Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with "The Folly of Realism" Author and National Security Council Former Director of European Affairs Alexander Vindman; Interview with Harvard University FXB Center for Health and Human Rights Director Dr. Mary T. Bassett; Interview with Former Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence Marc Short; Interview with CSIS Critical Minerals Security Program Director Gracelin Baskaran. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 04, 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)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And maybe somebody doesn't want to make a deal, and if somebody doesn't want to make a deal, I think that person
won't be around very long.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: As President Trump slams President Zelenskyy and cuts off Ukraine's military aid, we get the latest with Russia expert and former
Trump whistleblower Alexander Vindman.
Then, the U.S. grapples with a deadly measles outbreak while a vaccine skeptic leads American health care. I discuss with Dr. Mary Bassett, the
director of the Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: It's not just a departure from I think where the Biden administration is, but
candidly it's a stark departure from the first Trump administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Looking from within Trump's White House, what may be in store in the weeks and years ahead. Marc Short has been in the room.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRACELIN BASKARAN, DIRECTOR, CRITICAL MINERALS SECURITY PROGRAM, CSIS: When you talk to the private sector in a number of these places, from Mali
to the Congo to Ukraine, it's like we can't go in there without a sense of protection.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- as rare earths and critical minerals leads U.S. foreign policy, expert Gracelin Baskaran tells Hari Sreenivasan why Trump wants
them so badly.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The Trump administration is pausing all shipments of military aid to Ukraine, potentially crippling the country's war effort against and
invading Russia. It's a dramatic escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Ukraine, which bubbled over after President Trump and Vice President J.
D. Vance's extraordinary argument with President Zelenskyy last Friday.
Now, in comments today, Vance said this is all part of an effort to make Ukraine negotiate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Look, what the president has said very clearly about our Ukraine policy is that he wants the Ukrainians to come to
the negotiating table. We want the Ukrainians to have a sovereign and an independent country. We think the Ukrainian troops have fought very
bravely, but we're at a point here where neither Europe nor the United States nor the Ukrainians can continue this war indefinitely. So, it's
important that everybody comes to the table and the president is trying to send a very explicit message, the Ukrainians have got to come to the table
and start negotiating with President Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But while pressure is being ramped up on a supposed U.S. ally, an adversary is getting the opposite. The White House pausing offensive
cyber operations against Moscow, even mulling sanction relief completely.
As U.S. foreign policy continues to shift, the European Union is announcing an $800 billion plan to rearm the continent and provide aid to Ukraine. But
will it be enough?
With me on all of this is Alexander Vindman. He specialized in Eastern Europe and Russia on the National Security Council during Trump's first
term, eventually blowing the whistle on the president's threat to suspend military aid to try to get Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden. His new
book, titled "The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine," couldn't be any more timely. And he joins me
now. Thank you so much for joining the program.
As we noted, you of all people know the contentious history between these two leaders dating back to President Trump's first term, ultimately leading
up Trump to his impeachment and the threat of withholding aid to Ukraine.
Now, we should be honest, and Christiane has mentioned this as well, the fact that it was Donald Trump who did provide Ukraine ultimately with the
javelins unlike his predecessor. But given the fact that in the course of the last 24 hours, we've seen President Trump temporarily withhold aid,
about $1 billion worth, President Zelenskyy just tweeting moments ago really a sort of, I don't want to say apology, but anything but, here's
what he said. We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence, and we remember the moment when
things changed, when President Trump provided Ukraine with javelins. We are grateful for this. Our meeting in Washington at the White House on Friday
did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that this happened this way, and it is time to make things right. We would like
future cooperation and communication to be constructive.
[13:05:00]
What do you make of this post now on X from President Zelenskyy, given all of the pressure coming from the United States, the criticism of his actions
and his actions alone seemingly over the course of the last few weeks? Do you think that this opens the door to repairing the relationship or do you
think that ship has sailed at this point?
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, AUTHOR, "THE FOLLY OF REALISM" AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I'm beyond good to be with
you again. I think the best-case scenario here is that it might delay the trajectory of the Trump administration. The Trump administration,
shockingly, making the worst mistakes of all our errors that we've had with Russian policy, catering, accommodating Russia and frankly, punishing or
failing to adequately support our allies. Here, even J. D. Vance's comments about putting pressure on Ukraine to negotiate.
Ukraine is willing to do almost anything except compromise its sovereignty and permanently give up on its territorial integrity. It's willing to come
to the table for earnest negotiations. There have been zero signs, no signs whatsoever that the Russians are willing to do except anything but their
most maximalist objectives, which are a capitulation of Ukraine, a compromise of Ukraine's sovereignty, a neutrality, and frankly, elimination
of the vast majority of Ukraine's military. But our pressure is continuously on Ukraine.
The -- now, whether this statement really amounts to much, I think in a lot of ways Trump is very, very set on his pro-Russia approach and he's very,
very much vindictive and wants to punish Ukraine for all the perceived slights that they committed, Ukraine being the subject of a quid pro quo in
the first impeachment.
So, whether this actually really resolves the issue, the best-case scenario is that we maybe sustain some heartbeat of a relationship going forward.
Ukraine continues to enjoy some baseline level of support, whereas the Ukraine -- the Europeans, you know, ramp up their support with this 800-
billion-euro pledge for investment in defense, and that comes online and the Europeans become a much more predictable, stable partner. That's I
think the best-case scenario.
