Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former British Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind; Interview with Finnish President Alexander Stubb; Interview with Ukrainian Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 03, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We will go further develop a coalition of the willing to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee the
peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The British prime minister calls this a crossroads in history. Europe steps in as America gets dangerously close to breaking the
transatlantic alliance. I'll discuss with the former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkin and the president of Finland Alexander Stubb.
Then, Ukrainians stand with their president who they say stood up to Trump and Vance, but they get the new danger as well. Top journalist Nataliya
Gumenyuk joins us from Kyiv.
And to the Middle East where the Gaza ceasefire hangs by a thread. Jeremy Diamond also reports on one Israeli man's need to free the remaining
hostages despite the terrible price.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKEY MADISON, ACTRESS, "ANORA": I mean, it's kind of a dream come true for an actor to play Such a complicated, interesting person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- my conversations with this year's big Oscar winners.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. The British prime minister is leading the way with Europe, trying to pick up
the pieces of the very public rupture in the transatlantic alliance.
So, Keir Starmer says that we are at a crossroads in history. Prophetic words, indeed, as in the course of just one week, America has appeared to
pivot away from Pax Americana, aligning itself with an aggressive Russian dictatorship and against its democratic wartime ally fending off that
invader.
From last Monday's unprecedented vote with Russia and a host of anti- American Junta's at the U.N. to this very day, continuing to berate President Zelenskyy after kicking him out of the White House. And even a
few days before this bust up, Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Preskov, said, quote, "The new U.S. administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy
configurations. This largely coincides with our vision." Surely, that is a dangerous fact.
Many U.S. Republicans are falling in line, though, but there are mixed views. The Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said, I am sick to my
stomach, as the administration appears to be walking away from our allies and embracing Putin, a threat to democracy and U.S. values around the
world.
But House Speaker Mike Johnson praised Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: We achieve peace through strength. That was also a Reagan doctrine. So, what President Trump is
doing is restoring that principle. He is a strong hand returned to the White House at a very perilous time on the world stage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, today, the White House welcomed Europe's efforts to broker peace in Ukraine, but still won't say whether the U.S. will contribute in
any way. And later, Trump posted criticisms of Europe. What's clear is that we are in new, uncharted territory.
So, let's try and figure out which way is the way forward. Malcolm Rifkind was foreign secretary in John Major's government. He also served under
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and he's joining me now. Welcome back to our program, Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
Let me just first ask you as a diplomat, you know, as a statesperson from, I guess, traditional conservative and Reagan values, what did you make of
that public bust up in the White House on Friday?
MALCOLM RIFKIND, FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: I thought it was absolutely dreadful. I thought that both Zelenskyy and Trump behaved very
badly. They were shouting at each other, not letting the other speak. And that was appalling in front of all the world's cameras. If that's what
Trump intended, then he had very poor judgment.
AMANPOUR: Do you think so? I mean, you know, there is obviously a load of people, you yourself seem to be saying it might have been an ambush. We
certainly have heard from many, many people, the White House denies it, but the new German -- the leader of the German election say it looked very much
like a manufactured escalation.
RIFKIND: I don't know whether it was or not. And to be perfectly honest, I think at this stage is no longer relevant whether it was or not. It is the
consequences that flowed from that. And I think the first point I would like to make, if I may, is that, yes, that evening, that confrontation was
a disaster for Zelenskyy. But it's also, in many ways, a disaster, or a potential disaster, for Trump.
[13:05:00]
His great ambition at the beginning of his presidency is to negotiate with Putin a ceasefire. Now, even if that negotiation seemed to be successful,
it cannot be implemented unless Zelenskyy agrees, because Zelenskyy can just continue fighting, and he cannot be stopped except by a continuation
of the war. So, that -- there's just nothing rational in what Trump is doing, unless it was a short-term tactic.
Now, I was interested, at the end of that ghastly evening, Trump said that Zelenskyy could return to the Oval Office, but only if he's committed to
peace. Well, that's actually a very low formula, low barrier to have to get over. Anyone can say they're committed to peace and mean it. It's what
flows from that is more relevant.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, let's dig down into this, because, you know, Trump says he believes Putin really wants peace. Trump says he wants peace,
which I have no doubt about. And they're now blaming Zelenskyy for, quote, "not wanting peace."
Well, Zelenskyy says, of course we want peace, but we need backstops, we need deterrence, because we've seen this movie before. And Putin seems to,
at least in their public utterances until now, have maximalist goals which involve the essential surrender of Ukraine. Where do you see the
possibility, if ever, of these two coming to some kind of ability to sign a real peace?
RIFKIND: Well, first of all, we have to understand what the conflict is about in relation to where we are at this precise moment. First of all, if
you're going to have a ceasefire without resolving the long-term issues that divide two countries, the only credible and honorable way in which you
can have a ceasefire is if there are genuine compromises on both sides.
Now, the whole world knows the compromises that Zelenskyy will have to make, and which he broadly speaking has himself acknowledged, that Ukraine
will not be part of NATO, and that at least for the foreseeable future the Russians will remain in control of the territory or most of the territory
they currently occupy.
But what are the compromises that President Trump is going to demand from Mr. Putin? There are none yet known, and Mr. Trump has declined to say. So,
that is one issue that has to be addressed. The second issue, and it's a very important one, is to understand the importance of what are called the
security guarantees.
