Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with The Financial Times Whitehall Editor Lucy Fisher; Interview with Former British National Security Adviser and British House of Lords Member Peter Ricketts; Interview with Ukrainian Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk; Interview with Tallahassee Police Department Former Police Officer and University of South Carolina Professor of Law Seth Stoughton. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 20, 2026 - 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)

ANDY BURNHAM, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again. The moment we bring back hope.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Britain has yet another new prime minister. Can Andy Burnham bring fresh energy to U.K. politics? I speak to Lucy Fisher who covers

British government for the Financial Times and former U.K. national security adviser Peter Ricketts.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): It is very important that our partners understand what is happening and that we need

air defense missiles to protect lives literally every single day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- a plea for support from Volodymyr Zelenskyy amidst controversy in Kyiv as his government undergoes a major overhaul. Ukrainian

journalist, Nataliya Gumenyuk, joins me with the latest politics and war news.

And --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SETH STOUGHTON, FORMER POLICE OFFICER, TALLAHASSEE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA: We see really problematic

approaches from ICE officers in the way that they are stopping cars, in the way that they're interacting with motorists, in the way that they're

communicating with people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- is ICE making U.S. streets more or less dangerous? Michel Martin speaks with former police officer Seth Stoughton who teaches

excellence in policing at the University of South Carolina.

Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianca Rodrigo in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Today the United Kingdom gets its seventh prime minister in just 10 years as Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester, enters number 10. Speaking

without notes or a lectern, Burnham promised Britain a fresh start.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY BURNHAM, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Britain needs to show the world that we can regain our stability once again. And that is our challenge to make

politics work, to make it work better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The new prime minister proposes an ambitious reset, sending power out of Downing Street, making life's essentials more affordable and

re-industrializing Britain. But the list for changes for Burnham is long, from high energy costs to tax burden, to the task of placating America's

mercurial president, Donald Trump.

There's no doubt Burnham is a stronger communicator than Keir Starmer, but questions persist about whether he is decisive enough to meet the

challenges of office.

For more on all of this, let's bring in Lucy Fisher, who is Whitehall editor for the Financial Times. Lucy, welcome to the program. So, here we

have a prime minister entering office with no general election, no contested vote. He was backed by 95 percent of labor MPs. He addressed sort

of the unconventional way he's entering office earlier today. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURNHAM: I know people at home are fed up with politics. I hear you. And I want to be honest with you. We have not been good enough and we need to be

better. We will be. We will make this moment a circuit breaker for Britain. Bringing forward the biggest changes in the last 40 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Does Burnham actually have a mandate with the British public to follow through on these changes that he's promising?

LUCY FISHER, WHITEHALL EDITOR, THE FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, I think it's a very difficult tightrope that Andy Burnham has to walk, because on the one

hand, he is an unelected prime minister. What political scientists in the U.K. now call takeover prime ministers. It's not unusual. In fact, a

majority of the past 20 prime ministers in the U.K. have been these midterm takeover prime ministers who've come in without their own general election.

But it does mean that he is bound by a manifesto that he himself did not put forward.

And on the one hand, he's had to repeatedly promise that he will stick to that manifesto and he will stick to the fiscal rules laid out by the

previous administration, while on the other hand, trying to present himself as this change maker and who will answer the public's call for change and

who want to see, you know, radical reforms coming in quickly. So, that's going to be difficult for him to achieve.

[13:05:00]

GOLODRYGA: And some of those changes will come by way of new cabinet appointments. How can he successfully navigate that tightrope with

addressing concerns with both the right and left sectors of the party?

FISHER: Well, you know, we're waiting with bated breath here in Westminster for the first cabinet appointments of the major roles to be

announced. His chancellor, his foreign secretary, his home secretary. What we have heard so far this afternoon is all those ministers from the Starmer

administration who have been axed.

And it is striking that there is a whole slew now of Starmer loyalists who have been forced out, but has raised some eyebrows here. He hasn't decided

to keep on some of Starmer's key conciliaries to show that he wants a broad church. There's also eyebrows raised at the number of southern MPs who've

been sacked from the cabinet.

Again, you know, he's made no secret of the fact, you know, he's from the north, he's a Manchester region MP and wants to sort of rebalance the

geographical emphasis in the country. However, there is a risk in doing that, that southern MPs, particularly those representing London and the

southeast, which traditionally has been the economic engine of the U.K., feel, you know, their noses have been put out of joint by the choices he's

made in this cabinet.

GOLODRYGA: Kemi Badenoch has challenged him to, quote, "face a proper press conference." So, far, he's given interviews to Gary Lineker, the LBC

and a Reddit Q&A. How long can a prime minister actually govern without avoiding or while avoiding the typical type of interviews that prime

ministers give?