It could work worse. We could have some pronouncement this evening that says that Ukraine will no longer enjoy any support from the U.S. We could
even see what this isolationist Trump administration. We could even have more dire predictions about the U.S. not being there for Europe and, you
know, ready to support NATO. I mean, anything could happen with the chaos that we see emerging out of the White House and the lack of understanding
the history of the lessons of the past.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we have yet to see the White House respond to this post from President Zelenskyy, but we do know that experts predict that
withholding aid, this $1 billion worth of aid, would likely have a longer- term impact on Ukraine about three or four months from now and that point is when Ukraine would run out of crucial artillery shells.
But just psychologically, knowing that this aid is being withheld right now, we don't know if that also means intelligence sharing is being
withheld, Starlink satellite systems, all of that could have more of a significant impact on the battlefield and in particular how Kremlin may
have the upper hand even more so.
VINDMAN: Yes, I think the immediate effect is frankly just on the morale of the civilian population, on the morale of the military, both on the
Russian side, bolstering their morale and depressing the morale of the Ukrainian -- you know, these valorous Ukrainian troops that have been
defending their country against this Russian onslaught. That's the immediate impact.
I think the rest of it will unfold over the course of probably more like six months. Some things will start to erode relatively quickly. These
interceptors for Patriot missiles that are protecting critical infrastructure, the cities themselves, the civilian population, those
supplies will dwindle. Artillery, over the course of time, will also will have to be rationed with less impacts up front, more impacts long-term. The
Europeans might be able to plug some of those gaps.
What these critical enablers like strategic intelligence, that could be more important for long-range strikes and some of the long-range strike
missiles that the U.S. has been providing. And then, artillery, fundamentally long-term will be the biggest factor.
But the fact is that the Ukrainians are not going anywhere. The Russians do not have the strength to seize this moment, and the Ukrainians are not weak
enough to capitulate. And if we learn anything from this book that I wrote, for 35 years we've succumbed to misplaced hopes and fears that we could do
more with Russia, we deceived ourselves about Russia, and that we betrayed Ukraine because we didn't do enough to secure them, and we're repeating
these same mistakes, and the likely repercussions are that Russia will be emboldened and conduct cyber operations, look to engage in hybrid warfare
in maybe even on NATO territory in the Baltics. That's where the dangers lie.
[13:10:00]
And then the U.S. either chooses not to act or will be drawn into the fray, and that's dangerous. And it's all because of the Trump administration's
repeating the worst mistakes of the past.
GOLODRYGA: Do you think that this could be Trump's attempt at negotiating, you know, some of those that are very close to him say that he's
approaching this from the perspective of a deal maker, wanting to get this war to come to an end, which is what he campaigned on, perhaps even wanting
to get a Nobel Peace Prize like President Obama did?
So, that is one argument, that perhaps this is a flawed approach to peacemaking because you don't have -- you as the mediator can't want peace
more than those that are directly involved in the war itself, or do you think that it could be something more sinister and alarming and that is a
realignment of U.S. relationships and posturing with allies and adversaries, which is something Europe is very worried about.
VINDMAN: It's a combination of the two. I think the former scenario realignment, those traditional adversaries are embracing Trump. He likes
the flattery. He really has been kind of a Putin fanboy for a long time. So, he's open to this reset. That's what -- let's just call it what it is.
You look into normalized relationships with Russia.
On the other hand, I think it's maximum malice and maximum ignorance on the part of the Trump administration displayed in that room in the Oval Office
by Vance and Trump, not recognizing the lessons of the past and how accommodation to Russia emboldens Russia does not get them to, in any way,
kind of compromise on their maximalist objectives.
And the malice is the fact that they could care less about Ukraine. They are happy to give away Ukraine because they don't understand the
consequences for European stability. They don't understand the consequences in the Indo-Pacific and the fact that the Chinese will see that there's a
deal to be had with Trump. And we are in a more -- a much more dangerous world when we start to tangle with the Chinese, potentially with military
aggression against Taiwan.
So, it is a very, very dangerous situation. I think we need to be far more long sighted. You would hope that some of the Republicans in the House and
Senate, some of them have, but really small numbers, will speak up in a more robust way when they see the danger signs, where they see that the
horizon is U.S. troops in danger, U.S. troops potentially in combat because we're making these mistakes, we're engaging in isolation.
But right now, the administration itself is not seeing that. They're getting cheerlead by, you know, the cabinet secretaries that are supposed
to be the adults in the room, and senators that are cheering them on, saying that, you know, abusing our allies is somehow a good thing.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
VINDMAN: It's a mistake.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the number of Republicans that are speaking out, we know a number of them have always been Russia hawks, but those that are
being vocal and prominent about speaking out the approach that Donald Trump has taken towards Russia seemingly favoring Russia or at least trusting
Russia more than Ukraine have been very few.
We do know Senator Tillis, a Republican, said that the only person that benefits from a pause on U.S. aid to Ukraine is Russia. And he is speaking
out publicly, even saying that wearing a Ukrainian pin.
But one thing that is a bit odd and difficult to square is on the one hand, you have President Trump and some Republicans saying that this should all
lead to more spending from Europe, that Europe, since they share borders with Ukraine and Russia, should really front the bulk of this funding.
