Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With U.S. National Security Council Coordinator For Strategic Communications John Kirby; Interview With Historian Nina Khrushcheva; Interview With Columbia University History Professor And "Shutdown: How Covid Shook The World's Economy" Author Adam Tooze; Interview With 22-Time Tennis Grand Slam Champion Rafael Nadal. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 07, 2023 - 13:00:00   ET



BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR. Here's what's coming up.

500 days of war. As the U.S. announces a major new aid package for Ukraine, including controversial cluster bombs, I'm joined by the national security

council's John Kirby.

Then --


VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I want you all to also know about this, support for the entire Wagner Group was fully

provided by the state.


GOLODRYGA: -- two weeks since the Wagner mutiny, is Putin weakened? The view from within Russia, with historian Nina Khrushcheva, who joins me from


Plus --


JANET YELLEN, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: During meetings with my counterparts, I'm communicating the concerns that I've heard from the U.S.

business leadership (ph).


GOLODRYGA: -- trade ties that bind. With U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in China, we'll dive into the state of U.S. China relations with

historian and author, Adam Tooze.

And --


RAFAEL NADAL, 22-TIME TENNIS GRAND SLAM CHAMPION: Yes. I know I am in an important part of the history of the sport, and that makes me feel proud.


GOLODRYGA: -- Tennis fever. With all eyes on Wimbledon, we revisit Christiane's conversation with Rafael Nadal.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Ukrainians have now endured nearly 500 days of war. And their pain shows no sign of easing. The death toll from a Russian strike on the western city of

Lviv has now listen to 10. In an attempt to help bring that suffering to an end, the United States is expected to announce a new military aid package

for the country.

But in a highly controversial move, they will send cluster bombs to Ukraine for the first time. So controversial that they're actually banned in 120

countries. You can see them here, cluster bombs are canisters filled with smaller bombs that can be dropped from the air and released across a wide

area. They pose a major threat to civilians after the initial attack because they leave behind unexploded munitions.

It is important to note, the cluster bombs have been used before in this war by both Ukrainians and Russians.

Joining me now from Washington is the national security council's John Kirby. John, it's always good to see you. So, Ukraine welcomes news of

these cluster bombs because they "have extraordinary psycho emotional impact on the Russians." But up until recently, we know that the U.S. has

been hesitant upon delivering these cluster bombs. And given the timing of this, this counteroffensive, even according to President Zelenskyy going

slower than expected and Ukraine quickly running through its ammunition, why shouldn't this be viewed as an active desperation?


later this afternoon. And I don't want to get ahead of that process here right now with you.

I would just tell you that we are in constant touch with Ukrainians about how this counteroffensive is going and what they need to be effective. And

we have shown many, many times, over the last 16 months, that we're willing to evolve and change the capabilities, as we need to be to allow them to be

as effective and more -- and successful as we can on the battlefield.

The other thing that we have done, historically over 16 months, Bianna, is make sure that we are effectively managing the inventory of the kinds of

systems that we have and are providing, and their inventory in Ukraine, about how much they have and how much they're going through.

Again, without getting ahead of any announcements, you don't have to look very far to see that this counteroffensive is very much about artillery. It

is a gunfight, literally, as Ukrainians are trying to penetrate deep in behind Russian defenses and make some progress. So, artillery and artillery

rounds are our key capability. And you're going to see us continue to provide that.

GOLODRYGA: And that includes cluster bombs?

KIRBY: Well, again, I don't want to get ahead of the announcements. I think we'll have more to say about this this afternoon. I'm just telling

you that they need capabilities to be able to breakthrough those defenses. We also need to be mindful of the inventory that we have to provide them

with artillery shells and the inventory that they have and what they're going through. And they're firing, you know, many thousands of rounds per


GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you one more question about cluster bombs, which have been widely reported to have been greenlit by the administration. I

know you don't want to get ahead of that, and whatever we expect to hear today, but I want you to respond to what General Mark Hertling said about

the concern among military like him and people around the world about the impact it can have on civilians.



LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), FORMER COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY EUROPE AND SEVENTH ARMY: Civilians after the battle can pick them up and injure.

And in fact, Russia has been using it in the Eastern Donbas since 2014. There have been over 1,000 Ukrainians killed by just -- Ukrainian civilians

killed by picking these up. The Human Rights Watch also said there's been about 400 children who have seen these small little cans, pick them up and

they've exploded. So, it leaves what's called a dirty battlefield afterwards.

If you even go with the 3 to 5 percent dead rates that I've experienced, personally, that's -- you know, that's about four or five small grenades

per round times 100,000, you're talking about close to a half a million, and that's a conservative estimate, of these small grenades that will be

left on the battlefield.


GOLODRYGA: Now, that dead rate, we should note, in terms of what the Russians have is at about 40 percent. And the U.S. is saying that it has

been brought down to about 2.5 to 3 percent. But we still see the ramifications from that as explained by General Hertling. Is the U.S.

prepared for the consequences, potentially?