FISHER: Well, I think possibly not long, not least as in the U.K. You know, it is the print newspapers and the broadcast media that still very

much dominate the narrative here. On top of that, I would note that there has been a lot of criticism for trying to avoid the mainstream media.

But he did, within an hour of finishing his first speech as prime minister on Downing Street, invite in the political editors of Westminster for a 10-

minute briefing in the Rose Garden in Downing Street to talk about, you know, his priorities and direction for his government. He gave some fresh

news line to those journalists, including making clear he wants to exploit flexibility in the fiscal rules. Also, giving a bit of a hint, he might

introduce a new higher rate of income tax for the highest earners.

So, already, while he's wanting to sort of look modern and show his authenticity on social media with lots of reels, showing a more tongue-in-

cheek side by batting his eyelashes, which are unusually long, it must be said, at the camera and sort of making jokes about the fact he likes to

wear T-shirts rather than suits. It does feel like he will have to engage with the mainstream media as well as wanting to give interviews to sort of

friendly podcasters and so forth.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And I'm sure you have already put in your request, as have we here at CNN, for an interview. He claims that he has a secret economic

sauce, the economy front and center. For voters there, a quote, "business- friendly socialism," that is what he says will be the most effective policy moving forward. He calls it Manchesterism. What is Manchesterism and can

you scale it to a national economy in the U.K.?

FISHER: Well, he argues that the reforms that he helped continue within Manchester, we should point out he wasn't the author or architect of many

of those reforms. They were the brainchild of other luminaries of the greater Manchester local government scene before he came into office a

decade ago and invited the private sector in to play a crucial role in the regeneration of the city center.

It is fair to say that Manchester has been a success under his auspices. You know, in many metrics, whether it's unemployment or growth, it has

topped European league tables in recent years. I think you're right to question whether it can be scaled across the country. That is a key

question. And again, using terminology like business-friendly socialism has given rise to criticism that, you know, it's a Boris Johnson formula of

having one's cake and eating it.

[13:10:00]

And already, while, you know, he has tried to stress, including in his first speech as Labour leader last Friday, that he'd be a pro-business

prime minister, some of his other policy emphases, including trying to take public utility companies into more government control, you know, that

could, you know, harbor bad news for shareholders if that means full-scale renationalization.

So, I think a lot of people are waiting to see exactly what substance there is to that sort of very vibe spaced sentiment he's trying to project.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the inbox is quite brutal. A 58 billion pounds welfare bill heading to 78 billion pounds. Two million elderly people with unmet

care needs. He promised to end homelessness. The list goes on and on. Where does that funding come from?

FISHER: Well, it will be a difficult task for his chancellor to work all that out over that as well. Keir Starmer announced a 15 billion pounds

operative to defense spending over the next four years, 5 billion of that is completely unfunded. The rest is earmarked to come from departmental

capital budget cuts. But again, the details of that are yet to be determined. Not easy for any new prime minister to come in and start

cancelling school-building and hospital-building programs, that's for sure.

But, you know, he's trying to give a sense today of his policy, of the direction of his government by saying he wants to get the welfare bill

down. He's talked about trying to introduce more support, including mental health support, to get young people into work. It's really trying to stress

a preventative approach to welfare, you know, stopping people in the first place from getting onto the welfare benefits bill by helping more people

into work. But a lot of these policies to do that will cost money up front, so it's not easy to see how he squares that circle.

GOLODRYGA: Well, Nigel Farage -- the claws are out already. Nigel Farage already calling for elections. Burnham believes that he can beat Nigel

Farage in Labour's heartland here. No British prime minister, let's just leave it at this, in the past decade has lasted more than three years. Is

the party right to bet on Andy Burnham to break that trend?

FISHER: Well, they saw what he did in Makerfield, where, as you point out, voters had plumped for reform, you know, in recent council elections in the

Greater Manchester region, but he won with a very commanding majority. And therefore, his party are hoping that he can scale that across the country

and build on that success to, you know, produce a platform in which Labour can beat reform at the next general election. So, that is the million-

dollar question.

But so far, I think the Labour Party feel that after the drubbing they received across English councils and in Scotland and Wales in May, he is

their best bet to try and bring about that outcome at the next general election.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Lucy Fisher, we will leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

As a former mayor and cabinet minister, Andy Burnham has plenty of government experience, but on the international stage, he's an unknown

quantity. And whatever his plans for Britain domestically, his success as prime minister could rise and fall on oversight of crises from Iran to

Ukraine, and his global policy leadership on climate, migration and A.I. So, how will Burnham deal with the most pressing international challenges?

Let's bring in Lord Peter Ricketts, former national security adviser under Prime Minister David Cameron. Thank you so much for taking the time to join

us.