And we've seen Europe really come together over the course of the last few weeks, not only the U.K. increasing its defense spending as part of its
GDP, moving that up to 2.5 percent towards the next two years. The European Union proposed a $158 billion fund just overnight to bolster military
spending. There's talk about that frozen $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to really put that into effect in terms of providing aid to Ukraine.
So, there's that argument, but when Europe does step up, here's how the vice president views Europe's role in this. Here's what he said on Fox News
last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: The very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine. That is a way better security guarantee
than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, that drew outrage immediately from the U.K. and obviously, this is a country that fought alongside America and in Iraq and Afghanistan
as well. J. D. Vance tweeted and seemed to walk back some of the interpretations of his comments, but what do you make of this? What is the
U.S. position? Is it that Europe should step up to the plate or is it that Europe also can't defend Ukraine?
[13:15:00]
VINDMAN: No, the Europeans could step up in a big way and make a material contribution to Ukraine that -- you know, then that changes the calculation
about Russia staying power down the road. We're talking about, you know, 20-trillion-euro economy, that's massive, 10 times bigger than Russia. So,
they could definitely contribute.
I think what I find most problematic with the comments of J. D. Vance, who's been just throwing hand grenades and wrecking our relationships with
our closest allies, is that he's just consistently wrong. We had NATO that was fighting with us for 20 years in our wars in the Middle East. So, they
are tested and proven.
Now, whether we do in fact want a deal with Ukraine, one that kind of binds the U.S. because of minerals and U.S. investments, I think that's a good
thing. When you have values and interests driving a relationship, that's when we are most engaged with our counterparts, with our partners.
It can't be an extortion racket. It can't be just abusing the Ukrainians, but something that tethers us in that regard is a good thing. And then
maybe another -- yes, sorry.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, sorry. We just have final few seconds. You mentioned the minerals deal and that it can't be an extortion racket. Well, that's
exactly what former U.K. Defense Minister Ben Wallace described it as to Christiane last week.
In his post on X President Zelenskyy said that he is ready to sign a minerals deal. Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, said that prior
to the rupture on Friday in the Oval Office that the president was going to be talking about and touting this deal in his address to Congress tonight.
So, do you think that this is a bad deal for Ukraine to sign? Will it give them protection?
VINDMAN: It's not going to give them protection, but it's a good deal in that it gets the U.S. involved and potentially investment and
reconstruction. The other part of this, the silver lining, again, not at the cost of our relationships, but the burden sharing with Europe is an
absolute necessity.
The Europeans have not been doing nearly enough with regards to securing their own backyard and burden sharing for the security around the globe.
But again, not at the cost of what the Trump administration is doing, completely destabilizing our relationships, making us look like we're fair-
weather friends or unreliable partners and in building our allies. That is the wrong way to go about it. It is not -- I don't see how that yields net
security for the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Alexander Vindman, always good to see you. Thank you so much.
VINDMAN: Good to see you.
GOLODRYGA: Congratulations on the book.
VINDMAN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now within the United States, there's growing concern about the sweeping cuts at home and their impact on American health. A fear
sharpened by a fatal measles outbreak in Texas, where a child has tragically become the first U.S. death from the disease in a decade.
Disease incidentally, the U.S. had declared eliminated from the country 25 years ago. It's the first major challenge for Trump's health secretary,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who has a long track record of casting doubt over vaccines like the MMR, which prevents measles.
Joining me now on this is physician, Dr. Mary T. Bassett, the director of the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University. Dr.
Bassett, thank you so much for taking the time and joining us today.
So, as of yesterday, there are 158 measles cases reported in West Texas alone, according to the Texas State Health Services Commissioner. As noted,
one child has already died. Nine more jurisdictions have reported measles outbreaks from Rhode Island to Alaska. We remember that cabinet meeting
where HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seemed to downplay these outbreaks, saying that we see them all the time. I'm just wondering, your
perspective, are these the types of outbreaks we see all the time? How alarmed are you?
Dr. Mary T. Bassett, Director, FXB CENTER FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, of course, we should be very alarmed. We haven't
seen a death of a child from measles in over a decade in this country. This should not happen.
And across the country, measles vaccination -- in fact, vaccines against all childhood diseases have been drifting down and the confusion that is
raised by vaccine skeptics, which I think previously, at least Mr. Kennedy would have think -- considered himself one, you know, makes it like less
likely that people will understand how important vaccination is.
Now, he did issue an op-ed in which he said some points -- made some points that are really important. And I think that that was a good thing. He
pointed out that it's important to get vaccinated against measles because it protects you. He also acknowledged that there is a community protection
effect, and that's very important. Not everyone is eligible for the measles vaccine.
But what he didn't do, and what he really must do, is not only give people facts, because those are facts, he should give advice, and he should advise
people who have an unvaccinated child to get their child vaccinated, and that he did not do.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's see, you mentioned this op-ed that he wrote for Fox News, and let's pull up a graphic, because the headline is, "Measles
Outbreak is a Call to Action for All of Us." And in the piece, he does express deep concern about the outbreak and offered federal support for
Texas health authorities. And then he said this, parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children's health. All parents should consult
with their health care providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Is that the language
you would have used in this situation?
DR. BASSETT: No. The health and human services secretary should advise people who have an unvaccinated child or whose are uncertain of their
child's vaccination status to go get vaccinated. That's how we control outbreaks, by vaccinating children, by finding the children who have
measles and keeping them away from other children.
