Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREY KURKOV, AUTHOR, “THE SILVER BONE”: I wish America remains the symbol of freedom and the country which set up the standards of democracy
in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The beloved Ukrainian novelist Andrey Kurkov shows me the quiet acts of resistance here in war-torn Kyiv and sends a message to America.
I’ll put this to the U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland.
Then, the death of Alexei Navalny shakes Russia. Where does Putin stand now? From Moscow, former MP and Putin ally Sergey Markov joins me.
And, how policymakers should handle a fragmented world. The IMF’s Gita Gopinath on the state of the global economy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in Kyiv.
As the war here approaches two years, Russia claims to have captured a key village in the Kherson region. But Ukrainian officials say their forces
continue to hold their positions. Russia has made gains in Donetsk, though. While Ukraine says it hit a training ground for Russian troops near the
Dnipro River.
And while ordinary Ukrainian civilians follow these military developments closely, they are mounting their own resistance by simply carrying on,
refusing to be cowed. Just buying books and reading them is an act of resistance here these days, as we discovered in Kyiv.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): This bookstore is called Sens or the meaning. And opening in Kyiv just days before the Russian war enters a third year sends
a clear message. And Ukraine’s greatest living novelist, Andrey Kurkov tells us there is much to say about Ukraine’s culture, identity and
resistance. He wrote the forward for this tome full of 12th century artifacts.
AMANPOUR: So, when Putin says, this is all greater Russia, what’s your answer?
ANDREY KURKOV, AUTHOR, “THE SILVER BONE”: Well, he’s silly. And he’s not historian. Kyiv is 1,540 years old. Moscow is only 870 years old.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): An army of workers is still getting the bookstore cafe ready. But it is open. And people come in hungry for nonfiction these
days, for the history of their region. Ukrainian identity helps them fight and resist, says Kurkov, reminding us that Russians have looted and
destroyed libraries, theaters and museums in parts they now occupy.
AMANPOUR: And what would you be saying, if you were to say anything to the people of Russia?
KURKOV: It’s a very good question. I would probably ask them to put mirrors all around them and to look themselves in the eyes and to ask
themselves a question if they are living in 21st century or they are still living in Stalin’s Gulag.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Kurkov, like most Ukrainians, see themselves, their land, as the front line between the authoritarian and the democratic world.
Kyiv is further away from the fighting, but over in the northeast, Kharkiv, the second largest city, the danger is real and ever present.
Some 40 miles from the Russia border, their massive S-300 missiles reached the city in less than 40 seconds, no time to hide. Memorials to the recent
dead spring up all over. This is a place where material evidence of war crimes committed by the Russian Federation is stored, including multiple
launch rocket systems, grads, cruise missiles, Shahid drones, artillery shells.
This Kharkiv radio station is called Boiling Over. It started up 10 years ago after Russia’s first invasion as an alternate voice.
Just a month and a half ago, you could listen to dozens of Russian stations, says the founder, Yevhen. All of these are Russian propaganda
stations that tell us that Ukraine doesn’t exist, that it’s in Russia and that Ukrainian soldiers should surrender.
Natalia, the radio host, tells us it’s also become a sounding board for the terrified and depressed Kharkiv listeners.
Feedback can be varied, she tells us. Sometimes they just thank me for the show, and for the fact that they got out of bed thanks to the program. And
I consider this a victory, because it could be someone in a state of absolute despair.
Like Ukrainians everywhere, the novelist, Kurkov, tells me, he is hoping for America to step up now.
KURKOV: And remember that America was always a symbol of freedom for Ukraine, for many countries, and I wish America remains the symbol of
freedom and the country which set up the standards of democracy in the world.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Kyiv and Kharkiv, a tale of two cities and separate states of anxiety.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR (on camera): You heard Andrey Kurkov there with his message to America, a sentiment echoed by so many people here, as they await that
vital aid package currently stalled in Congress. And the White House used a memo to slam Republican congressional leaders for not cancelling recess to
pass the aid.
Victoria Nuland is the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and she knows Ukraine very well, most recently visiting for talks last month,
and she’s joining me now from Washington. Welcome to the program, Victoria Newland.
VICTORIA NULAND; U.S. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Thank you, Christiane. Good to be with you
again.
AMANPOUR: Yes, you too. And I just wonder, you probably heard what Andrey Kurkov, you probably know him, said that he would say to the Americans if
he could. What’s your response to him and others here telling us, you know, America talks a good game, but right now, we’re stalled and it needs to
remember it is the father, mother of democracy and freedom around the world.
NULAND: Well, thank you, Christiane. That’s the point that President Biden is making as well, and that 70 senators made just last week in passing
overwhelmingly the administration supplemental request, including $60 billion for Ukraine. So now, the question is in the House of
Representatives. And support for Ukraine across the United States is still strong.
So, we hope that representatives will reflect that in the way they vote. And it’s strong, not just because people understand how brave and resilient
Ukraine has been, but that this is not just about Ukraine. If we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, he will keep going. And autocrats and tyrants all around
the world will take comfort and think that they too can chunk off a piece of their neighbor. So, this is absolutely essential.
