Return to Transcripts main page


Interview with U.N. Resident Coordinator in Ukraine Denise Brown; Interview with Pulitzer Prize-Winning Historian Anne Applebaum; Interview with University of Chicago Law School Distinguished Service Professor and "A Legacy of Discrimination" Co-Author Geoffrey Stone; Interview with Columbia University President and "A Legacy of Discrimination" Co-Author Lee Bollinger. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired November 04, 2022 - 14:00   ET




CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to "Amanpour" live from Ukraine's capital, Kyiv. Here's what's

coming up.

Ukrainians tell Vladimir Putin, you will not break our spirit. As millions go without power, I report on how they cope here day today. And I asked

Denise Brown, United Nations' Humanitarian Coordinator, whether help is on the way. Also.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mark my words, they're going after your right to vote and who's going to count the vote.


AMANPOUR: Author and historian, Anne Applebaum assess how democracy is standing up to the weight of growing threats in Ukraine, around the world,

and on a critical week for elections in the United States. Plus.



essential to essentially provide opportunities to individuals who have inherited and continued to live in that world of discrimination.


AMANPOUR: With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to end affirmative action, two distinguished college administrators make the case for why it is needed now

more than ever.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in Kyiv.

The United States announced today that it will provide Ukraine with an additional $400 million in security assistance, including refurbished tanks

and for the first time, hawk air defense missiles systems. While here in Kyiv, thousands of households are without power. As Ukrainian leader say,

Russia cannot defeat them on the battlefield, so, they're trying to break them at home instead. Here's President Zelenskyy in his nightly address.


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): As of this evening, about four and a half million energy consumers have been

temporarily disconnected from consumption, according to emergency and stabilization schedules. And during Russian energy terror and passing such

a test is our national task. One of the main ones now.


AMANPOUR: Meanwhile, in Moscow, Vladimir Putin dedicated his speech on Russia's Unity Day to claiming that Ukraine's connection to the west is,

"Deadly for Russia and suicidal for Ukraine." So, how do the people of this country get by without reliable access to water, heat, or power knowing

that winter is coming? I met with some residents and businesses here in the capital to see how they are adapting to the ongoing blackouts.


AMANPOUR (voiceover): Week four of Ukraine's new struggle against the cold and dark. Rolling blackouts blanket Kyiv, nighttime is spooky, and we are

entering this high-rise apartment complex to see how the residents are coping with Russia's constant attacks on key instructor.

AMANPOUR (on camera): Hello.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Up to the 12th floor, no light in the stairwell but our cameras and no elevator. Iuliia Mendel meets us hobbling down on

crutches, and the foot she fractured by tripping over the steps the first night of the blackouts.


AMANPOUR (on camera): Hi.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): She's a journalist and a former press secretary to President Zelenskyy.

AMANPOUR (on camera): Hi. How are you?

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Together, we visit her neighbor, Natalia, with her 18-month-old daughter, Lina (ph), just one of a whole generation of war

traumatized Kyiv kids, especially with the constant air raid sirens.

AMANPOUR (on camera): Is she stressed?

NATALIA HORBAN, KRIV RESIDENT: She is like, oh, oh. She's pointing to the window so that she knows that something goes wrong.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): The two of them are recovering from a two-hour ordeal trapped in their tiny elevator when the power went out. Now, all over Kyiv,

residents are putting small care boxes inside with water, snacks, and anti- anxiety medicines. By the time we sat down to talk, the power popped back on again after nine hours on this day.

AMANPOUR (on camera): Do you feel demoralized? Do you feel, like, OK. All right. Enough already. It's time to surrender and negotiate?

MENDEL: No way. Look, we have passed through the hardships of '90s. And we didn't have light, water, heating, and everything for hours and hours every



And that then was desperate because we didn't -- we knew it was about poverty. Now it's about war. And know that we must win.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Winning this phase of the war comes with weapons like these to charge phones and any other emergency equipment.

HORBAN: It's the most important thing here to have in Ukraine. It's a power bank, without it, you don't have any connection. And it's the most

important now to know that your relatives are OK.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): They tell us generators are almost all sold out and super expensive now. As well as candles, torches, and headlamps. Natalia

has improvised light from a water bottle and her iPhone.

Downtown, it's dire for businesses too. Every beauty salon operates on hair dryers for that blowout and, of course, water to wash out the shampoo and

the dye. Olena (ph) is taking her chances today.

OLENA (PH), KYIV RESIDENT (through translator): After we finish dyeing it, I might have to go home to dry it but it's fine.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Just one floor here has power and the others are dark. Before the war, Hairhouse had 150 clients a day. Now, it's more like

50. And the salon has lost 60 percent of its revenue. But as Dmitry, the commercial manager, tells me, they keep calm and carry on.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV, COMMERCIAL MANGER HAIRHOUSE: I believe that we should work even without light. Even without electricity, we should help our army, we

should help our people. And we will do our job until to the end. And we believe that sooner or later the light will come.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Like so many civilians, they say, injuring these hardships on the home front is part of their war effort, supporting their

troops on the front lines who are fighting to keep Ukraine independent, fighting for their homeland.