But vaccination is the core of this. And parents need guidance. All of us need guidance. He's not giving that guidance.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, he went on to say good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. It just seems to be an odd
opportunity to throw that line and obviously, everyone wants to eat well and take care of their bodies, but I'm not sure that's the appropriate time
when you're writing a piece about a measles outbreak.
Does the United States have the resources necessary to prevent further outbreaks at this point?
DR. BASSETT: Well, we have the resources. Of course, the CDC, like the whole of the public health infrastructure in the United States and around
the world, is being affected by the wrecking ball that this administration is taking to the global health and public health infrastructure, even the
basic science infrastructure in the United States. But certainly, we have the resources to vaccinate every child who is eligible to be vaccinated.
GOLODRYGA: And this comes, as you noted, a number of jobs being cut and HHS, I mean they employ about 80,000 people and CDC announced a number of
layoffs and job cuts as well. The -- in terms of just research funding and freezes for that, there's 16,000 grants that are vying for about $1.5
billion in funding have been frozen at the NIH.
For people watching at home, they just see a lot of numbers. They still see America as the world leader in health care and in research. When these
numbers are announced, what impact does that ultimately have in freezing research aid and laying people off? How will that impact the average
American when it comes to their health and their children's health?
DR. BASSETT: I think it's worth taking a step back and reminding ourselves what federal expenditure is every year in the United States, it amounts to
something like $6.8 trillion in the U.S. in fiscal year '24. So, you know, we're talking about billions of dollars. But in the scheme of things the
percent of the budget that's spent by the federal workforce or by the NIH or by the CDC or by USAID are really small percentages in the range of 1, 2
percent, 6 percent for the federal workforce. So, you know, these are not really about shaving federal expenditure in a meaningful way.
Nonetheless, they're going to hurt communities here and around the world. These are not -- you know, I think very often certainly it's true in public
health, which is what -- where I've worked, people don't see the work that we do. They want their food to be safe, their air to be clean. They want
to, you know, feel confident that they're going to see a medical provider who's been appropriately trained. You know, all of these sorts of
protections really become visible to us when they don't work. And when they are working, they work silently.
But many people's livelihoods are engaged in keeping us all safe. And these cuts will mean that people lose their jobs. These are people with
households and mortgages, who spend money in the local economy. So, I'm not sure how well thought through the idea of firing summarily with hardly any
notice thousands of people, you know, will save us all money. It will hurt our economies, it will hurt communities, and I don't think that that's been
clear to people. It will also make us less safe. Because --
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Less safe how?
DR. BASSETT: -- we all want to have the safety that healthcare interventions have provided us with and public health protects.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you think about some of these arbitrary cuts and, you know, even at the Oval Office -- I mean, at the cabinet meeting with the
president last week, Elon Musk talked about what they were doing in terms of DOGE cutting jobs and USAID. And then he said, you know, we will make
mistakes, but we're going to quickly rectify them. And then, sort of, as he was laughing, said, for example, you know, Ebola, we made some cuts there
and nobody wants Ebola. So, we -- you know, we rectified and then there was reporting that that not necessarily was the case, that some of this funding
was still frozen.
When you hear headlines like that, does that give you security and comfort in knowing that these cuts are really tailored and thought through?
DR. BASSETT: Well, these have not been thought through. The people who they are firing are the people who are easiest to fire, not the ones who
are potentially the most strategic to fire. These were people who are still on probation, who had fewer labor protections, who were often young people
at the beginning of a public service career.
So, they also, you know, have been so precipitous that there was no opportunity in the case of our global health funding for countries to make
alternative arrangements. Now, the reason that we control communicable diseases, these are diseases that can spread from one person to another,
measles is an example of that, is because that protects all of us.
We live in a very global world. And not having interventions that offer protection for HIV or for TB will have an impact on all of us. This is not
only about saving lives that we never see, this is also about our security as a nation and keeping us safe in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: In the final few minutes or seconds we have here, I wanted to ask you to respond to a conversation I had with public health expert
Michael Osterholm in terms of -- we were speaking about the bird flu, but pandemics in general and his concern about a future pandemic. And here's
what he said, in terms of influenza in general and future pandemics, I'm at a 10 in terms of alarm as to if we will see one in the coming months and
years. I'm wondering if you are where he is in terms of your concern.
DR. BASSETT: I am. I mean -- yes. I mean, for example, we have you know, a structure, an advisory structure that deliberates on how we should
formulate the new influenza vaccine, believe it or not, this is still grown mostly in eggs, so it's an old technology and they have to get started on
planning for it. That meeting was cancelled. A meeting on childhood -- on immunization practices was postponed and hasn't been rescheduled.
So, it's not clear that there is a sufficient sense of the importance of advanced planning, and that is absolutely critical to pandemic preparedness
if we're going to have the capability of responding to avian flu, which is, you know, in our chickens and really causing an egg shortage and in the
cattle and not yet spreading among people, we have to get ready for it beforehand.
So, the obliteration of public health structures, dismantlement of advisory committees is a very dangerous sign.
GOLODRYGA: And there are definitely consequences from an ad hoc sort of policy, which appears to be what we have at this point. Dr. Bassett, we
have to leave it there, unfortunately. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for your expertise.