KIRBY: Well, yes. Without getting ahead of decisions here, and again, we'll have more to say about this I think later today. I'll only just tell

you that -- a couple of things. Yes, cluster munitions had been used on this battlefield by both the Ukrainians and the Russians. The difference

is, the Russians are using them as a part of a broader range of capabilities to kill indiscriminately and to attack and a neighboring

nation that's posed no threat to them. They are the aggressors and they are using cluster munitions in a very deadly, lethal way to kill innocent


The Ukrainians have used cluster munitions in this war, as you noted, to defend themselves. And they're using them on their own territory. And they

would probably the first to tell you that Ukrainian civilian population is far more at risk by Russian drones, Russian cruise missiles, Russian

soldiers, Russian tanks and Russian artillery on their property, on their territory, than those civilians are at risk by the potential for unexploded


That doesn't mean -- and this is a really important point, it doesn't mean that even without speaking to a decision today, it doesn't mean that we

aren't taking seriously the risks of unexploded ordinance in Ukraine. We already have taken that seriously. We are working with Ukraine on demining

efforts. Demining efforts that they're doing now, Bianna, and demining efforts that they're going to have to do when this war ends. But let's not

be pollyannaish about who the aggressor here is Russia. And Russia are using these munitions literally to kill indiscriminately.

GOLODRYGA: No, no doubt. We know that hundreds of Ukrainians have died because of Russia's munitions bombs. So, clearly, their cluster bombs are

used at a higher rate.

Let me go back to the counteroffensive though, because as I noted, President Zelenskyy himself has admitted that it's going slower than had

been anticipated. And his reasoning is, perhaps, to blame the West, at least, in terms of being adequately supplied with the weapons that he

needs. Here's what he said to Erin Burnett about this, earlier this week.


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I'm grateful to the U.S., as the leaders of our support. But I told them as

well as the European leaders that we would like to start our counteroffensive earlier and we will need all the weapons and material for

that. Why? Simply because, if we start later, it will go slower. And we will have losses of lives, because everything is heavily mined, and we will

have to go through it all.


GOLODRYGA: Does the U.S. bear responsibility for not giving Ukraine the weapons it needed sooner?

KIRBY: Look, I'll tell you, we have been in lockstep with the Ukrainians for months and months and months now knowing that they were getting ready

for a counteroffensive. And I mean many months, and almost daily contact with Ukrainians where they laid out what their capabilities and their

requirements were with the weapon systems they wanted, the training that they needed, not just on systems, but how to operate and what we call

combined arms maneuver in open field.

We have worked to provide all of that to them. And basically, filled their shopping list well in advance of their kickoff date. So, we're comfortable

and confident that we and our allies and partners did everything we could to fulfill their needs and to get them ready for this counteroffensive.

Now, they can speak to the timing and when and where and all of that, that's their operations. But we're very comfortable that we did everything

we can to help them. And, oh, by the way, we still are. I mean, there's going to be additional packages of support coming to Ukraine in certainly

coming days and weeks and months as they continue to fight.

GOLODRYGA: Does that include ATACMS?


KIRBY: Well, again, I won't get into particular system here with you right now. As the president has said, you know, we're going to keep an open mind,

there's been no decision on ATACMS at this point. But we're going to continue to talk to the Ukrainians about the capabilities that they need

most in this counteroffensive.

GOLODRYGA: I know that President Biden has greenlit the training for F- 16s. But realistically, in terms of windows planes, those jets can arrive in Ukraine. A British military officials say that may not be until the

fall. That seems rather late, especially given that Ukraine has acknowledge that this counteroffensive right now is going slower for them.

KIRBY: Yes. And we've talked about this before too, that the F-16s were never intended to be a counteroffensive weapon. Now, we'll see where things

go. Hopefully, this war can be concluded much quicker. But in case that it's not, we'll get them the F-16s and we'll give them as soon as possible

through a consortium of countries that are willing to help to provide them.

But the counteroffensive tools that they most needed were the ones that we most work on filling. I mean, and there's really four categories of that.

There's armor, there's ammunition, of course, there's artillery and then there's air defense, and we have prioritized all four of those in recent


GOLODRYGA: And perhaps that's why we're seeing that there could be an announcement with regards to ATACMS sooner rather than later. Let me ask

you about this NATO summit coming up next week in Vilnius because another big ask, as you know, from the Ukrainians is NATO membership.

Where is the U.S. on this specific issue? What is the policy that President Biden plans to bring to the summit next week when the U.S.?

KIRBY: We support NATO's open-door policy. We absolutely do support that. And we believe that future membership should be a discussion between the

member -- the party that wants to join and the alliance itself and that certain requirements, the requirements that every NATO ally has to achieve

that they -- that there's a process for those requirements to be met. And Ukraine is -- you know, has not met those requirements right now.