So, we know the number one relationship here is that with the United States. He has already spoken with President Trump and per reports, Andy

Burnham assured President Trump that London would be committed to defense and security and would help support the safe reopening of the Strait of

Hormuz. That is from Burnham's office in a statement issued not so long ago. Just talk about the dynamics at play with this relationship and what's

at stake here, given what we saw sort of a quite successful start to a relationship with Keir Starmer that that began to fizzle out.

PETER RICKETTS, FORMER BRITISH NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND MEMBER, BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS: Thank you. Yes, this is a crucial relationship for

the U.K., of course. And it's encouraging to see that the first international contact that the new prime minister made was with Donald

Trump. And I take that as a signal of continuity with Keir Starmer's policy on the big international issues. Of course, wanting to work with Donald

Trump, inviting him to the G20 summit next year, which is going to be in Manchester. Andy Burnham's fief after the U.S. G20 meeting in Miami this

year.

I think the differences that have been between Britain and America on, for example, Donald Trump's war on Iran will continue.

[13:15:00]

I would expect Andy Burnham to be a figure of continuity on Ukraine, continuing to maintain the very strong British support for Zelenskyy and

for arming Ukraine and stepping up on European, more European work in NATO. But he has got to find the money to back up commitments that Britain will

continue to play that leading role. And as Lucy Fisher was just telling you, that is difficult to maintain the upward swing in our defense

spending. So, there are big issues, but it's clearly off to a good start if he's made it a priority to call Donald Trump.

GOLODRYGA: So, let's talk about the challenges that one, on the one hand, facing constituents at home and the economic challenges that that, he says,

is his top priority, while also on an international stage, pledging to continue support for the war in Ukraine. So, I'll ask you the question I

asked Lucy, where does that money come from?

RICKETTS: Well, that's the big political challenge. It's the money and also the time. The money, I mean, can only really come from finding

reductions in welfare spending. I don't think our fiscal financial position allows us to borrow much more than the markets are expecting. Therefore,

it's got to come from reductions in government spending or increases in taxes, which certainly wouldn't be popular here. So, there's an issue of

money.

There's also an issue of time. I think Andy Burnham will be advised by his domestic people that Keir Starmer spent too much on international work,

always seemed to be on a plane to a summit somewhere. And yet, as we found out with the Gulf crisis, conflict anywhere can have immediate economic

implications everywhere and can affect prices in the U.S., in the U.K., prices for energy, interest rates.

So, Andy Burnham can't afford to ignore the big international issues, even as he tries to put more energy and imagination into domestic politics. The

two go together in this interconnected world. So, both money and time on the international stage are going to be a challenge for Andy Burnham,

clearly.

GOLODRYGA: He is arguably a better communicator than Keir Starmer. President Trump was able to communicate very well with his constituents in

the U.S. for both the campaign and his first term and then his second. And yet, when it comes to the war in Iran, many fault him with not selling the

war and not making a case for the war with the American public effectively enough.

How important is it for Andy Burnham to do the same, basically lay out what you just did for our viewers about telling the constituents, his

supporters, the taxpayers in the United Kingdom why supporting countries like Ukraine matters?

RICKETTS: It's absolutely vital he does that, yes. I mean, we are asking British taxpayers to continue bearing a considerable burden to supply arms

to Ukraine, to help them financially at a time when there are so many domestic priorities.

But we have war in Europe and we have serious military experts telling us that Russia will continue to be hostile whatever the outcome in Ukraine.

And we've already had sabotage, subversion, a whole lot of dirty tactics from the Russians in Europe. And there are some who say that we could face

some kind of provocation with Russian forces coming across the border in the Baltic States, for example, really quite soon.

So, we have to explain to the British public, and this will be a task for Andy Burnham, that they are not facing normal times, that these are

dangerous times. The world is in a disordered state. America is pulling back gradually from its support for NATO. Europeans are going to have to do

more, and that will mean spending more.

And I hope Andy Burnham's excellent communication skills can be tuned to that. They're not where he's been at the moment. He's been very much

focused on the domestic agenda. He cannot ignore that need to go out to the British public and solve the need for more security and more defense in

amongst all the other challenges.

GOLODRYGA: Well, in the moments that we've just been speaking, former British defense minister, John Healey, has been named as chancellor, or for

our American audience, a finance minister, under Andy Burnham's new premiership. Is that a surprise to you? Because that wasn't the top name

that had been floated. And just reminding our viewers that John Healey actually stepped down from the post of defense minister over disagreements,

over budget concerns.

RICKETTS: That is a surprise to me. He's a very able minister. As you say, he was a very successful defense minister for two years. He stepped down

because he didn't think there was adequate funding going into defense to fund the strategic defense review that we had last year. So, the fact that

he's been named chancellor, I think, is a very strong signal that Andy Burnham will take the defense and security aspects of the budget seriously.

