Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder; Interview with The New York Times Magazine Staff Writer and "Rise and Kill First" Author Ronen Bergman; Interview with Romanian Political Scientist and Oxford University Lecturer in Politics Vladimir Bortun; Interview with "Mark Twain" Author Ron Chernow. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 19, 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: Nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together. OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And now, they have, on the phone. But what will it mean for Ukraine? Then, hundreds of people killed in Gaza in a matter of days as
Israel ramps up airstrikes and its ground offensive. Journalist Ronen Bergman joins me.
Plus, the center defeats the far-right in Romania and the European Union breathes a sigh of relief. I get analysis from Romanian political
scientists Vladimir Bortun.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RON CHERNOW, AUTHOR, "MARK TWAIN": He had views on a number of topics that resonate today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "Mark Twain," Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Ron Chernow tells Walter Isaacson about his latest book, exploring the life and
thinking of one of America's most famous writers.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
President Trump has spoken to Russian president Vladimir Putin on the phone with a U.S. official saying the call lasted nearly two hours. Now, earlier,
Trump spoke to Ukraine's leader of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But between the dial up diplomacy, Putin is showing no sign of compromise.
On Sunday, Russia hit Ukraine with its largest drone attack since the war began, launching 273 drones in one night, the Ukrainian Air Force says. And
last week, Putin snubbed a face-to-face meeting with Zelenskyy, instead sending a low-level delegation to Turkey for ceasefire talks. Over the
weekend, the Ukrainian president met with U.S. Vice President, J. D. Vance for the first time since their Oval Office spat back in February.
So, after all these meetings and calls, let's try to make some sense of what could come next with Ivo Daalder. He was the U.S. ambassador to NATO
under President Barack Obama, now is the CEO of Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and he joins me from Sitka in Alaska. Thank you so much for taking
the time, Ivo.
So, we're just getting the first indications of the readout. They were alerted initially from the Russian State Media now. The White House
confirming that the phone call was indeed two hours between the two men. Obviously, you've got to take into consideration the translation as well
for these conversations.
But what we're hearing from Russian media is that Putin called the talks frank and substantive. And he said, President Putin said that Trump viewed
Russia as favoring peaceful resolutions to the Ukrainian crisis. And the one line we continue to hear from Vladimir Putin is addressing the root
causes of this war, which for most people who aren't aware of what that means for the Kremlins, suggest the lack of any sovereignty for the
Ukrainian government and its people. What do you make so far of what we've heard and where these conversations could lead?
IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Well, I think what we've heard is probably the least surprising outcome of a phone call. You don't
end wars by phone. These are serious conflicts. This is a serious conflict that's been going on in many ways since 2014. The fighting has been going
on since 2014, and of course, for the last three plus years, almost four years -- the three plus years, the fighting has been very, very intense.
And it is intense because Vladimir Putin is bent on a single purpose. These are the root causes. He wants to subjugate Ukraine. He wants to control
what happens in Ukraine, and he wants to control what happens in the rest of Europe.
He has decided a long time ago that he didn't like the outcome of the Cold War. He wants to revisit that outcome, and he's looking constantly for new
opportunities to do that. He's doing it through the use of force, but he's also doing it through the use of diplomacy.
One of the reasons you have these phone calls is the continuing implication that Vladimir Putin is providing, that if he can talk with Trump, they, the
two guys can settle this issue. Unfortunately, you don't settle the issue unless you are willing to give Vladimir Putin everything he wants. And even
the United States not only doesn't want to do that, but frankly, can't do that. They cannot deliver Ukraine to Russia, which is what Putin wants.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of the fact that this call came a day after the worst drone attacks Russia has launched against Ukraine since the war
began, that coupled with the fact that Vladimir Putin did not follow through on what he had initially proposed, and that was talks between
officials in Turkey last week? He was a no-show. President Zelenskyy, in fact, flew to Turkey for meetings. And then, now, even knowing that this
phone call between these two leaders, President Putin was in the resort city in southern Russia of Sochi at a music school where he was attending a
music performance. And you know, then took time to have this phone conversation with President Trump. What does that tell you about his
sincerity to really seeking a peaceful resolution to this war?
DAALDER: Well, he isn't sincere. He's just dragging the United States along because what he wants is the United States to blame Ukraine for the
war. What he wants is the United States to take Russia's view of both the root causes on the war and how it should come out. And in the four months
that President Trump is back -- then back into office, it appears that Vladimir Putin continues to succeed in his conversations with Special Envoy
Steve Witkoff.