AMANPOUR: It is. And I do hear you and the others in the administration and supporters talking about the vital necessity to do this. But as people
say, hope is not a strategy. And do you have any actual belief or reason to believe that eventually this bill will be paid? And if not, how are you
going to make sure Ukraine gets vital weapons and ammunition?
NULAND: Christiane, I have strong confidence that when the House comes back after they’ve been out in their districts, hearing from the American
people, after they have heard from Ukraine, they have heard from Europe, which, by the way, just passed $54 billion in additional aid itself, that
we will do what we have always done, which is defend democracy and freedom around the world, not just for victims of tyrants like Putin, but in our
own interest in preserving a free and open international order. That’s what we need to do. We’ve done it before.
And by the way, we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the U.S. economy to make those weapons, including good
paying jobs in some 40 states across the United States.
AMANPOUR: Equally, the lack of that money, and most importantly, the materiel for the frontline fighters is being felt on the front right now.
And I’ve — in the last few days that I’ve been here, have heard nothing but tales of how lives are being lost, land is being lost. It’s really,
really urgent. What is your U.S. government assessment of the dangers for Ukraine on the front line right now?
NULAND: Well, you are absolutely right, Christiane. When I was there, some three weeks ago, the Ukrainian military was reporting that in some parts of
that front line that they’ve been holding, World War I style trench warfare for two years now. Some of the soldiers have only 20 shells to survive the
day.
So, this supplemental not only gets them money — gets them ammunition now, it also helps them to begin producing their own ammunition and to have a
stronger opportunity going forward and to build a highly resilient force of the future.
You are in Kharkiv. In Kharkiv, as you probably noticed, Putin’s trying something different. He is bombarding one of Ukraine’s most beautiful
eastern cities from the air every day, trying to flatten it. And by the way, it’s a Russian speaking city that he is bombing. Remember, he said
that he was going in, in the first place, back in ’15, to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians. And now, he is bombing them.
And that’s another way that without more air defense, et cetera, he can do his bidding with — in Ukraine. And you could feel it in the desperate
voices of those you interviewed.
AMANPOUR: Indeed, indeed. And I was, as maybe you were too, certainly American officials from the administration at the Munich Security
Conference.
But first, what I want to do is to play what Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney has said about this affair, this situation and how the MAGA wing of
the Republican Party is really essentially shaping not just the debate, but in this case, the front lines and the battles. And then I’ll ask you
another question about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FMR. REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): You have to take seriously the extent to which, you know, you’ve now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party. I
believe the issue this election cycle is making sure the Putin wing of the Republican Party does not take over the West wing of the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And we heard from the foreign minister here, Dmytro Kuleba, that if they had received the — you know, the weapons, the shells, the
ammunition, the money, that Trump has prevented the — you know, the house speaker from bringing it to the floor, they say Avdiivka would not have
fallen.
So, I’m just wondering, again, what is the way around that, and do you think, because we listened in — you know, in Munich to a lot of the
Republican senators who were there, who just seemed not to want to know. I mean, they kind of trolled Europe, they kind of insulted Ukraine, and they
almost said, and maybe they did say, that it’s time to negotiate with Putin.
NULAND: So, first of all, as you know, Christiane, at the State Department, we don’t do domestic politics, but I will say on a personal
level that I couldn’t have said it better than Congresswoman Cheney said it.
I think the issue now, as the House of Representatives comes back in the middle of next week, is do they want to do Putin’s bidding, or do they want
to defend freedom and democracy, not just in Ukraine, but around the world, as America has always done and in our own interest? And that’s the question
they have to dig deep and ask themselves, and they have to take responsibility for the decision they make and the future they give our
children.
AMANPOUR: So, Ukraine obviously is dependent on this aid, and it’s been doing very well with the aid, you know, in the last two years. It’s been
holding off a much more powerful, better armed, you know, many, many more people that they can send to their front. And it’s been doing it. But now,
as we see, they are losing some territory, and really the fight is absolutely desperate.
They also have no hope at all yet of getting into NATO. But there was also another announcement in the E.U. that their invitation for accession
procedure will be delayed. I mean, that’s just a lot to throw at a country that’s fighting for its survival right now. Why do you think the E.U. has
put that on the back burner?
NULAND: Well, I think what the E.U. was talking about was that without more economic support, without more technical support, Ukraine can’t make
the reforms that it needs to make in its custom system, in the way its economy works, in its judicial system, to be eligible to become an E.U.
member. So, everything gets delayed when aid is delayed.
But as you said, it is a grinding battle on the front lines. This supplemental funding that we are asking Congress for will also help Ukraine
to fight and enhance its asymmetric military capability, because fighting like World War I trench battle is not going to get them where they need to
go. It will also help strengthen their economy.