[13:20:00]

And that will be very encouraging, I think, to Britain's allies as well, because they will see John Healey, who they know very well, as someone who

will take fully into account the need for more defense spending.

So, rather than one of the two figures that were under discussion, Shabana Mahmood, who was the previous Home Secretary, or Ed Miliband, the long-

serving climate and energy secretary, he's gone for someone in the middle of the Labour Party, a competent, well-respected figure across the party

and the country, and with a good international profile as well. So, that strikes me as a very interesting and rather encouraging appointment.

GOLODRYGA: What message do you think that sends NATO allies?

RICKETTS: Oh, a message that Andy Burnham's government is determined to keep Britain as an active, involved member of NATO, paying its way,

rebuilding its military strength, meeting the requirements, the objectives we have from NATO over the next few years, rather than constantly being

doubtful about whether the Brits will have the money to have the resources to meet their NATO requirements. I think it will be taken as a very

positive signal.

GOLODRYGA: Let me talk more about the relationship between President Zelenskyy and Andy Burnham, especially given that President Zelenskyy and

Keir Starmer, I believe Keir Starmer just returned from a meeting with President Zelenskyy just a few days ago.

This one is one to watch. Andy Burnham has pledged to continue to support Ukraine. Obviously, words are one thing and welcome news to Ukrainians, but

actions are quite different. Here's what Andy Burnham said on this issue about President Zelenskyy expecting steadfast support from Britain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURNHAM: I'll be making very clear later today to President Zelenskyy that, you know, there is no change. I will be with him 100 percent, as Keir

Starmer has been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Are those reassuring words in Kyiv? And is there any possibility for perhaps even more security guarantees that the United

Kingdom can offer to Ukraine?

RICKETTS: I think they will be reassuring words. I mean, it's a cross- party issue now, a cross-party agreement in the U.K. Ever since Boris Johnson was prime minister six or seven years ago, Britain stands stalwart

with Ukraine. Each government, each Prime Minister has recommitted to that. Keir Starmer, I think, had a very good relationship with Zelenskyy.

I mean, he was instrumental in the hours after that rather very difficult Oval Office meeting at the beginning of Zelenskyy's period to pick him up

in London and help him and get him back on track. So, they had a very strong personal relationship. I think the fact that Andy Burnham said that,

I know he's intending to make Zelenskyy the second phone call he makes after Donald Trump, will all send a signal of continuity. And that's, I

think, important in Ukraine.

Now, yes, it's got to be backed by real results. But with John Healey sitting in the Treasury, that sounds like a very good alignment of the

planets for Ukraine and that they should expect no change in British support as they confront this summer of continuing massive Russian attacks

night by night.

GOLODRYGA: As it relates to other conflicts, Andy Burnham has said that Keir Starmer was too slow to call for a Gaza ceasefire, yet he hasn't

offered a fine set of policy changes toward Israel that perhaps he would implement. And as it relates to President Trump, prior to their

conversation, Andy Burnham said that he would meet him wherever he was. And that was viewed as somewhat of a vague statement. What does that actually

mean?

We're starting to see a little bit of that play out. I read you the readout from Ten Downing about their conversation as it relates to the war in Iran

and the Strait of Hormuz. But as it relates to climate and energy in a post on Truth Social, President Trump celebrated what he said are plans by Andy

Burnham to allow unrestricted drilling in Britain's invaluable North Sea oil and gas fields.

Frame the policy choices there, if in fact this is accurate, as Donald Trump is outlining.

RICKETTS: Well, I think that probably Donald Trump is slightly over estimating some comments that Andy Burnham made about that. There has been

a long running issue in our politics, whether we should invest more in the North Sea oil and gas resources or whether we should, to respect our

climate change targets, put all the available money into, for example, wind or solar energy. Keir Starmer took a very restrictive approach to that.

[13:25:00]

Andy Burnham has suggested that he might facilitate more investment by the oil and gas companies in the fields in the North Sea. He's not said that he

would give new licenses. And I rather think the president has interpreted what he said to be open season for new licenses for more drilling in the

North Sea. I think the president talked about people dancing in the streets of Aberdeen. Well, I'm not sure they're dancing in the streets of Aberdeen,

because I think that Andy Burnham's plans are much more restrictive than that.

Some easing up of restraints on investment, because, in the end, oil and gas is still important in our energy mix, but I don't think it's going to

be open season for the oil majors to go drill in the North Sea. So, I fear a bit of corrective is required there.

But on that whole agenda, I think Andy Burnham and his government will continue again pretty much the standard British approach on climate change.