If -- we've already had two invasions of Ukraine, one when they annexed Crimea and the Donbass, and the second three years ago when this war began.
In both occasions, Putin was overcoming, ignoring promises he had given never to invade Ukraine. He did it with the Budapest Memorandum some years
ago, and then he did it with the so-called Minsk Accords. And in both cases, he broke his promises.
So, it is not unreasonable, indeed it's perfectly sensible of Zelenskyy to say, how would the United States react if having got a ceasefire, Putin in
a year's time, two years' time, three years' time invades Ukraine again? What will America do? We know what Europe would want to do. What would
America do? And that is what Putin -- President Trump has refused to respond to and that is what puts him in a very, very weak position.
AMANPOUR: And do you think the Europeans -- I mean, it's quite, you know, remarkable to see the prime minister here and his European colleagues
getting together and trying to do the actual work of figuring out the, you know, defense expenditures, the coalition of the willing, et cetera. But
they keep saying it won't work without a U.S. backstop. But do you think, pending a U.S. backstop, that the Europeans can fill this gap?
RIFKIND: Well, I think the -- what's happened over the weekend is quite, in a sense, very extraordinary and very much to be welcomed. You may
recollect that it's only a couple of weeks ago when Putin launched his initiative to have a bilateral with President Putin, and he acknowledged he
would have to, at some stage, talk to Zelenskyy and Ukrainians, but he tried to freeze Europe completely out of the operation as if it had nothing
to do with Europe. This was purely going to be between President Trump and President Putin with the Ukrainians occasionally consulted.
Now, as a consequence of Trump -- President Trump's behavior in the Oval Office and Zelenskyy's, the collapse of that meeting, the Europeans have,
in a certain sense, been the fifth cavalry coming to the rescue. Because the Europeans, in particular, the British prime minister and the French
president, Macron, but with the support of Germany and other countries, are putting together a package of proposals.
[13:10:00]
And not only are they putting them together in a way that would be acceptable to Zelenskyy, they have also already had, since the Oval Office
chaos two conversations, I understand, with President Trump, and he has acknowledged with -- I don't know with what degree of enthusiasm, that he
will be prepared to consider their proposals. So, he is acknowledging that Europe does have a role.
And of course, Europe has a role. Ukraine is a European country. Europe is the -- are the immediate neighbors of Ukraine, and the country's that would
be invaded if Putin continued to behave as an aggressive state.
AMANPOUR: So, Malcolm Rifkin, you, as I said, were foreign secretary in John Major's government. He, after the Munich Security Conference, took the
unusual step, as he said himself, came on the radio to raise the alarm. He said he was appalled and concerned by J. D. Vance's statements, basically,
essentially looking to throw traditional Europe under the -- you know, under the bus. Talking about all the supporting the extreme parties in
Europe and blaming Europe for their own problems, never practically mentioning Ukraine or defense or security.
And he said, if I was -- he said, if they're watching, Putin and Xi are dancing for joy. Those were John Major's words. And he also said, this
heralded a dangerous -- potentially dangerous American realignment in the world. Do you think that? Because, I mean, can Europe and the alliance rely
on the United States to maintain its 80-plus year alliance with them?
RIFKIND: I hate to have to say it, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever, but I don't think we can rely on it. I hear what our own prime minister says
that he trusts Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump will deliver and all this sort of thing, and I hope very much that is true. But there is something basically
irrational about President Trump's approach to this.
And let me explain what I mean by that. He is constantly saying, indeed it was the slogan of his presidential campaign, Make America Great Again. Now,
America, of course, is a great country and deserves to be one. But one of the things, one of the most important things that makes America great is
not just America as a single state, but that since the creation of NATO in 1948, the United States has been the leader of the greatest military
alliance in history, an alliance now of about 30 countries, and the United States president, whoever it happens to be, and it's President Trump at the
moment, is the commander in chief of that alliance if it ever needs to go into combat. And yet, here we have a president who's trying, it would
appear, to weaken and dismantle and distance himself from the rest of NATO.
Now, just to illustrate, imagine if it was not President Trump, but Vladimir Putin, or Xi Jinping, who had some military alliance of 20 or 30
countries that were so supportive of them that they integrated their military forces to deal with any threat to Russia or to China, and imagine
if Putin or Xi Jinping voluntarily, under no pressure, decided, I think I'll get rid of this alliance. It's more trouble than it's worth. The whole
world would be delighted, but would think they were crazy.
AMANPOUR: Well, I get what you're saying by implication. So, what do you think then is the reason, particularly for Trump taking all the Kremlin
talking points, I mean look, delegitimizing Zelenskyy, delegitimizing Ukraine, repeating the Kremlin slogan of Ukraine gambling with World War
III and --
RIFKIND: Let me try and answer.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And saying that Ukraine has no cards at all.
RIFKIND: Right. OK. I'm not a serving diplomat. I'm not a serving minister. I can actually say exactly what I feel. And I respect my
colleagues who are in power at the moment. They have to be very circumspect. But I think that -- insofar as there is an explanation for
President Trump's approach, it has actually got very little to do with Ukraine.
Essentially, he sees what happens in Europe as something he personally is rather indifferent about. And what he wants to do is to reconstruct the
world. So, that instead of it being a world where there is a contest, hopefully a peaceful contest of ideas, democratic rule of law, liberalism
against authoritarian points of view and authoritarian governments, instead of that, he wants to see a world where the great leaders of the
superpowers, of which, of course, he includes himself, quite understandably, and Putin and Xi Jinping, essentially, rather like the 19th
century, the Congresses where the great powers decided what the rest of Europe and the rest of the world should do.