DR. BASSETT: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Appreciate it. Well, after a one-month reprieve, President Trump's long threatened 25 percent tariffs on neighbors Mexico and Canada
came into effect today, as did a doubling of tariffs on Chinese imports to 20 percent.
All three countries have announced that they will retaliate. Addressing Donald Trump personally, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had this to
say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: No, it's not in my habit to agree with the Wall Street Journal, but Donald, they point out that even though
you're a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, this trade war has sent U.S. markets plunging, and the CEO of Target is warning that prices will increase -- price increases could
happen in a matter of days.
[13:30:00]
Recently, Christiane spoke with someone who knows the Trump mindset well. Marc Short worked as Trump's legislative affairs director during his first
term and was a chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence. They discussed Trump's tactics just before his dramatic Oval Office showdown with
President Zelenskyy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Marc, welcome to the program. Let's just start with the realignment or as it is being perceived.
And you yourself tweeted about this week's very sad day for America, you said, it's shocking to see the U.S. align with North Korea and Russia in a
U.N. resolution, a complete reversal of the previous Trump administration's Ukraine policy. This is a deeply troubling shift and a sad day for America.
So, what on earth is behind it? Because he is publicly taking Putin's talking points and literally looking publicly as if he's not only tossing
Zelenskyy in Ukraine under the bus, but extorting, as one former U.K. official told me with the whole minerals deal as well. Extorting like a
protection racket. Why? Why? Why?
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, I think, charitably, there's Republicans who believe this is part of the
president's negotiating style, and he's looking to get both parties to table -- to the table to resolve the conflict. But I'm not sure that
excuses the language of, again, as you said, adopting the Kremlin talking points and partnering with Vladimir Putin on this.
And I think that it's not just a departure from, I think, where the Biden administration is, but, candidly, it's a stark departure from the first
Trump administration. If you recall back in 2018, The president -- President Trump would -- in his rallies, would boast about the fact that
when Russia took Crimea during the Obama administration, Obama merely sent blankets, we sent javelin missiles. That was the applause line. That's what
he championed, was the fact that we were standing with Ukraine against Russian aggression.
It was the first Trump administration that imposed significant sanctions against Russia, and it was the first Trump administration that took out 100
mercenaries of Russia in Syria when they crossed the red line, which the Obama administration did not do.
And so, the first Trump administration had a very traditional American strength foreign policy, and it seems like this is a significant departure
now of basically adopting the Kremlin talking points. And for many Americans, look at who's coming to Russia's side in this war, it has been
Iran providing drones, North Korea providing troops, China providing funding. It's Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. And that should say it
all to most Americans about who really is the aggressor here, and who really is the dictator versus the duly elected Zelenskyy in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Exactly, and you just listed those countries who are the adversaries with whom the United States voted at the United Nations. Even
China abstained. So, again, why? Because you're correct and we reported it. I was in Ukraine. Those javelins were instrumental in keeping Russia's
forces from taking Kyiv in the early days and weeks. They were instrumental.
So, why now is President Trump actively and constantly delegitimizing one party, the ally, I mean, you know, Zelenskyy, by constantly calling a
dictator, saying he has only 4 percent ratings, saying that he was unelected? I mean, what -- why? We can't get to the bottom of why this
change?
SHORT: Well, again, I'm not in there. So, I can give you my best guess, which is, again, I think that, charitably, there's an argument this is
rhetorical negotiation to try to get Zelenskyy to the point of wanting to reach a peace deal. But I --
AMANPOUR: It is always Zelenskyy who's been trying and not Putin, this is the other thing. The art of the deal surely can't say that the best
negotiating tactic is to completely delegitimize and weaken the hand of your ally.
SHORT: Well -- and again, if it's going to be a quick settlement, is it simply the solution going to be to allow Russia to keep what they've taken?
And I think a bigger challenge for American foreign policy looking forward, Christiane, is what is China learning from this?
AMANPOUR: Right.
SHORT: I think there's great concern about China taking over Taiwan. And if they're looking at us and saying that, you know, America is not
interested in helping to resolve this favorably to the nation that was invaded, then I think that sends terrible signals to our allies in the
Pacific.
AMANPOUR: And actually, I mean, I think President Trump was asked about Taiwan and he didn't really want to answer it. But there's some people who
are saying that potentially he might not care about Taiwan. Can I ask you whether you think -- you've been in the room, you know, his style, you did
the legislative affairs. It means, you know, dealing with his agenda in Congress, et cetera.
But if you were dealing with it overseas, do you think he's gone into a place which is about spheres of influence, which is only, only, only
transactional, which says to Putin, you keep what's yours, China, you keep what's yours, and I'll have mine, including all the other stuff, and expand
the territory, and we don't really care about what each other is doing in each other's spheres?
[13:35:00]
SHORT: I think there's some truth to that. I think the reality is that he does view the world as our bigger adversary is China. And so, let's focus
our efforts there and not worry about these other entanglements and other disputes.
But I think that there's also the reality, as because you said, it's always very transactional, it could change on a dime, but I do think that he does
have a perspective that, look, there are major players on the world stage, including us and China and Russia, and some of these other disputes we need
to get out of the way so we can solve the bigger challenges that face America.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SHORT: I'm not saying that's what I agree with, but I am saying that I think there is that perspective by some around the president today.
