Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink; Interview with Son of David Frost and "David Frost VS" Producer and Creator Wilfred Frost. Aired 1:22-2p ET

Aired May 21, 2025 - 13:22   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:22:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here`s what`s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIDGET BRINK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Peace at any cost is not peace at all. It`s appeasement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Why a Trump appointee resigned over his foreign policy. Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink joins me on whether Kyiv can get a

fair peace deal.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID D. FROST: Why did you approve a plan that was clearly illegal?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- David Frost versus well, everyone, from Richard Nixon to Elton John. A new series delves into his most entertaining and explosive

interviews. I speak to his son and show producer Wilfred Frost.

Also, ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. GOV. MITCH DANIELS (R-IN): I want to see universities a rebuild, as I say, a rapport and trust with the American public.

AMANPOUR: -- as Trump targets universities, former GOP Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels tells Walter Isaacson colleges must atone.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I`m Christiane Amanpour in London.

And we begin in Ukraine. Russia continues to pound the country with drone attacks overnight, and this comes just hours after Russian President

Vladimir Putin spoke to his American counterpart, Donald Trump, clearly demonstrating no immediate end in sight to the hostilities.

So, what did come of their conversation? There was no threat of new sanctions on Russia and no demand for a ceasefire. And today, Putin made

his first visit to Kursk since Moscow recaptured the region from Ukrainian forces.

For one veteran American diplomat, this current order of business isn`t acceptable anymore. Last month, Bridget Brink resigned her post in protest

over the mark change of policy towards Russia and Ukraine, and she joined me from Washington, D.C. to explain why it matters for America to ensure

that Ukraine doesn`t lose and Russia doesn`t win the war it started.

Ambassador Bridget Brink, welcome to the program.

BRIDGET BRINK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Thanks so much, Christiane, for having me on.

AMANPOUR: The last time we spoke was when I was in Kyiv, you were in Kyiv as ambassador. And now, you have resigned. You resigned as an active

ambassador from Ukraine. Tell me why.

BRINK: Well, first I`ll start with a little context. So, for three years I served in Ukraine while Russia launched thousands of missiles and drones

that killed men, women, and children in their homes, in apartments, on playgrounds, in churches that tried to take the light, heat, and power out

for a country of 40 million people over three Ukrainian winters and that committed atrocities and war crimes like we haven`t seen since World War

II.

[13:25:00]

I fully agree that the war needs to end, but the policy since the beginning of the administration has been to put pressure on Ukraine as the victim

rather than on Russia as the aggressor. And peace at any cost is not peace at all. It`s appeasement. And we all know from history that appeasing

aggressors only leads to more war.

AMANPOUR: It must have taken though more than just that to have a career foreign service diplomat as you are, who`s served five different

administrations of all different -- of both political parties to throw in the towel. I mean, tell me about -- put that in context in terms of the

morality that you summoned, the integrity, whatever it is that caused you to make that decision.

BRINK: Well, I have been very proud to serve five presidents and for 28 years as a career diplomat. And I took a decision, this decision to resign.

It was not a quick hasty decision, but one that I took over the course of the first three months of the administration.

And it started -- the first sign was the Oval Office meeting, which was horrifying. But that there were other signs as well, including the

withdrawal of security assistance and intelligence assistance, which was put back on. But that was a temporary withdrawal that I did disagree with.

In addition to that, there was a change in language in discussion about the war. Instead of talking about Russia`s war of aggression in Ukraine, it was

the Russia-Ukraine war.

I believe that the only way to accomplish the goals of the administration of the president to end the war is to call out the aggressor and put

pressure on the aggressor, Russia, to come to the table and to end the war that he started.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you something about the Oval Office meeting, which obviously was that, you know, debacle in which J. D. Vance and others

started to basically gang up against Zelenskyy, at least that`s what it looked like. But Zelenskyy himself could be said not to have comported

himself in the most advantageous way.

Did you advise him how to behave with President Trump in the Oval Office? Did anybody suggests that he might get provoked and for him to, you know,

stay calm and maybe even speak in his own language so that he was in full control of the conversation?