AMANPOUR (on camera): Now, as U.N. resident coordinator here in Ukraine, Denise Brown, oversees the global response to the acute humanitarian needs

of the people here. She is met with Ukrainian officials about providing generators, mobile boiler houses, and other equipment to fix their attacked

energy infrastructure. But will it be enough? Let me ask her.

Denise Brown, welcome to the program.


AMANPOUR: So, we just heard from citizens of this city and we heard the mayor today say that nearly half a million people were interrupted in terms

of their energy requirements. How tough is this for you and the International Community to mitigate?

BROWN: This is extremely difficult. We are focusing on the communities along the front line, that's where the government has asked us to focus

attention. So, we have big teams, the United Nations, the national partners, international partners who are based all along and these areas

which are close to the front lines. So, we're focusing on them.

But now, with the energy crisis, we met yesterday with the prime minister who asked what more we could all be doing. So, we're going to have to do

more. We need to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe over the winter months in this country.

AMANPOUR: So, you know, we sort of -- you've seen, because you live here, what's happening in the capital Kyiv. But it's probably better off than the

places that you're talking about along the front lines. How dire is the humanitarian situation in places where homes have been obliterated? Where,

I guess, the energy is off there where they have sporadic water?

BROWN: I've seen a lot of things in my time, whether it's the famine in Somalia, or the earthquake in Haiti. And it's almost overwhelming when we

stand in front of these buildings, peoples' homes that have been destroyed by the missile strikes or schools which have been destroyed in the attacks

or hospitals where women should be giving birth which are destroyed by attacks.

And as you know, more than six million people in the country have had to leave their home. And eight million people leave, actually leave the

country. It's very difficult. We are operating in a context of war where our teams see every day the remnants of war. The bodies on the side of the

road as we deliver to the locations close to the front line. The threat of missile strikes, we live with that as well. And of course --

AMANPOUR: So, is that very difficult in terms of emotional and mental health on even you and your teams?

BROWN: Of course. We are with the Ukrainian people. I live in my apartment here. We are like everyone else. We are not in a protected compound. So,

our stomachs turn in knots when we hear those sirens going off as well.

AMANPOUR: Talking about schools, we have some pictures that we'll put up of you visiting one of these school and you can tell us where. You are doing

some art therapy, I guess, with the kids there.


AMANPOUR: What have you found? You know, I saw this little child in this apartment building last night, she's only 18 months, but she is

traumatized, according to her mother, you know.


AMANPOUR: Every time there's a bang or a siren, the child gets stressed out. She's 18 months old.

BROWN: The mayor of Mykolaiv told me a couple of weeks ago, 33 days of silence. 33 days of silence in Mykolaiv since the start of the war. So,

what does that do to the child who hears that every single day and then the air strike that follows?


So, these mechanisms that are put in place with the authorities, with UNICEF, with others, it's really to try and help those children in the

immediate term. But it's -- this is a long-term trauma. This is the next fight for this country.

AMANPOUR: And you mentioned, you know, the number of refugees. I think it's something like a third of the population in this country has either been

forced or fled from their homes. And we hear the government over the last, you know, several weeks since the energy attack, saying, listen, don't come

home because the winter is going to be too hard for you and for us to manage.


AMANPOUR: What are you expecting in terms of people, more people will flee? What do you think they will do?

BROWN: This is why responding to this energy crisis now is critically important to keep people home, to keep them warm, to keep them safe, and

give them an alternative to moving. Because moving where? There are hundreds of thousands of people in what we call collective centers, which

are basically schools, universities, orphanages, which we are working with the government to winterize, basically boilers and windows. So, we don't

want more of that.

AMANPOUR: And where do you get all this stuff from? Because even here, people are saying generators are practically unavailable. And if they are,

they are going for a premium. I mean, it's the war economy setting in.

BROWN: We started --

AMANPOUR: Where do you get all this stuff?

BROWN: We started preparing for this back in July.

AMANPOUR: OK. In the summer.

BROWN: Because the winter is predictable. So, we bought in the summer. But now, with the additional needs, we believe it's no longer possible to buy

here and we're going to have to go outside. So, this is going to require a coordinated international effort to prevent this deteriorating further for

the population.

AMANPOUR: So, we heard today -- I mean, the news was that the G7 countries have talked, not just about military and economic and all the rest of it

assistance, but this kind of humanitarian assistance. So, they are saying that they're going to have to, you know, help you all, help the government

here. How does that work? I mean, if you are the coordinator and let's say a country or the G7 has pledged help, what do you do with it? How does it


BROWN: Actually, we've agreed with the prime minister to put in place a platform coordination for the energy crisis because there are huge needs.

We need to know who's buying what, where it's going to go, and who is handling. So, we'll facilitate, we'll assist them with that. But they're

really going to be in charge of this part of the crisis which is massive and could be nationwide.

AMANPOUR: There are areas that are apparently access denied you. Obviously, I guess, the areas under Russian occupation. But can you go anywhere where

the Ukrainians are basically in charge or do you have restrictions on your movements?

BROWN: No, there are no restrictions for us in Ukraine. For the newly retaken areas, we wait until the military tells us they've done the

humanitarian demining and then we can move in, that's -- normally it takes a couple days.


BROWN: But it's very true that in terms of cross line, we're not able to reliably or regularly deliver for the moment.