AMANPOUR: So, I wonder whether you do agree, actually, with some of this stuff. I mean, I know that some of it you're saying not necessarily, and
it's a change from the first time around. But what affects America, and what they voted for, was the economy, right, was their pocketbooks. And I
just heard you say, that there -- you said there will be a trade war coming. So, I don't know who that's going to be with.
Obviously, Europe is very worried. Trump has said the E.U. was created to screw us. His words, not mine. He's trying to fight with Canada and Mexico.
What will that mean for the American consumer, the people who voted for him?
SHORT: Well, great question. I think, again, it's a contrast to the first administration. I think that the president has always embraced a protection
in which he believes that foreign countries should be charging for access to American markets. And it seems like there's not a full appreciation that
the actual American importer is the one paying that tariffs and costs American jobs when -- and it's a significant tax on American consumers.
Having said that, the reality is that much of the first administration tariffs were bantied about as a negotiation ploy to get people to the
table, such as with Mexico and getting them to institute remain in Mexico policies.
In many cases, Christiane, he was very effective at doing that. My position, though, is I think it's a very different situation this time. I
think that the advisers he has around him are those who truly believe, like he does, in the benefits economically of tariffs and there's no longer a
national security apparatus around him that argues that the benefits of trade help us with our national security concerns across the globe.
And so, I think that he's been very clear in signaling that roughly it takes 90 days for U.S. trade representative to institute and complete their
studies to show unfair trade practices, which from the day of inauguration put you pretty close to the first week in April as to when I think it's
going to be pretty much a broad scale tariff that's going to be assessed, not just to the E.U., but I think pretty much globally.
AMANPOUR: Marc Short, thank you for your insight, you know, to be continued. We will watch. Thank you so much.
SHORT: Great. Thanks, Christiane. Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, as we discussed earlier, a potential minerals deal between the U.S. and Ukraine is still on the table. In her New York Times
opinion piece, our next guest says, Trump is taking a page out of China's foreign policy playbook as we enter, quote, "a new era," minerals
diplomacy. Gracelin Baskaran the director of the Critical Mineral Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She joins
Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why leaders are going after these precious resources.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Gracelin Baskaran, thanks so much for joining us. In the last week, we saw
a potential deal between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine fall apart about mineral rights. And I think, you
know, people were kind of caught up in the viral moment that happened in the Oval Office and all the information and news about this entire mineral
conversation got buried.
So, let's kind of back up a little bit and set the table a little bit for our audience here. What was the mineral rights deal that was supposed to
take place?
GRACELIN BASKARAN, DIRECTOR, CRITICAL MINERALS SECURITY PROGRAM, CSIS: The original deal actually called for Ukraine to pay $500 billion back to the
United States for military aid that had already been provided. In exchange, President Zelenskyy wanted security guarantees. However, the U.S. never
actually spent $500 billion on aid in Ukraine. We know the figure to be closer to about $138 billion.
So, eventually the deal got negotiated down and down and down and ultimately, where we landed is that there would be a fund that would be set
up and all future mineral, oil, and gas projects would take 50 percent of their revenue and put it into this fund. And this fund amongst other things
could also invest in Ukraine. However, the security guarantee never came back, which was the point of ultimate contention.
SREENIVASAN: So, I guess that's kind of -- you're laying out what both parties wanted. On the one hand, the United States wanted some sort of re-
compensation for the aid that we've given and on the other hand, Zelenskyy assumes that, hey, if I'm in a long-term partnership with the United
States, they're going to want to protect their assets. So, I get some security.
[13:40:00]
BASKARAN: That's right. He wanted an explicit security guarantee included. And then, President Trump argued that, you know, the cooperation in of
itself was an implicit security guarantee, that there would be less likelihood of another invasion if there was a strong relationship with the
U.S.
SREENIVASAN: OK. And now, let's talk a little bit about kind of what are the minerals at stake here. Why are we intrigued by what is on the inside
underneath the soil of Ukraine?
BASKARAN: It has a variety of resources. They've got everything from oil, gas, coal, but they've got graphite, rare earths, uranium, titanium. But
what we were really after were the rare earths. And rare earths are a group of 17 elements and they're actually a bit of a misnomer, because they're
not actually rare. In fact, they're everywhere. But they tend to occur in small quantities and they're very difficult to extract.
But over the last five years, the U.S. has really prioritized rare earths because they've been weaponized by China. The earliest kind of
weaponization was back in 2010. China cut off rare earth exports to Japan over a fishing trawler dispute. And then since then, we've seen them roll
out a series of restrictions on the U.S.
Now, rare earth, while used in energy technologies, are absolutely vital for our defense. We use them in missiles, lasers, tanks, warships, fighter
jets, all munitions. And so, what the U.S. did, because China has 90 percent of the world's rare earth processing capabilities, is we decided
five years ago that we were going to leverage our Defense Production Act, and withdrew federal funds, put out $300 million to build rare earth
separation facilities here at home in America.
Now, the big dilemma is that geology doesn't totally favor us. So, we have about 1.3 percent of the world's rare earths, which aren't really enough to
feed the processing capabilities we're building. So, what -- even under President Biden, the Development Finance Corporation was already starting
financing for a rare earth project in Brazil, Cerro Verde. And then we saw a rapid escalation of that under President Trump. We saw him talk about
rare earths from Greenland, rare earths from Ukraine. So, he's basically developing a strategy in a way to source rare earths from other parts of
the world to bring them home, process at home and manufacture those defense technologies.