Putin has been able to persuade Witkoff of the reality in his view that this problem is all because of Ukraine, that Ukraine shouldn't be
independent. That there have been these referenda on -- in the four oblasts of Ukraine that demonstrate that the Ukrainians want to be part of Russia,
that the war was started because of NATO expansion, and Ukraine wanting to be part of the war. These are all Russian talking points. These are all
Vladimir Putin's view.
And his entire goal over the last four months has been to try to convince the United States that Putin is right and Zelenskyy is wrong. And I'm
afraid that, so far, in these four months that Trump has been president for his second term, he seems to have learned very little from Vladimir Putin.
Putin can string him along, is stringing him along.
And the only way to demonstrate that that is not the case is for the president to come out now after this call and said, I tried. I understand
that the problem is Vladimir Putin, that we will help Ukraine to defend itself with everything we can, and that we will put serious, real sanctions
on Vladimir Putin and Russia until such time as there is a ceasefire and a serious negotiation to end this war. That's how we're going to resolve
that, not by a phone call and not by voice saying that the only people -- person who can end this war is Donald Trump. The only person who can end
this war is Vladimir Putin.
GOLODRYGA: Why do you think we're not hearing that from President Trump at this point?
DAALDER: You know, I don't really understand it, to be honest. I think most of us who have observed President Trump over the last almost 10 years
and his idea that Vladimir Putin is a man of peace, is somehow a strong capable leader, and he clearly -- President Trump likes strong men as
leaders. But I don't really understand why he singularly fails to comprehend that this war is caused by Russia, by one man who leads Russia,
and that it can only end by Russia and by that one man who leads Russia, that is Vladimir Putin.
And that the way you do that is to put pressure on Russia rather than pressure on the victim of the war. He's tried that. For the last four
months the president of the United States has tried almost everything he can to try to get Volodymyr Zelenskyy to agree to an end the war. Zelenskyy
has agreed to a ceasefire, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. He has agreed to meet with and directly talk to Russia. In fact, that happened on
Tuesday. He would've wanted to be meeting with Vladimir Putin, who, as you rightly said, didn't show up.
Zelenskyy has done everything he wanted to do, including signing a mineral agreement, and yet, for some reason, every time it comes to crunch time,
the president of the United States seems to believe that being nice to Vladimir Putin gets you more. Well, sometimes honey does, but in this case
a good dose of vinegar and a good dose of punishment is more likely to work.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Steve Witkoff, who has met with Vladimir Putin twice now in this short second term of the presidents thus far. And here's
what he said about this yesterday. He said, the president has a force of personality that is unmatched. I think it's important his sensibilities are
that he's got to get on the phone with President Putin, that it is going to be clear up -- to clear up some of the log jam and get us to the place that
we need to get to. And I think it's going to be a very successful call.
[13:10:00]
This issue of a log jam. It speaks to what some are suggesting, maybe just a misdiagnosis from President Trump as to why Vladimir Putin ultimately
started this war, and what he truly believes are those, quote/unquote, root causes, whether they're based on fact or not, because we heard from Steve
Witkoff in previous interviews say, listen, the Russians want those four oblasts in the southeastern part of the country. They want Crimea
recognition and basically, no guarantees to enter NATO. And then, the war will come to an end. Russia has made it clear that that is not what is
going to bring this war to an end. Even J. D. Vance today said, listen, we can have business deals together if you just get this war to come to an
end.
What does that tell you? And does it alarm you that so far into this war there seems to be a misalignment between these two leaders as to what it is
that will bring this war to an end?
DAALDER: Yes. I think, Bianna, you hit a very, very important point. I think Donald Trump doesn't really understand what war is. War as,
Clausewitz has said, is the continuation of politics by other means. And at the core of this conflict is a political conflict. The political conflict
between Russia and Ukraine, with Russia wanting something from Ukraine that Ukraine is not willing to give, which is its sovereignty and its territory
and its future.
And as a result, you have a war that is intense, it's bloody, it's incredibly painful for the people of Ukraine, for the people who are
fighting. And yet, the president talks about this war as if it's some outer worldly experience. You know, he keeps talking about ending the bloodbath.
We all want to end the blood bath, but the blood bath doesn't end until the conflict that produced it ends.
And there is this sense, which is actually a very American sense that war is a failure in some ways of politics. It's not. It's a continuation of
politics. It's unfortunate, but in history, throughout history, nations have sought to resolve their differences for the use of force.
And the only way that doesn't happen is if the people who are bent on changing the thing the way things are going understand that the use of
force is not going to get them. And the only way to get Vladimir Putin to understand that is to unite behind Ukraine and make sure that Vladimir
Putin does not succeed in subjugating Ukraine. That's how you end the war.
