Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; Interview with Senator Chris Coons (D-DE); Interview with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte; Interview with "Source Code" Author and Microsoft Founder Bill Gates. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 17, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: They can discuss everything they want, but not about Ukraine without us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The U.S. and Russia kick off Ukraine peace talks, with neither Ukraine nor Europe at the table. Christiane speaks with President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy about navigating the new Trump world order. And Democratic Senator Chris Coons joins me with his view on three days in Munich.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: For the Europeans, my advice is, get your act together, see what you can do to make sure, on the European side,
that you chip into this debate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calls for Europe to step up on Ukraine.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GATES, AUTHOR, "SOURCE CODE" AND FOUNDER, MICROSOFT: What is the equilibrium? How many of those people can be capped so we can continue to
save tens of millions of lives?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- speaking with Walter Isaacson, Bill Gates makes the case for protecting American aid around the world.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Europe, Ukraine, and much of the world is reeling after senior American officials sent a clear message at the Munich Security Conference, European
security is no longer an American priority. America's new direction is already underway as high-level Russian and American teams arrive in Saudi
Arabia this week for bilateral talks on ending the war in Ukraine. Notably absent, Ukraine itself.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will visit Saudi Arabia this week, but he is not part of the negotiation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Ukraine perceives any negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine as those with no
results. We cannot recognize anything or any agreements about us without us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Also, not invited, Europe. Leaders there pulled together an emergency meeting in Paris today, facing the possibility that they'll have
to implement a Ukraine peace deal despite their having no say.
Well, Munich was ground zero for this weekend's world changing events. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was keynote speaker at the security
conference. Christiane spoke with him there about his plans to speak for Ukraine, even as America and Russia try to keep him away from the table.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: You, after your phone call with President Trump, said that you did not hear enough detail to make
this a peace plan. Can you just elaborate what you meant by that?
ZELENSKYY: Can I speak Ukrainian?
AMANPOUR: No.
ZELENSKYY: OK. Don't pressure on me. OK. So, yes, we had really a long conversation with the president of the United States. Not first one and not
last, I'm sure. I mean, really between us. I'm not sure that by phone we can manage all the plan, all security guarantees with all the details
because, you know, devil in details. Yes. And we know where is this devil in what country now.
Yes, that's why we have to stop him, to stop Putin. And it's very important for me. That's why we, the atmosphere of the -- our discussion is good. But
really, it's always good. Yes, but we need urgent, very concrete steps. And I think we have to work on it. Our teams -- well, we began, but I think
that we have to start immediately to do more deep decisions.
AMANPOUR: We'll get into that in a moment, but you did also have a separate conversation with Vice President J. D. Vance. We have to bring up
that in 2022, J. D. Vance said he didn't -- and this is a quote, "I don't care what happens to Ukraine one way or another."
Do you feel that he's changed, that the Trump administration and the actors you're dealing with understand what's at stake?
ZELENSKYY: I'll be honest, we have to work on it. All of us, not only me. Me is not enough, really. I think we have to work, because I think that,
you know, we -- together in Europe, the war is in Europe, and America is far from the invasion. And I think that we need to share more details,
because, to my mind, there are a lot of different voices around new American administration. And I'm not sure that all these voices on our
side.
[13:05:00]
That's why we have to work with these people, even with some Europeans, as I said, if I was understandable, I don't know, about Mar-a-Lago while
they're -- yes.
AMANPOUR: It was clear.
ZELENSKYY: It was clear, but I want to repeat it, yes. It's important for them to be clear.
AMANPOUR: Do you want to name names while we're at it?
ZELENSKYY: I know names, of course. I'm not sure that it's -- yes.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let's just get back to President Trump. At a press conference --
ZELENSKYY: You said about Orban -- oh, sorry.
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, Trump was asked whether he trusted Putin, and he sort of basically ended up saying, on this, I do. But he has also, said
that -- and frankly, it's quite difficult to extract what all the different administration officials have been saying.
On the one hand, potentially that, you know, maybe Ukraine had a responsibility for this war. Maybe Ukraine can't ever expect to get back,
it's unrealistic according to the defense secretary, its territory. Maybe Ukraine will be safe and independent. Maybe it'll be part of Russia. Do you
understand what America's position is?
ZELENSKYY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Which is?
ZELENSKYY: I think, to my mind, they are preparing atmosphere for their dialogue.
AMANPOUR: For their dialogue? Which will be?
ZELENSKYY: For the dialogue between Trump and Putin. And I think this is - - I mean, this is up to them, but they can discuss everything they want, but not about Ukraine without us. And that's why, in this case -- that's
why, especially in this case, I think it's a little bit dangerous. That's why I said that we need to talk more with the president, and to talk more
with his people, with his teams.
We had good conversation, and I think that I opened some new details for vice president. That's why I said I -- we need, it's not waste time. It's
really very important, I think, diplomatic investment for the future just and lasting peace for Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: You said Putin doesn't want peace. I mean, you just said it loud and clear here.
ZELENSKYY: Yes, it's true. It's true.
