that case?
KAYYEM: This is in chapter called “The Way We Were.” And what I tried to do in each chapter is make it reader friendly so that people can see, oh,
yes, I am recognizing this. So, one of the problems with the way we set up security and safety features is that they become rather immobile, right?
And we think about our airline experience with shoes, that is almost 20 years now. Technology has probably makes that effort somewhat futile.
And I think what happened in many areas of Miami and South Florida that we are seeing now is, whatever was built at the time cannot withstand without
investments the burdens that are going to be placed on it now. Surfside was a combination of climate, human error, and faulty by design we are now
discovering, that this was, in some ways, a doomed building. Even the flukishness (ph) of that does not excuse the homeowner’s apartment on those
boards and the area, and the public sector from looking at whether they can withstand, right, what is about to happen to them overtime.
And it may be, as we see in places in Florida, as we are saying here where I live, on the East Coast, or in Paradise, California, that the best
disaster response is what we call manage retreat, that we begin to help people move away from areas that are no longer sustainable because of
climate change. I certainly don’t like it, but the goal here is to protect human life, and sometimes we have to accept that in terms of the challenges
that lie ahead.
SREENIVASAN: So, how do so many of the things that you’re talking about in this book apply to the pandemic that we have all been living through?
KAYYEM: The pandemic showed me a couple of things that I write about in the book and that I’ve been writing about them through the pandemic. The
first is to get over this notion of a finish line. I think people are really struggling about, you know, is there going to be a white flag raised
and we’re all done? No. This is we are adapting every single day in terms of what the risk is and how we minimize the risk overtime.
And I think another key lesson out of the pandemic, which I’ve been critical of our public health officials about is the need to communicate
what the strategy is in the future. I think that some of the impatience in the American public had — it maybe had to do with politics, but you
certainly saw Democratic governors get ahead of this White House in terms of trying to change masking rules or vaccination mandates, and I think part
of it is because not now is a really hard standard to maintain for people.
So, what I say in the communications chapter is, it is rather simple what people need, they need numbers, they want to know what’s going on and how
many are hospitalized and does that — or are they vaccinated? The real numbers that will matter to them and how they live. The second is, they
need hope. They need to know that there is a metric out there that is going to make life better, and I think that we need to not only provide the
numbers but provide what is this adaptation that we’re going to be living for the foreseeable future, and I think you’re starting to see people begin
to accept that.
SREENIVASAN: So, how does a government play a role in this, any government, state government, local, national, especially at a time when
there is so much distrust, misinformation and disinformation that is out there?
KAYYEM: Yes. I think it is an important thing that the rule in disaster management not be used simply as the government. I mean, obviously, we have
local and state and federal resources or global resources try to protect people. But throughout the disasters that I look at, you see communities
coming together, you see the private sector helping out and others who can play a role in terms of minimizing that harm.
The title, in fact, “The Devil Never Sleeps,” comes from just a widow I met in Joplin, Missouri who had taken it upon herself to read Bill Joplin after
it was devastated by a tornado, over 100 people died in that small community. And she was very tactical about her response. She sort of took
it upon herself to help Joplin through, essentially, the next tornado.
And I asked her, sort of, how are you so optimistic? And she replies, I live in Missouri, there will be more tornadoes, the devil never sleeps, but
he only wins if we don’t do better next time. And it was that sentiment that I think is something that we all can absorbed and invest in, even with
all the noise and disinformation.\
Something that I tell my students, it can sound really noisy on Twitter and in the politics of things, but always remember, over 75 percent of
Americans are vaccinated. Like, there is a lot of noise out there, but it is not like it is 50/50. And if you can remember, the vast majorities of
people are for the pandemic thinking about their communities. I think that is important for people to feel that things are working for them.
In terms of disinformation, I actually think the Ukraine war is really interesting in terms of lessons learned. We used to think that if you view
it as a sort of crisis and a disaster, of course, we used to think that we were sort of passive recipients of disinformation. And I think what the
governments has been able to do, but also private actors who are using opensource intelligence and other aspects of taking information and then,
driving our reaction, right, in terms of how Ukraine is going to fight back.
I think you’ve seen how disinformation can be challenged, it is challenged with the truth, it is challenged with transparency and it’s challenges by
engaging a community and opensource intelligence, in this case, in terms of fighting back. And I think that’s been really empowering for people because
of the sense that, well, we are just going to live in a world in which two- plus-two doesn’t equal four anymore. And I think actually, two-plus-two still equals four.
SREENIVASAN: The book is called “The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disaster.” Author Juliette Kayyem, thanks so much for joining
us.
KAYYEM: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
And that is it for us now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York.