Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Cornell Brooks Tech Policy Institute Executive Director And Academic Adviser To NATO And U.N. Security Council James Rogers; Interview With Former Deputy Supreme Allied Command Europe And "War With Russia" Author Richard Shirreff; Interview With Anti-Corruption Action Center Executive Director Daria Kaleniuk; Interview With The Quorum Report Editor anAndd Journalist Scott Braddock. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired August 31, 2023 - 13:00:00   ET



CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR, live from Kyiv. Here's what's coming up.


YULIA, UKRAINIAN DRONE PILOT: We do whatever we can now to resist, because Russians want to kill all of us.


AMANPOUR: Drones changing the course of this war. I meet the civilians training to assemble and operate them.

And as another drone is shot out of the sky near Moscow, how this technology is redefining all of modern warfare with James Rogers, adviser

on the U.N. and NATO on drones, and former NATO deputy supreme allied commander, Richard Shirreff.

Also, ahead --


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): It's absolutely clear what kind of decisions these are, corrupt decisions.


AMANPOUR: The president reveals more corruption, but what does it mean for the war effort? I ask the head of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center,

Daria Kaleniuk.

Plus, a deadly and tragic fire in Central Johannesburg. Correspondent David McKenzie reports from the scene.

And --


SCOTT BRADDOCK, EDITOR, THE QUORUM REPORT AND JOURNALIST: He's accused of deep seeded corruption in the office of the attorney general, one of the

largest law enforcement agencies basically in the country.


AMANPOUR: -- the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxston and its significance beyond the state. Hari Sreenivasan speaks to

journalist Scott Braddock.

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

Drones are again targeting Russia with one shot down near Moscow and three more intercepted in the Bryansk region which borders Ukraine, Russian

officials are saying that. And it comes just one day after Russia faced its biggest drone assault since the war began. This, as officials here in Kyiv

say their forces are making gradual gains in the counteroffensive. Drones are becoming a game changer in this fight. Their use is watched closely by

experts around the world. And some say they're transforming the nature of war itself.

But in this counteroffensive, military officials say Ukraine is losing more than 40 drones a today. So, ordinary citizens are being recruited to make

up the shortfall for the front lines, as we saw at a drone training center here in Ukraine.


AMANPOUR (voiceover): Any support is welcome in Ukraine, especially if it appears blessed by Jesus, say these drone students, set up in an abandoned

church, working on their simulators and convinced their cause is just.

YULIA, UKRAINIAN DRONE PILOT: We do whatever we can now to resist, because Russians want to kill all of us. This is genocide.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Next door in the construct and repair class, Yulia solders and tweaks and teaches. This part is fairly simple and fun, she


AMANPOUR: And did you study engineering? What are you in normal life?

YULIA: A writer and a film director.

AMANPOUR: You're a writer and a film director?


AMANPOUR: And now, you're a drone operator?


AMANPOUR (voiceover): We're not allowed to disclose the location where Yulia and the others put theory into practice.

AMANPOUR: Here in this innocuous looking field with a rudimentary obstacle course, this could almost be child's play but with deadly results, of

course. These are all civilian drones that the Ukrainians are repurposing for their current war effort. They can be bought off store shelves. But

this signifies a turning point in the conduct of modern warfare.

AMANPOUR (voiceover): A $500 drone that's been weaponized can take out vehicles and weapon systems worth millions.

Software engineer, Lyuba Shipovich, started the Victory Drones Initiative.

LYUBA SHIPOVICH, CO-FOUNDER, VICTORY DRONES: The most advantage, it's one of the most cost-effective weapon. And it's also a weapon and it could be

used as reconnaissance. For reconnaissance purpose, if you see the enemy, you can hit enemy, you can hide like your soldiers. So, it's --

AMANPOUR: But enemy they can see you.

SHIPOVICH: Yes. If you don't use security measurements.


AMANPOUR (voiceover): Like hiding or disguising their signals, because the Russians are adapting fast. She says they're mostly crowd funded and have

deals with the Ukrainian military to train front line troops, tens of thousands so far in what's become indispensable strategy.

That was just practice dropping a water bottle full of sand. But just a few days ago, the group says one of their former trainees took out this Russian

tank on the eastern front. They can also wipe out artillery positions and troop carriers.

AMANPOUR: How long did it take you to learn to fly?

AMANPOUR (voiceover): Many of these citizen soldiers are women busting stubborn myths. And Yulia, of course, agrees. In fact, she assembles the

drones her husband flies too.

AMANPOUR: And a lot of women have taken up this fight?

YULIA: Yes. We are all people and we're fighting for our existence.