AMANPOUR: So, what is the dialogue? And have you convinced the Americans that, A, Ukraine has to be at the table, and B, I guess the Europeans have
to convince them that they have to be --
ZELENSKYY: On all of the levels we directly -- yes, very directly, send these messages that we have to prepare security guarantees like a main part
of the stopping, putting and stop this war. And very important, essential. And we said that it can't be without us, and that's why I don't know. If we
don't have -- from my point of view, if we don't have for today common plan, it means for me that United States doesn't have. Because if they have
something, it's not about us.
First of all, we have to make a plan with you, I said to the president. It was the day when he had phone calls with Putin and with me. And first with
him, and then with us.
AMANPOUR: And how did that sit with you?
ZELENSKYY: No, I said that --
AMANPOUR: But first with Putin and then with you?
ZELENSKYY: Oh, I'm not happy. I'm -- yes, but I think that more dangerous if first meeting will be with Putin and then with Ukraine. And there are
things I shared with President Trump, that first of all we have to see common view. And I said also, that at the table, we need Europe also. It's
very important for us. We are Europe. We in Europe and we see our future only in E.U. like a member. So, that's why for us is very important.
And Europe helped us a lot. Because when I speak -- really, when I speak with different officials of the United States, of new administration, and
we're thankful for them that they didn't frozen their military support, it's very important and I'm very thankful things again. But when we speak,
I really understand what part of support did America during these three years and what huge support made Europe. And it's important.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Did you get a commitment from President Trump that you would meet with him first? President Trump says he'll meet Putin maybe in Saudi
Arabia, maybe soon. Has he said he will meet you?
ZELENSKYY: He said to me that we have to meet and I said to him also, we have to meet. I think that I said first. That we have to meet. Yes. And --
but we understood each other because I didn't say about it once.
AMANPOUR: You said it several times?
ZELENSKYY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I see.
ZELENSKYY: So, that's why I think we understood each other and it's very important. Yes. Because if we can repeat the words that each day we have
losses and if president of the United States or other leaders repeat these words, Ukraine has losses, we have to stop the war. I mean, that it meant
that we have urgently to meet if we really want to stop. To meet with the concrete dates and days and plans.
AMANPOUR: So, you talk about losses, obviously, heavy losses. You mentioned Russia's heavy losses as well. You were talking to President
Trump and you know that last year, around this time last year, it was President Trump and his allies in Congress, which delayed for approximately
seven months, the aid that was meant to come to Ukraine.
When I spoke to General Syrskyi, your commander, in Ukraine just a few months ago, he said the delay in aid did cost lives, cost territory, and
cost a lot of, you know, strategic effort in Ukraine. Did you mention that to President Trump?
ZELENSKYY: No.
AMANPOUR: I see.
ZELENSKYY: We spoke about delaying and about decision of the Congress and at least positive decision. I was thankful to him. It was in September when
we had meeting during his election period I think so or before the election period. I don't -- before, a little bit before. Yes. Yes. So, it was very
important, the decision. I was thankful. Bipartisan support and also, Mike Johnson, he made positive decision. So -- and also, to President Trump,
because if he wouldn't be supportive, they couldn't vote this decision, but really help which we needed very much, still is going. I mean, not
everything came. You understand?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ZELENSKYY: So, it's very slow. And I think General Syrskyi was right that one of the reason why we lost -- but I don't want to speak about
kilometers, but I'm ready. I mean, there's -- yes, we lost about 4,000- square kilometers. Yes. But of course, if the help could come, you know, very quickly, everybody understand that we -- that losses was -- I mean,
this --
AMANPOUR: I understand what you're saying.
ZELENSKYY: We could be in more good conditions.
AMANPOUR: And precisely because of where you would need to be to have a negotiation to end the war, that's why I ask you this. So, you talked about
security guarantees. What details do you think about? What would be a security guarantee apart from joining NATO right now? What would be a
security guarantee in any ceasefire or to freeze or monitor any line of contact, which is some 1,300 kilometers long?
Because already Defense Secretary Hegseth said there'd be no U.S. troops. We don't know what it looks like. What do you think it looks like?
ZELENSKYY: More strong sanctions, not if they will invade again. Just more strong sanctions at the very beginning. Then, like you said, really
difficult to hold the border long border, yes, for Ukraine and Ukrainian soldiers. That's why we need army more than now, if we're not in NATO,
then, as I said, NATO has to be in Ukraine. It means only one that we will need the army comparable with soldiers of Russia. It's 1.3 or 1.5 million
soldiers.
So, we need money for this, the package of money, real money. And it's big deficit. Even today, $440 billion per year. So, this money and then weapon
and the package of missiles, what was written in the victory plan. The package which we will not use. We will not use but it has to stand on our
territory. And if Putin will begin new invasion, we will use it.
So, I think these issues are very important. This is priority.
AMANPOUR: And foreign troops, European troops?
[13:15:00]
ZELENSKYY: Yes. We are open for this initiative. We understand -- I mean, mostly we understand the details, but we need to discuss these details with
leaders. I don't want to be now, you know, very loud about it. So -- but we understand that we need it. It will help us.