So, we're working with Ukraine, we're working with our allies and partners. And we'll see where this goes. Back in 2009, as you might remember, in

Bucharest, there was a declaration by the alliance that basically said that NATO is -- that Ukraine's future place is in NATO, but it remains to be

seen exactly how and when that's going to happen.

I will add this, at the summit in Vilnius next week, you can expect President Biden and our allies and partners to spend a lot of time talking

about long-term defense needs for Ukraine. So, whether membership is the issue or not, Ukraine is still going to have a long-term -- a long border

with Russia after this war ends and they're going to need to able to defend that border and defend themselves.

And so, you're going to see the allies and partners talk about what sort of long-term security commitments from other nations, including the United

States, is Ukraine going to need to keep itself free?

GOLODRYGA: You can understand though why, from the Ukrainian standpoint, they view this as sort of kicking the can down the road again. You brought

up Bucharest, and that was in 2009. Here we are so many years later, the countries in the middle of a war, and arguably, one of the best armed

countries at this point in Europe. What is your response to --

KIRBY: Well, let me stop you there though.


KIRBY: You're right. They're in the middle of a war, and that is really important to remember when you're talking about potential NATO membership

and what that means for other allies. It also has -- says a lot about where our focus needs to be right now, Bianna, and that is on helping them

succeed in this war. That's where the focus is.

GOLODRYGA: But, John, can I just jump in quickly on that issue?

KIRBY: Sure, sure.

GOLODRYGA: Because it is the point then that they have fulfilments that they still need to meet and requirements, or that they're in a war? Which

one is it?

KIRBY: It's both. There are still requirements that need to be met for NATO membership. And yes, they're in the middle of a war. And everybody

needs to be focused on helping them succeed in that war and get them what they need to -- for the fight that they're in.

GOLODRYGA: Evan Gershkovich has been held wrongfully in a Russian prison now for 100 days, what is the U.S. doing to bring it home as soon as

possible, along with Paul Whelan?

KIRBY: We're working very hard to get them both home. And you're right to mention both of them because they need to be home with their families.

There's not a single day that this administration is not working on options and trying to get them home, and doing the best we can to, A, get access to

both of them through our embassy there in Moscow, but also, keep the families informed.

Now, I think you can understand, we wouldn't, on national TV, talk about what that process looks like and what those conversations are. But I can

assure you, as we can assure the families, that we haven't forgotten either gentlemen or any wrongfully detained American anywhere in the world. And

we're going to keep working to get them home.

GOLODRYGA: There was a bit of optimism this week from Dmitry Peskov and the Kremlin saying that certain contacts remain on a possible prisoner

swap. We will continue, of course, to follow this story.

John Kirby, thank you for your time.


GOLODRYGA: We appreciate it.

KIRBY: You bet.

GOLODRYGA: Have a good weekend.

KIRBY: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, coming up after the break, the Russian perspective on the war in Ukraine. We'll speak to historian Nina Khrushcheva about the mood

inside Russia.



GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. Well, now as we just discussed with John Kirby, there is still much mystery surrounding other things going on inside of

Russia. One of them includes Yevgeny Prigozhin and his whereabouts. His fate remains unclear. But what does his failed munity mean for Russia and

for Vladimir Putin's rule?

For the view from within Russia, earlier I spoke with Nina Khrushcheva, historian and great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev.


GOLODRYGA: Nina, thank you so much for joining us. How do you interpret this week's bizarre events where you have Belarusian President Alexander

Lukashenko saying that Yevgeny Prigozhin is not in Belarus, which is where he claimed he was just two weeks ago, but in fact in St. Petersburg or even


NINA KHRUSHCHEVA, HISTORIAN: Well, and that's kind of the general feeling here about the whole Prigozhin event is that, you know, this is an -- this

was in insurgency, this was mutiny. The tanks were marching along the main Russian roads shooting at people, damaging property then, they were pardon,

then they fled. Apparently, Prigozhin did go for five seconds or less, he did go to Belarus, so we told, according to his plane schedule. But then,

suddenly, he's roaming around Moscow at St. Petersburg and his property, his guns, his money, his vehicles, his computers are given back to him

because the criminal case is closed.

And, you know, I know you've covered it and CNN has covered it repeatedly, when people go to prison and nothing is returned back to them, just one

like of, you know, we don't want war. So, this -- it's -- you know, Russia is a bizarre country. There's really never too much coherence or

consistency but this is really something absolutely special in addition to the fact that the president of a sovereign country, or so he says, often is

basically playing a second fiddle -- not even second fiddle, but sort be ranger (ph) of Putin on embarrassment with Prigozhin, which is kind of,

yet, also another level of discombobulation of Russian politics.