BRINK: I mean, certainly, in my position as the ambassador to Ukraine, and at that time as the president`s representative I did offer advice as to how

to achieve our mutual goals. And for us, on the U.S. side, was to end the war. For the Ukrainians, was to keep us supporting Ukraine.

But I think the main issue at play right now is what happens next and where do we go from here? There`s been some important conversations that have

happened. But I think it`s very important that we stick with supporting Ukraine in ways that will help to end the war as quickly as possible.

AMANPOUR: And I`m going to ask you about those details. because there was this -- I mean, now people are talking about it as just a theatrical

essential quasi sham of talks that were held in Turkey over the last weekend.

But I want to ask you, after the Oval Office. You sent out a tweet, both in English and in Ukrainian, which said, thank you POTUS for standing up for

America in a way that no president has ever had the courage to do before. Thank you for putting America First. America is with you.

It was a retweet. But nonetheless, why did you do that? It goes completely against your views and your -- you know, your views as of how Ukraine

should be treated.

BRINK: As an American diplomat and certainly as the president`s representative, our job and duty is to reflect the policy of the United

States. That is part of our professional code. It`s what we swear to do when we join the foreign service. I am not able to have my own separate

foreign policy, but I can say that times like that were times that was a strong sign to me that I would have to resign, because I couldn`t

compromise my values and I couldn`t do something, which is a completely unprofessional thing, which is to speak out in ways against the

administration.

AMANPOUR: Did you ever, before you resigned, try to have any conversation with your bosses? I assume -- I mean, in this case, Secretary of State

Rubio. He`s the ultimate boss in the foreign policy strand.

BRINK: I mean, of course. Part of our job is not just to execute foreign policy, but it`s to provide advice to the leadership. So, that is part of

our internal operations and discussion, and this is a core part of what the career of Foreign Service does.

[13:30:00]

AMANPOUR: Let`s go back to what we first started talking about, and that is the substance of what`s going to happen from now. So, in your view, the

Turkey talks, did they achieve anything?

BRINK: I think that Putin is stringing us along, and I think we`ve seen that over a number of different meetings and events. This is the modus

operandi of Russia to say one thing and to do another, and I think this is why it`s really important to call a spade to spade and to put more pressure

on Russia together with partners and allies in Europe.

AMANPOUR: Why do you think they`re not doing that? For instance, the readout of the call was that it was very pleasant. President Putin or from

the Kremlin, I think came the description that neither Putin nor Trump wanted to even hang up and say goodbye to each other. They were having such

a good time. There was no mention of a ceasefire apparently, and there was no move towards sanctions, even though the U.S. and Europe had floated both

those things, ceasefire and sanctions if Putin didn`t agree.

Why do you think this is still the White House at least its public position towards Russia?

BRINK: Well, I think Putin`s goal is pretty clear. He wants to subjugate Ukraine, divide Europe and weaken us, and he wants to keep us on side. So,

he clearly is going to do everything possible to make it seem like we can work together and potentially agree to things like starting negotiations to

end the war, but then to slow roll those negotiations or to create demands that are completely unacceptable on basic principles and values, not just

to Ukraine, but to the United States, like allowing borders to be changed by force and recognizing those actions.

So, I can`t explain why exactly we are doing what we are doing. I can just say that based on my experience and very long experience dealing in this

part of the world with the Russians, is that you have to be very clear on what your red lines are. You have to make sure that you don`t give

concessions in advance. And once agreements are made, they have to be verified. It`s really a trust but verify situation. And I think that`s my

advice when dealing with the Russians, especially on issues like this.

AMANPOUR: And that, I mean, by virtue of what you`re saying, clearly that wasn`t the case. There was no trust but verify. And I think people think

there were too many concessions given. You know, Secretary Rubio now says that threatening to impose more sanctions on Russia could just cause Moscow

to stop talking about ending the Ukraine war.