AMANPOUR: Do you believe it'll be the year of peace? And more to the point, do you believe Putin has any intention of allowing an independent
sovereign Ukraine?
ZELENSKYY: We really want peace and we work on it. We will prepare security guarantees like we see. We will share it with the United States
and I hope they will share their view. As I said, common view for me is very is very important to hear all our partners in Europe who helped us, in
E.U. plus, of course, because U.K., our partners, big partners, and that's why it's very important to prepare during months, all these things, to
share it with the president of the United States, to find time for this, to our common meetings, to make this common plan, then to put it on the table
for Putin and do everything.
That thinks what really President Trump, he's strong. He can do, put sanctions or pressure in any ways, in any case, how he wants. And after
that, to stop this war this year, 2025. Make peace in Ukraine. This is our plan. That's what we really want and that what we will try to do.
AMANPOUR: Did you tell, as was reported, President Trump, that Putin is only doing this and agreeing to talks because he's afraid of Trump? Did you
tell him that?
ZELENSKYY: Yes. I told Trump that Putin afraid of him. Yes, and he heard me. And now, Putin knows.
AMANPOUR: I shouldn't be laughing, but you do make me smile. So, Mr. President, thank you very much.
ZELENSKYY: We want peace. We have to live and we have to smile.
AMANPOUR: That's really true.
ZELENSKYY: When we have time, of course.
AMANPOUR: But it's true.
ZELENSKYY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, Democratic Senator Chris Coons was at the Munich Security Conference. He joins me from London with his take on where all of this is
headed. Senator, welcome to the program. It's good to see you again.
Just in terms of the mood at this conference this year, I've heard from those who have attended many Munich Security Conferences that this is the
most contentious in their memory and perhaps going back even decades and the tension stemming not from Moscow necessarily this time but from
Washington. I'm just wondering your impression and give us a sense of some of the conversations and takeaways that you've had with those who were
there.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Well, Bianna, thank you for a chance to be on. I was there with a large bipartisan delegation from the House and the Senate,
and we met with a wide range of European leaders, of American generals, of commentators and of partners from around the world, heads of state, defense
ministers, foreign ministers.
And you're right that this was widely viewed as a divisive and contentious Munich Security Conference partly because of Vice President Vance's speech,
partly because of Secretary Hegseth's remarks in Brussels a few days before the conference. And what the two of them seem to have laid out in those two
sets of remarks was a surrender plan for Ukraine, to essentially give up all of the gains that have been made by Europe contributing massively to
Ukraine's defense by brave Ukrainian fighters who have stood up to Russian aggression and by American investment in Ukraine's defense.
My hope is that in the days after the Moscow -- excuse me, after the Munich conference that as conversations begin between representatives of the Trump
administration and representatives from Moscow that they will reflect on the core principle that Trump ran on and that, frankly, President Reagan
was famous for, which was peace through strength, not chaos or surrender through weakness.
There's been some effort to walk back some of what Secretary Hegseth said in Brussels about European security and Ukraine security not being a
central concern of the United States and there being no American guarantee for any Ukrainian security, that's been modified and re-discussed.
My hope is that the Trump administration will see that the only way to negotiate for a peace agreement in Ukraine is with Ukraine at the table,
with our European partners who have contributed more than we have in military equipment, economic support, and humanitarian support for Ukraine
than we have.
[13:20:00]
And to make it clear to Putin that Trump is ready to give more support, to impose tougher sanctions, and to stand up for Ukraine. If he does that, I
think Putin will back down, and we might well be able to achieve a just and durable peace for Ukraine.
If he doesn't do that, if he simply sees this as a negotiation between two warring sides where we have no interest in Ukraine and its democracy, then
I think we will see surrender and chaos that will weaken the United States globally for decades to come.
GOLODRYGA: Senator, I'm sensing a lot of hope. I just wonder, reality- wise, and given what we've heard and sort of the walking back and confusion and just the early outlines and frameworks of what a deal may look like
from the U.S.'s standpoint, I mean, President Zelenskyy made that clear in the conversation with Christiane there, that from his conversation with
Donald Trump he didn't see the parameters of a significant deal worthy of going to the table and discussing both with him and Vladimir Putin.
Now, you have U.S. representatives meeting in Saudi Arabia this week with Russian representatives, Ukraine, not a participant in those conversations.
What is your concern about the outcome of this early stage in these conversations? Because I'm asking specifically, given that there are
reports, I spoke with Alex Kabua (ph) of the Carnegie Endowment Center who has many contacts in Moscow and said that he would not be surprised if a
meeting between Trump and Putin happens even as soon as by the end of this month.
COONS: A meeting between Trump and Putin without Ukraine and without our European partners and allies and a meeting that sketches out or begins to
explore a peace deal where Ukraine is abandoned and betrayed, I think would be disastrous for the United States. And it is my hope that my Republican
and Democratic colleagues in the Senate will stand up and reject any such effort.