AMANPOUR: And what then happens to those people?

BROWN: Well, that's the question, isn't it?


BROWN: And that's the question I ask.

AMANPOUR: I mean, in terms of -- yes, go ahead.

BROWN: Yes -- well, no, we are impartial. We are neutral. As United Nations, I'm supposed to be assisting Ukrainians no matter where they are.

So, I regularly ask to cross that front line. For the moment, I haven't got the guarantee of security that I need to send my team across. But I'm

hopeful that we will get it.

AMANPOUR: Do you know what the state of humanitarian security is for Ukrainians in the occupied areas?

BROWN: I assume it's the same. As for the Ukrainians on this side of the frontline, I don't see why it would be any different. I don't need a

detailed assessment to tell me that people are in difficulty. We know they are.

AMANPOUR: And you know, the U.N. depends also on fund raising and resources. And there's often fatigue, especially we're no nearly nine

months into this war. What are you finding on that front?

BROWN: I'm finding huge support from the member states, from foundations, associations. We've been able to raise $3 billion since April. It's, I

think, the largest in the history of humanitarian responses. The point is, though, that the needs will continue in 2023. The war is not over. We do

not see an end to the war in the coming months. So, we need to be prepared for the winter months. And then the consequences of the war on the


AMANPOUR: So, I guess you don't speak and you don't opine on the military side of it. But this city and civilians say it, the government leaders say

it, they need some kind of help to defend themselves from this latest phase of the war, which are missiles and drones attacking civilian

infrastructure. The U.S. and others have now said they are going to -- you heard, some $400 million of new equipment. I guess you think that's a good



BROWN: My focus is what the government asks me to focus on, which is supporting the population who've been impacted by this war, and that's what

I'm going to continue to do.

AMANPOUR: You've been here, I think, about three months?

BROWN: Three months.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, the situation was very different. Describe what you found here when you first arrived. Because at that time, it looked like the war

had left Kyiv, certainly. So, describe what you found in the capital and the environment?

BROWN: Well, I found a situation that looked surprisingly normal, frankly. There were air sirens but nothing followed, usually, the air sirens. So,

the 10th of October changed everything. It changed that dynamics of the war. It changed -- it looks like it changed, according to experts, the

infrastructure that's being targeted. And now it's creating this energy crisis which can lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. So, in the past three

weeks, it has changed significantly.

AMANPOUR: What is a humanitarian catastrophe in this context? You've been - - you were telling me you were coordinator and special representative for the U.N. in Africa, the Central African Republic, you've probably been all

over the place. There we see, you know, starvation and famine. We see cholera.


AMANPOUR: We see disease. What does it look like here in its worst incarnation?

BROWN: Well, the face is different here, that's absolutely correct. In here, what'll it be over the winter months is large-scale blackouts. A lack

of heating over an extended period of time. And we'll go from the 18 million people who are currently directed impacted by the war to a nation

that is impacted directly by the war. So, we're talking about scale and complexity will change dramatically.

AMANPOUR: And in your experience, is there, sort of, a recovery period? I mean, let's say, this is just dreadful throughout the rest of the winter.

We don't know how the fighting is going to proceed in the winter months. What is the bounce back effect, if there is one? If you've noticed where

else -- in other places that you've been.

BROWN: The bounce back effect, we're not going to see it for a while, right? Priorities of the government, you already said it, its defense, it's

also budget, it's humanitarian. Some communities, early recovery is possible. But early recovery means what? It means making sure they have

access to energy. That's what we are doing right now in the country. So, that's the early recovery part that's going to kick in very, very soon. But

the long term is, I think, a little further away on the horizon.

AMANPOUR: And what about water? At the beginning of this, we were hearing that people were lining up in parks, elsewhere, to try to get potable

drinking water. But now we hear that water is reconnected.


AMANPOUR: Are people secure in their water deliveries now?

BROWN: Well, the strike on Monday apparently hit a water source. So, there were shortages throughout the city, that's absolutely true. In outlying

areas along the front line, it's a constant problem. Mykolaiv is a huge problem. In Kakhovka (ph) -- river dam was hit. So, we helped to repair

that with UNICEF and other colleagues. So, this is a recurring problem, you know. Lack of electricity, lack of heat, lack of water. And it's not yet

freezing cold, but in a couple of weeks, it will be, right.

AMANPOUR: Yes. You were mentioning -- well, before we came on camera, Kherson. And you've obviously been to the outskirts, not into the city

which is Russia occupied. We hear all sorts of different ideas about whether there's going to be a Ukrainian offensive, what the Russians are

doing there, are they withdrawing. Do you have any indication as -- from the U.N. what the situation in the city is or you -- what can you see

around there?

BROWN: We haven't been able to go. So, I can't speak to what I do not know. And what I do know is that the prime minister, in particular, has asked us

to be prepared to move into areas as they are retaken, and that's my focus. So, that within 72 hours, we move. We have cargo, we have supplies, we have

people that go in.

But I can tell you, what we've seen in another location is complete trauma. From, often, of real elderly population that seems quite confused about

what has happened to them.

AMANPOUR: Is that most of who is left, elderly people in some of these liberated areas that you're able to go to? I mean, do -- have most of the

people been evacuated or fled from there?