One of the international conferences coming up in a busy autumn is the climate change conference in Ankara in November, and one of the signals

that Andy Burnham will send is whether he goes to that in person or not to keep up some kind of leadership on climate change, and there we will have

to wait and see.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And as you noted there, Andy Burnham has not yet issued any licenses to allow further drilling, despite what President Trump and

his interpretation of that policy is going forward. Peter Ricketts, thank you so much. Appreciate the time.

RICKETTS: Thank you very much.

GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, battered by Russian ballistic missiles, Ukraine pleads for international support. We get the details from

Ukrainian journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Now, Russia has carried out intense ballistic missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv overnight. Dozens have been killed or

injured. Once again, President Zelenskyy pleaded for more anti-ballistic interceptors from international partners. But Zelenskyy is facing more than

just a shortage of defensive weaponry.

Political protests have grown over his decision to fire his popular defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov. Zelenskyy chose to side with his commander-in-

chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, known as the butcher for tolerating high casualty rates among his troops. By contrast, Fedorov famously champions Ukraine's

successful use of drones.

So, what will all of this mean for Ukraine? Let's ask journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk, who is joining us from Kyiv. Nataliya, welcome to the program.

Before we get to internal dynamics there and the fallout from the firing of the defense minister, let's start with the overnight assault, one of the

largest ballistic missile barrages of the war thus far on Kyiv, the third major attack on the capital in just over the last month. You're there. Tell

us about its impact and how it is affecting residents 24 hours later.

NATALIYA GUMENYUK, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST: So, of course, Kyiv, the capital, has become one of a really, really dangerous place because it's targeted

precisely, especially with the ballistic missiles. Within the last year, Ukraine developed the anti-Shahed, anti-drone interceptors, a homegrown

technology.

So, Russia started to use the more and more ballistic missiles, which is harder to intercept, because specifically the ballistic missiles can be

intercepted with the Patriot missiles, and we know there is a global scarcity.

[13:30:00]

I'll dare to remind that, as according to the Ukrainian -- the president office of Ukraine, within those three months -- three weeks of the campaign

in Iran, the amount of the Patriot missiles used, it was a half of what -- by the U.S. and by the Gulf countries, half of what is used in Ukraine

within the four years of the war.

So, there is a deficit. And Ukraine trying to get some more, Ukraine trying to intercept. Ukrainian air defense, a most which is possible to do. So,

Ukrainian answer is not really the short-term. There are these decisions about the anti-ballistic missile coalition within Europe, though the money

would be invested to develop the technology, which won't be dependent from the U.S.

But meanwhile, of course, the nights are more dangerous. There are the attacks which precise on the specific neighborhoods. Russia, this time, is

using kind of old Soviet maps. So, they're trying to attack all kind of facilities, the -- where they allegedly considered to be -- you know, any

type of the drone production. But that could be -- you know, we don't know what is there.

And we, for instance, would learn the news that one and a half million of the books which has been printed has been destroyed. Of course, there are

civilian casualties. Luckily, there are not that much. But Russia does it because they can't do much in the battlefield. That's the point.

Ukraine kind of managed to reach some kind of the parity in the battlefield. The only thing Russia does is, you know, this terrorizing of

the civilian population with no much military gain, but trying to, you know, destroy the morale.

However, we understand that it's hard for people. It's very exhausting. It's dangerous. It's dangerous in the capital. However, it doesn't change

the Ukrainian attitude towards Russia. Ukrainians are not going to give it up because of that, because of Russia trying to terrorize the civilians.

GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about that internal debate now over what happens to the battlefield and the war as this war is now entering and has entered its

fifth year. And of course, I'm referring to the firing of Defense Minister Fedorov. He is the fourth defense minister since a larger scale invasion in

2022. He is very young, 35 years old, no military background, but is quite popular and is really being championed for turbocharging Ukraine's drone

warfare there and cutting off Starlink access for Russia as well.

It appears that President Zelenskyy sided with his commander in chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, who has many supporters and many critics. Many say that

he is viewing the military and the troops there as too expendable. That's why he's been dubbed the butcher. How did we get to this point and how much

pressure is President Zelenskyy under right now, given the decision he made?

GUMENYUK: I should say that's probably one of the biggest Zelenskyy mistake within the last years, which would cost him a lot, mainly because

he kind of didn't read the attitude of the people. Fedorov was not really that popular before. However, of course, he's young, he's progressive and

important to explain what was specific about Fedorov, who joined, who was like the social media manager for Zelenskyy during the election campaign

and then developed this very successful Ministry of Digital Transformation.

But that ministry, before Fedorov has become the Minister of Defense, since 2022 was a pioneer for building the infrastructure for the drone war. So,

more or less creating the system capable to scale, to streamline the procurement of the drones, to procure drones and all other things outside

of the old system, where drones were not considered that important weapon before 2025, when the drones now account for 95 percent of the casualties,

both on the Russian and Ukrainian side.