SREENIVASAN: How much of the area in Ukraine that might have some of these minerals is now under Russian controlled territory versus Ukrainian?
BASKARAN: Yes, Donbass region certainly is extremely resource rich. We have graphite there and we have rare earths there. There is a lot of coal
in Donbass, but rare earths actually, from the very preliminary, you know, decades old mapping, do exist in other parts of the country.
One thing that's been quite noticeable, you know, is that there has been a lack of private sector voice in advocating for this agreement. And part of
it is the private sector doesn't know if they want to go there. You have multiple challenges. So, the first one is the mapping. The second is mining
is incredibly energy intensive, you know, globally, it uses 16 percent of the world's electricity. And a lot of that energy infrastructure has been
damaged in the war.
And the third thing is the looming risk that sits across the border. And this is where we disagreed and the negotiations kind of blew up is, you
know, again, Zelenskyy is like, well, I want an explicit security guarantee. The private sector would also like an explicit security
guarantee.
Because, you know, from the time I start looking at an asset, it's 18 years on average, globally, just to build the mine and then it's another -- that
mine can run for another 30 to 80 years. So, you're really looking at close to 100 years. And companies and President Zelenskyy are going well, not
really sure if I'm willing to make that long-term bet. A mine can cost $500 million to a billion dollars. What if putin decides to kind of expand
occupied land because he's not letting go of it?
SREENIVASAN: What you're pointing out is there's sort of an interesting redrawing of alliances based on these minerals and how hard they're going
to be to get and especially how important and hungry we are for them right now. So, I mean, it seems like foreign policy is now potentially being
driven by our access to these resources. And we've been in that boat before, 30 or 50 years ago, it might've been a different set of minerals.
BASKARAN: Absolutely. And it's also we -- I mean, we've done it with oil for a long time.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
BASKARAN: But even if you look -- I mean, I would say the reason China has built this huge comparative advantage is they've linked up their foreign
policy in Africa, Latin America, Asia, to their domestic industrial strategy.
[13:45:00]
People don't realize, you know, they only have about 10 percent of the world's nickel, cobalt, lithium, but what they've done is they process
between 40 and 90 percent because they have strategically sourced from around the world and then they bring them back home for processing and
they've established complete dominant.
So, Trump, in a way, is trying to take a page out of this playbook to say, let me source from all these other countries and bring it back home.
SREENIVASAN: Which is a kind of a case example of how interconnected the world is. And while on the one hand, policy might say, I want to be America
first, what you're pointing out with this is that you're interdependent on all these countries where the actual minerals are sitting in the ground,
even if you have the factory capacity to process them, right?
BASKARAN: Absolutely. And I mean, you see this with President Trump's executive order on energy. He talks about mining both at home and abroad.
You know, so even in the American -- you know, America first agenda he hasn't taken out the fact that we have to go global if we want to secure
minerals, because we do have limited geology.
SREENIVASAN: I guess explain to our audience a little bit about how China has shaped their foreign policy around mining and minerals.
BASKARAN: So, China's investments in their foreign policy has largely targeted mineral rich jurisdictions. So, for example, you know, Chile was
one of the first countries to become, you know, about part of the Belt and Road Initiative. And now, they supply a third of China's raw copper that is
now refined in China and then processed and manufactured into really important technologies. If we look at Africa, Belt and Road Initiative
investment has been used very strategically.
An interesting example back in 2007 was, you know, DRC had just come out of conflict, and what China did is they negotiated a deal. They provided $3
billion of infrastructure to the DRC in exchange for access to $93 billion of cobalt and copper and coal lazy (ph) down in the copper belt. Today, 15
of the 19 biggest cobalt and copper mines are owned by Chinese companies. So, it was a very strategic long-term bet where they provided the
infrastructure to develop the country at a time when no other country really wanted to come in and provide that capital. But in exchange, I mean,
they have secured almost all of their cobalt supply coming from the DRC.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. So, how does the U.S. stance towards China right now complicate things? I mean, right now we've been, you know, incredibly
strong rhetoric, but also, we're threatening tariff upon tariff.
BASKARAN: Our policy with China is actually driving us in the opposite direction. So, a lot of these efforts you've seen with aggressive kind of
minerals diplomacy and efforts to build these supply chains is with the sole purpose of reducing reliance on China.
You know, living in Washington I can tell you the most -- the easiest way to convince someone of an idea is to explain to them that we are at risk at
China and both the Republicans and the Democrats will move. Minerals are one of the most bipartisan issues in Washington. In fact, you know, shortly
after inauguration, I was talking to a senator's office and he said, you know, we actually think minerals might be one of the only areas we can co-
write a bill in now.
So, that is the area that we are in Washington is it touches on Departments of Defense, State, Interior, Commerce. It's far reaching. In fact, I think
there's 15 government departments working on minerals, and it's really a countering China effort.
SREENIVASAN: Is there a potential here? Are there any minerals that are so necessary to us that we would go to war over them? Is it what's in my cell
phone right now? Is it what might be in an electric car battery, or is it something that, as you pointed out, is maybe in a missile or some sort of
other weapon system?
BASKARAN: So, I would say the ones that are in our defense technologies, which is actually where China has been hitting the hardest lately. So, some
of the recent restrictions have been on antimony. Then we saw tungsten come out. People are worried about titanium because these are really hard
materials.