The more air defense you can bring in, the air defense provides bubbles under which the economy can grow, the tax base can grow, people feel safe
coming home. So, all of this is about the fight today, but it’s also about putting Ukraine on a more sustainable footing where it can meet those E.U.
benchmarks, where it can begin to produce its own weapons and build a highly deterrent force of the future and tell Putin no when he thinks he
can wait Ukraine out or wait us out.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, you’ve all tried to sort of put Putin on the back foot, all the sanctions, the unity of NATO, which he didn’t expect. But we
had Yevgenia Albats, a very distinguished and self-exiled Russian journalist, who told the program last night that, you know, Putin feels,
looking at what’s going on in your politics, I know you don’t like to talk about politics, but they’re watching, Putin, Xi, everybody, Iran, feels
that the West is weak, and it’s fulfilling what he predicted that the West would get tired of this. As long as he just stayed at it, the West would
get tired.
I even hear written that he thought that the Tucker Carlson conversation brought him back into the international sort of spotlight and rubbed a
little of the pariah status away. And they are doing well in their economy because they’ve turned it into a domestic defense economy. So now, how do
you assess the strength of this adversary?
NULAND: Well, first of all, it depends what kind of country you want to build, right? If you want to build a country where a thousand of your young
men a day are sent across the front lines to be put into a meat grinder and you want to tell their mothers what happened to them, then you can have
Putin’s Russia.
If you want to have a situation where you’re about to have an election in less than a month, which is frankly no more than a selection because you’ve
killed off or imprisoned or silenced any serious opponent, that’s Putin’s Russia. If you want to deny the next generation, the technology, the
education, the investment in their future, that young Russians want, then that’s Putin’s Russia.
So, you’re right, Christiane, he’s turned the entire country into a bloody war machine. And by the way, deepened its dependence on neighbors like
China. Deepened its dependence on pariah states like Iran and North Korea.
I sympathize with Zhenya Albats because that is not the Russia that she wanted. It’s not the Russia that, frankly, we wanted. We wanted a partner
that was going to be westernizing, that was going to be European. But that’s not what Putin has done.
And as desperate and awful a situation this is for Ukraine, Putin’s also destroyed his own country through all of this. And we will continue to
tighten the noose on him and force his choices to be — to come to the table in a serious way or live with the Russia that he’s wrought, which is
not the Russia he promised his people.
AMANPOUR: But very briefly and finally, is this the Russia that you fear could win here in Ukraine?
NULAND: Again, Ukraine — the Europeans just passed $54 billion dollars in new assistance for Ukraine. 70 U.S. senators agree that we should pass this
supplemental request and help Ukraine now, help it turn the corner in 2024. Now, all eyes are on the House of Representatives.
I have confidence in the American people’s support for freedom and democracy, not just in Ukraine but around the world and their senators have
already listened to them. It’s time for the members of the House of Representatives to also hear that call for America to step up and do what’s
right if we want to live in a free and open international order going forward, and not be the victims of tyrants like Putin ourselves, because he
will keep coming.
AMANPOUR: Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, thank you for joining us.
And next, we do go to Putin’s Russia. Yulia Navalnaya today reiterated her belief that the president killed her husband, Alexei, urging the media not
to be diverted by Kremlin narratives. News today also that Navalny’s mother has now seen her son’s body.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYUDMILA NAVALNAYA, ALEXEI NAVALNY’S MOTHER: Yesterday evening, they secretly took me to the morgue, where they showed me Alexei. The
investigators claim that they know the cause of the death, that they have all the medical and legal documents ready, which I saw, and I signed the
medical death certificate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The death of Russia’s most prominent opposition leader has shaken supporters. An independent human rights monitor in Russia reports
that some of those detained at vigils for Navalny in St. Petersburg have now received military draft summons to fight here in Ukraine.
So, let’s bring in the former Russian MP Sergey Markov. He is from Putin’s political party, and he is joining me now from Moscow. Sergey Markov,
welcome to the program.
There’s just so much to ask you, but first I want to ask you about the death of Alexei Navalny, and how the West — how you think the world is
going to react to it, and are you surprised by the way the world has reacted to it?
SERGEY MARKOV, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICAL STUDIES, MOSCOW AND FORMER MEMBER OF RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT: No, absolutely no surprise. Most of
the world reacted just neutrally, understanding that it could not happen. And western leaders tried to use the death of any political opponent to
Vladimir Putin for their denying of legitimacy of the new reelection of Vladimir Putin.
Western leaders want political isolation of Vladimir Putin, and they was to use the death and election for these purposes. They want to call, OK,
before this, Vladimir Putin was, you know, by law president, a bad president. Of course, very much for crime, you know, criminal and so on.
But nevertheless, legal president. But now, oh, he already will be not legal because he kill Alexei Navalny. It’s a plan absolutely clear for
everybody.
As to Alexei Navalny’s death, you know, I knew him personally. I met him many, many time, and I discussed with him. He was very bright. He was very
well educated. Very modern style politician. And he had good political perspectives. But they — political — his political perspectives finished,
not now, but 10 years ago, when Alexei Navalny did not recognize Crimean people rejoining with Russia.