The log jam, if there is one, is, in some ways, the misunderstanding of Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump, neither of whom steeped in the history of
this conflict or indeed steeped in international affairs but in real estate deals, which are fundamentally different than political conflict. Until
they understand that this war is caused because of what Russia wants from Ukraine, that Ukraine doesn't want to give it, we're not going to find an
end to this war.
And until that change happens, that clarity emerges hopefully from this phone call that the president decides that he's had enough, that he knows
that Vladimir Putin is tapping him along, as he said a few weeks ago. And that therefore, what he needs to do is what all European leaders are
telling him to do, which is to put the pressure on Ukraine -- sorry, on Russia and to help Ukraine. That's what the European leaders wants and
that's what is now necessary to change the trajectory of this conflict.
GOLODRYGA: So, are we at a crossroads now at this point? I mean, maybe President Trump will surprise us all and coming from this phone call
suggests, listen, there was nothing I could get out of President Putin by speaking to him, by trying to negotiate with him. I am going to have to
level additional sanctions or secondary sanctions against Russia?
Barring that, Europe has threatened to do that as well. They've threatened to put more sanctions on Russia immediately. Do you suspect that they will
do that? And is there any concern then about the response that could garner from President Trump?
DAALDER: Well, I think we are at a crossroads because I only see two ways in this going forward. One way is for the president to recognize that the
problem is Vladimir Putin and to join his European friends and colleagues to do whatever we can to help Ukraine and put serious new sanctions on
Russia, including secondary sanctions of the kind that, by the way, Lindsey Graham, Senator Graham is trying to push through the Congress,
extraordinary sanctions on those who rely on the importation of Russian oil, which is its main source of income. That will be one way and that will
be surprising but welcome, and I will be the first person to congratulate President Trump on understanding that we -- that that is how to resolve
this conflict.
[13:15:00]
The other way, which I think, unfortunately, given the history is more likely, is that the president said, I've tried, I've done everything I can.
These people can't be dealt with, and I'm walking away. I have other things to do. I'm a busy man. There's plenty of other conflicts, whether it's in
Iran or the Middle East or wherever, that I can turn my attention to and I will just leave it to others to resolve this conflict. And that will then
lead the Europeans to own, which they, in some ways, should and do already this conflict, at least the support of Ukraine.
And the European leaders have said that they will put in new sanctions. It's time that they do so. They said they needed a ceasefire. It was
supposed to happen a week ago. That hasn't happened. In fact, as you mentioned, the largest drone strike in Kyiv from the -- since this war
started. Now, is time for more pressure on Russia and more support for Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Ivo Daalder, always appreciate the time. Thank you.
DAALDER: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, an election with reverberations for Democracy in Europe and beyond. We discussed the defeats of the far-right
in Romania.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that Israel is going to, quote, "take control of Gaza entirely." This as the
country's military has launched an intensified ground operation in the enclave, and even further airstrikes. More than 300 people have been killed
since Thursday, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which says entire families have been killed while sleeping together.
Israel says that their new military campaign, which they've called Gideon's Chariots, has brought Hamas back to the negotiating table with indirect
talks taking place in Qatar. Meantime, after an 11-week blockade, Netanyahu says that Israel will allow a basic amount of food to enter Gaza to prevent
famine.
Ronen Bergman is a staff writer at the New York Times Magazine. He joins me now from Tel Aviv. Ronen, always good to see you. And just in the last hour
or so, we're getting indication that the first aid trucks have been going back into Gaza as well.
Give us a sense of where this operation Gideon's Chariot stands right now. Because even your own magazine, The New York Times, the newspaper, had this
headline, Israel announced a new invasion of Gaza. Is it bluffing? Is this a familiar Netanyahu tactic to ramp things up without going full force in a
sort of hold me back, I dare you scenario, or is this a completely different prime minister who's beholden to his coalition?
RONEN BERGMAN, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE AND AUTHOR, "RISE AND KILL FIRST": My pleasure to be here again. I think Netanyahu -- the
Netanyahu government is playing on a few vectors. One is to show force and do that externally and domestically. Domestically, because he's talking for
more than a year already about something called the ultimate victory without defining what is the nature of this victory while saying that he's
sending the troops into Gaza to achieve this vague term of ultimate victory, something that the IDF was not able to achieve for more than a
year and a half, while at the same time, promising that only military force will be able to release the hostages.
[13:20:00]
Our investigative reporting with not (INAUDIBLE) at The New York Times showed that at least 41 hostages that came into Gaza alive died since as a
result or indirectly connected to the Israeli ground maneuver of because of bad conditions. But in any case, the length of the war caused the lives of
hostages. Netanyahu is saying, no, only military force can release them, but quietly, while try to calm down the voices, the ultra-right voices from
inside his coalition that demands him to continue the war basically indefinitely. Now, he says, unlike what he said many times before, Israel
is going to conquer the whole of the Gaza Strip.