Now, the problem, of course, for President Trump and President Putin is that the world has long outlived that kind of situation. We are talking
about a world of 180 countries, many of whom, India, Brazil, South Africa, France, Germany many, many others, cannot simply be bullied and told what
to do in the way that not just President Trump, but Putin and Xi Jinping also seem to think as acceptable in the modern world.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: So, I mean, it's really, really regressive, the way you're talking about it. So, I want to ask you one final question on intelligence.
Today, or yesterday, the U.S. defense secretary, Hegseth, announced that the U.S. is stopping offensive cyber maneuvers against Russia and there is
a lot of question about members of this administration and where their allegiances lie, particularly Tulsi Gabbard, who's just been confirmed of
U.S. director of national intelligence. In the past, she's previously stated pro-Russia positions.
Here is what the former MI6 chief John Sawyers told me about intelligence. I want to play it for you.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN SAWYERS, FORMER BRITISH SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE CHIEF: To have someone who's a director of national intelligence, who basically takes a
very pro-Russian approach, well that strikes me as very difficult, and it makes it difficult for America's partners as well. How do you deal with an
Intelligence Community where the most senior figure in it, the cabinet member in it is basically sympathetic to our biggest enemy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Malcolm, there is a lot of talk about potentially should the Five Eyes or should the allies keep sharing intelligence with the U.S.? I
mean, this is where we are right now. What's your view?
RIFKIND: Well, I think there has to be a question mark, for the reasons that John Sawyers has just been explaining. But I think the answer at this
moment in time depends on whether the cyber decision you mentioned a few moments ago, whether that is part of a long-term strategy of dismantling
intelligence cooperation, or whether it is simply part of President Trump's current tactics to get across to Putin that this is an unprecedented
opportunity for Putin and Trump to get together and sort out the problems of the world, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
And President Trump likes to make gestures which are irrational in themselves, but which he hopes may bring Putin to believe that Trump is his
best friend and that they can work together. Now, this may be an entirely mistaken explanation I'm offering. But it's the only thing that adds the
dots together other than something far more dangerous and worrying.
AMANPOUR: OK. Very quickly, you were around during Margaret Thatcher, Reagan, et cetera. They call it peace through strength. That was a
Reaganism. Do you think this looks like peace through strengths, what Trump is doing?
RIFKIND: I have no difficulty with a president of the United States using strength, using the whole strength of the United States and its -- both its
military but also its political power to advance the interests of mankind. That is something highly desirable. That's what America has been doing
since 1948, but it's not done so by denouncing countries that are invaded by an aggressor and seeming to praise the aggressor as an alternative. That
cannot be part of America's tradition. That's not what I make makes America great in the past, and it's not what makes America great in the present or
in the future.
AMANPOUR: Sir Malcolm Rifkind, thank you so much indeed. And now, we turn to the president -- well, no, first, after a whole weekend of thank yous,
here's a mash up of President Zelenskyy thanking over the years. Remember, of course, the whole White House bust up was because he was not perceived
to have been grateful enough. Let's just listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER: Thank you so much, Mr. President. Of course, thanks, bipartisan support, thanks Congress.
And I would like to thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
First of all, thank you for your help, leadership, for your support.
Thank you for your strong support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, now we've got that clear. The task falls to Europe to create a coalition of the willing, and to try to secure an American
backstop, perhaps? So, can Europe achieve a lasting peace, and with enough enforcements to deter Putin?
The president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, of course, was taking part in the London Summit over the weekend, and he's joining me now. Welcome back
to our program, President Stubb. Can I just ask you, have you come away -- what have you come away with since London? Do you feel a sense of a plan,
of confidence in filling this big gap that the U.S. has left?
ALEXANDER STUBB, FINNISH PRESIDENT: Yes. I mean, I came out of London much more optimistic than I went in because what we've seen in the past three
weeks is pretty much European diplomatic cacophony.
So, we've seen all kinds of formations and meetings, and I always felt that there wasn't really a plan, but I do think that we're starting to see a
sketch of a plan. And of course, Finland put one forward a few weeks back in three different phases, and I think people are grabbing on to that and
latching and trying to make sure that Ukraine can start whatever negotiations begin from a position of strength.
AMANPOUR: And can you tell us what this plan is?
STUBB: Yes. So, I mean, the way in which we think about it is if you want to gain control of a process, you need to explain what the process is. And
for me, it goes in three phases. The first phase is pre-negotiation, and that's when you do two things.
[13:20:00]
You strengthen Ukraine militarily and economically, and you maximize the pressure on Russia by putting on more sanctions, by using frozen assets.
And while you do that, you set up a system of security arrangements where Ukraine takes the lead, Europe supports and the U.S. has a backstop.
Once all of this is settled and we can be sure that a ceasefire holds, which it hasn't held for the past 10 years, actually broken by Putin 25
times, then you go into a ceasefire mode. And the ceasefire can be partial in the air, land -- air and sea, or it can be full in the land as well.
And at that stage, you start talking about the actual agenda of the peace negotiations, the modalities, you start doing confidence building measures,
you exchange prisoners, et cetera, et cetera. And once you've done that, you get into the third phase. And the third phase is the actual peace
negotiations.