You know, this decision of Crimean people have been supported by more than 90 percent of Russian population. And in the moment when Alexei Navalny
denied to support Crimea, he killed himself as a political leader.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MARKOV: Then he became —
AMANPOUR: All right. Let me just —
MARTIN: — quite much in the lies (ph).
AMANPOUR: I understand that, in your system, he alienated himself because he didn’t accept what the rest of the world believes is an illegal
annexation. I mean, let’s just put that out there. But I do actually want to ask you whether you think it’s fair and right, or is it just revenge,
that some of his supporters who’ve just gone to lay flowers at a memorial have been given draft notices essentially to come here and be killed. I
mean, what does that sound like?
MARKOV: I think this situation happened when the country is at war. You know, we regard ourselves that we’re at war with huge coalition of the more
than 50 countries led by United States, Britain, and European Union, it’s the biggest coalition in the world, in the human history, and they
attacking us.
Your coalition who making aggression against Russia, (INAUDIBLE) than coalition of Napoleon Bonaparte and coalition of Adolf Hitler. And we are
in resistance. That’s why Russian public opinion regard those who claim themselves as branded to United States of America. They regard themselves
as enemy of Russia. And that’s why such behavior. It’s not behavior in the normal situation. It’s behavior in the situation of the country in the
world.
AMANPOUR: Sergey Markov, let me just ask you. I mean, again, you know, you’ve said it from your perspective, but most people in the world,
including at the U.N., know that it was an illegal invasion by Russia and actually it’s Ukraine that’s resisting.
So, my question to you would be, and I would put it to President Putin too, if I could, why would you want to send so many of your own people to be
slaughtered on the battlefield here just for inches of territory that’s creating a bloodbath that we have not seen the likes of since World War I?
In Avdiivka, we understand that it was one Ukrainian death for seven Russian deaths. Why is this good for Russia?
MARKOV: First of all, according to our information, the number of deaths in proportion one Russian to soldiers to two or three Ukrainian soldiers.
But the tragedy is that every dead Ukrainian soldiers, there are Russians.
For us, it’s civil war. For us, it’s our people. For us, Ukrainian citizens, it’s those citizens who should be part of the Russia. For us, and
for history, in every history textbook, that Ukraine is part of the Russia during 1000, except Polish occupation, German occupation and American
occupation of Ukraine right now.
And the reason why Vladimir Putin started the war, it was our prediction that this war will happen anyway with — and we’ll start with aggression of
American proxy army, which is Ukrainian army, against. And thus (ph), explain exactly to the 2023. And the idea of those plan was to crash, you
know, what Putin, as leader, and to have intensive political repression against for Russian people in Donbas region exactly as a Ukrainian regime,
make total political repression against Russian people Kharkiv, in Odesa, in Nikolaev, in Zaporizhzhia.
AMANPOUR: Sergey —
MARKOV: In Kherson. In (INAUDIBLE) and numerous Ukrainian City. Vladimir Putin didn’t want to — the Ukrainian regime will repeat semi political
repression on Donbas.
AMANPOUR: Sergey, know that that’s your narrative. I know that that’s what Russia and you all and President Putin to be saying from the beginning. But
my question to you is, you’ve just said essentially Ukraine doesn’t exist, that it’s part of Russia. And I’m wondering, you know, that we know, that
history shows that actually Ukraine, Kyiv, is double the age of Moscow itself. So, it’s a much older civilization than Moscow.
And I just wonder whether you’re not worried that when you deny the existence of a people and a nation, you’re not setting yourself up for the
kind of war crime talk that could be adjudicated in the future.
MARKOV: Oh, yes. You know, interesting question. Of course, Kyiv is a capital, but it’s our capital. Opens the history textbooks. They call
themselves not Ukrainians. All leaders — Kyiv as capital, they call themselves only Russians. They’re Russians, is what we want to say. And
Ukrainian narrative, it is neocolonial narrative, which, first of all, had been exposed by Polish occupation, then used by German occupation during
World War I, then used by Bolsheviks, who wanted to divide Russian people (INAUDIBLE). And now, it’s used by American occupation of Ukraine. Sure.
AMANPOUR: Right.
MARKOV: But in fact, they’re Russians. Yes, that’s right. Capital — it is capital. Kyiv is capital, but it’s our capital. It’s not — it’s capital —
our whole people, that’s why we call this war the People’s War.
AMANPOUR: Well, that’s what I was going to ask you next, and final question. You say that it’s ours. President Putin is about to be selected
as the, you know, enduring Russian president, almost no opposition. What do you think, then, he will do in his next term? Is this war going to
continue? Is there any — are you hearing anything about any kind of move in Moscow or the Kremlin to have any negotiations to end the war?