Because so much has been put into this fight. So, much sacrifice by Ukrainians. So, much investment by Europeans and Americans. And it will
teach the whole world that the United States is not a reliable partner. For us to abandon and betray Ukraine after three years of hard fighting against
Russian aggression would be a tragedy on a massive scale. And I think it would mark Trump's administration as a loser. As a loser that gave up on
what is in some ways the most important thing America has done for decades on the world stage, which is to stand alongside our partner democracies in
the face of aggression.
GOLODRYGA: Given the past relations between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, their previous summit, what Donald Trump says when he espouses some
of Putin's very famous talking points after their phone conversations, do you have any reason to believe that Donald Trump will present to him
strength through peace in the conversations that he's going to be asking and the demands he's going to be making of him? I mean, do you expect him
to make any demands at all?
COONS: I honestly don't know, Bianna, but I know that the folks who will be advising him, like Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, and
Secretary Rubio are clear that the best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is by being strong. That's something that Reagan Republicans have preached for
decades, and it would be an abdication of that long tradition and of the strong support Ukraine has enjoyed among some Republicans in the Senate,
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the majority leader.
In the last Congress, Republicans were critical of President Biden for not delivering more military equipment and more support earlier for Ukraine in
their fight against Russia. My hope is that they will continue with that position and that they will keep pushing President Trump to not give up on
Ukraine. Because frankly, the whole world is watching.
This will send a strong signal to Xi Jinping in China that Taiwan is next on the agenda to the leaders of DPRK, North Korea, and of Iran that their
partnership with Russia in aggression in Ukraine will be rewarded. I think it will send a terrible signal that will abandon deterrence and encourage
those who are aggressors on the world stage.
GOLODRYGA: Not to mention that Ukraine -- that Europe has been left out entirely through this process. The U.S. officials there saying the burden
of this war should fall on European shoulders and they've been completely excised from this conversation at this point.
[13:25:00]
Let me also, ask you about the war in Gaza because we saw Secretary Rubio standing side by side with Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend really
in lockstep saying that they share a common goal of defeating Hamas. And the U.S., once again, sending 2,000-pound bombs that had been frozen by the
Biden administration. And Prime Minister Netanyahu using some of President Trump's words that all hell will -- the gates of hell will open up if Hamas
doesn't release all of the hostages, and reiterating his point that the day -- there's no day after, a plan from him yet, but that the day after will
not consist of leadership of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority.
We are just getting headlines from some of your colleagues that I'd like for you to weigh in on who are on a bipartisan CODEL there right now.
Senator Lindsey Graham, this relates to President Trump's plan to have the U.S. control Gaza after the war. He said, there is very little appetite,
the U.S. Senate, for the U.S. to take over Gaza in any way, shape, or form. So, that's interesting to hear, but perhaps even more interesting comes
from Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal who said that, King Abdullah had convinced him that the plan that the Arab states will present to President
Trump is realistic and could be a game changer for the region. Do you know anything about this particular plan?
COONS: A group of us met with King Abdullah in Washington last week, and it is my hope that President Trump's bizarre plan for the United States to
take over and redevelop Gaza will be set aside and that a measured and thoughtful plan will be presented and accepted from leaders in the region,
from King Abdullah of Jordan and from President Sisi of Egypt.
The ceasefire is holding, hostages are being released. None of us want Hamas to succeed or survive. And all of us want to see a more peaceful and
stable future for the Palestinians of Gaza and for the Palestinian people.
Look, it remains, Bianna, my hope that there could still be found some way that Saudi Arabia recognizes Israel, that Israel achieves a peace path that
requires an irreversible path forward for Palestinian self-governance that would include the reconstruction of Gaza and a security force that would
provide for security and stability for Israel, as well as for the Palestinian people. That is an ambitious goal, but it is one that is shared
by the bipartisan delegation that's in Israel today.
GOLODRYGA: Quickly, can you tell us if this Arab states plan that was presented to you and your colleagues sees a day after a plan of control of
Gaza falling to the Palestinian Authority, which Prime Minister Netanyahu said is a deal breaker in his view, or is it some other consortium of rule?
COONS: Look, I should not get into the details of a plan that's not been made public yet. But clearly, resolving those two differences between a
possible pan Arab force and a reconstituted and modernized Palestinian Authority, squaring that circle is one of the challenges in front of us.
Bianna, I'll say one last thing if I could about Munich. It's important that Mark Rutte -- that Rutte, who's the secretary general of NATO, has
spoken up strongly about the importance of our European allies stepping forward and taking on more of the burden of European security and that Keir
Starmer, the prime minister of Great Britain, is saying that U.K. forces are ready to step forward and help secure a peace in Ukraine, all of that
can be accomplished as long as the United States continues to stand strong behind NATO and to stand strong behind our partners in Europe who are
taking on more of the security burden of making sure there is a path to peace in Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Well, for the first time in many, many years, there is a question mark surrounding that question.
COONS: There is.
GOLODRYGA: Senator Chris Coons, thank you so much for joining the show. Appreciate it.