This is a rough sketch, of course. It has a lot more detail to it. But those are the types of issues we discussed in London yesterday, and I think
we've pushed the bucket forward.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that shows that it takes a lot of work and it takes -- it's a big process. Do you know what kind of work the Americans, President
Trump has done in this regard, as you're laying out for Ukraine with President Putin? Has such a plan being laid before Putin or what's the
modality?
STUBB: Well, I can't speak for the other side of the Atlantic. But what I wanted to make sure was that Europe would have a strategy because we have
so much skin in the game. After all, this war is not only about the independent sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, it's about
much more. It's about Europe, it's about the free world, and it's about the world order. So, I felt that Europe needed to get a hold of it. And if we
want to be part of the negotiations, then we need to present this plan to the United States and see what the response is.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that the U.S. now needs you having essentially kind of blown you off after Munich and the surprise meeting between Secretary
Rubio and Foreign Minister Lavrov? Do you think now you are really needed for this?
STUBB: Well, I certainly hope so. I think we have to look at this basically on two levels. One is the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship and
what that entails. And the second one is then the negotiations on how to end Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. And in order for us to be
relevant and needed in those negotiations, of course, you know, we have to be present.
That's why I also think that it's very important now to mend the fences and get President Zelenskyy and President Trump back discussing, because
diplomacy is basically about having a conversation. And I personally think that the minerals deals that was, I mean, this close to being assigned is
such an important part of the peace package, because that will then actually provide de facto security guarantees for Ukraine. So, a lot of
shuttle diplomacy going on right now.
AMANPOUR: OK. I'm just going to get back to the minerals in a minute, but first I want to ask you, is Europe prepared to use those Russian frozen
assets? Right now, you use the interest for Ukraine, but are you prepared to use the $200 or $300 billion euros for Ukraine's defense?
STUBB: Well, I hope Europe is. There are a couple of countries that are still skeptical about this, at least one, and there's a European Council,
so that's the E.U. leaders meeting in Brussels on the 6th of March on Thursday. And I think if you want to maximize pressure, use those funds and
use them right now. I think it's a big and important part of whichever negotiation we go into.
AMANPOUR: And then, I just want to dig down on what you said about a security guarantee. That's what Trump says, right? That's what he and his
people say a minerals deal, just the very fact of having a business is a security guarantee. Zelenskyy doesn't think that's enough of a security
guarantee and frankly, nobody else thinks that. They think there needs to be -- or none of his allies think that, they think there needs to be
enforcement, U.S. backstop, et cetera.
Tell me how you think it's -- you don't think it's sufficient, do you? You think it's part of a security guarantee? I'm trying to figure out what you
just said.
STUBB: OK. So, the way in which I think about it, it is not a de facto security guarantee, of course. But if there was a mineral deal, that would
mean that the United States and President Donald Trump would have a stake in whatever deal is made on peace later on.
After that, the United States will have to look more seriously about potentially having a backstop. So, I think this is a good beginning of
getting things going. That's why I think the actual minerals deals deal is so important.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. I get it. Yes. Everybody thought it was a good precursor. But anyway, whether it gets signed or not.
STUBB: Yes.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you from the perspective of the Kremlin. We've been reporting several times what the spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said. He
said, just before the bust up, but after the U.S. vote with Russia at the U.N., the new U.S. administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy
configurations. This largely coincides with our vision. So, OK. you hear that. What do you think?
STUBB: Well, I'm an avid transatlanticist. I belong to a minority here in Finland who believe that we should have joined NATO a long time ago. I've
done my undergraduate work in the U.S. and have a warm place in my heart for the United States and the transatlantic alliance. Of course, I'm
saddened from what I hear from Moscow and the Kremlin. But remember that there's a lot of propaganda in this. This is an information war. What
Russia now wants to convince the world is that, look, America is on our side, not on Ukraine's side. And I don't believe that for one bit.
Listen, Russia is the aggressor. It started an illegal war. Trying to take over and basically destroy the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian identity. And
if and when the United States wants to retain its position as a superpower and the leader of the free world, it cannot walk hand in hand with Russia.
Quite the contrary, Russia is still an adversary.
And if I may just put one more point into this, there are some people that think that playing ball with Russia will detach it from China. That's not
going to happen. Russia is so dependent on China right now. Whatever deal you make with Russia, it's going to go straight into the hand of China. And
that's something that I think we in the West have to think about. Never trust Putin.
AMANPOUR: Ok. But then, let's just take that forward because Trump has been saying he trusts him then eventually said trust but verify. He's been
using Kremlin talking points to delegitimize Ukraine and Zelenskyy himself. Why do you think -- if this is a propaganda war or war of information, why
do you think that's happening? And what could that do?
Your country has had this, you know, long relationship. You got a border, your previous president, Niinisto, had a big, you know, relationship in
terms of playing some kind of bridge with Putin for years. You know him well. What do you think this effect of this kind of talk will have on Putin
from Trump?
STUBB: Well, of course, he'll be smiling in the Kremlin. He'll be very happy. But our experience with Russia is that you can work with Russia, but
remember that essentially it is an imperial power. It has lived off of an expansive form throughout its history. And we, of course, see speeches
coming from Putin about Raskimir, Great Russia, basically borders from the 1800s where he sees one Russia, one language, one religion, and one leader.