GOLODRYGA: It's interesting that you say that there were sort of the surprise value, no one really knowing how to respond to this mutiny from

the right, because even in the early days, following this failed mutiny, the staunchest Kremlin propagandists were quiet. They didn't know how to

react to this and what to say on Russian television. How is this all playing out right now though? What our viewers in Russia watching on their



KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, I think -- I mean, you know, kind of asking people what they think about this, they basically -- I can't say Russians are lost in

this, but they just -- I mean, the whole thing, and we just spoke about this, is so George Orwell 2022, that not only coherence but even sense and

rationale is really beyond comprehension. So, people just basically shocked but hoping it's not going to get worse.

But actually -- I mean, what's interesting that on TV, in fact, Prigozhin is being a horrible mutant. He was the man who had the insurgency. He's not

a hero. And according to the recent polls, and we know how we can trust or mistrust Russian polls, I think 69 percent now say, while he was -- you

know, yes a hero of Russia because he fought in Ukraine and screaming about it, but more than 69 percent say, well, no, no, no, he is not a hero. And

basically, we are no longer -- would never -- will never trust in him.

And he had the Russian TV, which is Kremlin Connected, basically a turning him into a great villain, which is kind of interesting because, you know,

the TV's Kremlin thing, so Putin is -- if Putin is not a villain, then Prigozhin is a villain and at the same time he's roaming the streets of

Moscow and St. Petersburg.

And what it shows to me -- and once again, I already mentioned, said this word, discombobulation, is that it is an incredible cacophony of voices. I

mean, Dimitri Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, he either doesn't do his job. He's not told what to do and he really, really does not have a message

to deliver.

GOLODRYGA: Do you see a through line between the videos that we've seen on Russian television, and this raid on Prigozhin's home and office showing

all of the money that they alleged that he has stolen, and wigs and photos? Really, I can't interpret any other way than to embarrass him. And the

photos and videos that we saw in the early days of that failed mutiny with people and supporters on the streets of Rostov really cheering him on. Is

this a way, do you think, for the Kremlin to try humiliate him?

KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, yes. I mean, certainly to humiliate him. And that's why you show this humiliation, you show Putin and, you know, he's -- kind of

his jaws were very firm when he was speaking both times about Prigozhin's mutiny and -- but, yet, the heroes and yet, there's mutiny and basically,

no, he's not going to forgive Prigozhin.

I don't read the same way that cheering up for Prigozhin, for me, that was -- when I was watching those -- this footage, and I was in Moscow at the

time, so I saw similar things and people were like, well, that's not real, it cannot be real. And so, in Rostov-on-Don, when there were people were

climbing on the tanks and taking pictures, for me it was just the same. It was like, oh, the carnival, the circus, oh, the military heroes, they're in

town. Well, they're kind of against the army. But nonetheless, they're military heroes, they'll let me take a selfie because it looks cool.

Remember that very -- I mean, you know, Russia so well, that incredible moment, the incredible symbolism when Prigozhin's tank was stuck in the

gates of the circus, like that's it, that's basically what this mutiny is.

So, it wasn't about the cheering, it's just how dare you to question Kremlin's decision one way or another. And I think that's what they were

trying to show, and that's they're still -- the propagandists are showing on TV. However, where is a legal system with that? I mean, that's what I

find so unbelievable that Prigozhin is in Moscow somewhere and nobody even explaining to us why he promised to go to Belarus but he's not there and

nobody is even asking the question why.

GOLODRYGA: And the legal system may well play out. I mean, legal system I say in air quotes. It's one thing for Putin to pardon him for treason, but

perhaps, in the days and weeks ahead, we'll see new charges against corruption or tax evasion.

You say all of this has made Putin weaker, but that he is still in control of power and not lost his grip there. What does that mean for the

personalized regime that he has built so many years cultivating, or 23 years now to try to create a situation that was full proof in terms of any

potential coups?

KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, and that's what -- you know, that what made him weaker. I actually kind of -- I argued that if he withstands the coup or mutiny, he

actually -- he will strengthen his hand. And so far, I've proven right because, you know, if you strike up a king, you'd better kill the king. And

if you don't kill the king, ultimately, the whole system rallies around the king, and that's what we are seeing happening.

I think what weakens him tremendously -- and, you know, not like he has been a really strong leader. I mean, he has been flexing his muscle and

showing his power, that doesn't necessarily mean strength. In fact, we know from political science that weak states have weak liberties. So, it is a

weak state.


What he showed -- what this mutiny showed is that there is something that brewing that not always visible but also, Prigozhin, a month before, if not

before, even a month before that, warned that something like that would happen. Where have you been, or all these people around him, where they

have been for the whole month? And so, that's the weakness because they are not in control of whatever that system they've built anymore.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. He broadcast a lot of his views. I mean, they were widely known in terms of his disagreements of military leadership. And as you

said, warnings of something like this potentially happening.

As you noted, he has effective stamped out any threats from the left. Any - - in terms of opposition candidates, they are either in jail, dead or have left the country. Has he -- does this show that he hasn't been as effective

in stamping out any potential rivalry from the right, from the nationalist, from perhaps even his own Siloviki?

KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, I -- and I don't think he was looking at it actually. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, they were so busy stomping the position

that that's why, in my view, he wasn't really going after Prigozhin, because Prigozhin is his own guy, he's a propagandist or he's a patriot. He

is the one who brutally fights the war that Putin love so much.

So, in some ways, Putin is reluctant. And you've known -- I mean, after -- in 23 years, we know he really doesn't go on (INAUDIBLE). He doesn't really

stamp on his own. He thinks that, you know, this KGB kind of camaraderie, the Siloviki camaraderie doesn't require that.

But now, we see that it is indeed going to happen. It is already happening. It's already happening with Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Chechnya, because


GOLODRYGA: Chechnya.

KHRUSHCHEVA: Right, exactly. Because there's -- the lawyer and a journalist from (INAUDIBLE) were just beaten up there. And clearly, I mean,

that was very something that Kadyrov would have done, and Putin probably would have cheered up earlier before Prigozhin. But now, suddenly, the

Russian's, as you said in air quotes, legal system is all under those people who had beaten up the journalists and the lawyer, the human rights

lawyer and the liberal journalists, precisely because Kadyrov shouldn't get any ideas. Kadyrov should not be doing all his own fights, and that's why

Putin is really trying to stamp on potential threat from the Siloviki or from the right.

GOLODRYGA: And those pictures and images of that journalist who was brutalized are just horrific and yet, so important for us to focus on and

talk about. Next year, Nina, is an election year in Russia. And the country has not held a fair election, and I know how many years. But it was widely

assumed that Vladimir Putin would run again. They have changed the law to allow him to remain in power until 2036.

Given everything that has transpired with the war not going well and with this failed mutiny, do you see any opportunity or reason for Vladimir Putin

to perhaps change his planning for what happens in the next year?

KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, it's a big question. We all discuss it. I love how you kind of had a little laugh at the election, because that's -- I was talking

to -- the former Al Hamas Qui (ph), the -- former Al Hamas Qui (ph) journalist today and we were discussing that. I mean, it's like, it's such

a sham, like in the Soviet Union, it was total sham to have the elections. And suddenly, before the election, they still like, oh, we really need to

care about our people, we need to pay them extra money, extra pensions, extra something.

Why would it matter at all? I mean, just stop even this charade. And it's really quite an interesting question, why Russia continues to have the

charade of the press, the charade of the law, the charade of the elections sort of democratic forms and whatnot? But I guess that's for the next


I don't think -- I mean, actually think that Putin would have to -- there's speculation that he may step down. I don't see -- with the war on Ukraine

not going well, I don't see how he can step down, because that's his only - - for now, it's his only hold on power.

GOLODRYGA: Nina, always appreciate your insight and having you on. Thank you so much.

KHRUSHCHEVA: Yes. Thanks so much. Thanks.


GOLODRYGA: And coming up after the break, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen meets leaders in Beijing, we look at what it will take to thaw U.S.

China relations.



GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is in China for a high stakes trip where she will attempt to build bridges between the

world's two largest economies. U.S. China relations have taken a nosedive in recent years, Premier Li Qiang likened the relationship to a rainbow,

saying, while there may be wind and rain, there will always be a rainbow.

So, let's dig into all of this with economic historian Adam Tooze. Welcome to the program from France. Adam, good to see you.

So, I know the expectations are pretty low here, similar where they were with Secretary of State Blinken in his recent visit to China and meeting

with President Xi. The U.S.'s goal was basically to create a floor under the relationship. What is Secretary Yellen need to accomplish on this trip?


is fill this very thankless task of spelling out to Beijing that on the one hand, the United States wants a cooperative relationship with China in the

economic sphere, it wants what they call healthy competition. And on the other hand, Washington will not step back from the national security


And she's been trying to walk this line. Jake Sullivan fleshed this out with this old image of a small garden with high walls. And what's in a

small garden are things like artificial intelligence and chips and certain key areas of renewal technology. And those are as it were kind of

carveouts. And at the same time, they're trying to get Beijing to agree that they're not in a state of economic war and that China and the U.S.

still have a huge number of interesting common, and that full-on decoupling is basically unthinkable.

So, de-risking is this term that the West has kind of agreed on, but of course, the Chinese hate thinking of themselves as a risk. So, really, it's

a delicate, delicate diplomatic balancing act.

GOLODRYGA: Those export controls on technology and U.S. chips should be specific are something that Janet Yellen is defending and something that

obviously the Chinese are focused on. But if you look at just the sheer statistics and data, both U.S. exports and imports from China grew for a

third straight year last year. How much of this is political posturing versus the U.S. and China really at risk for what we've been talking about

for a while now, and that is potentially decoupling?

TOOZE: I think both things are absolutely real. So, the surge in trade is a dramatic artifact, in part of the recovery from COVID, of the shifting

patterns of demand in the U.S. U.S. consumers lurched from buying services to buying goods. And who makes goods? The Chinese make goods.