Externally, Netanyahu government is trying to put pressure on Hamas, saying, if you do not release the hostages, if you do not make concessions,
if you do not surrender, Israel will go all in to conquer the Gaza Strip.
Now, what is happening in reality, you refer to the story, The New York Times by my colleague Patrick Kingsley. The IDF is, to an extent, reluctant
to go and conquer Gaza. The IDF assess that it'll take at least five years to destroy and explode all the military sites and underground tunnel
network Hamas and capture everybody. The IDF is not key. There's also a crisis with the reserve troop, the reserve army. People are really
exhausted after hundreds of days it reserves and there's an ongoing growing skepticism about what this war is about. Is it about winning, releasing the
hostages, or about keeping the integrity of Mr. Netanyahu's coalition?
GOLODRYGA: And what does winning even mean at this point? If Netanyahu wants a way out of this operation right now, he could say perhaps, and
maybe you can confirm with us because I don't believe we have confirmation yet, that Yahya Sinwar's brother, Mohammed Sinwar, who was the target of an
attack last week, was in fact killed. But that could possibly give him a way to say, we've accomplished a big portion of our goal and now, we're
ready to negotiate. He hasn't said that just yet.
But in the meantime, as you have been reporting, along with your colleagues, the concern about the humanitarian crisis has only grown over
the last two and a half months. In fact, you've reported that privately, some IDF generals and officials are concerned about the scale of the
crisis. Talk about where things stand right now and what Israel can or should be doing to avoid a complete catastrophe.
BERGMAN: So, one of the new goals that set -- was set by the Netanyahu government a few months ago was to take control over the humanitarian aid,
which they say is a main component of Hamas power. Hamas is looting the humanitarian aid, selling it for much more money, and in any case, have the
heavy (INAUDIBLE) in the Gaza strip when everybody just needs to eat from Hamas hand. And they -- the government and the military made this into one
of the main goals of the current invasion.
And they have said when stopping, when putting the Strip under the blockade, they said, nothing will come to -- into the Gaza Strip unless
it's in -- under this new mechanism that they're developing with American company that will be fully supervised. The problem is that these companies
are not yet stationed, the centers are not yet built. The system does not yet work.
In the meantime. The IDF CogAT agency is assessing that there's only days left in the storage of the different NGOs that is available for the Gazans.
There's more food in the Gaza Strip, but this food is kept by private merchants or by Hamas, that it did looted much of that and not available --
not in the reach of citizens. So, it's on the verge of starvation. and Mr. Netanyahu, as he himself, portrays this in the video that he released
today, had to sort of surrender to pressure from President Trump.
According to high officials from the mediating countries, Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, this not a coincidence that the hostage Israeli American
citizen Edan Alexander was released and now Israel is reopening the passage of flow of humanitarian aid, that there was a condition, or at least Hamas
understood from the U.S. that he, Hamas, whether it will get the opening of the Gaza gates to humanitarian and indeed it's happening.
[13:25:00]
The Netanyahu government is giving it a different reason they need to fight coalition issues. But in the meantime, maybe a good news is that there is a
renewal of some flow of humanitarian aid. We will still need to understand what were the exact assurances if the were -- that were given from the U.S.
to Hamas and from Israel to the U.S. so the U.S. could keep it word, if there was an agreement vis-a-vis behind.
GOLODRYGA: Where does the Witkoff plan or proposal stand at this point as the negotiations continue in Doha? And that would be at least a temporary
ceasefire that would allow for more hostages to be released at the same time and humanitarian aid to go in.
BERGMAN: So, there was a spokesperson from Israel said that Hamas, because of the military pressure, came back to the negotiation thing. I think what
really happened was that both sides agreed that no preconditions, Hamas sort of withdrew from its precondition to start any agreement with agreeing
on the end of the war, cessation of hostilities, permanent ceasefire, and withdraw of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. And Israel withdrew from
its basic demand of -- following the so-called Witkoff off plan, which is really an Israeli plan in a disguise of an American plan. That is an
advancement, but it still doesn't solve anything.
And at the end, I think that both sides, at least according to what we hear from Doha, are stuck in the exact same place that they were stuck
throughout the last year and a half. Hamas is willing to make a deal, everybody, for everybody, hostages vis-a-vis prisoners, withdrew total --
total withdrawal and a full and permanent ceasefire.