BRINK: I disagree with that. I think pulling your punches with Russia is exactly what allows Putin to extend the war and to create more demands. So,

I think a clear firm principled stand is the best way to counter Russian aggression and that done together with partners and allies. So, I don`t

agree that we should be pulling our punches in calling out who started this war, calling out the fact that Russia continues to this day to send

missiles and drones to Ukraine, including the night before the call. There were 273 drones launched at Ukraine. That`s the largest number since the

beginning of the war. And including just overnight, another 73 drones were launched at Ukraine. I think to get to the point of an end of the war

that`s in our interest, we have to be clear and principled.

AMANPOUR: Ambassador, we`ve watched President Trump sort of vacillate in his public demeanor towards Putin. Sometimes he appears to be offering

carrots, they say to sweeten the pie, in other words, to bring him into talks rather than just alienating him from the beginning. Are others say

that, you know, he really does believe the Russian narrative. But what he`s done has changed his tone. There was the Oval Office tone, then there was

the Vatican tone when he looked to be much more listening to Zelenskyy. Then there was the Vladimir stop tone, when Putin had sent in a whole

barrage of missiles and drones that killed a load of civilians.

What do you -- and now, he says, nothing will change until I meet Putin. What do you think is going to happen next?

BRINK: Well, I think to achieve the goal of ending the war, what we need to do as an administration, and my advice would be to President Trump, is

to put more sanctions on immediately. The Europeans have just increased sanctions, especially on areas of the energy sector. It`s the oil. The sale

of oil. That is a big part of fueling the war machine. We have done a little bit of that under the previous administration, but we could do much

more.

Also, there are other types of sanctions in the banking sector and other things that we could do that could put more pressure on Russia to bring

Putin seriously to the table.

[13:35:00]

I also think we need to get at the $300 billion, which is Russian sovereign assets that are mostly for frozen in Europe, and use those to help Ukraine

defend itself, and that can be used to buy weapons in the United States that could replenish our own defense industrial base, but also help Ukraine

be a stronger country against Russia.

AMANPOUR: Do you think the previous administration, which after all started and gathered all of NATO and kept a unified front, should have used

its time to provide more weapons in a more timely way?

BRINK: Well, I lived through that period and I think history is going to review and show, what -- how -- what all of us did, what the United States

did, what Europe did, what the Ukrainians did, and the result of that. My focus in this moment is to look forward and to try to make the case that

how this war ends is really important to the United States.

AMANPOUR: You`re definitely dodging that question, because a lot of people believe that how this war ends could have been determined by the amount of

-- you know, of aid and assistance in a more timely manner. So, you are OK with the way that went?

BRINK: I think this is something we`ll have to review in the course of time, and I also think it`s what we did, it`s also what others did. And I

think it`s easy to Monday morning quarterback --

AMANPOUR: Except, it`s not --

BRINK: -- what happened over those three years.

AMANPOUR: Right. But it`s not just --

BRINK: But I don`t think it changes what happens next.

AMANPOUR: Well, maybe, maybe not.

BRINK: What happens next has --

AMANPOUR: Maybe, maybe not. I want to ask you this because I`ve been speaking to a Russian official who told me like they do publicly, that they

do believe that they`re winning. That they believe that -- and they know, they say despite the casualties, which are huge, that they have pretty much

an endless pot of recruits because they pay them and we know that, the families, you know, they make their peace with that deal. They get money

every time one of theirs goes to the front.

They -- and they have said publicly, they have gained several kilometers per day for the last, you know, important period of time on the frontline

into Ukraine. So, it does actually matter which weapons and how the Ukrainians were helped when they could have been helped. because we all

knew that the Trump administration didn`t want to continue this help.

So, what do you think and what do you know in terms of your latest intelligence readings before you resigned, I suppose, on where the Russians

are headed and can they win this war?

BRINK: I think the Russians, of course, are going to tell us that they think they`re winning. I do think Putin is struggling, the economy is

struggling, and that`s why we should double down on efforts to make it harder to wage this war on efforts that will undercut the war machine that

Putin has. He does have soldiers, but he is paying a lot of money for these soldiers and a lot of death benefits for these soldiers. So, it`s a very

expensive proposition for him and it`s very hard on his economy.