There's a major Chinese export push going on, not really so far concentrated on the U.S. but on Europe, which is E.V.s, electric vehicles,

where the Chinese are dominant player. So, this is an absolute reality. It is a hundred billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars in fact, an

increased trade over in a bubble. It was already a huge relationship.


And at the same time, there is nothing -- this is -- it is not posturing. I mean, the stance which both Beijing and the United States are taking with

regards to strategic exports and imports is serious as -- you know, serious as a heart attack. I mean, it's really absolutely linked to strategic

planning, which at its outer edge, includes war scenarios or blockades scenarios over Taiwan.

So, both of these realities are -- it's really difficult to actually sort of encompass within a single vision of economic and political

relationships. That's what they're trying to figure out, because in the old Cold War, the last Cold War, the Europeans maybe had trade relations with

the Soviet Union, but the United States had a very attenuated economic relationship with the Soviet Union.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. It's nowhere near the relationship that the United States has with China or the China has with Europe. And that leads to my next

question of whether the U.S. can successfully thread this needle and pursue this new policy without Europe fully on board.

TOOZE: Well, I mean, they found a formula with this idea of de-risking, which the Americans, very unusually, actually borrowed from Commission

President Ursula von der Leyen. And de-risking is a kind of theme which they were able, at the G7 level, to agree on, unlike decoupling which was

too radical for the Europeans.

But I think that deep down everyone understands that this means two different things, which is that for the Europeans, multipolarity is what

they want. They actually would like to have a variety of different trading relationships at emerging market and low-income countries around the world.

The United States, fundamentally, is not in the business of promoting multipolarity. The United States wants to consolidate a block, which is in

the business of containing China's rise. And in -- you know, when it comes to the crunch, there is a very wide gap between -- relations between Europe

and China and perhaps particularly, Germany and China, because Chancellor Scholz entertained Premier Li recently and the mood --


TOOZE: -- around that meeting was very considerately.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And French President Macron was recently in China as well. And this comes as the U.S. has warned China and used Russia as an example

of what can happen when you're overly dependent on unreliable trading partner. That having been said, this is much more complicated than the U.N.

-- than Europe just following suit with the United States.

I guess my bigger question to you is, yes, Janet Yellen is respected by many of her counterparts in China. But can anything be tangibly

accomplished without President Xi signing off on it? And I ask because he does seem to be the outlier, the idealogue here. And perhaps it was his

policies alone that have led to some of the economic challenges the country is seeing, whether to Zero-COVID policy and obviously, cracking down on

their private sector. And the recent raid we have seen on western companies inside China as well.

Do you sense an opening for Xi to take in some of the advice that his counterparts and advisers are telling him?

TOOZE: It's striking if you look at Yellen's remarks, the two statements that she's made so far, that in both cases, she refers back to the Bali

meeting between Biden and Xi, this famous meeting which went on and on and on. It was supposed to be just a brief encounter and turned into an

extended conversation that went well -- apparently, well beyond the original narrow remit -- the conversation.

And twice over Xi said, as it were as authorize from the top down, we need to continue developing this relationship. And I think that is exactly, as

you're suggesting, a kind of opening to say, look at the presidential level from the very top. This is our mandate to act. At the same time, however,

though these countervailing tendencies, which certainly are ideological, it's also, I think, if you talk to Chinese economists, very unclear whether

Xi really fully realizes the seriousness of the economic crisis that China is in.

Because the business cycles in the United States and China are going in very different directions right now. With the American economy so resilient

with these incredible job numbers coming in. And on the other hand, really rather alarming figures for unemployment in China. 20 percent unemployment

amongst young people. These are not figures we've seen anytime recently. And it's not clear whether Xi has really -- has it were given the

greenlight for the regime to go into stimulus mode, to offset this, and they need that. They need that greenlight.

GOLODRYGA: And they have massive demographic issues as well. Let me focus in more on the state of the U.S. economy. Because as we head into a

presidential election year, this administration has embraced what they call Bidenomics, and that is how Biden views his policies being effective in

lowering the unemployment rate and continuing job growth and expansion despite record high inflation, which is lowering.


And yet, it doesn't seem to be permeating to the American public in terms of polls, suggesting that less than 40 percent are satisfied with the state

of the U.S. economy. Take a listen to what President Biden said on this issue just yesterday.

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Over 13 million new jobs since I have been elected to office. More jobs than any president has ever created in the

first two years. Nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs, including 14,000 in this state alone. This state alone.

And again, that's more in two years than -- it was created in four years than any other administration. Unemployment below 4 percent for the longest

time in 50 years. Inflation is less than half of what it was a year ago, and we're continuing to work on it.


GOLODRYGA: And yet, Adam, only 34 percent of Americans recently polled support his economic policies and approve of what he's done for the

economy. How do you explain that?