MARKOV: He will do the same. According to sociology, he will get something about 75 percent. The problem — but Putin has opposition. He has strong
opposition. He has communist opposition about his economic policy.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
MARKOV: He has nationalistic opposition about Putin’s liberal migration policy. But of course, the nation is united situation in war. Putin, for
us, now as Churchill in Britain in the war against Hitler, as Theodore — as Franklin Delano Roosevelt for Americans in the World War II.
AMANPOUR: All right. Sergey Markov, thank you very much for joining us from Russia with your very specific point of view, which I know is the
narrative in Moscow. Thank you so much for being with us.
And as we’ve been reporting all week, Ukraine is facing some serious challenges on the front lines, increasingly outmanned and outgunned. Here’s
what Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told me just days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Can you hold out? You say you will not fall, but a big town has fallen or a medium-sized town, and they’re putting pressure on the second
biggest city in Ukraine right now.
DMYTRO KULEBA, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: We wouldn’t lose Avdiivka if we had received all the artillery ammunition that we needed to defend it. That
is my answer to your question.
AMANPOUR: Simple as that?
KULEBA: I don’t think it requires any additional comments.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s get a reality check now on the state of this war. Oleksiy Goncharenko, and I’m going to get it wrong. Tell me how I pronounce
it?
OLEKSIY GONCHARENKO, UKRAINIAN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Goncharenko.
AMANPOUR: There you go. Goncharenko is joining me here. MP, and you’re involved in many of the discussions, and you also were at the Munich
Security Conference.
You might have heard Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland talk about the enduring commitment of the United States and hoping and expecting this
extra military aid to be delivered. What is your realistic expectations? What are you hearing and feeling on the streets?
GONCHARENKO: I want to believe Victoria Nuland because this is vital for us. United States of America told we will be with you as long as it takes.
Now, it’s time to keep the promises. Also, I just want to remind you and all of us that 30 years ago, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the third biggest
nuclear arsenal in the world under the guarantees of the United States of America. We would have this arsenal, nobody, never would attack us. We did
it. And now, we want to see these guarantees.
And also, this is a basis of nonproliferation policy in the world. Because if Ukraine would fail like, what is the message to the world? If you want
to be secure the only way, go nukes. Be prepared. So, I hope that the message will be completely different. That the big countries, like the
United States of America, they are keeping their promises, and they are standing with the countries shoulder to shoulder, like they will show in
Ukraine, where we are fighting not only for ourselves, but for international order.
AMANPOUR: Did you have any conversations, one-on-one? I know that you asked some questions to some of the Americans, including the Republican
senator at Munich. But were you able to have any one-on-one or side conversations to get a feel for their pulse?
GONCHARENKO: Yes, I tried. I’ll be frank with you. It looks like American politicians are very much inside United States elections. And it bothers me
because, like, I have all respect to American people. They will decide who will be your next president. But I don’t understand why Ukraine should be
victim of this.
And that’s in the best interest of all Americans, no difference for whom they will vote, that Ukraine will survive, will win this war, and United
States of America will have a strong ally, which Ukraine can be. Like, if there will be any war in future, and United States will need people who
will stand shoulder to shoulder with them, who will be in trenches near Tehran?
I don’t think that many nations are ready to. Ukrainian are ready. We are Ukrainians. We are ready to stand with the United States shoulder to
shoulder, either in trenches near Tehran or near in North Korea or near Beijing. No difference. Because we appreciate your support. We are strong
enough. We today are the second strongest army in the free world after the United States. And I think we are very valuable ally. But today, we need
your support just to defend our country and to defend our common values.
AMANPOUR: How would you assess the gaps in the ammunition, in the weapons, the delay? How would you assess it on the battlefield right now?
GONCHARENKO: It’s quite hard and it’s big gaps. And that’s why we lost Avdiivka, which we hold for 10 years. And already, this delay, I hope to
say delay, in support from the United States, it already unfortunately makes difference on the battlefield and not in right side. So, that’s why
we need so desperately it now.
When I heard from some Republican senators in Munich that democracy takes time and debates need time, I just said we are dying every day. That’s the
point. Every day. We don’t have this time. And I think this is not about the time and debates, but it’s about some different things. And I don’t
think, again, of what I want to tell you, that it’s in the interest of the United States of America to help Putin. Because that’s what’s going on. The
only one person who is happy from the mess, which, sorry, is happening now in U.S. Congress, is Vladimir Putin. I don’t believe that American people
want to see this.
AMANPOUR: What do you make of some of the conversation that I’ve been having about him, actually? You know, he’s running. They say he has a hefty
opposition, but he’s expected to win again.
GONCHARENKO: Yes, he has opposition, but all in the graves. It’s very easy. Like Mr. Markov said, you know, there are opposition to Putin. Yes,
there are, but just in the graves. So, that’s the only way.
AMANPOUR: So, since you brought that up, what do you think the impact of Alexei Navalny’s death on Russia will be, on the people there? Do you think
it’ll make any material difference or Putin will just continue, you know, to be the forever leader?