So, Fedorov was really doing all kind of like accelerators for the drone producers. And then he was appointed as a Minister for Defense in early

first days of this year, 2026. And I would try to explain what really happens, because it was quite surprising. Ukraine looked like very

successful in changing the course and the tide of the war with the technology, substituting the manpower, which Ukraine obviously lacked

compared to Russia, with the technology. And Fedorov very interestingly put it himself, that people in Ukraine felt that initiative is finally again in

the Ukrainian hands. And the trajectory was, you know, shut down with this, his unexpected dismissal.

[13:35:00]

I won't demonize Syrskyi that much. However, he kind of represents more or less like the old conventional guard of the military. So, Ukrainian army is

the army of the civilians. There is this revolution of the drone warfare. So, there are different views, how the war should be fought, whether there

should be more military discipline, or whether this new technology can really, you know, be game changer. I would personally insist that the drone

technology is a game changer.

But that's dismissal. That's why it was so unexpected. And it caused the everyday protests since then in Ukraine, we can imagine that there are

people coming to close to the presidential office to the square, every single day, you know, even today.

And for the last days, it's quite clear that most possibly Zelenskyy will need to fire Syrskyi. He would, for the last day, he's meeting the

candidates for the new commander of the general staff. You know, it's still pending. But it was very unexpected what happened with, you know, also the

Minister of Defense coming out to the open briefing and saying that, like, I need to tell truth, there are problems in the army after four years,

there are things we have to change, we should be honest, otherwise, we won't win this war, we would be in the dire situation if we would, you

know, fight in the law in the old way. So, that's what is the conflict in a nutshell.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, this does seem to be sort of a battle, an intergenerational battle here, as you said, old guard versus new guard, and

Fedorov really representing drone warfare and the technology that they've exported around the world beyond just the battlefield there in Ukraine.

What does President Zelenskyy need to do in the next 24 to 48 hours to quell some of this frustration? As you noted, and it's been reported, he is

meeting with potential generals to replace, maybe even both of these men at this point. On the one hand, it's a sign of democracy holding that a

country in five years of war is allowing its citizens to come out and protest. On the other hand, it's a sign of underlying tension and

frustration. What does he need to do?

GUMENYUK: So, the demand of the people, and it's a very active part of the society, the people who come on the streets all over the country are mainly

very young people, their fathers mainly fighting in the army, fathers, mothers, maybe, you know, brothers. I think that the demand is formally to

bring back Fedorov because after the initial shock, the parliament, you know, kind of seized the moment not to vote for a new minister. They needed

to give this time.

It's a bit unlikely that he will return Fedorov to his position. And I don't want just to speak a lot of rumors, because situation, you know, the

rumors are every hour there is something new coming. But he needs to return some way to, you know, like to bring the new commander-in-chief, first of

all, it moved to that level, the Fedorov need to have a quite a strong position somewhere in the government.

But the influence of that decision on the -- Zelenskyy would be quite -- you know, on what he has already done would be quite harsh. But again, it's

indeed the symbol of the democracy during the war, having this type of protests.

GOLODRYGA: Nataliya Gumenyuk, I'm so sorry, we are out of time, but we will continue to monitor this very rapidly developing story coming out of

Ukraine. Appreciate it.

GUMENYUK: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: And coming up for us after the break, anger rises after U.S. immigration tactics spiral into violence again. Michel Martin speaks to a

former police officer about what's going wrong. That's up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:00]

GOLODRYGA: We turn now to Trump's immigration crackdown, which has turned deadly again. In the last few weeks, three people have died during

encounters with ICE agents, sparking public outrage and raising questions about law enforcement tactics. Michel Martin speaks to Seth Stoughton,

former police officer and now professor of law, about this rise in violence, what might be going wrong, and how to fix it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Professor Seth Stoughton, thank you so much for joining us.

SETH STOUGHTON, FORMER POLICE OFFICER, TALLAHASSEE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: We're talking to you today because roughly in the last week, three different people have been killed in encounters with ICE agents or ICE

officers. You know, two of them from being shot in a moving car. One of them was running away and then was hit by another car.

But these are not the only examples. I mean, federal immigration agents have opened fire in at least 22 incidents since President Trump returned to

office, resulting in six deaths, including three U.S. citizens. The Washington Post has reported that they've identified like 17 instances in

which these immigration officers fired into moving vehicles. They did all result sort of in deaths.

And so, just the first question I had for you as a former police officer yourself, as a law professor and as a person who studies the use of force,

how does this strike you?

STOUGHTON: Troubling. It's troubling. Some of it might be attributable to an increase in operations. As we increase the total numbers of ICE

encounters, then it makes sense that we're going to increase the total numbers of even those small percentage of encounters that involve the use

of force.