There is very much this sort of big power politics thinking in all of this.
And if, you know, for some reason, Russia was to win or feel that it won in Ukraine, it will not stop there. It will continue. That is the main reason
why we need to stop Putin and we need to stop him now.
AMANPOUR: I just want to play a soundbite from your German counterpart, the newly elected Friedrich Merz, who's trying to put together a winning
coalition to become chancellor. This is just before the Oval Office meeting. This is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEDRICH MERZ, CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION PARTY LEADER (through translator): My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly
as possible, so that step by step we can really achieve independence from the United States.
But at the very least, after Donald Trump's statements last week, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans in this
administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that's pretty -- you know, a pretty -- I don't know, is it pragmatic, is it cynical, is it realistic? I mean, he's basically saying we
can't trust them. We're going to have to be independent.
STUBB: Well, OK. I've been working on a book about the triangle of power, rebalancing the new world order for four years. So, I started writing the
book when President Trump ended his first term and I finished writing the book when President Trump started his second term.
I always call for patience. We understand that the world order is changing. So, we are living a 1918, 1945, or 1989 moment. And I would argue that in
the one year that I've been president, the world has changed more than in the past 30 years combined. But the fact that President Trump has been in
office for five weeks will not mean the end of a transatlantic partnership. It'll mean a different transatlantic partnership.
[13:30:00]
Donald Trump is much more transactional and bilateral. So, you have a country like Finland, which has builds icebreakers, which is good on
defense and technology. A lot of stuff we can work on. NATO is the key here.
So, what we in Europe need to do is stop complaining and start working with the new American administration in the way in which they work. And for us,
right now, it means two things. One is get them to support Ukraine because that war is existential for the United States as well as for Europe. And
then secondly, make sure that the United States stays committed to Article 5 and to NATO, and I have heard nothing different from that.
So, these are the kinds of practical things we need to work on with the Americans, while of course at the same time taking more responsibility for
our own European security.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, A, would Finland join the coalition of the willing that Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron have said they would. Would
you?
STUBB: Well, yes. Well, we're there already. And you know, the reason we're doing this is, I'll be very frank with you, in the European Union,
it's very difficult to have a unified position because you have countries like Slovakia and Hungary who take a different view on Ukraine and on
Russia. Whereas we need big players like the United Kingdom or for instance, Norway.
So, this is a coalition of the willing that feels that it's existential for Europe to support Ukraine and make sure that Zelenskyy and Ukraine do not
lose this war. And we are the ones who need to convince the American administration that it's also in their transactional interests, and
otherwise, that Ukraine wins.
AMANPOUR: Do you think you'll be able -- because you said at the very beginning, amongst everything, we also need an American backstop for any
peace, and any peace enforcement. Do you think you'll be able to convince them that that is something that they need to do? And I'm not talking about
U.S. boots on the ground, but all the other things.
STUBB: Yes, I hope we can. I mean, there's so many ways in which that can be done. Let me just give one example which has been put forward by Senator
Lindsey Graham from the United States. Because right now, it seems to be difficult for Ukraine to become a NATO member anytime soon because the
United States and Germany are quite skeptical about that.
So, why don't we instead give them a de facto veto, which basically means that when the negotiations end and we have a peace settlement, a part of it
all is to say that if Russia ever breaks that settlement or breaks the ceasefire, attacks Ukraine again, Ukraine becomes automatically a member of
NATO. I think that is a strong enough backstop.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's an interesting idea that you've just thrown out. We'll digest that. President Stubb, thank you very much indeed for joining
us.
STUBB: My pleasure.
AMANPOUR: So, let's ask, and our next guest, Ukrainians are rallying around their president determined to continue their struggle against
Russia's invasion. Here's a resident of Kharkiv after the latest drone and missile attack on civilian infrastructure which came around the time of the
White House bus stop.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETRO FLIPSKYI, KHARKIV RESIDENT (through translator): I have glass shards in my hair. I was next to a window, then an explosion wave hit. There was a
lot of blood. Maybe the way that I'm talking now does not make any sense, but I do not believe in this ceasefire talk. They call Ukraine guilty. What
is it guilty of? How is it guilty? How can it be guilty if the monster attacked? He can't even be called a human being.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Right from in the target zone there. And there's been an outpouring of support worldwide for Zelenskyy, including here in the U.K.
As one Ukrainian soldier told us, Zelenskyy did not go to the White House to give up. He could have surrendered directly to Putin.
So, Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist. And she recently wrote for Foreign Affairs, "Putin's Ukraine: The End of War and the Price of Russian
Occupation." And she's joining us now from Kyiv Nataliya Gumenyuk, welcome to the program.
Just give me first your gut reaction. We heard from the Kharkiv resident who is, you know, quite affronted by what happened to his president at the
White House. What are you hearing on the ground in terms of what people are thinking about that Friday night.
NATALIYA GUMENYUK, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST: So, Ukrainians are, first of all, thinking what to do next, because we are pretty pragmatic. And what the
leverage Donald Trump has, of course it's diminishing and withdrawal of the American support, and particularly in defense, not something anybody here
wants to happen. So, Ukrainians still think that the government and everybody needs to work, so at least to prolong this moment, but at the
same time considering what would be the way to fight without possibly with a lesser American support, how we can count on ourself, on the Europeans.