Israel doesn't want to end the war unless Hamas agrees to the exile of some of its highest rank and disarmament and be replaced not just symbolically,
but also physically on the ground with another authority or entity. And this what they were discussing and this, I think, where they're stuck now.
GOLODRYGA: In the final few seconds that we have together, I was struck, Ronen, by a post by former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, in Hebrew. I
haven't seen it in English, but translated. He basically is saying that the current situation is in large part -- look, it's -- if Hamas just released
- we all know if Hamas could just end this by releasing the hostages, given that they have not, the current situation the prime minister finds himself
in is one that he was saying he was warning about all along, and that is without an alternative, a day after plan governance that's not Hamas, that
this situation would indeed arise, that Israel would accuse Hamas of taking all of the food and the Humanitarian aid going in and hoarding it, and they
would be in a situation where the people in Gaza are facing a humanitarian crisis. Is that a valid argument in your view and from what you're hearing
from your sources?
BERGMAN: Yes, according to the reporting that we have, this is correct. Throughout the war, since December maybe even November of 2023, it's
amazing that so much time has passed, this suffering, this war going on. So, for a year and a half ago, throughout time, minister of defense
(INAUDIBLE), but not just here, the former chief of staff, Herzi Halevi, and many others have demanded to look at the day after, who will replace
Hamas, because basically they said there are only three alternative, it's either Hamas ruling, something Israel would not accept, or Israel have a
military rule, something that most Israelis, including military leaders do not want.
Or something else. Now, that's something else, everybody or all the expertise in Israel said -- most expert, can only be some kind of a reform
or supported by other entities, Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu -- Prime Minister Netanyahu has done everything he can not to discuss the day after,
in order not to bring the Palestinian Authority because he is basically caring for the integrity of the coalition, which he's afraid will be
disassembled if he brings the P.A.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finds himself in this position now where potentially more isolated from the United States and a humanitarian crisis looming. And the
hostages still not home. Ronen Bergman, thank you.
BERGMAN: OK.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Next to Romania, where centrist and pro-European Union candidate Nicusor Dan has beaten his far-right opponent in the
country's presidential election. Now, it comes five months after the original run of that vote was won by a different far-right contender only
for the results to be annulled due to allegations of Russian interference.
While some E.U. leaders might be relieved by the results, George Simion, a nationalist politician who is pro-Trump and opposed to supporting Ukraine
militarily still claimed 46 percent of the vote. So, what does that tell us about the political feeling within Romania and Europe in the eras of Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin?
Vladimir Bortun is a Romanian political scientist in lecture at Oxford University where he joins me from now. Vladimir, thank you so much for the
time. So, a collective sigh of relief for a large portion of the country that was concerned that a more populist, more pro-Trump leaning candidate
would in fact win. That didn't happen. 54 percent of the vote went for Dan.
Your reaction, given the historic turnout. It was a rather large turnout that we've seen. What message are Romanians sending?
VLADIMIR BORTUN, ROMANIAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND LECTURER IN POLITICS, OXFORD UNIVERSITY: I would start by disputing the characterization of Dan
as a centrist. He's pretty right-wing on both economic and cultural issues. He's just not as right-wing as his opponent that he defeated last night,
who directly described as far-right.
And I think this was the main driver for this important increase in turnout of 11 percent from the first round to the second round. People didn't want
a far-right president in Romania, and I think it wasn't as much a vote for Dan as it was a vote against Simion who had an abysmal performance in --
between the two rounds. And I'm happy to go into more detail on that.
GOLODRYGA: Well, for the first time since 1989, neither candidate came from one of the mainstream political parties, and that is interesting in
and of itself. Dan campaigned to fight corruption. And I know you seem skeptical about that claim, as popular as it may be, as an important of an
issue that it is with voters. You wrote in The New York Times, both share an allegiance to the business class, just different parts of it, and all
plans to alter the country's fundamental economic framework. This common practice for the far-right, despite capitalizing on popular anger against
established elites, it is itself an elite project for state power. In the process, the ordinary people it claims to represent our left behind.
So, talk to us about that rather cynical take on the current situation and dynamics in Romanian politics and what you do expect out of Dan's
leadership.
BORTUN: It's a critical take on the lack of vision on behalf of Dan to address the socioeconomic issues that have allowed for a far-right
candidate to come into the second round and gain over 5 million votes in the second round and also have behind him a party that was created only
five years ago, but has already become the second force in the Romanian parliament.
And I'm talking about a neoliberal economic model that Dan, together with a whole mainstream political elite in Romania has endorsed for the last 35
years on economy based on low wages, lower regulations, low taxation that has led to 45 percent of the population living in poverty or on the verge
of poverty, that has led to 5 million Romanians leaving the country overwhelmingly for economic reasons and to chronically underfunded public
services.