But maybe what I would say, I mean, for the American people, just to say why it matters what we do from here and why it matters to America. And

there are a number of reasons, foreign policy reasons and economic reasons. But first, Putin won`t stop this aggression. And if he thinks, and if he

does, if he is successful in changing borders by force and being legitimized for doing that, he will continue, I`m sure of that based on my

decades of experience in the region. It also sends a terrible signal to China and others around the world that will be difficult for us to

counteract. It will have global repercussions if we see this end in a way where Putin is successful.

And third, the E.U. is our largest trading partner. It`s a $1.6 trillion of trade, which fuels 16 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. This is

very important to the United States, and Putin`s goal is to disrupt this relationship and to divide Europe, and to divide Europe from us.

And then, I think there`s an even more important or equally important issue of who we are as a nation and what we stand for. And throughout my career,

I have been very proud to serve as a U.S. diplomat under five presidents where we promoted freedom and we supported democracies around the world.

This is who we are. And in America that leads in this way is a strong America with allies and partners, and this is the America we need to

preserve and protect.

AMANPOUR: You mentioned Putin trying to divide Europe from the USA. He`s doing a pretty good job that leads -- that`s a very, very difficult

relationship right now. I want to ask you finally, do you think there is anybody in Trump`s inner circle or in his cabinet that has Ukraine`s back?

[13:40:00]

BRINK: I mean, I think -- well, all of us, I can speak only for myself as a former official, is that what we care about is American interests. We

serve American interests. In this case, I think they are the same as Ukraine`s interest to remain a free country, to deter Russia, to send the

right signal to China. That`s what`s in our interest. That`s what we are focused on.

I do believe that ending the war is also in America`s interest, but how it ends is important to us. It`s important to us on a political level and on

an economic level, and on a moral principled level. It`s important to who we are as Americans.

AMANPOUR: Ambassador Bridget Brink, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

BRINK: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And later in the program, a new documentary reflecting on the life and career of David Frost, the broadcaster known for his remarkable

interrogation of President Nixon. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Now, we turn to the man behind one of the most important interviews in history, David Frost`s marathon interrogation of former U.S.

President Richard Nixon finally revealed that man in his own words after the Watergate crisis, forced him to resign the highest office in the land.

It was an encounter so electric and pivotal that it`s been turned into plays, films, and TV shows.

But Frost has had plenty of other landmark interviews with a huge array of world leaders and cultural figures. Now, a new documentary series explores

some of the most impactful. Here`s a clip from the trailer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He got people to talk because he inspired trust.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he`s just charm personified, but underneath is that steel.

DAVID D. FROST: Do you feel now optimistic?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m always optimistic.

AMANPOUR: You have to talk to both sides.

D. FROST: You`re making the situation worse, not better.

WILFRED FROST, SON OF DAVID FROST AND PRODUCER AND CREATOR, "DAVID FROST VS": The single best interview dad ever did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They we`re looking for confession.

D. FROST: Why did you approve a plan that was clearly illegal?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The series is produced by Frost`s son, Wilfred Frost, himself, an anchor for Sky News in the U.K., and he`s joining me here in the London

studio. Welcome.

W. FROST: Christiane, thank you so much for having me. I`m thrilled to be here.

AMANPOUR: And somebody might have noticed my little face flashing by because you interviewed me for the episode on the Middle East.

W. FROST: A star turn you gave us.

AMANPOUR: And I was thrilled because it`s unbelievable and we`re going to talk about this. So, when your dad died in 2013 and he was given an amazing

sendoff, and I was there in Westminster Abbey, right? I mean, it was incredible. All the great and the good came. It was amazing. Then you

notice that he had an archive and there --

W. FROST: It hadn`t completely passed me by when he was alive.

AMANPOUR: Caves.

W. FROST: Yes.

AMANPOUR: But did you know all the stuff was there?