TOOZE: It's a standard feature, and a really remarkable one of those American opinion and sentiment numbers that they are massively polarized

and partisan, entirely partisan. So, from one day to the next, as the results over presidential election become clear, roughly half of Americans

flip from feeling good about the economy to feeling bad, and the reverse.

It's -- so, the Michigan numbers, which are one of the most commonly tracked sentiment numbers show this. And it's a truly astonishing fact.

It's as though -- actually, people's assessment of their pocketbooks was entirely colored by their party politics.

So, given Biden's approval ratings in general, given the fact that as it were the political camps in America are deeply entrenched, and given the

ambiguity of the recovery that we are seeing from COVID, this is no ordinary business cycle, this is a very unusual cycle we are seeing. Those

was huge increases in employment, which the president is citing, they're -- absolutely, they are there in the statistical record, but they come off the

back, of course, of the horrendous unemployment numbers of 2020.

So, as the American economy has swung back, many people have gone back into work. The gap between white and African American employment rates has

narrowed to a degree we've never seen before. But at the same time, the inflation has eaten away at real wages, and that, I think, is where

compounding the existing polarization and partisan interpretations of every single fact about American reality is where I think you get these

extraordinary numbers from. Where, essentially, America at full employment still feels to, at least, very substantial fractions of it, feel very

miserable economically.


TOOZE: And it's quite difficult for the administration to then sell this Biden economics line -- Bidenomics line, which is all about industrial

policy and, you know, building new factories and the Inflation Reduction Act. It's quite difficult for them to you can get that message across, I


GOLODRYGA: And yet, it is so important, especially heading into an election year, we know that voters typically vote with their pocketbooks.

Adam Tooze, it was great to have you. We'll have to have you back on to talk about that fed policy as well. Because I know you have some insights

and thoughts on that. Thank you for joining us today and have a great weekend.

Well, still to come tonight, we look back at a conversation with the legendary Rafael Nadal. That is up next.



GOLODRYGA: And finally, as Wimbledon wraps up an exciting first week of tennis, we look back on an interview with the legendary Rafael Nadal.

Christiane spoke with him last year, a day after he broke the record for Grand Slams.




AMANPOUR: You know there are so many superlatives, the greatest of all time, inspiring, unique. The only word I can think of is hallucinatory.

What you produced these two weeks, it defies reason, it defies logic, it defies physics. Do you believe that?

NADAL: Well, have been, yes, an interesting two weeks, emotional two weeks. And we went through, yes, a little bit of everything. But at the

end, the things finishes the best way possible now. So, yes, I can't be happier and I can't be more thankful to everyone, because the support and

the love that I received during the both weeks have been unforgettable.

AMANPOUR: A lot of love. And there's the cup. I mean, there we have it, the great trophy. Fourteen times, 22 Grand Slams, a whole load of other,

you know, U.S. Open, Australian Open, two Olympic gold medal medals. Are you ready to declare or at least have people say that you are now the

greatest of all time? You wouldn't agree when I asked you last time.

NADAL: I honestly don't think much about that. And from the bottom of my heart, I really don't care that much. You know, I mean, I think it doesn't

matter. You know, I think we achieved our dreams. I achieved my dream, and I enjoy what I'm doing.

Yes, I understand the question. And I know the press and the people is always caring a lot about this stuff. But in some way, I know I am in an

important part of the history of the sport now. And that makes me feel proud, happy. And at the end, it doesn't matter much.

AMANPOUR: When you came off the court yesterday in your on-court speech, you said, I never thought that at 36 years old, and with all these

injuries, that I would be in this position. And we see your -- you know, your fingers bandage, like Muhammad Ali after he takes off his boxing

gloves. We see your feet, and you're limping today.

It is an amazing achievement, because you yourself said, and you turned to your team saying, I didn't think I would be here. What -- then what made

you achieve this?

NADAL: Well, yes, it's unexpected. The last couple of years have been very difficult. After the pandemic, something happened in my foot, and I am not

able to manage the pain to play often and even practice. And, in the past, I have a lot of things, starting from the foot for the first time in 2005,

then, of course, the knees have been a big issue for me for such a long time. Then, a couple of time, I break my wrist.

I don't know. But the only thing that I can say is, going through all these, probably, challenges, I always hold the passion for keep going. You

know, and I always hold the love for the game, you know. And I always wanted to keep going. And that's probably why I am in the position that I

am today.

AMANPOUR: So, because you have just said that, you always wanted to keep going, you know there was a whole load of gossip and innuendo and rumor

that you might announce your retirement and that, particularly, if you hadn't won, you might announce your retirement. Clearly, you haven't done

that, and you're going to Wimbledon, if you can.

NADAL: No, nothing changed for me. Winning or losing don't change my mind in that case. It's all about having the chance to be happy playing tennis

or not. And if the pain is impossible to manage, then you can't be happy, because live and go on court, and in practice days without having the

chance to practice in a -- not in a fantastic way, but in a decent way, then, for me, it don't make sense, you know.