And these social economic conditions are the fertile ground for the rise of the far-right in Romania and everywhere else. Political scientists have
shown systematically over the past decade that it's economic insecurity, that is the main driver of the far-right electoral success. And
unfortunately, people like Simion are able to capitalize on that even though they themselves have no solutions to those problems. And actually,
because I referred to Simion's very bad performance in between the two rounds.
He's one flagship social policy to build 1 million affordable homes, if he becomes president, he himself admitted to be just political marketing. So,
I think he mentioned a unique achievement to break an electoral promise even before the elections were over.
[13:35:00]
So, people felt that Simion is maybe not as different from the mainstream politicians that he claimed to be an alternative to, which I think allowed
Dan to win last night.
GOLODRYGA: The world became more aware and started focusing more on Romania's election some six months ago after the country's top court
canceled the election over what it said was Russian political interference, and that's a move that that disabled the far-right nationalist candidate at
the time, who was doing quite well in the polls, Calin Georgescu.
We heard the president -- the vice president of the United States just weeks into this administration's term in Europe really condemn that move by
the Romanian courts and suggesting that if your country's democracy is so weak that they have to cancel an election because of some interference,
that speaks to the stability of democracy in Romania.
I'm just wondering if you could talk our viewers through the reaction that had, the fact that the vice president of the United States weighed in on
this and what you made of his comments.
BORTUN: I think that there is a, of course, a legalist argument in favor of the measure taken by the constitutional court to cancel the elections
and barred Georgescu from standing. And I think also that Vance's declaration kind of undermined -- and Simion's attempt to align himself
with the Trump administration, undermined his sovereign credentials, undermined his claim to take the country back from the globalist elites,
right?
So, basically, there was this there was this paradox at play. On the one hand you claim to be a nationalist leader nationalist position, but at the
same time, you are happy to repeat every single foreign policy that comes from Washington.
So, this was, I think -- this was a way for him to alienate some of his some of his base. But at the same time, this kind of constitutional
legalist measures against far-right candidates can only delay the inevitable. So, Georgescu was barred. He couldn't run anymore, and his
successor, Simion, got twice the percentage that the Georgescu brought in November, which shows that it's not enough to take this kind of legalist
constitutionalist approach to tackling the far-right, it merely addresses the symptoms, we need to address the causes, the socioeconomic causes that
fueled the rise of the far-right.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you've clearly pointed out that it was the economic misfortunes and the challenges of the country is facing that drove people
out to the polls and vote the way they did. Vladimir Bortun, thank you so much for joining us.
BORTUN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up, Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Ron Chernow on the fascinating Mark Twain, the great American author and brave voice for
racial equality in the 19th century. That's up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, many of you are likely familiar with the great American author, Mark Twain, whose most famous works include "The Adventures of Tom
Sawyer" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." Well, deemed the greatest humorist, the United States has produced, Twain was a courageous advocate
for racial equality throughout the 1800 using his writing to entertain and inform the world.
Well, now, the renowned author's fascinating life is the topic of Pulitzer Prize winning biographer, Ron Chernow's latest book. And he joins Walter
Isaacson to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Ron Chernow, welcome to the show.
RON CHERNOW, AUTHOR, "MARK TWAIN": It's a pure delight to be here, Walter. Thank you.
ISAACSON: In your great biography of Mark Twain that just came out, you have a sentence near the beginning that says, what any biography of Mark
Twain demands is his inimitable voice, which sparkled even in his darkest moments. Man, there were a lot of dark moments in this book, but the prose
reads almost like Mark Twain and the flowing of the river. Did you consciously try to mimic his voice in some ways?
CHERNOW: I didn't try to mimic his voice. I have to tell you, you'll appreciate this, Walter, as a biographer yourself. It's very rough on the
ego of biographer to be writing a book about a writer who's a greater writer than you are.
I think that having, you know, spent six years with Mark Twain's language and humor flowing through my veins, maybe it elevated my writing a little
bit. I like to think that. But thank you for the compliment. I was not in any way trying to adapt my writing to it.
Although, I must tell you that I felt writing this book my prose was a little bit looser and freer. When I was writing, let's say, about Ulysses
Grant, when you're writing about the Battle of Shyla, where there were 25,000 casualties in two days, you can't have a lot of fun with the prose.
You feel that you have to adopt the very kind of formal and solemn prose. Whereas in the case of Mark Twain, I think that it had a liberating effect
on me as a writer.
ISAACSON: He grew up in a slave holding family, in a slave holding state, and yet, in some ways, he writes, what is the greatest anti-slavery book in
the English language at least, you know, "Huckleberry Finn." Ironically, it still gets banned sometimes because it uses the N word.