GONCHARENKO: He will continue. Unfortunately, many people do not realize this is not the war of Vladimir Putin. This is the war of Russia and
Russian people leaded by Vladimir Putin. Yes, there are very good people in Russia too, but they are very small numbers.
Most of people are brainwashed, are revanchistic, militaristic, and they support Putin in this. It’s like in Nazi Germany. Germany became fantastic
country now. It’s a great country. We appreciate it. And that’s wonderful. But only after Germany came through de-imperialization. That’s the thing
which had not happened with Russia.
And all this crazy delirium, which Mr. Markov told you about Ukrainians are Russians, Kyiv is Russia, you know, like Orwell, bad is good, white is
black, and so on. It’s because they are empire. And they want to continue to be empire. And by empire, there will be always a threat. Not only to all
neighbors around, but for the whole planet.
AMANPOUR: And briefly though, it’s making a difference on the field. Avdiivka has been lost. You held it for 10 years. Tell me the strategic
significance of that.
GONCHARENKO: It’s painful. But Avdiivka had a population of 30,000 people. So, it’s not a huge city. And when Russia is so happy to take Avdiivka,
it’s even a little bit humiliating for them, calling themselves the second strongest army in the world, and then being so happy that they took a town
from 30,000 people after four months of assault.
But still, it’s painful for us, and we’re losing our people, and that is problem. So, I just want to tell you, we are not short in people. We are
not short in courage. We are short in support from our allies. That is our problem today.
AMANPOUR: So, you’re not short in people?
GONCHARENKO: We are not short in people. We are not short in courage of Ukrainian people.
AMANPOUR: I know not courage —
GONCHARENKO: We are just short —
AMANPOUR: — but there’s — you’re outmanned by the other side.
GONCHARENKO: Yes, they’re five times bigger than us. But our army is strong and there are another Ukrainian people who are ready to stand up and
go. And Ukrainians, we are standing in the lines to come back to the country, to fight for country. But we are short in ammunition. We are short
in weaponry.
And now, we need to balance it with Ukrainians lives, which is very painful. And also, strategically, that’s what Putin is hoping about, just
to outnumber us and outweigh it. I hope this will not happen with the United States support.
AMANPOUR: Oleksiy, thank you so much indeed for being with us tonight.
GONCHARENKO: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Now, over 30 years after the Iron Curtain came down, could the world be edging towards a new Cold War? Our next guest says that mounting
tensions between the planet’s most powerful nations have caused the global economy to fragment into regional competing blocs. First managing director
at the IMF joins Walter Isaacson to discuss this turning point for the world economy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. and Gita Gopinath, welcome to the show.
GITA GOPINATH, FIRST DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: Hi, Walter. It’s a pleasure to join you.
ISAACSON: In a recent article in “Foreign Policy” magazine, you talk about the retreat from globalization, from this notion of free trade, that we’re
making a course correction and doing more on shoring. Isn’t that a good idea, given the pandemic, the supply chain problems we’ve had, and even the
Ukraine war?
GOPINATH: Walter, what we are seeing is that increasingly national security and economic security concerns are driving trade policy. And the
outcome of that is a large increase in the number of restrictions that are being put on trade.
So, just this last year, there were 3,000 new trade restrictions that were imposed by countries. In 2019, that number was less than 1,000. So, we are
seeing an increase in restrictions. While we don’t necessarily see a decline in globalization, which is if you look at the overall amount of
global trade as a share of GDP, what we are seeing is fragmentation, which is some countries are trading more with likeminded countries as opposed to
others.
So, if you look at, for instance, the two powers, the U.S. and China, and countries picking partners to trade with, we’ve seen a significant
reduction in trade between the U.S. and China, in terms of direct trade links between the U.S. and China. So, that’s a sense in which we are seeing
increasing signs of fragmentation.
ISAACSON: Do you think this could lead to a new Cold War, at least an economic Cold War?
GOPINATH: It depends upon how countries are going to manage this going forward. We are at a time when the amount of economic integration we have
is much higher than it was during the Cold War. There is trade between countries, it’s now 60 percent of global GDP. In 1950, that number was 16
percent.
So, the costs of going into a full-blown Cold War II would be very high compared to what it was back then. And that’s why we do see attempts by
countries and leaders around the world to maintain lines of communication. The U.S. and China are working together. They have these working groups in
place.
The two presidents meet to — you know, again, to make sure that we don’t go down a very bad slippery slope. So, in that sense, I maintain some hope
that we can avoid a really bad Cold War.
ISAACSON: But let’s look at the bigger picture here. For about 20, 30 years, we did a whole lot more trade. There was a lot more offshoring. Jobs
left — the manufacturing jobs left the United States. This led to a lot of populist backlash, led to a lot of problems. Did we overdo trade and
globalization, and for that matter, immigration? And, as I think even your own boss, the head of the IMF said, don’t we need a course correction on
this over hyper globalization?
GOPINATH: Well, we have to acknowledge that globalization did not make everybody winners. Now, that was actually never expected. It is always the
case that when you end up with greater trade ties, you do have winners, but you also do have some people who lose out now.