W. FROST: No, I didn`t. And do you know what, I think my brothers and I reflected on this afterwards, is that because he`s just dad, we didn`t

press him on his career every day at home. And this process of making this series is my way of making up for that a little bit.

But no, I mean, in terms of the archive itself, he had storage depots, two in London, one in New Jersey, one in Cleveland, and two in L.A. And you can

imagine the treasure trove there of stuff. And then I bought back rights from other places too.

AMANPOUR: Did you? That was -- yes. That must have been an intense process. I mean, I`m reading here 10,000 interviews.

W. FROST: Over 10,000 interviews that dad did over the course of 50 years, not just transatlantically in two countries, but really around the world. I

was watching the press conference, reminded of his three interviews with Mandela as well, which didn`t make the cut of the series.

[13:45:00]

AMANPOUR: Yes.

W. FROST: Which shows what we had to play with.

AMANPOUR: So, that`s interesting because Mandela is a gigantic figure of history, and as we speak, President Trump has been holding Mandela`s

lieutenant, basically Cyril Ramaphosa, who`s now president.

W. FROST: Who we also interviewed.

AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. In a terrible ambush with all sorts of unproven, you know, accusations about what`s going on in South Africa. What did you --

how did you choose which ones to highlight? Because there`s six episodes.

W. FROST: Six episodes, and there`s -- I`d say there`s two themes, Christiane, overall that we were sort of led by. The first is where dad had

a particularly unique front row seat. So, Nixon, obviously. The Beatles, episode one. He did 16 interviews with the Beatles, and they were both part

of that sort of `60s birth of cool British invasion of America. Elton, he did 10 interviews. With the Middle East, as I`m sure we`ll discuss. For 50

years he covered the conflict in quite a unique way and talked to both sides.

The second theme was areas that we thought would resonate today, that people would think, gosh, this isn`t just a boring archive show, it`s

conversations that we`re still having today. And you know, the Middle East, for example, that episode was going to be the Cold War revisited. And we

pivoted it to the Middle East.

AMANPOUR: I don`t know which one to go. I think I`m going to go with Nixon first because that is what he is -- and like the queen, Nixon -- Frost has

spawned all sorts of -- you know, of, as I said, TV show, the film, theaters, this and that. Let`s play this bit of the interview from 1977.

E (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: There are some actions that have to be covert. By covert -- let me put it this way or in this case legal. Well,

let me say that it is legal, in my view.

D. FROST: So, what, in a sense you`re saying is that there are certain situations, and the Houston plan or that part of it was one of them, where

the president can decide that it`s in the best interest of the nation or something, and do something illegal?

NIXON: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

D. FROST: By definition?

NIXON: Exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I mean, seriously, that phrase that sentence, that piece of conviction from Richard Nixon, I mean, stands out in history. And now, it`s

been, you know, President Trump says the same thing. And that`s how he managed to, you know, dodge quite a lot of the criminal cases and things.

W. FROST: Well, we mentioned, you know, picking episodes that I think we were always going to do in Nixon episode, but picking episodes that would

resonate. And on this one, I couldn`t quite believe over the course of the last year, as you know, we were polishing up the episodes, how much modern

events came towards the episode and made it even more relevant than I could have imagined.

Of course, with that episode, you`d say 80 percent of it feels very now. At the end, the last 20 percent, he acknowledges wrongdoing. I don`t think I`m

spoiling the punchline of that story.

AMANPOUR: No, no.

W. FROST: You know, acknowledges wrong doing and apologizes. So, you know, people can make their own conclusions as to whether that`s likely today or

not. The thing I just say about that line in particular, it wasn`t, in fact, relating to Watergate. They were talking about the Houston plan. And

it`s --

AMANPOUR: Which was?

W. FROST: The Houston plan was a plan that Nixon put into action and it allowed burglary, essentially and Intelligence Community to do what they

wanted to do in order to get the evidence to convict and prove people otherwise, even if they hadn`t got warrants. I mean, that`s the sort of

shorthand of it.