The troubling part, though, is the consistency that we see between some of these events that have been depicted on the media. We see poor tactics. We

see really problematic approaches from ICE officers in the way that they are stopping cars, in the way that they're interacting with motorists, in

the way that they're communicating with people.

And then after incidents, we see some troubling things from the agency as a whole that suggests we might not be just dealing with individual officers

who may not be as well trained as we might want or may be deviating from their training, but instead there might be some agency-level pressures that

are creating this behavior that is contributing to bad outcomes.

MARTIN: So, let's take these things piece by piece. When you talk about sort of problematic approaches, what are you talking about? Because this

is, frankly, this is a job that most of us aren't going to have to do. So, when you talk about problematic approaches, what are you talking about?

STOUGHTON: Sure. That's a great question. And although most people don't make traffic stops, most people don't arrest other people, there are a

group of people who do, state and local police officers. State and local police officers make a bunch of traffic stops, well over 10 million a year.

It's the most common way for someone to interact with a police officer in the United States. They arrest about a million people a year, according to

data that's reported to the FBI.

So, although it's not in sort of general public knowledge, we do have a specific professional group, officers, who are used to doing exactly the

kind of things that we see ICE agents doing, stopping cars and arresting people. And that's really important because policing as a profession has

developed standardized ways that officers stop vehicles or don't stop vehicles, or approach a vehicle once it's been stopped or not, or the way

that officers may go about arresting someone, for example.

In other words, ICE agents are not waiting on a blank slate. They are building on a historical practice that has been developed, not in some

ivory tower, but on the street, as policing and as officers have engaged in very similar actions. It may not be for immigration enforcement, but the

actual actions are very similar.

So, when I'm talking about problematic practices, I'm looking at things like how ICE agents are actually conducting traffic stops. That is how

they're initiating those traffic stops. In at least some cases, we see vehicles that are unmarked.

And even worse, some of the vehicles don't appear to be equipped with or at least don't have activated any kind of emergency lighting, the flashing

red, blue, and white lights, overhead lights, or even onboard lights. And that's really problematic.

[13:45:00]

In policing, we have a general preference for marked units, that is visibly identifiable police vehicles to stop cars. One, so that people know it's a

police officer that's stopping you. And two, so that the overhead lights that are flashing alert not only the driver that someone is trying to stop,

but also all of the other motorists or pedestrians on the road who now have to address that there are vehicles stopped in what might be a lane of

traffic.

So, when ICE deviates from that specific, very basic practice, it creates some problems. ICE officers are often approaching vehicles, sometimes

stepping into or maintaining positions in front of or behind a vehicle, which exposes the officer to danger if the vehicle moves, or sometimes just

breaking windows with very, very little provocation, right? Not giving the person in the car an opportunity or an explanation to comply, but instead

breaking windows really abruptly in a way that can actually provoke someone to flee rather than to comply.

MARTIN: So, that leads me to a question of whether, are these people engaging in these stops poorly trained, or is this intentional conduct

being dictated by their superiors for some purpose, apart from best law enforcement practice? Because what I'm hearing you say is these de-

escalation tactics and these professional tactics for making a stop are not just to make the person feel better, it's to protect the officer as well.

It's a best practice because it protects both parties.

STOUGHTON: I don't have a complete answer there. I would note that ICE has been in the business of immigration enforcement since it was created. So,

the idea of stopping people, arresting people, or detaining them on civil immigration orders, even conducting raids, that's not new to the agency.

I have a really hard time believing that the agency and the officers at the agency haven't been exposed, either recently or historically, to the kind

of training that we're talking about, right? The basic professional approaches that we're talking about. Maybe, maybe newer officers aren't

getting that training.

Again, I'd be surprised because they go to one of the federal law enforcement training centers for their basic training, and even if the

training schedule is compressed, these are the kind of things that I would certainly expect to be continued, even in a compressed training schedule,

because they are essential, not just for the effective performance of the job, but for the safe performance of the job, right? Ensuring the safety of

the agents and the community members.

MARTIN: After these most recent killings, administration officials reportedly instructed ICE to suspend most vehicle stops while it reviewed

its tactics, OK? But just hours later, President Trump publicly disagreed, writing on one of his social media platforms, we cannot give up one of

ICE's most important and effective crime-fighting tools, the traffic stop, in all caps.

What do you make of that? What message does it send when the president sort of contradicts this in such a public way?

STOUGHTON: I think what it tells me is that we don't actually know who's calling the shots or what the basis for their strategic and tactical

decisions are. It would certainly make sense to me if you have an agency that has identified a potential problem for the agency to take not even a

full step back, but just a half step back and say, all right, how do we improve future outcomes? How do we make our enforcement efforts safer and

more effective?