Now, how do you fix that? You fix that by having the right kinds of domestic policies to make sure that those who are losing jobs in the
sectors that are getting, for instance, sent to other countries, those workers get retrained, they get reskilled, and they get matched with newer
industries. That’s what needs to happen.
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. Let me question you on that. Has — have you ever seen any reskilling and retraining programs actually work?
GOPINATH: There have been examples where it’s worked, but I will agree with you that, in general, this has been much harder to make happen. But,
for me, the lesson is not that that means that this is not the right path to go down. I think it means that countries haven’t done enough. And much
more focus needs to be paid to it.
Now, again, I will absolutely accept the fact that we’ve had a period of hyper globalization where not enough attention was paid to communities that
were getting negatively impacted and also, not attention — enough attention was being paid to the resilience of these supply chains. And we
saw that the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have all exposed that.
And so, it is right for countries to pause and, you know, figure out how they’re going to make sure that their economies are much more protected and
that people are much more protected. The only thing I would warn against is going down a slippery slope where, ultimately, all this then becomes just
about economic competition. And we end up with basically losing all the positive gains we’ve had from closer integration.
ISAACSON: One thing that President Biden and Former President Trump almost agree on is that we have to do a lot more to bring manufacturing back to
the United States. Is that a mistaken goal?
GOPINATH: You know, the policy — policies that help economies, and we’ve seen this repeatedly across countries, is — are policies that improve
infrastructure, that improve the human capital off their country, that provide apprenticeship programs, training programs. So, when you put those
kinds of policies in place and remove distortions in the economy, they do create the right kinds of industries.
And so, that kind of a strategy, which is building up infrastructure is — it’s a good thing. It helps everybody and not just the manufacturing
sector. The other thing we have to keep in mind in terms of manufacturing is, again, recognizing that there’s a whole lot more automation now in
manufacturing than it used to be in the past. So, you could actually increase the manufacturing sector in terms of size, but it would not
necessarily create those many more jobs.
ISAACSON: So, what would be, in your mind, the proper way to move back a bit from the era of hyper globalization to try to protect against the
supply chain shocks we’ve had, and for that matter, the loss of jobs in manufacturing? Other than retraining, what would be the proper way to
calibrate this?
GOPINATH: Well, firstly, countries need to diversify their supply chains more than they did. There was a period where the focus was exclusively on
efficiency. And buying from the cheapest possible source, that meant relying very heavily on one or two countries, and that exposes you to
risks. So, diversification is important. And we see actually companies going ahead and doing that, which is diversifying their supply chains.
Secondly, it is important for countries to come together and reform the trading system that we have. Right now, the rules of the game don’t deliver
benefits for everybody. It is important for countries to fix it. And this is, again — you know, it is the job of countries to do.
So, right now, this month, there is a high-level ministerial conference that’s taking place at the World Trade Organization. That is an opportunity
to — for countries to sit together and improve the trading system that we have, including fixing the dispute resolution mechanism that has broken
down, addressing concerns about industrial policies and industrial subsidies being used across the world. They can do it, but you really need
to have the right intention.
And lastly, in terms of workers, you need to have stronger social safety nets. And also, what we should keep in mind that an important fraction of
the jobs that were lost in manufacturing did not come because of globalization, it came because of automation. So that, of course, takes us
to another important area that is developing the world, which is artificial intelligence and the consequences that could have for labor markets. So,
you know, many actions will be required on multiple fronts.
ISAACSON: Your piece in “Foreign Policy,” I loved it because it was very historical. And you even go back to right before World War I. And back
then, we thought, as people say now, that more trade, more global commerce, will lead to greater peace. But that certainly was not the case when, right
before World War I, world trade was higher than it’s ever been, and yet, we got into a world war.
What do you think it is now? Is it true that more global trade will lead to more stability?
GOPINATH: What we have seen in history is that when economies are weak, they are in recessions, there are job loses, we saw that during the Great
Depression, of an immense kind, that’s when people want to turn away from global integration. That’s when they — you know, there is an incentive to
move away from engaging with the rest of the world, including through trade.
Right now, we have a global economy that has actually been more resilient than we expected it would be, despite the big increase in interest rates
that have happened around the world, and the pandemic, and the war. Despite all of that, we have resilience. So, I think we have to pause and just
recognize that this integration that we have seen has helped countries remain resilient and make sure you don’t throw the baby out with the
bathwater. So, you have to be careful about that.
It is still very much the case that having integration with the rest of the world, these trade relationships have benefited countries. They help in
terms of productivity, they help in terms of affordability, all of this is valuable. But at the same time, this is also the time for countries to
build more resilience and not just be about efficiency, but build resilience to address both national and economic security concerns.
ISAACSON: One of the things that happened after the Ukraine invasion by Russia was a lot of economic sanctions on Russia. And we were told they
could be crippling sanctions. And yet, I just saw that the IMF said that the Russian economy grew at 2.4 percent. Why have sanctions failed so
badly?