BROWN: I think -- I can't speak for all the areas, but what we have seen is that those who could not move stayed behind. And some people who needed to

stay with them stayed behind. And typically, it's older people. We've seen very few children in these locations.

AMANPOUR: So, if I ask you what kind of day you had today, how would you respond?

BROWN: There was no air strike today. So, it was a reasonably OK day.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And when there are airstrikes, how does that affect your work here?

BROWN: Well, we're required to go into the bunker. So --

AMANPOUR: Yes, so you can't --

BROWN: -- it just disturbs our movements, our communication, our planning. Yes, it disturbs us.

AMANPOUR: All right. Denise Brown, we will continue to watch. Thank you very much indeed. Thanks so much.

BROWN: Thank you, too. Thank you.


AMANPOUR: Now, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is seen as an existential threat to democratic values. But it's not the only threat to democracy now.

With election deniers dominating U.S. midterms and far-right parties joining governments in Europe and Israel, the risk of rising

authoritarianism comes even closer to home.

Anne Applebaum writes extensively about these autocratic threats in her book, in The Atlantic and elsewhere. And he's -- she's joining me now from

neighboring Warsaw.

Welcome back to the program, Anne. As you watched, as we've just been describing, not just the humanitarian crisis unfolding here now, but in

general, as we've laid out the threat to democracy itself. How do you assess the current situation here in Ukraine, in terms of on the

battlefield and elsewhere?

ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC AND PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING HISTORIAN: So, I think it is significant what you quoted Putin saying a few

minutes ago. Namely, that he sees Ukraine as some kind of existential threat to him because Ukraine wants to join the west. Because it wants to

be integrated into Europe.

He's made a very clear that he sees this war as a war against democracy. The democracy is a threat to his particular kind of autocratic,

kleptocratic regime, and that he needs to see it crushed for that reason. That's been the main reason why he invaded Ukraine. That's why he's been

fighting since February, is to protect his idea of autocracy.

And of course, others have that same idea. I mean, the idea that -- of a one-party state, of one-man rule. It's popular in other countries. We've

seen just in the last few weeks China is strengthening its one-party rule - - one-man rule, I should say, excuse me.

So, you know, when he is fighting democracy, he's doing it on behalf of a lot of other people and a lot of people are watching him to see what the

result will be. And that's why it's so important that the democracies continue to fight back.

AMANPOUR: So, you know, I was speaking to two senators, part of a bipartisan congressional delegation here yesterday, the Republican Rob

Portman and Democrat Chris Coons. And I was asking them about, you know, fighting for the rule of law, for the rules of the road, so to speak, and

for democracy versus authoritarianism. And particularly about whether this support for Ukraine would stand firm after the midterms. This is what they

said. Take a listen.


SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): I find it hard to believe that we would abandon Ukrainian people right now as they are facing, in some ways, the most

challenging test of this war.

SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): We have economic problems at home but think of what would happen if we did not help. And by the way, it's not just us and

shouldn't be. And by the way, it shouldn't be a blank check. There should be accountability that goes with it.


AMANPOUR: So far, they tell me, that they have checked and checked and checked and they feel that the money and the equipment that they're

delivering here is actually accountable. And they, you know, they have no worry about that at the moment. But, Anne, what do you think you're hearing

-- probably like us, a lot of, sort of, questioning in the air, not just in the U.S. but also around Europe, given the economic crisis. Given all

that's sort of unfolded in that regard since this war. What are you hearing, including in Poland, a huge defender of this country, where you

are now?

APPLEBAUM: So, I think it's important to understand that Zelenskyy -- what President Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, has made a -- had a very

important role in this war. Not just as somebody leading his own country, but as somebody who speaks for a certain set of ideas. And those ideas in

the U.S. context, but also in a lot of European context, are bipartisan or nonpartisan. In other words, he's doing a, kind of, patriotic defense of

liberal values and of democracy. And that has an appeal in a very wide political spectrum.

I think it's true in the United States that, for the moment, both Democrats and Republicans, particularly in the Senate, as you just heard, and as your

interviewer said, is pretty solid, even if there is a change of power after the midterms. I think in most European countries under current leaders,

under President Macron in France, or Olaf Scholz in Germany, or the Tory Party in Britain, I think the support is very secure.

That doesn't mean that there isn't an argument going on. There are a lot of Russian-backed political parties in Europe. There is a part of the

Republican Party in the United States that's very closely linked to Russia or at least parrots Russian talking points and Russian propaganda. And if

those movements began to grow louder and if they took power, then it would be time to worry and not only about Ukraine.


My view is that Europe is going to be solid through the winner. That the -- everybody understands the nature of this war. And most European countries

and in United States support for Ukraine remains very high. So, I'm not worried at the moment.

But, you know, the -- one of the things that the Russians are doing in order to win the war is to play on exactly those fears. You know, to make

Europeans afraid that they will be cold and hungry. To make Americans afraid that they're spending too much money. That's exactly the kind of

propaganda they are doing. And they're hoping to draw out the war as long as possible in order to get the west to cave.

They're not able to win on the battlefield, that's now been shown over the last eight months. And so, they're going to try and win through this kind

of combination of propaganda and attrition.