And by the way, I'm not even getting into the immigration policy debate here, right? It's not about whether ICE agents should be engaged in the

kind of operations they're engaged in. All we're focusing on now is how they should be doing it. Assuming they are engaged in these operations, how

should they be doing it?

And the answer, and I think this answer would probably be shared by whoever at the agency decided to pump the brakes a little bit, should be they

should be performing these operations in a professionally appropriate, competent way that is not likely to prove counterproductive and undermine

the safety of the officers and the community members involved.

Maybe the administration does not entirely share that perspective, but it feels like a breakdown in communication about what is happening and why

it's happening.

MARTIN: Needless to say, I and other reporters have asked the Department of Homeland Security multiple times over the last couple of months about

their tactics, procedures and strategy, OK? Especially, you know, earlier this year, there was a lot of focus on Minnesota where two U.S. citizens

were killed in encounters with ICE. You know, one was driving a vehicle. One was on the street.

[13:50:00]

So, in defending its tactics, DHS has said repeatedly that ICE officers are facing an 8,000 percent increase in death threats and a more than 1,300

percent increase in assaults while carrying out arrests. And so, their argument is that this is their mission is increasingly dangerous, and that

is what justifies these tactics. How do you respond to that?

STOUGHTON: This is where being a researcher helps a little bit because whenever we see numbers like that, I want to know what we mean by those

numbers. How are we defining those numbers, right? When we're talking about an 8,000 percent increase in death threats, is that at an individual level

or are they pulling comments on social media that are not actually directed at agents specifically but have some rhetorical flair, right?

There's a huge difference between those two things. Especially with what we consider to be a death threat. In a country with a First Amendment, we

certainly have the right to criticize, including in very harsh terms, the way government acts.

Now, in no way am I supporting threats of violence or wishes of violence, right? Political violence or interpersonal violence is something that we

should not condone and should condemn, and I do condemn very strongly. But when they say an 8,000 percent increase in death threats, I'd like to know

exactly what they mean and how they're developing that number.

The same thing is true with assaults. If someone is driving away from a traffic stop and they pass by an ICE vehicle or if an ICE agent has to step

out of the way because they were standing in front of the car in a position that they never should have been in, is that really an assault, or is that

an interaction that is sort of incidental to the nature of the encounter, right? Something that is effectively, one, entirely avoidable had officers

used good tactics, and two, is really more of an attempt to escape.

Here's another example. If ICE agents are arresting someone and that person is resisting and pulling away, is that an assault? Because if that's what

you mean, a 1,300 percent increase in assaults, then that might actually just go along with an increase in operations, right? The more operations

you have, the more resistance you're going to have, and if you're classifying that as an assault, that feels kind of inevitable.

So, given this administration's history, I have to admit that I am at least somewhat skeptical of numbers that they throw out without some specific

definitions and methodology to support them.

MARTIN: You actually wrote about immigration agency tactics earlier this year. Earlier this year, there were some very high-profile incidents where

two United States citizens were killed in encounters with ICE, neither of whom was the target of an ICE operation. You said that one of the biggest

departures from professional policing is the failure of agency leadership to respond responsibly to critical incidents. Tell us what you mean by

that.

STOUGHTON: Unfortunately, we have a long history of critical incidents like officer-involved shootings in the United States, and that means we

have a pretty well-informed body of professional knowledge among police executives and among folks who look at and study this field about how an

agency should respond, and maybe more importantly, how an agency shouldn't respond.

For example, it takes a while to generate even good preliminary facts about an incident, and then it takes a little longer to check those facts out,

right? In a sort of trust-but-verify approach, you don't want an agency head to be providing information to the public that is maybe speculative.

You don't want them to characterize information before we actually know what that information is and we have a chance to understand the full

context. You don't have to wait months and months for a complete investigation, but you do have to wait some period of time until you feel

pretty confident in the nature of the information that you're providing.

And what we've seen from ICE this year has been extremely confident, definitive statements about what happened and about how to characterize

what happened. That is, these are the facts, and officers acted appropriately in this situation. And often those statements have come

within hours of the critical incident. And it's just not credible to think that there is the type of robust, methodical investigation that we need to

come to that kind of conclusion in that timeframe.

And when those statements have been offered and then been discredited with publicly available video, for example, that shows often pretty clearly that

what's being said did not happen in the way that it's being described, rather than taking an appropriate level of backtracking and saying, we are

continuing to look into this.

[13:55:00]

This is an emerging investigation. We are still understanding and gathering the facts. What you see is statements doubling down on the initial

description and characterization. That's just not professional leadership.

MARTIN: Professor Seth Stoughton, thank you so much for talking with us.

STOUGHTON: Thank you for having me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episodes shortly after it airs on our podcast. And 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