GOPINATH: So, Russia’s economy has, indeed, surprised in terms of the strength of its growth. But that said, there is one piece that is clear,
which is Russia’s economy is now a war economy. There is a large amount of military expenditure. There is a large amount of social transfers that are
happening. And that, as we know, always tends to — will raise growth. We are actually seeing signs of an overheating economy with inflation going
up. So, that is one important factor that has held up growth in Russia.
They’ve also been able to continue to export oil the way they’ve done in the past. So, they’re getting a large amount of export revenues from oil,
which have also helped them in terms of stabilizing their economy and growing their economy. But at the same time, we should recognize that they
have lost, Russia has lost an important amount of human capital, as several of the high-skilled workers have left. They have a much harder time getting
access to advanced technology. That affects their productive capacity. So going forward, our expectation is that this will weaken their growth in the
medium-term.
ISAACSON: Some people have suggested that the West sees the assets of Russia, Russian banks that are held in the West and use that for Ukraine.
Is that a good idea in your opinion?
GOPINATH: So, Walter, you know, we have a principle of neutrality. We don’t really get involved in these kinds of decisions about what to do with
the frozen assets. We are following the developments closely. It is going to depend upon the relevant countries, those jurisdictions these assets are
in to make a decision.
That said, we will, of course, evaluate the impact of any action that is taken with these assets, the impact, for instance, for Ukraine, the impact
for the rest of the world, and for the international monetary system. So, that’s where we come in.
ISAACSON: This is an election year 2024, not just in the United States, but a lot of countries. Are you worried that that could lead politically to
a lot of domestic spending, increased domestic spending in countries, and this could destabilize the global economy?
GOPINATH: If you look at what’s happened in the past, there is a correlation between increased spending during election years. And so, you
know, that would be a reasonable conjecture to have. You know, one of the points we have been making is we are now in a world where debt levels are
very high. And we have many countries that whose fiscal deficits are too big, they’re spending much more than what their revenues are bringing in.
So, it is our advice that this is actually now a time to consolidate on the fiscal front, to build up baffles, also because this is not going to be the
last — you know, we’re not done with shocks. We’re going to see many more shocks going into the future. We’re also seeing interest rates going up.
And interest rates likely will be higher than they were during that period right after the global financial crisis when everybody pushed interest
rates down to rock bottom levels.
You know, the interest rates at which governments are borrowing is going up, that will then crowd out necessary spending that they will have to do.
So, it is our advice that now is the time to engage in fiscal consolidation and to rebuild buffers. But of course, to do this in a sensible manner,
which is not to do everything up front, but to smooth it over time.
ISAACSON: The economy, which we thought was both having problems with inflation and might then lead to a recession, with the high interest rates
that are being used, seems in the United States and in other places too, to have had what’s called a soft landing. In other words, the economy has done
better than many economists thought.
Is that true in the United States and around the world? And if so, what were the reasons for this soft landing?
GOPINATH: The global economy has been more resilient than many feared. And while we don’t have a soft landing yet, our expectation is that we will see
soft landings. Again, that is our baseline. And the reason we expect to see soft landings is, one, that inflation has come down quite significantly in
many parts of the world without needing, you know, a big increase in unemployment rates or a big drop in activity. So, without that, we have
seen inflation coming down quite a lot. That gives us hope why you could end up with a soft landing.
Now, there are several reasons why maybe we end up here. What we saw were a lot of supply chain disruptions during the pandemic and also the energy
prices that went up during the war, those have unbound and that has helped everybody in bringing their inflation down. But we still have the last
mile. And I want to flag that, is we do have the last mile in getting inflation back down to central bank targets. So, we’re not done.
The approach of being cautious is the right one, which is what central banks are signaling, to be data dependent, and to see, you know, what
happens to inflation with every reading. Now, I think we should be careful not to extrapolate from one data point and either have euphoria or to have
panic from it. Our expectation is that inflation will continue to decline. It will be bumpy, but we expect that it will continue to decline, again, as
long as policies are maintained at the right level.
ISAACSON: So, in other words, we shouldn’t rush into rate cuts right now.
GOPINATH: Our advice is to be cautious about it. And, you know, our best guess estimate, at this point, given the data that we have seen, is that
rate cuts are more likely to as a second half of this year, both in the U.S. and in the Euro area. But again, one should update this depending upon
what the data points to.
ISAACSON: Gita Gopinath, thank you very much.
GOPINATH: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: An instructive conversation as Russia’s invasion continues to pose a threat to global economy.
And join us tomorrow for my report from Bucha. It is the upwardly mobile suburb of Kyiv infamous for one of the most brutal massacres by Russian
forces two years ago. It marked a turning point in the war, hardening Ukraine’s resolve to defeat Russia and delivering a vital wake-up call to
the world. We see how Bucha is recovering two years later.
And that’s it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website and all-over social media.
Thanks for watching and see you tomorrow.