Tell me about his evolution on race. When did he realize how abhorrent slavery was?
CHERNOW: He's born into a slave owning family, slave owning state. He said that in the world of his childhood, a universal stillness reigned about the
evil of slavery. He was taught in church not only that slavery was acceptable, that slavery was sacred and a peculiar pet of the deity that he
said.
So, when he's a teenager going through his letters, it's full of very crude racist language, exactly what you would expect from someone growing up in
that environment. But then when he -- what happens when he's in his early 30s, he woos and weds a young heiress from Upstate New York named Libby
Langdon. And the Langdon family brings much more than just wealth into his life because they had been abolitionists, active abolitionists on the
Underground Railroad. They knew Frederick Douglas. They had actually comforted and sheltered Frederick Douglass.
And so, Mark Twain's views begin to change and change quite radically. His friend, William Dean Howells said that Mark Twain was the most de-
southernized southerner that he met, because he really recreates himself as this northeastern liberal living in a mansion in Hartford, Connecticut.
But I try, Walter, very hard in the book, because there's been so much controversy about Twain and race, to show this extraordinary evolution of
his views from crude racism of his youth. And I think that he becomes the most enlightened and tolerant of all white authors in the late 19th
century.
He does things like he pays for the law school education or a brilliant young black law student named Warner T. McGuinn, and he writes a very
revealing letter to the dean of the law school in which he says -- explaining why he's paying for this black student. He says, we have grounds
the manhood out of them and the shame of it is ours, not theirs.
In commenting on this episode, William Dean Howells, his close friend, said that Mark Twain is a white man held himself personally responsible for what
the right white race had done to the black race. And in paying for this law student, he felt that he was making his own form of reparation to the black
race. And he actually used that word reparation.
[13:45:00]
So, I describe a lot of activities in the book that Twain did on behalf of the black community. He was a major promoter, for instance, of the Fisk
Jubilee Singers. Fisk was a Nashville school that had been set up to educate blacks born into slavery after the Civil War. And Twain adores this
group. He says their plaintiff melodies moved him like nothing else. He is a major force in promoting them and the schools.
He felt so strongly about the centrality of race and slavery. He said that the birthdate of American Liberty was not 1776, but 1865, the year that
slavery was outlawed. And he said -- mockingly he said, the Declaration of Independence should have said that all white men are created equal. So, he
becomes very advanced and very outspoken on this issue where his views are very benighted early on.
ISAACSON: That's the point. I mean, you talk about how he's very enlightened by the end on slavery, but there's an evolution that happens,
which makes the book interesting. And there's even an evolution, I think, from reading the book between writing "Tom Sawyer" and writing "Huckleberry
Finn." Because "Tom Sawyer" has sort of the celebration of the old Antebellum South was Huck Finn is a much different book.
CHERNOW: Yes, no, it's interesting because "Tom Sawyer," as we all know, is the sort of most beautiful PN two American, you know, boyhood. And
Thomas this incurable fantasist who's reading all these romantic novels. And his mind is full of moonshine. And it's this sunlit town, it's kind of
scrubbed clean of slavery.
He then returns to town of Hannibal, which calls St. Petersburg in Huck Finn. And far and away, the most likable notable noble figure in the book
is the Slave Jim. And Jim is drawn with great affection and dignity and pride. There are, as many people pointed out, certain minstrel affectations
that Twain has grafted onto that portrait. So, it's not a perfect portrait.
But as Huck and Jim go down the river, all these southern towns, full of southern whites that they're passing, the southern whites are, you know,
violent and crude and profane. And the figure who stands up as the most noble and humane figure is the one main black figure in the in the story,
Jim.
And I know, you know, Percival Everett has written this fantastic book called "James" in which he attends to give a much kind of fuller, richer
portrait of Jim/James. And I don't think that Mark Twain, as a white man, would've been capable of creating such a multidimensional figure at that
time, multidimensional as he does with Huck Finn.
So, what I like about James is I think that it's a corrective to Huck Finn, but it's not a debunking book. In fact, Percival Everett in an interview
last year was asked, what do you say to people who want to ban Huck Finn from the schools. And he says, I say they've never read the book, you know.
So, I think that even as he is correcting Mark Twain, he's been honoring Mark Twain at the same time.
And also, he is gotten an enormous number of people to go back and read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," which is great.
ISAACSON: One of the things that you have in the book quite a bit is this dark side of Mark Twain and the depression he had and how it -- and you say
some mysterious anger, some pervasive melancholy fired his humor. Do you think that the depression was sort of intertwined with why he was a
humorist?