COONS: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas offered a clear perspective on U.S.-Europe relations speaking with Christiane in
Munich.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAJA KALLAS, EUROPEAN COMMISSION VICE PRESIDENT: We don't want to fight with our friends. We have other threats coming from outside. And I think,
you know, in domestic politics, we have all kinds of issues and we are settling those ourselves. But we need to work with our allies with the
bigger threats that there are in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Christiane also, spoke with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at this critical Munich Security Conference as the Trump administration
representatives sent mixed messages and signals about NATO and Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Secretary General, welcome. What did you hear from the highest- level American representative, the vice president, J. D. Vance, that you wanted to hear?
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: We spoke at length. There is a clear commitment from the side of the U.S. to really keep that bond strong
between the U.S. and the European part of NATO. That whole alliance, that family of countries, based on values, but also, on our common security
interests, that was a very important thing about Ukraine that we have to work to a place where Ukraine is in the best possible position to start
talks.
[13:30:00]
But also, to make sure that whatever the end of those talks will be that the end outcome will be sustainable, will be lasting, and that a piece will
be enduring.
AMANPOUR: Let's talk about President Trump having called President Putin and then President Zelenskyy about his negotiating plan. What did Vice
President J. D. Vance say to you about that? Because there's a somewhat of a public confusion. Hegseth said, you know, he took off NATO membership. He
said it was unrealistic for Ukraine to even think about regaining its territorial integrity. Then Vance had to tell the Wall Street Journal that
actually the U.S. would put, you know, sanctions on Russia, and that nothing was off the table. What is the fact?
RUTTE: Well, of course, I cannot disclose what I discussed with the vice president, but what I am clearly hearing from all my talks with the senior
Americans from the White House, the Pentagon, State Department is, one, we have to make sure that we end this war as soon as possible. We all want
that.
A final deal in Ukraine has to be a strong deal, because we know that China is watching. And a weak deal on Ukraine will not only have consequences
here in Europe and for the collective NATO security, but also, for China, which will then feel emboldened to move with whatever they want to do.
And that when that deal is struck, you need security guarantees to make sure that Ukraine can prevail, that Putin will never try this again. So, it
has to be a lasting, a durable outcome. We all agree on that. And I'm really optimistic that we can get there.
And for the Europeans, you know, part of NATO, it's now important to think what they could do to add to a potential success. So, for example, when it
comes to security guarantees, what could the Europeans do, including training now, but also, post a peace deal?
AMANPOUR: Oh, yes. Well, you know, this is the question. The Americans have said it's only the Europeans who they intend to police or whatever,
security guarantee, any deal. Does that mean you face just Europeans? Is it NATO? What is it? When you think about that, who goes in to patrol any line
of contact?
RUTTE: But here's the thing. My worry is that we are now already negotiating with Putin without having Putin yet at the table.
AMANPOUR: Fine, but that's what the Americans have done. I'm sorry. The defense secretary.
RUTTE: No, I'm not sure they're doing that.
AMANPOUR: He said that no American boots on the ground. He said only Europe and he -- that's what he said.
RUTTE: I think the agreement is this, that whatever the outcome of those talks will be that Putin should never ever again to try to capture one
square kilometer, or to say it in American terms, one square mile of Ukraine. That is vital. We cannot have a Minsk three. This was the
agreement struck after they were able to capture Crimea in 2014, 2015. We can never have that again. So, it has to be durable. We all agree on this.
And then you and I can brainstorm whatever those security guarantees should be, what exactly should look like. But again, then we are really, I think,
informing too much our adversaries in Moscow.
AMANPOUR: Let's talk in general, but some of your allies believe that they've already given too much information to the adversaries in Moscow.
And we'll get to that in a moment. You saw foreign representative to the EU, Kaja Kallas, saying this is appeasement, any quick fix would be a dirty
deal.
So, let me just ask you, do you think there's a quick fix underway or a proper -- is it a ceasefire that we're -- that you're aiming for?
RUTTE: Again, we are informing Putin.
AMANPOUR: Is it a peace deal?
RUTTE: We have to work on this step by step. For the Europeans, my advice is, get your act together, see what you can do to make sure, on the
European side, that you chip into this debate. Because that will also guarantee for the Europeans to have a place at that table. Don't ask for
it, create the facts on the ground, engage with the Americans and with the Ukrainians to make sure that you can have a positive influence on a
potential outcome of a peace deal. And then, generally, we really have to do this step by step.
AMANPOUR: I know. You say that, but you are a former prime minister. You've had forces in the field supporting NATO missions and peacekeeping
missions around the world, Dutch forces, I've covered them before. Do you think that the Americans will let Europe have a seat at the table or that
Europe will seize a seat at the table? In other words, it can't be done around Europe's back if they expect Europe to take the lion's share of the
burden.
RUTTE: But then Europe has to be relevant in that debate, and Europe can be relevant. Europe can be relevant to one by making sure that you keep on
providing the military aid into Ukraine. And by the way, we need the U.S. also to keep on doing that. Maybe the E.U. has -- or the Europeans have to
pay a little bit more for that part. But still, we need both the U.S. and the Europeans to keep on delivering aid to the Ukraine. We have to keep on
delivering the training into Ukraine, to make sure that we train the Ukrainian forces.