AMANPOUR: Anne, you mentioned Germany. And there seems to be a huge kerfuffle, really, in Germany. You spool back to Olaf Scholz, the federal

chancellor who, practically from day one of this -- you know, turned Germany's, you know, postwar foreign and military policy on its head by

saying that they were going to support Ukraine.

And it -- Germany is the third biggest deliverer after the U.S. and U.K. of military assistance to this country. And yet, you write in your latest

Atlantic piece that there are still issues in Germany on this particular case. Tell us what you mean.

APPLEBAUM: So, for the Germans, this is a huge change. I think much more so for any country in Europe. The Germans had a very close relationship with

Russia. They were very dependent on Russian gas. And they also had a vision of themselves as a kind of peacemaker in Europe, as a country that didn't

go to war, that interpreted the lessons of the second world war as meaning they should be pacifist.

And for them to make this shift and even verbally, as they have done, and to begin to send weapons to Ukraine, as they have done, is really an

enormous change. And I think, you know, it's very important to acknowledge that has happened. And that so far, it's popular. It's got support inside

Germany, and again, across a pretty broad political spectrum. Including the central-right, including the green party, including the central-left which

is the party of Olaf Scholz, the chancellor.

That doesn't mean that the argument doesn't continue. You know, the nature of German support, you know, should they send tanks? What kind of weapons

should go to Ukraine? how much military support should there be we? It goes on. I think it's -- what we're watching, really, is Germans adjust

themselves to a new world. To begin to think differently about what their role is also in a way to begin to reinterpret their own rules since the

second world war.

So, maybe the lesson of the second world war is that Germany needs to help stand up to, you know, totalitarian autocracy as, you know, to countries

that are seeking to, you know, to create genocide in Europe once again. And getting all Germans on board and getting them to rethink their energy

policy, their trade policy is a big struggle.

I mean, I'm -- so, I would give them a -- you have to give them credit for what they've done. But the argument continues and we're not -- you know,

they haven't fully quite devoted themselves to the new moment yet and they haven't quite figured out what it means.

AMANPOUR: So, are you concerned, like others, and I'm asking about Germany and China, because we were just looking at pictures of Scholz in Beijing,

meeting with the President Xi. And that seemed to cause quite a lot of kerfuffle on the international stage and in some quarters at home. But he

says he's going there to try to get China to prevail on Russia to stop what it's doing here in Ukraine. And he has, kind of, a real politic view of

relations with China. What do you think can come out of this? Do you think he can have an influence on China?

APPLEBAUM: You know, I'm very happy for Scholz to try and influence China and for Scholz to speak to China. And it may be that some European leaders

might have a greater effect right now than Americans or than others because of their close relationship. And I'm delighted for them to use their

influence to do that.

I think the fear about Scholz is not so much that. I think people are happy for him to try diplomacy. I think the fear is that China wants to make a

number of strategic investments in Germany. And there is beginning to be concern that those are dangerous for German security down the road and

there's a lot of fear that Germany will go too far down the road with China than it went with Russia.

So, it will become overly dependent on sales to China, on its economic relationship with China, just at the moment when China itself is also

becoming much more erratic than it used to be. It's run by people who are no longer as interested in Chinese prosperity, in Chinese trade, in Chinese

integration with the world. And are much more interested in their own power and in seeking to retain their power.


And perhaps using nationalist or militaristic rhetoric, and maybe even actions in order to do that.

So, the -- the fear is that Scholz will make another mistake. That the Germans made a mistake in the past, you know, counting too much on Russian

goodwill and that he'll make that mistake again. As I say, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't try and negotiate or speak to the Chinese. But the

Germans could fall into the same trap they fell into before. And actually, there's a lot of -- the concern is mostly coming from within Germany. Some

of Scholz's coalition partners and others inside German politics are afraid of exactly that.

AMANPOUR: And what about what you must be picking up as well. And that seems to be a mounting chorus, certainly, amongst analysts and foreign

policy observers that now should be the time for the United States to start leading diplomacy. Either as a mediator between, you know, Ukraine and

Russia or with Russia.

You know, Charles Kupchan, who has written a big piece right now, used to be in the U.S. national security structure. I'm just going to read you a

little bit of what he says to the New York Times. He wrote, it's time to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. He argues sooner rather

than later, the west needs to move Ukraine and Russia from the battlefield to the negotiating table. Brokering a diplomatic effort to shut the war

down. And arrive at a territorial settlement.

So, you, yourself, have written about what it might take for Putin to get to this place, whether it's an off ramp or some kind of ability to get to a

negotiation. Do you think though, that there's any chance of that now? And are you concerned or do you think it's right that people like himself,

Gideon Rachman of the FT, are writing about this, it's time to negotiate. Enough already of this war?

APPLEBAUM: So, the U.S. and Russia can speak to each other at any moment. There have been recent conversations -- I mean, the defense ministers of

both countries spoke to each other a few days ago. Ukraine and Russia also speak to one another. And there have been prisoner exchanges. There are

other kinds of conversations. There are other conversations going via Turkey and via the U.N. to do with grain and probably other things as well.