But the interesting thing about in the interview as it unfolded is the first third of the interview hadn`t gone that well for dad.

AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you because it was a marathon thing. And you do see his producers kind of thinking, dude, you`re just too friendly.

W. FROST: Yes. And, you know, dad on top of that, has staked his entire career on this interview. He`d mortgaged his whole existence to fund it and

paid Nixon $600,000.

AMANPOUR: Why? You know, checkbook journalism is not really allowed.

W. FROST: Well, all the networks, by the way, the three U.S. networks did bid as well, but dad outbid them. So, it`s a bit rich. If they said, oh,

well this is checkbook journalism. But you know, we look back on it, had he not done that, had he not secured 28 hours we would never have got that

moment. And you know, I think -- Bob Woodward is in the episode as well, talks very warmly of the moment that the apology came. And I remember --

AMANPOUR: Of course, Woodward is the one with Bernstein who broke the Watergate.

W. FROST: Who uncovered the Watergate story.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

W. FROST: And I remember meeting the two of them together at the first White House Correspondents` Dinner when Trump was president and he didn`t

show up and they were the keynotes. And Bob said to me afterwards, what your father did with those interviews was remarkable.

And I think sometimes people outside of those two try and frame this as the reporters broke the story and dad charmed it out of him and paid for it.

But they are all on the same team. They`re all on the same page as Bob is clear in the episode.

[13:50:00]

And I see this not as one part of the journalistic community against the other, this is the journalistic community coming together to finish the

job. And I don`t think that Woodward or Bernstein or Wallace or Cronkite would have got that final apology. Nor by the way, did dad have anything to

do with breaking the Watergate story together, the community delivered.

AMANPOUR: And interestingly, his style was not one of a pit bull. He wasn`t Mike Wallace, right? And Clinton, in one of your episodes, says

that, you know, it was like going and having a conversation with somebody over coffee. He -- did he cultivate that or was that really him?

W. FROST: I think that it dad didn`t seek confrontation for the sake of it. Though, by the way, in the Nixon episode, you do see David Frost the

interrogator for a portion of it, and he would switch when he needed to. But I think that dad, you know, today, if you see people kind of to create

that 30-second clip for Twitter, making a confrontation, to say that he would criticize that. But no, I think dad was just unapologetically himself

and that was a very warm and friendly person.

And I think if there`s one thing above all else that made him so good at what he did, he just was fascinated by people. Anybody, my friends, people

on the street, famous people. And I don`t think you can fake that interest. And Clinton kind of alluded to that as well in episode six.

AMANPOUR: You know, you say you didn`t ask him enough about all this stuff. You didn`t interrogate him. He was just dad to you. Do you regret

now that you have this career that maybe you missed some tricks, maybe you could have had a masterclass?

W. FROST: Well, I --

AMANPOUR: Maybe you did.

W. FROST: I think I probably did. Yes. I think, you know, look I have some interview techniques perhaps that are similar to dad, but it`s not because

of dad. I think it`s just coincidental. You know, I was lucky enough to live next to him around him for 30 years. And of course, you pick up some

traits, particularly if you look up to him as I did. But I think it`s important in our business to be yourself. And that`s what I try and do.

AMANPOUR: Yes. I think you`re absolutely right. And he was himself and he was very convivial. And you can see that the interviewees, you know, not

quite sure. I mean, is he going to go this way? Is he going to go that way? And there`s a lot of laughter in a lot of his conversations.

Now, you talked about Elton John, the second episode focuses on his interview in 1991. That`s the second episode of the next three that are

coming out.

W. FROST: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes. because the first three were a month or so ago. He had just come out of rehab following years of addiction. So, let`s watch this clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELTON JOHN, BRITISH SINGER-SONGWRITER: You`ve known me a long time. You`ve seen me you`ve seen me when I`ve been happy. You`ve seen me when I`ve been

troubled. You`ve seen me when I`ve been oblivious and on another planet, probably. But that`s the first time I`ve had peace of mind. It shows just

the way -- I know it. I just feel it.