CHERNOW: It's an excellent question, Walter. I think that the answer is yes. You know, the image that Americans have of Mark Twain is of a very
charming, congenial man standing up there in a white suit with a cigar spouting witticisms, and that was true of his public persona.
Under the surface he was kind of often very moody and temperamental. He himself said, I have a volatile temperament. And he said that my emotions
veer from extreme to extreme. And I think as I -- the deeper I got into the book, I felt that, in a way, he fit into a certain classic stereotype of
the funny man. The funny man who has said -- the clown who said under the surface, and I think that he was using his humor as a way of relieving all
of this kind of darkness and anger that he carried from his past. He was very haunted by his childhood poverty. His father had failed in business
five times.
[13:50:00]
I think he had the difficulty when he was a child. He had this very cold and distant father. He only said two things about his father, and they're
both revealing. He said, our relationship amounted to little more than an introduction. And then, he also said, my relationship with my father was
one of armed neutrality.
You know, so that there was a kind of stunted emotional growth there. And the darker the topic, the funnier Mark Twain was. I mean, there's so many
funny lines that Mark Twain had about his own death. Of course, the most famous one is when he said that the reports of his death were greatly
exaggerated. But there were plenty of these.
Another time, the Associated Press called him up and said, there are rumors you're dying. And he said, I would do no such thing at my time of life. So,
it's kind of the darker the material, the funnier he was. And I think that tells you something about why his humor has been so long lasting.
ISAACSON: Over the years, the different types of biographies of Mark Twain reflect sometimes the current period we're in. I know that, you know
Bernard DeVoto did one back in the Depression. And then, Justin Kaplan does Mr. Clemons and Mark Twain, which shows the schizophrenia of, you know, his
character invented in the writing he did. How do you see us looking at Twain through the lens of our current times?
CHERNOW: I think Walter, that maybe the most important thing right now is that Mark Twain was a fearless and courageous, and outspoken figure, that
he in many ways functioned as the conscience of American society. And I think that he had views on a number of topics that resonate today. Twain's
take patriotism. He referred to that laughable and grotesque word, patriotism, and it drove him crazy, the expression, my country, right or
wrong. He said, we should support our country all the time and our government when it deserves it.
He also -- this resonates today, he was very alarmed by the hyper- partisanship of his time. It got so bad he said that if the Democrats included the multiplication table in their electoral platform, the
Republicans would vote it down at the next election. Sound familiar?
And also, subject dear to us both, he was a fierce defender of the freedom of the press. He said that the irreverence of the press is a champion of
liberty and its surest defense. And so, I think this outspoken quality is very important at the moment because we're living at a moment where people
on both the left and the right feel very muzzled. They feel fearful of expressing, you know, their true opinions.
Mark Twain had that when he was younger, He was always afraid that if he told people what he really felt about politics and religion and other
things, that he would alienate this large readership. But what happens as he gets older, he lets it rip. And suddenly, all of these very strong and
radical views begin to emerge.
ISAACSON: I once had an editor when I was writing who wrote in the margins, all things in good time, and she was fanatic. It was Alice Mayhew,
of making sure you stuck to a chronology. How important is chronology in showing the growth of a person you have as a biography subject?
CHERNOW: You know, chronology is absolutely, you know, the backbone of the book. And you have to kind of periodically, you know, veer off into
thematic stuff and, you know, giving a background. But I feel that the chronology not only gives a kind of propulsive, you know, force to the
book, but I want to show this person, as it were not just being Mark Twain, but becoming Mark Twain. I want to show him, you know, unfolding.
And he is someone who travels so far from his roots. He is this barefoot boy from Hannibal. He ends up being the most worldly and well-traveled
American author. We tend to think of him as the quintessential American. He spent 11 years outside of the United States. So, he is actually the most
cosmopolitan figure among American writers.
But for me, you know, the joy is kind of lining everything up chronologically so that you can see the changes taking place, and sometimes
they're almost imperceptible from page to page until you then sort of look back, you know, a chapter or look back 10 chapters and you see just how
much this person has grown. And if it's an interesting figure and an important figure, this person ends up being something that would've been
almost unimaginable earlier in the life.
ISAACSON: Ron Chernow, thank you so much for joining us.
CHERNOW: It's been a great pleasure, Walter. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, this the hour for love. We must not close ourselves off in our small groups. Those rewards of unity from Pope Leo as
he celebrated his inaugural mass this weekend, attended by leaders and dignitaries from all over the world.
And just look at this touching moment, Pope Leo hugging his brother and welcoming him to mass. It's a nice moment there. Hopefully, those in power
will hear and act upon his message of love and unity.
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