AMANPOUR: And that's it, they are fighting for their existence here. For more on how this technology is reshaping the battlefield, I'm joined by

James Rogers, adviser on drone to NATO and to the U.K., and General Sir Richard Shirreff, former NATO deputy supreme allied commander for Europe.

Gentlemen, welcome both to the program. Look, I mean, drones aren't new things but they are being really used to the maximum certainly by this

side. So, since you're an adviser on drones, James Rogers, just tell me how you think Ukraine is deploying them?


deploying drones in a number of really quite impactful ways. First of all, they reenforced the nature of war, and that is a war, it's a continuation

of politics by other means. And so, when you start to see these longer- range drone systems developed and indeed built by Ukraine itself, such as the UJ-22 or the beaver drones. Then, we're starting to see these being

deployed at long distances, up to 800 kilometers deep into Russian territory. Of course, we've seen this over a number of days.

Now, there's two points to this. First of all, when we see them targeting towards Moscow, it's about trying to influence the politics of Russia,

trying to show that Putin is not protecting the Russian people and that nowhere is safe. And then you have this more tactical targets. You see

destruction of airfields in Pskov, where you see the destruction of these IJ-76 transporter planes, each costing 50 million each.

The whole point of this is to try and degrade the supply routes for the Russians and their ability to reenforce their front-line forces so that

they can make the most gains they can on the battlefield. It's about weakening teeth of the Russian military

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, General Shirreff, what you think about that. I mean, this certainly was not a main, you know, weapon system when you

were deputy allied supreme commander. What do you think about how it -- some are saying -- will reshape the general battlefield now and to come?


innovation and improvement, and this war is proving exactly that. And the Ukrainians are demonstrating extraordinary ingenuity and agility in taking

ideas from inception, from a workshop, from a garage and putting them onto the battlefield, as you've just been describing so graphically with the

drone factory.

And it's absolutely the right thing to do. I think from a strategic perspective, the attacks -- the long-distance attacks which we've seen the

Ukrainians -- assuming they're the Ukrainians, because, of course, they haven't admitted to it or claimed it, hitting Russia deep inside its own

country, are deeply embarrassing for Russia because it demonstrates the inefficiency and inability to learn the Russian air defense.

I mean, I just pick out the point that my colleague made, James, made about the attacks on the airfield at Pskov. Actually, I think they're more than a

tactical impact. Those are having a strategic effect, because they're demonstrating Russia is unable to protect core installations such as a

major military airfield at Pskov. And, of course, on the battlefield itself, drones are not only underlying (ph) the Ukrainians to see the enemy

or see what's the other side of the hill, which is the challenge that every commander has always faced since time and memorial, but also to strike in a

very effective way.

AMANPOUR: And, James, I have to say, I was amazed because, look, most of us know of drones like the predator, the reaper, the big birds that the

U.S., you know, flew certainly on missions against individuals that they claimed were, you know, terrorists, as you remember in the war against ISIS

and Al-Qaeda for years, operated remotely from inside the United States. But this is much more rudimentary. I mean, things -- I was told and I said,

you know, you could buy off the shelf the games -- drones that can be used in games in normal civilian life can be fitted out with bombs up to about

two kilos.


Tell me about the types of these kinds of drones and how you think the Russians are adapting. Who's got the upper hand, in other words, in this

drone warfare?

ROGERS: Yes. It's a really good and a really important question. And you're absolutely right, as you've shown in your report. This is almost

like a start-up setting, and it has to be in order to innovate the speed which you can start to take advantages in the gaps and the weak links in

the Russian lines.

But when it starts to talk about the broader view of what drones we have out there, we can turn to NATO classifications and definitions of different

types drones that we have. Of course, you have the smaller systems, everything that goes down to around two kilometers and could be launched

out of the palm of your hand up to around 20 kilometers. And in the middle of that you have these quadcopter systems, ones that any of can buy online

and perhaps had one year for Christmas. But these have most certainly now been weaponized and turned towards Russian forces.

Then you have class two systems. Now, these are more like surveillance drones. Russia has the all intents (ph), which are the work force of the

Russian military, and these drones fly much higher above the battlefield. And they can help direct some of these smaller kamikaze systems, as we call

them, these loitering munitions, these smaller drones into their target.

And then you have larger loitering munitions, like the lancet drones that Russia has. These can be sent over 30 to 50 kilometers. They have a much

heavier payload and they've been used to destroy through armor used to destroy tanks.