[13:35:00]
So, that's probably the most important plan so far, and how not to be very much torn by this geopolitical storm, because there are real battles on the
battlefields every single day. There are real risks. And you know, for us, it's definitely an important stage just to understand what's going on and
whether the United States are still on the Ukrainian side, whether they could be the guarantors for the -- any negotiations. But on the long run,
we treat this war as a job, as a work, as a labor.
AMANPOUR: You mean every civilian? I mean, it's interesting you say that because you heard one of the things that J. D. Vance said to President
Zelenskyy, you're even having trouble getting people to -- you know, to fight the war. And you say, you know, we all treat this as a job, we have a
job to do to defend ourselves. What is the morale on the frontline?
GUMENYUK: So, I think Ukrainians are usually becoming very united at the moment of the crisis. So, for instance, you know, if for the last couple of
months there were a lot of political battles, now even the fiercest opponents of President Zelenskyy are kind of rallying behind. Also, because
they understand that, you know, that Donald Trump, unfortunately, is kind of walking into the Russian trap because exactly the things which we heard
from the Donald Trump were told earlier by the Russian leaders, by the Kremlin administration in particularly throwing the ideas about
illegitimacy of the Ukrainian presidents, all the things about the elections. So, now it's kind of more clear that it's not an inner problem,
but rather it's been strong and from Moscow.
But if you speak about the mobilization and you know, Vice President J. D. Vance really told quite a lot of things. I think it's also important to
remind that for Ukraine, of course, and that's where, you know, the U.S. can make the difference, but Ukraine is, for quite some time, rallying for
a different type of the waging the war in which Ukraine can be more, you know, strong.
So, for instance, with a different type of weapon, Ukraine can destroy common and control centers. So, for instance, therefore, the war won't be
symmetrical. So, you won't need that many young Ukrainian soldiers to fight that many Russian soldiers, but you'll be able to stop them earlier.
But unfortunately, those discussions are not there any longer. And now, we really discussing, let's say, more theoretical issue because the
discussions which is currently happening about the settlement is really not about a real solution, it's about, you know, having something very fast
without clearly thinking what it will bring.
AMANPOUR: So, before I get to your article, because it was very interesting, I want to follow up on what you just said. There's also an
article in one of these Foreign Policy magazines, which there's a Ukrainian analyst and I think another one. Anyway, they go back to the very quick
ceasefire. That was brokered in Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, you know, by your Chancellor Merkel, et cetera.
And they point out to how it was very -- there was no enforcement, there was no accountability, and how it broke down mostly because Russia, you
know, just kept going. Is that what concerns you as somebody who's watching this, that it can't just be a quick ceasefire, there has to be, as
President Stubb said, a lot more work around it?
GUMENYUK: You know, I've been in Mariupol when the first Minsky agreement was signed and was in Munich just few days before the second was signed,
and, you know, followed that for almost eight years on the daily basis. So, indeed, even the people who were a bit optimistic and try to persuade the
Ukrainian audience that maybe let's give it a try, today, will think in Ukraine that all those years were used as a destruction, while the Germans,
the French, and the Ukrainians were destructed by those endless negotiations, including about kind of modality of the elections and
peacekeepers. Russia was building bridges, building roads to bring their weapon and creating a launch pad to invade even -- and that's what exactly
happened on the February 24th in 2022.
So, the -- what is offered today is just so similar, even like couple of months ago, let's say during the last months as the discussions, which we
heard from even Moscow, they were like, the Russian plan is Minsk 3 but without Zelenskyy. And that's exactly what is happening now. Therefore,
there are very legit concerns, including from the Ukrainian population, but including also from the Ukrainian leaders who negotiated with Russia for
quite a few years, that that would be just a pause.
AMANPOUR: Just a pause. And that's what a lot of Ukraine's allies fear, which is why they want a proper peace enforcement with backstop and all the
rest of it.
[13:40:00]
Now, then finally, I want to ask you about your own article, the most recent one, because you say, yes, all Ukrainians want peace, but you've
talked about do not wanting to live if peace means under a Russian occupation.
GUMENYUK: So, there are two parts. So, first we do have 20 percent of the Ukrainian territory under the Russian occupation. And when I was writing
that, I was also trying to explain the brutality of this life and also how the occupation is not just about the violation of the human rights in the
occupied territories, but how that became the system to subdue Ukrainian population for wage even a bigger war.
So, it's a horrible situation for the people who are kept in the occupied territories, but also the risk for the future occupation if there are no
that type of guarantee. So, I really was trying to explain how those eight years, during those years, the Kremlin has developed the toolkit, which is
ready made and was also used for the last three years of the full-scale invasion.
And that what can really happen if Ukraine stop depends itself and just would agree on kind of ceasefire without the guarantees. And unfortunately,
that's not the discussion we really have. It's really so far just by about the deal by any cost without clear conditionalities, but it's good to hear
that there are different voices now appearing globally, including that -- including in Europe.
AMANPOUR: And I just want to finally ask you what you made personally of the encounter in the White House on Friday, particularly when Trump
afterwards -- or to him, said, you have no cards to play and without us, you know, you're going to lose a lot of your country, if not all of it. I
don't know, how did you feel about that?
GUMENYUK: First of all, we are not that shaken by that, because, you know, that's how Russians speak, that's how Orban speak, and we're just doing our
own job, and we're fighting back, because without Ukraine, nothing can be solved.