So, I never had, in my mind, to announce any retirement after this event. But, of course, there is a possibility that the things are not improving,

then I don't know what can happen.

AMANPOUR: So, you have a syndrome. Is it called Mueller-Weiss Syndrome on your feet?


AMANPOUR: What does it actually do? And you said yesterday that you had to inject your feet to numb them to play the final? Was it just that one day

or did you have to do it throughout these two weeks?

NADAL: No, I did every -- yes, I had to do every single day.


NADAL: Because, if not, I was not able to --


NADAL: I will not be able to give myself a chance to compete well. Three weeks ago, I played in Rome. And I -- after one set and a half, I started

to play on one leg, because I was not able to run at all. So, let's see. I am just super happy about the things that happened. But, of course, I need

to keep finding solutions for that.

AMANPOUR: So, I think it was your coach, I think it was Carlos Moya who said that, at this time, at this time in your career, yes, you have to

manage the pain and you have to see how -- where that leads you, but in terms of tennis, you have got. I mean, you've obviously got that down.

There's nothing more that you can achieve in the technical side, that it's all about the mind now.

NADAL: Well, I always think that there is always room to keep improving. I understand the sport that way. Every time that I go on a practice, I go

with the goal of improving something, and that's the way that I understand the sport. For me, don't make sense just practice for practice. When I go

to practice, I go with the determination to improve something. And that's the way that I approach at all my tennis career.

Of course, today, the physical issue is -- makes the difference now, because if -- like if I am healthy, I can practice the proper way, I am

happy, I enjoy what I am doing. Of course, this year, I am playing well. So, then my chances are increasing.

AMANPOUR: But when you're in the -- I don't know, the Australian Open final and you are two sets down and you're playing the guy who won the U.S.

Open final, what goes through your mind? Even here, you were -- back when you played Felix Auger-Aliassime, I was there. I watched it.


AMANPOUR: And it was very touch-and-go.

NADAL: Well --

AMANPOUR: What steel trap do you --

NADAL: -- on my mind, this is a normal thing that I lose. But if I lose, let the opponent win me. I --

AMANPOUR: Beat you?

NADAL: Beat you, exactly.

AMANPOUR: So, he's -- they still have to beat you. You're not going to anything go.

NADAL: Exactly. I don't have to lose. You know, I don't have to give -- I don't have to put the things easy for the opponent. And, in my mind, it's

OK. Things are super difficult, but let's keep trying to find a solution. You know, let's keep trying to find a way to play a little bit better, to

make the opponent feel a little bit more uncomfortable. I don't know, just try to fight mentally and in terms of tennis, of course.

AMANPOUR: You have a reputation of being just a good guy. You have a reputation of being humble. You're always generous. Where does that come

from? Where did that come from in your youth or in your experience as a winner?

NADAL: Well, I think I grow up with -- I think with good values. I think my family -- I never felt the pressure from my family to play tennis. I

always felt the pressure from my family to be educated, to be respectful, not to win, honestly. And that helps. And I think I had the right people

next to me during all my life. And I am -- I think I am a guy that listen a lot, look around and try to take the things that I like from the people.

And because of tennis, I think I was able to live experiences that I will never enjoy without tennis, and know people, know different parts of the

world. And then, in that case, you see how fortunate we are for all the things that we are able to live.

AMANPOUR: You must feel some joy at beating Federer and Djokovic in terms of the Grand Slams.


AMANPOUR: Can you take some joy?

NADAL: Yes, of course.


NADAL: No, no, of course, I -- as I said, of course, I want to be the player with more Grand Slams of the history. That's competition. But it's

not something that I am upset at all and it's not something that honestly changed my mind. And I'm --


AMANPOUR: Maybe that's how you keep achieving?

NADAL: You never know. But honestly, it's something that not bothers me if Novak win 23 and I stay with 22, I think my happiness will not change at

all, not even 1 percent. So --

AMANPOUR: So, people like McEnroe and Mats Wilander and others have been saying, never again, this is never -- this record will never be touched, it

will never be broken, specifically the 14 French Opens. A, do you agree with that?

NADAL: Difficult to say that from myself, no. But, I mean, I always have something in mind, that I always consider myself a very normal guy. So, if

I did it, maybe somebody else can do it. But it's obvious that the record of 22 Grand Slams, I think, is something much more possible that somebody

increase that record.


NADAL: I am sure that is going to happen. I mean, 14 Roland-Garros is something. I mean, very difficult. I don't know, then because -- yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Rafael Nadal, thank you so much.

NADAL: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: Congratulations on making history. Thanks for being with us.

NADAL: Thanks so much.


GOLODRYGA: And Christiane was spot on. What a hallucinatory run it was.

Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching. Have a great weekend, everyone, and goodbye from New York.