So, the problem is not the lack of diplomatic negotiations, those can happen at any time. And I find the call for negotiations a little bit

strange because they're happening and they could happen. The problem isn't the negotiations or the lack of willingness, the problem is that right now

the Russians are not interested in negotiations. The Russians have not yet dropped their main goal in this war. And the main goal was to conquer


To conquer all of Ukraine, to destroy Kyiv, to make Ukraine part of Russia, to destroy the Ukrainians as a nation. That remains, in essence, their

goal. That's still what you can hear on Russian television. That's what you can hear from, you know, from Russians at all levels.

When the Russians drop to that goal, and when they realize that this war was a mistake, and it was not just a moral mistake, and it was not just a

military mistake, but it was also a catastrophe for them and for their idea themselves. When they understand that it was, you know, a disaster for this

regime and for their future, then we might be able to talk about having negotiations.

And that moment will come when they perceive that the Ukrainians are winning, that they won't lose, that the west will not stop backing them,

and that the war will destroy Russia and will undermine the Russian economy and Russian society. And it might mean that moment might happen when their

political changes inside Russia.

We might be getting closer to that time. The fact is that the Russians have withdrawn troops from Kherson. We don't know if they've withdrawn all of

them. We know there are certainly not taking territory anymore. But they need to feel that they're losing, that they can't win, and then we might be

able to start talking. And then we can talk about how the war could eventually end. But the war -- they will have to withdraw at least from the

territory that they occupied since February. And only when that happens can we talk about negotiations.

AMANPOUR: So, finally, to the United States, obviously, with the midterms coming up, this is the speech or part of it that President Biden gave on

democracy and what's at stake just a couple of days ago. Just take a listen.


JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Make no mistake. Democracy is in the ballot for all of us. We must remember that democracy is a covenant. We need to start

looking out for each other again. Seeing ourselves as we the people, not as entrenched enemies. This is a choice we can make.



AMANPOUR: So, CNN poll later found on that same day, that actually voting rights and integrity of the ballot system is only nine percent amongst the

voters who were polled. Does Biden's plea, you know, risk falling on deaf ears? And again, what does that mean for framing the fight here as a fight

to keep, you know, protect democracy?

APPLEBAUM: Look, Americans are very lucky. They've had the same political system, more or less, for a long time. They're very complacent about it.

They don't believe that it can falter or that it can end. Many of them don't perceive the election deniers who are on the ballot in many places.

And by election deniers I mean people who don't accept the result of the 2020 election, but also who might be prepared to help steal or alter the

results of an election in the future and have sometimes said so quite openly. They don't perceive this as a threat to the system and they should.

It's really, you know -- at a moment when Ukrainians are fighting and dying for democracy, when Iranians are protesting for greater freedom, when

people all over the world would like to have those kinds of freedoms, those kinds of guarantees. It's tragic that Americans don't see it or don't feel

it's under threat. The president, as the second speech that he's given along those themes but, unfortunately, in the United States that kind of

speech is perceived in a very partisan way. You know, oh, he's just speaking up for his side.

The point is, not that it's a Republican versus a Democrat issue. The point is that, as I said, there are people on the ballot in specific places who

are saying they will no longer accept the results of the U.S. elections, and that's a fundamental challenge to our political system.

AMANPOUR: Indeed. Indeed. Thank you so much, Anne Applebaum.

And in the United States, the Supreme Court's conservative super majority is set to overturn another significant precedent, that for decades has

allowed universities to consider race in their admissions process. It's a move that would be, "A disaster", according to two legal scholars and

university administrators. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and Geoffrey Stone, professor of law at the University of

Chicago. And they tell Michel Martin why they believe the nation needs more affirmative action not less.


MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks Christiane. President Bollinger, Professor Stone, thank you so much for joining us today.




MARTIN: One of the reasons we called the two of you is you both published a piece -- a jointly authored piece for "The Atlantic" titled "The End of

Affirmative Action Would Be a Disaster." Why a disaster, professor Stone, do you want to start?

STONE: I think mainly both of us have had a lot of experience in managing and running universities. I was dean of University of Chicago of Law

School, provost of the University of Chicago. And Lee, of course, has had been president to both University of Michigan and Columbia. So, we've seen,

over many years, the impact of affirmative action on our universities and more importantly our society.

And I think that in addition to the diversity rationale, another very important factor that has largely been lost in the discussion and the

understanding is that we live in a society in which we still have many impacts from the history of discrimination against blacks, in particular,

of our history. And that continues in all sorts of ways. In public education, in residential opportunities, in employment opportunities and so

on. And that affirmative action is essential to essentially provide opportunities to individuals who have inherited, and continued to live in

that world of discrimination.

MARTIN: What is your overwhelming, sort of, metric of success here? Like, what standard, do you think, we should be using to evaluate this whole,

sort of, project of formative action and higher education?

STONE: I do think that there's some value to the diversity issue in a sense that students have an opportunity to interact with students who come from

backgrounds, different from their own. But I think, a central reason in metric in evaluating affirmative action is the fact that the students who

have the opportunity to attend schools like Columbia, and Chicago, and Harvard, and Yale, and Stanford, and so on, who might not otherwise have

that opportunity, get enormous benefits. And then they go on to effect life and effect world, and to educate others and to inspire others. And I think

that's a very positive long-term effect for affirmative action. It has a cumulative impact on our society.