And then, as you mentioned, you have these much larger class three systems. We know them from the predator and the reaper drones, but Ukraine has these

as well. We saw them at the beginning of the conflict. They have the TB2s supplied by Turkey. All of these drones, in their own difference ways,

Russia has as well. They've been developing their own smaller commercial systems. They've been weaponizing them in the same way that Ukraine has.

And in fact, they've worked out some pretty nifty ways in which they can take down the Ukrainian drone systems. They spoof the signal, they're able

to get into the commercial software of these drones and they down them.

And Russia, of course, has its much larger systems. But due to the fact that you've had western sanctions on Russia, they've not been able to

develop this so fast a pace. And so, it's here we have to turn to Iran. If you have Turkey supplying Ukraine on the one side, then you have Iran

supplying Russia on the other. And here's where the more advanced systems come through with the Shahed 136s that have been used to deploy drones from

Belarusian and Russian territory over 2,500 kilometers. That's their range. And they can target the key cities in Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: Yes. That -- I was going to ask you about that, because certainly, the United States, NATO are trying to get Iran to stop helping

Russia with these kinds of kamikaze drones. And we -- you know, we saw and we were told in the training facility that they also were making kamikazes,

as well as the hit-and-run and return type of drones.

So, let me ask you, General Shirreff, it really does -- it's really kind of a sort of a brain twist here to try to figure out how this war is going,

because on the one hand we've talked about all this high-tech stuff and some of it is low-tech but has really cost-effective massive, you know,

effect on the ground. But on the other hand, there's also trench warfare. It's almost like World War I meets the 21st century.

SHIRREFF: Yes. In fact, when I was in Kyiv recently, a senior official described it as World War II with drones. And you're right, at the end of

the day, I mean, drones are fundamental. But I've also add, in technical terms, you know, the whole business of the data enabled battlefield, the

use of smart artillery, the use of artificial intelligence for targeting.

But at the end of the day, the only way the Ukrainians are going to ultimately succeed is by getting into those Russian trenches and winkling

every Russian infantry, either killing them or forcing them to withdrawal or surrender, and that requires the full capability of combined arms

operations, tanks, armored infantry, fighting vehicles, artillery and the like -- air defense and the like.

And I think we just have to manage expectations here. The Ukrainians are making progress. I would absolutely pushback against any critics who say

they're not making fast enough progress and say, look, try it yourself, mate, because it is about as difficult a thing to do as any military

operation of war. This is a highly difficult complex attritional break-in battle. And only by succeeding in the break-in battle and ultimately will

the Ukrainians begin to make movement -- to make ground, as I am sure they will do.

But this will take time. This was never going to be one shot and you're out. This was always going to require a series of offensive operations in

order to break into the Russian lines and ultimately break out. And therefore, this is going to take time. It's going to take huge amounts of

support, and the West and the Transatlantic community and NATO and a bubble of the United States have got to really knuckle down and recognize that

we've got to be clear.


But ultimately, Ukraine has to succeed. It has to defeat Russia, and they will only defeat Russia if the West continues to provide and continues to

double down on the levels of support required.

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you both them, first you, while I have you there, General Shirreff. There are many people who are saying that the big weapon

systems, the tanks, and now the promised F-16s should really have come at the beginning of this year, and they came slowly and late, and this has

really hampered the counteroffensive, as you've said.

So, I guess my question to both of you is, given that they're trying to catch up now, they're waiting, and it will be beyond this counteroffensive

for the aircraft, can these drones and certainly the projection of power, whether it's right -- you know, hundreds of miles inside Russia, whether it

was on, you know, Crimea, including sort of a manned landing not so long ago, can this put pressure on Putin, you know, if the idea is try to get

him to the table?

SHIRREFF: The answer is , first of all, Christiane, that -- and I was amongst them saying that the equipment should have been provided from the

very start. The prevarication of 2022 and much of 2023 has not served Ukrainians well. And ultimately, it has not served us well, because this is

a war against not only against Ukraine, it's against -- a war against the West and a war against Ukraine joining the West.

So, the first point is to turn on the tap and continue to turn on the tap. And the second point is that the Ukrainians have demonstrated, as I said

earlier, extraordinary ingenuity in taking the fight to the Russians. And this will continue to put pressure on Putin. I don't think it's a case of

bringing Putin to the table. I think it's a case of Putin ultimately running up a white flag and the Ukrainians are more than capable of making

that happen, providing we continue to support them.

AMANPOUR: James Rogers, you're the drone expert. Can drones create that, the running up of the white flag?

ROGERS: Well, I think we've seen most literally drones striking deep in the heart of Russian politics. We have had drones striking the Kremlin. And

I haven't seen anything much more putting pressure on the Kremlin than that particular attack itself.