D. FROST: Everybody feels it, right? I think you look 10 years younger, I sense you more at peace than I`ve ever seen you before too. More at peace.

JOHN: Yes, I think that`s the -- there`s no inward battle going on anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: It`s a short clip. But you`ve said that that interview is, you think, one of the best your dad ever did.

W. FROST: Yes. So, dad did 10 with Elton. That was sort of in the middle of the 10, 1991. As you said, just fresh out of coming out of rehab. And,

you know, Elton today talks bravely about coming over his addiction, but that was really raw in the moment, and you`ll never get that again as sort

of central a moment in his life that it was, and it`s an hour and 15 minutes, that recording. By the way, only an hour initially went out on PBS

as it happens.

And so, there`s parts of it that have never been seen before. And it`s two friends really opening up. And somebody used this analogy, which is that at

times, and I think this is like that, sometimes as if people came into dad`s confessional booth. He was very religious, dad. He wasn`t Catholic.

He was --

AMANPOUR: Really?

W. FROST: Yes. He was the son of a Methodist minister and prayed every single night. And I think there is that element to some of the interviews

he did, particularly with big stars, not when it`s holding a politician to account so much, where they just came and sort of spilled their soul

because they thought they were talking to a friend not in front of the cameras.

AMANPOUR: Or confess them.

W. FROST: Yes, exactly. And you know, the amazing thing about the Elton John episode is we have all of those moments where Elton was at his rawest

or at his most successful that you get all of the energy and the depth that you`d want there. Plus, Elton today, and we sat down with Elton for 45

minutes and he`s essentially the narrator of that episode.

So, I think together it`s quite a powerful aspect and you know, the contributors we got throughout were amazing. And you know, obviously as I

said already, it was such a treat to have you in the Middle East episode. But you know, with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. And I think that caliber,

that trio captures, you know, allows us to then contextualize Dayan and Arafat and Rabin and Netanyahu and make it much more powerful.

AMANPOUR: Yes, and we`re going to get to that because one of the things, your father -- and I think I said that in the thing, because I believe it

too, a journalist has to talk to all sides. You can`t take other people`s politics on board and say, oh, no, I`m only going to talk to one side or

the other. And of course, that`s not really happening in this current Middle East War.

[13:55:00]

You don`t see any of the Palestinians and Hamas and all the rest of it. But he spoke at a time when it was equally awful to talk to a Palestinian. He

spoke -- he got the first interview, I think, with Yasser Arafat. He spoke to Moshe Dayan, who`s minister of defense right after the 1967 war when

they took back the West Bank and they battled off an Arab invasion. Here is that soundbite with Moshe Dayan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

D. FROST: Are there in fact, though, you think things that the Arabs could teach the Jews? I mean, do the Arabs have qualities you admire?

MOSHE DAYAN, FORMER ISRAELI COMMANDER AND MINISTER OF DEFENSE: I do believe that we can live together with the Arabs and that they can live

together with us. I think it`s a matter that can be settled. They don`t like the fact that in Israel or in Palestine, a Jewish State was here --

built here and established here. But I don`t think there`s anything basic personal that they would deny them living together with us in any good and

close friendship.

D. FROST: In a sense, do you feel the Arabs have a case for feeling that, well, perhaps even that the --

DAYAN: I feel that if I were an Arab, I probably would`ve thought the same way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I can`t remember, but I think he asked Moshe Dayan if you would meet with the PLO leader, with Yasser Arafat.

W. FROST: Well, he asked Arafat.

AMANPOUR: He asked Arafat.

W. FROST: Yes, yes.

AMANPOUR: But I wonder if it was in response to it. Because he was saying some, you know, things where they could live together. And Arafat said,

because I wrote the notes, he said, no, I would never meet Dayan. He would shoot me.

W. FROST: Yes, he did. You know, I think he was talking about (INAUDIBLE) in that moment.

AMANPOUR: Was he?