But, for me, what was eye opening, it's to see that Donald Trump kind of doesn't really see Russia as the adversary. And he really speaks about
Putin as if he is not the war -- potentially war criminal. But also, what is important, I finally felt that I figured out what it's all about,
because when he speaks about the guarantee, Donald Trump actually explained, because Ukrainians were asking about the guarantees all the
time, but he really literally said that his word is a guarantee.
So, Putin respects him and that's enough to believe him. So, if you don't - - if you challenge that, it's probably you are disrespectful. So, actually, the whole discussion is that we really need to trust Donald Trump's world,
and that's it. That's why those guarantees are not really there. And that, I think that was pretty eye opening for me.
AMANPOUR: Nataliya Gumenyuk, thank you so much indeed for joining us from Kyiv. Now, we turn to the Middle East, where a delicate truce between
Israel and Hamas hangs by a thread. Israel has blocked all humanitarian aid into Gaza to pressure Hamas into accepting a temporary extension of the
ceasefire. But Hamas accuses Israel of violating the agreement, while Egypt issued a stark condemnation, saying that it rejects, quote, "the
politicization of humanitarian aid and it's exploitation as a tool of blackmail."
As per the United States, mediated ceasefire over the past six weeks Hamas has freed 33 living and dead hostages in exchange for more than 1,700
Palestinian prisoners. Some of these prisoners were serving long jail terms for the most notorious attacks in Israeli history, which has caused many in
the country to have mixed feelings about that deal. Jeremy Diamond spoke with one of them.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At this cemetery in Haifa, Oran Almog reflects on what he calls the price of a deal to free
Israeli hostages.
DIAMOND: This is the price.
ORAN ALMOG: Yes.
DIAMOND: Right in front of you.
ALMOG: It's a really huge price for me.
DIAMOND (voice-over): 21 years after Oran's father, brother, grandparents, and cousin were killed in a suicide bombing, the man who planned the attack
has been set free. It is a price Oran says he is willing to pay. Three Israeli hostages are now free because of it.
This was the grisly scene at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa on October 4, 2003, after a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt. Oran had been
having lunch with his family. He was blinded by the blast.
Now, standing at the memorial dedicated to the 21 victims of the attack, Oran recalls the moment he learned Sami Jaradat, the man who dispatched
that suicide bomber, would be released.
ALMOG: The first reaction, I think, I was shock. I was speechless.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But he says he soon started to see the bigger picture.
[13:45:00]
ALMOG: I understood that if Sami Jaradat will stay in the jail forever, my families who were murdered in the terror attack, they will never return
alive. But living Israeli hostages still can come back.
DIAMOND (voice-over): It's something Oran understands better than most. His cousin, Chen Almog-Goldstein and her three children had been taken
hostage on October 7th and were released as part of the November 2023 ceasefire agreement.
Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have been freed during the first phase of the ceasefire, but most are not convicted murderers like Sami Jaradat. Of
the 1,735 Palestinians released during the first phase of the ceasefire, about 15 percent were convicted of killing Israelis, including soldiers.
Another 18 percent were convicted of attempted murder. Nearly two-thirds, including 1,000 Palestinians detained in Gaza during the war were being
held without trial. The remainder were convicted of lesser charges like incitement, a charge that has been used to jail Palestinians over social
media posts. That nuance is often lost on the Israeli public.
DAHLIA SCHEINDLIN, HAARETZ COLUMNIST AND POLITICAL ANALYST: Israelis believe that a Palestinian that's being held in Israeli detention, by
virtue of being held in Israeli detention, must be a terrorist. They don't understand that there could be people who are innocent of any charge, who
were basically detained for the purpose of this very moment, the hostage exchange and prisoner release.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Instead, many Israelis think of Yahya Sinwar. The mastermind of the October 7th attack, who was among more than 1,000
Palestinian prisoners released in exchange for the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Still, a majority of Israelis, like Oran, have consistently supported the ceasefire and hostage release deal, thinking of the hostages above all.
ALMOG: Gadi Moses, Agam Berger, and Arbel Yehoud. Maybe some way, I will meet Agam, Gadi, and Arbel and I feel the full meaning of this deal and
this prize to me, maybe some way.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Jeremy Diamond reporting there. A wrenching look at the current state of affairs in the Middle East.
But now, we want to turn to a triumphant moment of unity at the Oscars. As "No Other Land," a searing look at a community under siege in the occupied
West Bank won the Best Documentary Oscar. It was made by a team of Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers.
When I spoke to them, they told me why this film is having such an impact on what they want to see going forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Yuval, one of the things that makes this so compelling is that we get to see ordinary villagers and their emotions the men, the women, the
children, as the houses are being demolished. And this is the focus, as you said, the demolition of houses, which is a regular thing. I mean, we've
seen this for years and years and years. I just want to know when you saw that, if you did in real, how did you feel about that?
YUVAL ABRAHAM, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": Yes, it's a really good point, Christiane, because, you know, I -- as you said we have seen it over
and over again. And I think people know the facts. And I just spoke about facts before, about 99 percent and all of that. But, you know, facts are
only one part of the truth that there is a much deeper emotional truth, what it means like to live under this military control.