MARTIN: And President Bollinger, taken that the other way, as I said, the title of your piece is, "The End of Affirmative Action" in the view of both

of you would be a disaster. Why a disaster?

BOLLINGER: So, we want to argue. We do have a book that's coming out in January called "A Legacy of Discrimination." This is about racial justice.


And the country beginning with Brown versus Board of Education in the 1950s, and the civil rights movement, and the laws that have followed. And

the practices all across the United States in business, in universities, in media, elsewhere, really have tried to come to terms with the fact that

there is this terrible legacy of slavery, Jim Crow Laws and deep discrimination against African Americans in the society. It continues to

this day.

And the opportunities for African American children and youth are really not the same as they are for other groups, in particularly white. And the

resegregation of American K through 12 public education is a shocking continuation of the segregation that preceded Brown. We point out, that

since the 1980s the number of children, black children going to, virtually, all black schools has tripled in that period of time. Most students who

arrive at major campuses have come from largely all white or all black educational backgrounds, and even living backgrounds.

So, there is a serious problem with racial justice in America. And universities since the early '70s have simply been doing their part to try

to help correct for these injustices. So, the argument that this benefits people because of diversity is very important. But there is a profound

context here of centuries, certainly, decades of discrimination that society must overcome. When that happens, when that's really dealt with,

then we will not need affirmative action. But we do still, and this will take generations to grapple with.

MARTIN: President Bollinger, why do you think that affirmative action remains so deeply unpopular in many sectors of society? The cases that are

currently before the court didn't just, sort of, arise out of nowhere. There's -- this has been a long-term project of a dedicated group of

conservative activists. Some might argue they have a particular animist (ph) toward African Americans, I don't know that. But they certainly have a

particular focus animist (ph) towards affirmative action. If the benefits of affirmative action are clear to you, to the two of you and also to other

educators, why do you think it remain so broadly unpopular?

BOLLINGER: I think, you know, there's a reasonable basis for opposing affirmative action in higher education. If you start from the premise that

there has been and continues to be serious invidious discrimination, I think that's the only premise you can start from. You can say, we should

not make any exceptions for public institutions to take account of race because we need a clear clad -- clear cut and rule pool against that

because it's so dangerous.

I understand that argument. I think it's a reasonable argument. I think we can make exceptions between what's for good and what's for bad. And I think

that's the debate. However, I think you're quite right that there have been movements against this role really for decades now. It's highly

controversial, but we shouldn't expect otherwise when it comes to something as charged as race in America.

MARTIN: At the Harvard case at issue is the alleged discrimination against students of Asian descent. In the spirit of full disclosure, I also went to

Harvard. I am privy to communications among alumni groups. And I am aware that there is a significant group of Asian American students who support

the university's position. But there are students, or would-be students who do oppose it, who are of Asian descent, who say that it's not fair to

discriminate as they see it against one particular group to advantage another particular group. Their argument is that these so-called objective

measures like tests and grades should be dispositive here. And how -- and so, President Bollinger, how do you respond to that?

BOLLINGER: So, of course there should not be discrimination against any group based on race. And Harvard made the argument, and I think it

completely convincingly that there is no discrimination, no effort to limit the number of Asian Americans who are students in the class. Really, two

points to be made. The first, is that when admissions offices put together classes, student bodies, they take into account unbelievable variety of

factors. They look for young people from all parts of the United States.


They try to get places from international backgrounds. They look for people with special kinds of experiences in life. They want athletes. And we want

people who are racially unethically diverse. And so, they compose a class. It's not done simply by looking at standardized test scores and grades,

although those are important factors to be sure.

So, it's really wrong to say that we should simply line everybody up and decide based on standardized test scores and grades. You know, what 1,000

students are to be admitted, much more complex than that.

The second point is that, we are dealing with something in America of unique discrimination against African Americans. We have recognized this.

We have tried to come to terms with that. We are still trying to do that. We are trying to correct for what are continuing injustices that African

Americans face.

MARTIN: President Bollinger, go back to the Grutter case, if you would. This is when you were the president of the University of Michigan. And the

plaintiff in that case was a white resident of Michigan. She applied for admissions to the law school. She had some strong credentials. She was

denied admission. And the case was taken to the Supreme Court. You were named as a defendant in the case. Tell us a little bit about that decision

and why it was so consequential, and what role that plays in where we are now?

BOLLINGER: So, the quick overview is Brown versus Board of Education in 1954 decides that segregation by race of schools is unconstitutional, and

that's a major decision, the most significant of the last century. By 1971, institutions like universities had realized that we were not making

progress in overcoming racial injustice. Every top university, selective university, decided to consider race and ethnicity in order to have

integrated student bodies.

In 1978, the Supreme Court had a case challenging that. And in an opinion that made up a majority written by Justice Powell, he said, you could

consider race and ethnicity if you did it for educational purposes, for the benefits of educational diversity. But you could not take it into an

account to rectify past the present injustices.

My case that I was involved with, really against the University of Michigan and the law school which had a policy that basically every other law school

had, of trying to have a diverse student body was again challenged. And a majority of the court, five justices upheld that practice.