[13:35:00]
And then, the Europeans can now think of -- on what potentially an outcome of a peace deal could be, what exactly the role could be for countries in a
situation post a peace deal, and then you're relevant. So, come up with the plans, engage with the Americans and don't ask for a place at the table but
make sure that you have the proposals on the table.
AMANPOUR: You mean take a place at the table?
RUTTE: By being active and relevant. And we can do this on the European side. We've done it before. I mean, I would not be too worried about it.
AMANPOUR: Do you think -- OK.
RUTTE: And you have the Ukrainians involved. And by being positively engaging with the Americans and the Ukrainians, you will also, have the
Europeans involved.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that Europe has enough forces it -- we're not talking in hypotheticals, but given it's on the table, does Europe have
enough forces to patrol 1,300 kilometers of a line of contact against Russia?
RUTTE: But then you're already looking at one potential outcome of a peace deal where somebody has to control some contact line. But that is five
steps down the road.
AMANPOUR: What's a security guarantee then?
RUTTE: A security guarantee is that you make sure that you have a system in place by which you absolutely guarantee that Putin will understand he
can never ever touch Ukraine again.
AMANPOUR: And what is that system? Is it American air power? Is it air defenses?
RUTTE: But if I'm now going to tell this to you there is one guy, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, sitting in a reclining chair in Moscow, listening to
the secretary general of NATO, telling him exactly what he will see when he pops up for peace talks. I don't want him to be so wise.
AMANPOUR: OK. I mean, you will admit that already President Trump has telegraphed to him as he sits in his Kremlin armchair that he agrees with
Putin's position on Ukraine never joining NATO. This is something that NATO promised Ukraine at your last summit in Washington, that its future was in
NATO. Is that off the table?
RUTTE: President Trump, when he was campaigning, also had some clear statements on the same issue. So, you cannot be too surprised. I am just
pleading for a situation where we try to really make that part of the negotiations, whatever will happen. And then, the key issue is how to make
sure that he will not try again, that you will not have repeat of what happened, as you have covered in 2014, 2015, which was a total failure.
The Minsk agreements now, 10 years ago, you can never have that again. Because it runs against the collective deterrence of the alliance, but it
runs also, against the interest of the U.S., China, et cetera. So, that is what we have to achieve. But the exact makeup of those security guarantees
is for that moment.
AMANPOUR: Secretary General, thank you very much indeed.
RUTTE: Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now in the U.S., international aid is also on Trump's foreign policy chopping block. For now, a federal judge has paused a
funding freeze on USAID. Tech giant Bill Gates joins Walter Isaacson to discuss how the global fight against disease could be affected by the
sweeping cuts, as well as his new memoir, "Source Code."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Bill Gates, welcome back to the show.
BILL GATES, AUTHOR, "SOURCE CODE" AND FOUNDER, MICROSOFT: Great to be here.
ISAACSON: One of the things I love about this new book of yours is you dig deep into your childhood, very reflective, and you even talk about your
quirky personality into details when you were young, obsessive, in your own mind, and you say, If I'd been born now, I'd probably be diagnosed with --
on the autism spectrum. And a lot of people I write about seem to have those traits and great innovators.
To what -- yes, Elon Musk and others. To what extent do you think that that was actually a superpower for you?
GATES: Well, it certainly held me back in terms of my social skills. I was late to develop there, but it was a big asset in terms of taking something
I was interested in and being able to put very long hours into it, whether it was math to begin with, or software development.
You know, I got a lot of feedback. I got a lot of exposure. And so, you know, by the end of this book, even though I'm still quite young, that that
deep interest made me a software expert.
ISAACSON: You call your book "Source Code." It's a wonderful title because it's sort of a nice metaphor for the input you get as a kid become part of
your operating system. Let me ask you about one or two of those inputs. One of them is when your parents bring you to a psychologist because you're --
you know, you're not actually the nicest kid in the family. And the psychologist gives you a simple piece of advice, which is I think you're a
lucky kid. kid. Tell me how that informed your "Source Code."
GATES: Yes, I was using a lot of my mental energy to sort of plague my parents about the arbitrariness of their rules and feeling like, OK, that
was some, you know, great thing that I was able to make things a little hard for them. And the person I spent time with sort of said, no, it's --
you have an unfair advantage. It's not going to help you in the long run. They're really on your side.
[13:40:00]
And so, that was wonderful that he convinced me to redirect my energy and think my parents is more positive. And so, it worked better after he had
flipped my focus.
ISAACSON: You have a certain humility in this book. And there's a wonderful thing that Benjamin Franklin said that helps with humility is
realizing you've been wrong at times. Tell me what realizations you had growing up that you were wrong about, and it helped you change the way you
look at things.
GATES: Well, I definitely -- when I first started working with other people, you know, I was only good at working with people like myself. You
know, I believed in long hours and I was pretty harsh. And so, so as even in these early Microsoft days where I have 20 employees figuring out, OK,
not -- just because you're smart at programming it doesn't mean you're good at other things, it doesn't mean you're good at managing programmers.