W. FROST: Yes. But the thing that`s striking about the Dayan interview is that revelation of almost conciliatory tone from Israel`s, you know,

victorious military leader after the six-day war. And by the way, that was Dayan`s first interview after the six-day war to a man in his 20s. How dad

booked these interviews, I don`t know.

AMANPOUR: I know.

W. FROST: Unbelievable.

AMANPOUR: It`s extraordinary. And then 20 odd years later, after the Oslo Peace Process, he interviewed then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. And I,

again, wrote notes and I just think it`s so incredible because to Rabin said, you know, he had a -- he figured there was a bit of a partner for

peace in the Oslo things, but then he said, it also brought me the realization, some say too late that, if I want a partner I have to turn to

the PLO. If I wait two years, Hamas will be stronger than the PLO. This was in 1993. How prescient was that?

W. FROST: Unbelievable. And on top of that, just to say you`ve got talk to both sides, but can you bring them together? And dad had Rabin and Arafat

on the same show in December 1993, a couple of months after the Oslo Accords, which is striking.

You know, throughout dad`s career and life at home, I`d heard people ask him, you know, who had the biggest impact on you? And more often than not I

heard him say RFK, who he interviewed in `68, just a month or so before he was assassinated.

In an interview with Parky, Michael Parkinson in 2011, he actually said two people. He said, RFK and Yitzhak Rabin. And I`d never heard that before.

But hearing dad then talk as he did, and we use a little clip of it in the episode, in such high regard for this man just transform my own thinking of

him.

And I think that there`s two things that really come out of the Middle East episode. One is someone my age, 39 and younger, it`s amazing to be struck

by how close we were to peace in the `90s. You know, I think today you think that that must have been impossible, but we really were close and it

sort of adds to the tragedy.

But the second thing is the hero of the story, and Clinton certainly reflects on this. He said he cried the day he heard Rabin died. But is --

Yitzhak Rabin. And Clinton reflects on that, on one of the most remarkable lines I think I`ve ever heard, which Rabin said to him, which was, you

don`t make peace with your friends. You make peace and then you make friends. And that line, I think, is just really striking.

AMANPOUR: And we`re out of time. But I think one of the wonderful things you said, he was a religious man. You know, he had these moral things that

he would talk about. He says, you know, moral persuasion is better than force. You have to create a context in which people feel like taking their

coat off.

W. FROST: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: And it`s really revealed in this series. Excellent. How do you feel now that it`s all out there?

W. FROST: I am so pleased because the feedback`s been so great. But you mentioned his memorial service in Westminster Abbey six months after he

died. I remember my brothers and I afterwards saying, dad would`ve loved this. And I think he`d loved this series, and that to me is job done.

AMANPOUR: You`ve made him proud.

W. FROST: Well, that`s the end.

AMANPOUR: And it`s so entertaining as well as historically amazing.

W. FROST: Well, thank you for being in it.

AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. Thank you, Wilfred, for doing it. It`s great.

And finally, she was the talk of the town during movie awards season, actress Fernanda Torres became a source of Brazilian pride after winning a

Golden Globe for her role in, "I`m Still Here." And just last night she, along with Director Walter Salles, received the order of cultural merit

from President Lula, who emphasized the importance of culture in defending democracy. When I interviewed Fernanda and Walter earlier this year, they

told me why they think their film about life under authoritarian rule resonated so widely.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FERNANDA TORRES, ACTOR: All kinds of people came to the movie theaters. So, you have right wings, left wings, center, progressives, all. And it was

like, around this family, the private family, we all could come to a sense that a dictatorial regime is not acceptable. And that was a miracle of this

movie.

WALTER SALLES, DIRECTOR: It took us seven years because during four years, the country steered to the extreme right, and we would have never had the

possibility to shoot the film during that period. Therefore, the film is the product of the return of democracy of Brazil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And noting his country`s longest period of democracy, President Lula ended the award ceremony invoking the name of the film, "We are still

here, alert and stronger than ever."

And that is 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 for watching and goodbye from London.

[14:00:00]

END