So, it was a landmark decision because it -- we had not had a majority of reaching that conclusion before. So, in 2003, this became settled

constitutional law. That was followed by a subsequent decision called Fisher, which reaffirmed Grutter, and now we are with these two cases

before the new court.

MARTIN: I think in the wake of this court's decision to overturn Roe V. Wade, I think many people are remembering that the late Supreme Court

Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, took issue with the grounds in which Roe was decided. I mean, she said that she thought that the privacy rights was not

a strong foundation. That in fact it should have been decide on the basis of equal protection under the law.

So, this makes me wonder, Professor Stone, if you feel similarly about the Grutter decision whether, sort of, hinging this on this, kind of, vague

notion of diversity is -- was not a firm foundation. That, really, it should have been a matter of reparations, which I know is a loaded term.

But it's a matter of redressing profound systemic past discrimination and would that have been a better choice?

STONE: I mean, I agree strongly with that. I think that was the view of several of the justices. At the time, Justice Powell was really the only

one who strongly put forward the diversity rationale. That he was a swing vote in that case. The explanation for affirmative action was based fully

upon the notion that we have lived in a very unfair, unjust, discriminatory society that continues to have both the effects and the realities of that

discrimination and that this is one of the ways to which I'm to address it.

And it implies, by the way, not just on higher education. It applies in business. It applies in the military. I mean, one of the things that people

forget is this is not anomalies (ph) to universities. All sorts of entities and organizations throughout the nation engaged in affirmative action in

order to improve both their function and also to have a positive impact on society. So, I think it was a terrible mistake that the courts have moved

into this diversity rationale.


Which is not say that it doesn't have value, but it's to say, as you suggested, that the core fundamental of reason for affirmative action is

less about diversity, it is about justice. It's about reckoning with our history, with our past, and even with the unfortunate discrimination that

continues to exist in our society today. And there are many ways that we attempt to do that, and this is one of them and it's been successful.

MARTIN: There are many analysts who are saying, this is a foregone conclusion. That this court is determined to overturn affirmative action.

This courts not guided by president. We've seen this in other, you know, other examples. People who've looked at this court closely believe that

this court does not share your concern about the utility of affirmative action, it doesn't share your concern about the consequences of ending it.

And clearly, they don't share your concern about the depth of past discrimination against African Americans. So, given that, what now,

Professor Stone, do you want to start? What's the way forward here?

STONE: Well, first of all, I do fear that six justices on the current Supreme Court will take a strongly negative approach of the legality and

constitutionality of affirmative action. Far more so than the majority of court has ever done.

And as in the abortion context, I think we'll see the same type of reaction from these justices, that's in part why they were appointed. And it's the

most partisan, and in some ways, the most radical majority that we've had in the Supreme Court in a century. And that's very troubling to those of us

who believe deeply in constitutional law and in the importance of the Supreme Court.

What we do going forward, assuming they do strike down the constitutionality and legality of affirmative action is a great question.

The best answer to that would be to create equality in our society in terms of opportunities for education, the money that's spent on K through six

schools, the amount of resources that is spent on residential housing, and training of individuals.

A lot of the problem is the fact that, as a society, we've not done very much to address the effect of past discrimination. And affirmative action

was one way of attempting to do that. But there are lots of other ways to do it. It's just not clear that this society and this court are prepared to

do so.

MARTIN: So, President Bollinger, before we let you go, you've been writing about this issue for many, many years. You've been thinking about it for

many, many years. And I just find myself wondering what this moment brings up for you and what do you see as the way forward?

BOLLINGER: So, I didn't set out to make this a central issue of my life. But I was, by virtue of being president of the University of Michigan and

the lawsuits that were brought, it became central to my life. I've always believed in. But this became a much more of a mission.

Jeff and I are from a generation that were formed and shaped in the era of the civil rights movement. We became law professors in the context of Brown

versus the Board of Education and the profound effects on law. From our point of view -- from my point of view, it would be a tragedy if a majority

of the Supreme Court, as appears very likely, were to overturn a half century of efforts by higher education to try to help overcome the racial

injustices that we have lived with.

This is not a small matter. As we see in other universities that have been affected by bans on affirmative action. University of California Berkeley,

University of Michigan have seen African American students plummet. But it's not only higher education. I mean, this is an unraveling of the

efforts of institutions all across the United States to try and deal with racial injustices that we have inherited. And they continue to affect

American society adversely.

So, to me, it would be a tragedy. We would be entering a new era in which we would be ebbing on our efforts to try to live up to the ideals of Brown

versus Board of Education.

MARTIN: President Lee Bollinger, Professor Geoffrey Stone, thank you so much for talking with us today.

BOLLINGER: Thank you.

STONE: Thank you for having us.


AMANPOUR: The dangers of going backwards.

And finally, tonight, Dolly Parton being her iconic self.


DOLLY PARTON, SINGER: Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a living. Barely getting by. It's all taking and no giving.



AMANPOUR: After being inducted into the songwriters, Grammy, country, gospel and happiness halls of fame, it was only a matter of time until

Dolly Parton entered the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And in true style, she has now written a rock and roll album to prove her new status.

That is it for now. Thank you for watching. And goodbye from Kyiv.