And so, constantly saying, oh, there are different types of intelligence and I have to learn how to work with all of those, even though my only
natural ability is working with sort of hardcore engineers.
ISAACSON: And were there any things that you wanted to make good for people that like the professor that you told him he was wrong or others
where you say, OK. I got to make it good on these folks?
GATES: Yes, there were a number of people that I -- as I was writing the book, I was sad to hear were no longer alive. Like, one of the professors
had actually been nicer towards me when I got in trouble than I had realized, you know, and wrote -- written a lot of very positive things
about --
ISAACSON: Wait, wait, wait. How did you get in trouble?
GATES: Oh, well, I was using the Harvard computers a lot. And there was a question of was the way I was using them, had they agreed to that or not.
In the end --
ISAACSON: You were actually writing code for the first personal computer, right?
GATES: Exactly. This basic interpreter you know, which I put in the public domain and -- but they did, in the end, admonish me for bringing a non-
student, Paul Allen, my co-founder, into that computer room, which was actually quite fair. But for a while, it looked like they might -- I might
really get in trouble, and I didn't realize this professor would very much come to bat for me.
ISAACSON: You had a three-hour dinner with President Trump right after he was elected. And I remember we talked about it a little and you said you
tried to talk him into keeping some of the foreign aid and all you really got was that he really listened to you and said, maybe he'd call you before
he made a final decision. Tell me what the upshot is, because he seems to have, along with Elon Musk, pretty much decimated USAID.
GATES: Well, I'm hopeful that some significant portion of that can be reversed and preserved. You know, Elon, of all the elimination he's done,
99 percent of it of these employees of USAID who work overseas and very tough circumstances, and they allow the U.S., in addition to our military
power, to get out there and help out with famine and HIV medicines, including this program called PEPFAR.
And so, I know a lot of those workers. I know that work. You know, a very, very high percentage of it is stuff every taxpayer would be proud of. So,
there's a little bit of a discussion, you know, that, yes, Elon, I think said, OK. we made a mistake. We went overboard. But now, you know, what is
the equilibrium? How many of those people can be kept so we can continue to save tens of millions of lives?
ISAACSON: How many people could -- lives could be lost if they don't rectify this?
GATES: Oh, it's definitely in the millions. PEPFAR has kept over 20 million people alive with HIV drugs, you know, started by President Bush
and continued on a bipartisan basis, literally up until the day that Elon decided it wasn't a good organization.
ISAACSON: It seems almost that it's almost worse than never having done it at all. If you put people on HIV and AIDS drugs and then, all of a sudden,
one day they disappear.
GATES: Yes, I think whoever was doing these software queries and finding less than 1 percent of these things that they were kind of, in many cases,
incorrectly saying outrageous things about I don't think they really have the picture of that here on the field.
And so, you know, keeping people alive from HIV, the U.S. has done a great job. And, you know, even if we have to reduce that some on an abrupt
withdrawal is a terrible thing.
[13:45:00]
But there's a larger picture, which is, I don't think people understand either how much we do in foreign aid or even why we do foreign aid. So,
leave aside the details. Why should we be giving foreign aid?
GATES: Well, most people, when they're asked, think the foreign aid is a big part of the budget, like 5 percent, and they think it should be more
like 2 percent, when in fact, it's actually 1 percent. There is the uplifting element that if these countries can get out of the poverty trap,
then they participate in doing business with the U.S. They have gratitude towards us.
So, even beyond the moral reason, maintaining stability, reducing illegal immigration, you know, we have something in common that we can help these
countries. And now, there's a little bit of a, you know, do they favor China over us? And because of this PEPFAR, you know, they've been very much
positive towards the United States.
ISAACSON: You know, Michael Bloomberg, when the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Accord recently, said, OK, he's going to help make up for it. Is
there anything the Gates Foundation can do in this regard?
GATES: Well, USAID was giving out over 40 billion a year. And so, the Gates Foundation, even as the largest philanthropy is only about 9 billion
a year, you know, there are some really unusual things like medical trials that are being interrupted that, you know, that's actually quite unethical.
Look, we may step up in a very minor way, but there's nothing out there that can replace things like PEPFAR or the president's malaria initiative.
It's just -- these are very tight times for all donors, other rich countries are more generous than we are. It's a percentage of their
economy. The African countries are very indebted. So, no, the -- if this money goes away there will be dramatic consequences.
ISAACSON: You know, Robert Kennedy, Jr., secretary of health and human services, you know, in his book, he accused you and Dr. Tony Fauci of a
historic coup d'etat against western democracy and all the things, from vaccines to COVID to pandemic that you've been interested in. How is this
going to affect your ability to do what you've been doing at the Gates Foundation?
GATES: Well, the Gates Foundation is going to work with the government. You know, the NIH is the best medical research organization in the world,
just like USAID is the best aid organization. And we've done a lot with them. The pipeline of innovations that I got President Trump enthused
about, including things like eventually having a gene edit for an HIV cure. And so, that'll be under Robert Kennedy. So, you know, I'm going to go meet
with him and explain, you know, why --
ISAACSON: Has he agreed to meet with you?