And, you know, I remember the first time I met Basel. I came to interview him, and in five minutes we had to run because there was a structure in his
village that was being demolished. And standing there and looking at the faces of, like, the family that's being pushed out of their house, and I
remember I heard my first stun grenade, like, the military immediately threw stun grenades, the sense of dread that you go to sleep and you don't
know if, you know, the next day your house will be demolished, all of that is an emotional feeling and a truth that's I feel journalism is often not
able to convey.
AMANPOUR: Basel, this film is called "No Other Land." You have no other land to live on. So, what is your future? What is the status of your
village right now?
BASEL ADRA, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": The sense of our -- of my village and Masafer Yatta and so many Palestinian villages in what's so-
called Area C, it's really under so much attacks and we're losing a community after another community. This is not stopping even with the very,
very small sanctions that the U.S. and other like west governments are doing against this terrorist settlers.
[13:50:00]
I think the U.S., as the main player on this, should stop this from going on and should stop and put limits and red lines for the Israeli government
to stop these actions and these attacks against Palestinian communities, against the war that they are doing in Gaza, which is so horrible.
And I mean, we don't -- we are, as Palestinians today, very, very powerless and very worried and afraid for our future with what we are facing today as
from all this brutality and massacres and killing. And the International Community should stand for it responsibility and should defend the
international law and should, like, stop this from going on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, not only did it win the Oscar for best documentary, it was also critically acclaimed, but because of the political nature of what's
going on, it couldn't find official distribution in the United States. So, the filmmakers had to make sure that happened on their own.
Elsewhere though, it was "Anora's" night bagging five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. As it built up momentum throughout the night, host
Conan O'Brien quipped that Americans were finally ready to see someone, quote, "stand up to a powerful Russian."
The movie's star, 25-year-old lead Mikey Madison, won the Best Actress award. When she spoke to me last month, she told me how she had to lean
into her imposter syndrome for this role.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKEY MADISON, ACTRESS, "ANORA": I'd never had a director want to write something for me. And so, it was very exciting. I had to really quickly,
like, let go of -- try as much as possible to let go of my imposter syndrome of like, why did he choose me? Why does he want to do this with
me? Like I -- and just kind of accept the experience and what was coming, because I've always dreamed of being able to collaborate with a director
like this.
You know, I've been working for a decade now, as an actor, trying to work - -
AMANPOUR: With some great directors too, Quentin Tarantino. What will it take to shed your imposter syndrome for good?
MADISON: Oh, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I think that there will always be a bit of that.
AMANPOUR: An Oscar?
MADISON: But, you know, I have to say, never -- I never want to get to a place where I'm like where -- I don't know, where I don't have that piece
of me that I think that it almost pushes me to continue being a student in a way. I always want to keep getting better learning, you know, refining my
craft in some way.
And so, I don't know, I don't think I'll ever get to a place where I feel like, oh, I'm good. I don't need to learn anything else. I think I always
want to be -- I don't know. I think that that's good, though.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It is good. It's a good point. It was also a good night for Brazil. "I'm Still Here," the powerful film about life under Brazil's U.S.-
backed dictatorship in the 1970s, won Brazil its first Oscar for Best International Feature.
Before the awards, director Walter Salas and star Fernanda Torres told me why this film has been such a breakthrough and how terrifyingly topical it
was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER SALLES, DIRECTOR, "I'M STILL HERE": We shot it in 2023 without having the slightest idea that there had been a failed attempt of a coup
d'etat.
FERNANDA TORRES, ACTRESS, "I'M STILL HERE": A military coup d'etat.
SALLES: A military coup d'etat at the end of 2022.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
SALLES: You know, and as the film was being launched in Brazil and embraced by the audience that the news actually were unnerved by the
federal police that that coup d'etat, that included the assassination of President Lula, of Vice President Alckmin, had almost been, you know, the
reality of the country.
AMANPOUR: Had almost succeeded.
SALLES: That, for us, was --
TORRES: Yes.
SALLES: -- was --
TORRES: No.
SALLES: So, in the middle of the launch of the film, we realized that more than ever it was a film about today, you know, about what was happening in
the country at this very moment.
AMANPOUR: And, clearly --
SALLES: This act of anticipation clearly wasn't in our plans, it's just happened. It's an extraordinary coincidence.
TORRES: All kinds of people came to the movie theaters. So, you have right- wings, left-wings, center, progressives, old, and it was like around
this family, the Paiva family, we all could come to a sense that a dictatorial regime is not acceptable. And that was a miracle of this movie.
We were all surprised, no? Because all kinds of people were going and getting moved by this family and saying, that's not good. I mean,
authoritarianism is not acceptable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: How topical indeed, and congratulations to all our Oscar winners.
And finally, tonight, a tribute to a really remarkable man whose commitment to a lifetime of giving has saved over 2 million babies.
[13:55:00]
Australian blood donor James Harrison, known as the man with the golden arm, began donating his plasma after it was found to contain a rare
antibody. This was when he was 18, and he continued to do it every two weeks until he was 81. His death at 88 has only just been announced, but
his legacy of generosity and life survives. Here he is speaking back in 2018.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES HARRISON: maybe it was my ego, and we got up to about 800 and I said, oh, well, I'll go for a thousand. And then I got to a thousand, I
said, well, I might as well keep going, it doesn't hurt. It is good to know that my Auntie Dee (ph) is doing the right thing and making a lot of
mothers, a lot of fathers very happy. So, let's hope the next person in the line steps up and breaks my record. That would be great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Great indeed. And that's it for now. Thanks for watching. Goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