If you go back and you look at the restrictions China rolled out the first week of December in 2024, they actually left open a provision for other
super hard materials. And sure enough, tungsten came right after that. So, those are the critical vulnerabilities we're looking at right now, because
for some of these the U.S. doesn't have an alternate supply.
SREENIVASAN: You're in Canada right now for a conference about this. And what are the people that are there thinking about, you know, look, they
might be talking about mining and minerals most of the time, but the geopolitics of this has become very front and center, at least to the rest
of us over the last couple of weeks.
BASKARAN: You know, there's a certain amount of frustration. You know, it's like you're willing to go to Ukraine and make a deal with minerals
that, you know, we don't really know entirely what's there and commercially attractive, but you're trying to roll out tariffs on Canada, which is a
really important ally and is the biggest supplier of nickel, which is vital for defense technologies automotive manufacturing, huge supplier of
uranium, which is how we need our nuclear energy.
[13:50:00]
We get one-fifth of our power in the U.S. from nuclear energy. We don't really produce much uranium. So, it's interesting is there's this like
cognitive dissonance that's existing in the private -- you know, the private sector, but even with policy makers worldwide who are in Canada
this week for this conference to go, OK, we're willing to go make these deals in places that are really hard and the private sector doesn't want to
go. But then, we have our really stable allies over here that we're penalizing when they could be really strategic and reducing our reliance on
China.
SREENIVASAN: So, if we are trying to do this, I mean, I guess, is the intention kind of in the right place? Because it seems like if China
controls such an enormous quantity of minerals that we need intense sort of amounts, should we be trying to figure out how to acquire our own steady
supply of those things?
BASKARAN: That's the goal of what we're trying to do. So, if we look at the last five years, you know, we have our development finance corporation,
which is how the U.S. funds projects abroad. And we've seen, you know, we own part equity in a rare earth project in South Africa. We have part
equity in a project -- a nickel project in Brazil. We did a loan for a graphite project in Mozambique that feeds back to Louisiana. So, it is a
growing effort. You know, what we're doing now is we're building on actually four really phenomenal years of what I like to call minerals
diplomacy.
Now, obviously Trump's tactic is a lot more aggressive in terms of, you know, making it a potentially the end of a war, a hinging aid to it,
talking about annexing. So, I mean, it is part of a strategy that we've been building over time because we're not going to counter China alone.
It's physically impossible.
SREENIVASAN: You mentioned an interesting phrase, minerals diplomacy. I mean, what are the unintended consequences when a country gets incredibly
rich, incredibly fast? You know, like how do you protect from making sure that that country doesn't get aggressive towards its neighbors or that all
of the money ends up going to a dictator that is horrible to their people?
BASKARAN: The short answer is that we can't. We did, as a government, this $150 million loan to a graphite project in Mozambique. And then, the civil
war basically ended the project and it went force majeure in December. Natural resources have historically driven an enormous amount of conflict
globally, right? Anytime you can grab capital out of things very easily, it gives way to tensions and challenges. So, we're starting to see that play
out.
I mean, look, the -- right before this -- Zelenskyy came to the U.S., President Putin announced that he, too, was willing to negotiate and try
and make a minerals agreement. And he didn't just negotiate with minerals on Russian land, he was willing to also do it with minerals on Russian
occupied land, which is a little bit of a red flag.
So, again, we've seen that he -- his willingness to negotiate with land that's not his is part of why the private sector is going, hey, that
doesn't mean he's not going to further expropriate land take it once the investment is here. So, we have seen that driver of conflict certainly
escalate.
SREENIVASAN: Are we creating sort of the odd incentives, right? I mean, if the price of titanium or whichever mineral just keeps going through the
roof, then isn't there an incentive for one country to look over across the border and say, well, he or she has some right there, let me just send in
some tanks and try to secure that area?
BASKARAN: This is a lot of what's happening with the Democratic Republic of Congo in Rwanda right now, right? In the DRC, President Shigeto last
week also asked President Trump for a critical minerals agreement in exchange for military support, but for quite a while now, Rwanda, under
Paul Kagame, has been going in and smuggling resources out and then bringing them back into Rwanda.
Rwanda is a tiny country, and then they signed a critical minerals agreement with the E.U., you know, and the Congo is going, but those are
our resources that you're signing an agreement with and smuggling it through and it's funding conflict. So, it does create a lot of perverse
incentives.
And look, speaking candidly, if the U.S. is to succeed in its minerals diplomacy, it's going to better need to leverage security forces anyway.
Ultimately, like, we need to make sure that when we're going in and making investment that our people and our assets are safe. And when you talk to
the private sector in a number of these places from Mali to the Congo to Ukraine, it's like, we can't go in there without a sense of protection
because that risk does remain.
SREENIVASAN: Director of the Critical Mineral Security Program at the CSIS, Gracelin Baskaran, thanks so much for joining us.
BASKARAN: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, it's Pancake Day, also known as Shrove Tuesday or Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras. The tradition began when Christians made
pancakes to use up their supply of eggs, milk and butter in preparation for Lent.
And if you have some leftover flour, a town in Greece gets messy in its annual flour wars. The tradition marks the end of carnival season and the
start of Lent leading up to Orthodox Easter. History suggests the tradition dates back to the 19th century when Greece was under Ottoman rule and
carnival celebrations were forbidden. Learn a bit of history on this show as well.
Well, that does it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