GATES: I think it's very, very likely that we'll get a meeting late this month. I hope so. I'll be reaching out to him.
ISAACSON: I noticed that the inauguration is -- I'm sure you did, that all the tech bros are there in the front row. They used to be tech nerds. Now,
they're invited to the front row of the inauguration. What happened to the tech nerd culture to become so cool and tech bro like and what do you make
of them all being in government now?
GATES: Well, the profit streams of these tech companies are phenomenal. I mean, these are the most -- highest value companies in the world. And of
course, the government, whether it's through the software they buy or A.I. regulation or antitrust, they affect these companies a lot.
So, you know, unlike when I naively thought Microsoft didn't need to be in Washington, D.C., and that was a great thing about this country, now all
those companies have a huge presence. And so, you know, they're, you know, playing a for profit game, I'm no longer in that. But, you know, I can
understand why they -- they're being very responsive and trying to connect.
ISAACSON: Do you think there's some danger of those -- that type of tech bro mentality coming into the government?
GATES: Well, the government needs to be independent, you know, and work on behalf of the taxpayer and the consumer. And, you know, so there's always
been a question is big business and government are aligned, you know, it's early days here to see, you know, how it gets managed. You know, issues
like antitrust and government purchasing A.I. regulation. So, I'd say I find it fascinating. They are kind of competing to get the most attention.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: When you came down here to New Orleans a couple of years ago and spoke at Tulane to my students, you talked about OpenAI, ChatGPT had just
come along, and you said you were going back and working with the Microsoft teams to embed A.I. into it. How has that gone? What's going to be the
thing we'll see coming out of that?
GATES: Well, the last three years, since the ChatGPT large language model and many excellent competitors have come along, the progress has been
pretty amazing. You know, they still can't solve all the problems. They still have reliability issues, but the performance and that reliability is
on a track that it's going to be profound how they can increase to first white collar productivity. And then, as the robots get better, all of the
economy, including blue collar as well.
And so, for me, I advise Microsoft, and then I take that knowledge so that the Gates Foundation can get these technologies to students in the inner
city in the U.S. and to the developing countries, particularly in Africa, not have it be a 20-year delay between usage in the rich world versus
developing world.
ISAACSON: You've been an adviser with OpenAI and its relationship with Microsoft. What do you make of Elon Musk's sort of, to me, surprise bid to
try to take back OpenAI from Sam Altman and maybe from the ownership stake of Microsoft?
GATES: Well, A.I. is about the most competitive space I've ever seen. You know, whether it's independent companies like Elon has his xAI, there's
Anthropic and many others. You know, Google and Microsoft are the two biggest companies investing not just tens, but literally hundreds of
billions. And so, you know, I think some of these maneuvers are, you know, sort of driven by the personal relationships. But overall, the -- you know,
I've never seen anything more competitive, which is partly why the progress we're seeing is so rapid.
ISAACSON: Way back in 1997, in a previous century, you know, I interviewed you for Time Magazine. And I asked you if you thought there was something
fundamentally different between the software of computers and the wetware of our carbon-based system and what we call consciousness. And let me -- I
went back and looked at it, and here's what you told me. You said, I don't think there's anything unique about human intelligence. All the neurons in
the brain that make up perceptions and emotions operate in a binary fashion. We can someday replicate that on a machine.
That was before you raised three kids, you watch them look at your face and recognize it. That was before ChatGPT came along. So, let me ask you again,
sort of the same question, is there something fundamentally different about the way we humans can engineer A.I. and the way that nature or nature's God
created the human mind?
GATES: Well, certainly they're not the same. But if the question is, say, take medical diagnosis or a robot doing factory work, will the quality of
that factory work of that medical diagnosis from the software exceed human capacity? The answer is yes. In time, it will.
Now, you'll be missing the wonderful humanness and, you know, humans will still, with their extra time, choose to interact with each other, by and
large, you know, consciousness probably won't be there. But anything that's utilitarian, the A.I. will eventually surpass human capability.
ISAACSON: You write near the end of the book that piecing together memories helps me better understand myself. What was the most interesting
self-revelation that piecing together memories came?
GATES: Well, it's stunning to me how lucky I was with my dad, my mom, the time I was born, that, you know, many times where I'd be exposed, some very
good software people, adults would guide me on how to improve, just a number of those things that came together that meant at the end of this
book, which is the start of Microsoft, you know, I was in a position to see that software and having the world's best software factory, you know, could
make a huge contribution.
[13:55:00]
And so, you know, my amazement, my gratitude, my, you know, reflecting back on friends and family was a very fulfilling exercise that humbled me in
terms of all the incredible things I've gotten to experience.
ISAACSON: Amazing gratitude, humbling, do you think a machine will ever be able to give that feeling?
ISAACSON: No. Feeling is an intrinsic thing that, you know, we understand, that's like consciousness. It will be able to write words like that, but
not experience the real human emotion that I did.
ISAACSON: Bill Gates, thank you for joining us again.
GATES: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