But you've started to see how off the public support for that attack and the ripples it sent across Russian politics, but Ukraine has started to

double down on this particular strategy. So, we've seen bombing of the banking districts and the business districts in Moscow. And then you move

and you start to see the striking of particular airfields, these tactical sites but also key energy infrastructure in Russia.

So, you see gas pump (ph) sites where you're storing gas or oil. These are all targets that are very much military and industrial in character. And I

think, most certainly, leading into the political support towards Ukraine is when you start to move towards more civilian bombing, this area bombing,

which you definitely see when it comes down to Putin and the Russian military, the use of these drones more indiscriminately. It matters less

about the target. And, of course, in the last few days we've tragically seen the death of Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv as a result of that.

AMANPOUR: Exactly. I spoke a few nights ago to the former defense minister here and he, again, was talking about these drones and their effect. I'm

just going to play what he told me.


ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK, FORMER UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: This is probably the most transparent war in human history, and all the wars in future will

be transparent because of the satellite, because of the drones, because of the social media and so on. Yes, we need to learn how to live with the

absolutely transparency of the war and also with the so-called democratization of the cost of platforms, when the drone costing like $500

can kill a tank, which costs million and so on, or how we did attack the Russian ships with the, you know, drones which are obviously a fraction of

the cost of the ship.

That's where it's going. It's going to these smaller platforms, autonomic - - autonomous platforms or distant run platforms and so on.


AMANPOUR: So, obviously. We're sorry about that sound quality. But he was talking about how war is going to be totally transparent. You know, General

Shirreff, final word to you, you know, in the olden days, tanks, with aircraft, there was, you know, tree lines, there was ways to project, you

know, power where you're not only seen by the enemy. It appears that that may be a thing of the past. How will wars be fought?


SHIRREFF: Now, that's a really challenging question. How long have you got? The answer is, with greater technology, much, much, much, much more

clever technology than was ever available in the past. But at the same time, let's not forget, wars will continue to have to be fought by the men

and women who do the fighting, and that requires being able to get -- being able to move forward under armor and be prepared to get stuck in. Because

that, at the end of the day, is the way to retake ground, enabled by technology. Technology will never take away the reality -- the grim reality

of war.

AMANPOUR: All right. Really fascinating. Richard Shirreff, James Rogers, thank you both very much for joining us.

Now, Kyiv has long grappled with another plague, and that is the plague of corruption inside and outside government, well before Putin's latest

invasion. And now, President Zelenskyy says he wants to make corruption a key issue tantamount to treason. And recent accusations that officials were

profiting from legal -- rather illegal militarily medical exemption schemes while soldiers were laying down their lives on the front lines has been a

bitter pill for Ukrainians to swallow. This is just one issue swirling around how vital funds and resources are allocated.

Our next guest, Daria Kaleniuk, heads up the Anti-Corruption Action Center and she's joining me now here in Kyiv. Daria, welcome back to the program.


AMANPOUR: You've been working on this for a very long time. We've just heard, you know, President Zelenskyy basically coming out several times

talking about this scourge right now, the latest is about medical exemptions. Tell me how you analyze what's going on and why there's such a

hose pipe of revelations from the president right now?

KALENIUK: Well, the president is the mirror of the people. And the people the society of Ukraine is not tolerating corruption during the war time. We

finally see, as the entire society, that corruption can kill. Because there's something which is happening wrong in the, let's say, military

procurement can cause that a soldier is not getting the proper weapon or the proper ammunition or the proper equipment, and it means that somebody

can be killed for that.

So -- and I think that is good that the president admits that we have a problem, but he is also projecting that we are fighting it.

AMANPOUR: And projecting -- I mean, do I take from your tone that it's just a projection, are they fighting it? I mean, look, he, the other day,

said, and we just read this out, that he -- in war time, he insisted is going to equate corruption with treason. And some would say, well, that's

good. He says -- well, like -- you know, by doing that, I'm raising it to such a level that people know the punishment for treason. What do you make

of that?

KALENIUK: I don't support this initiative. It sounds great. It's very sexy. And probably majority of Ukrainians would say support this statement.

However, as a lawyer, I can say that it's not possible to make it a successful model, a successful tool. We already have our (INAUDIBLE) anti-

corruptions (INAUDIBLE).


KALENIUK: We sent up anti-corruption institutions after the Revolution of Dignity during the last 10 years.

AMANPOUR: You mean, the Maidan Revolution?

KALENIUK: Yes. Maidan Revolution.


KALENIUK: And these are anti-corruption bureau, anti-corruption prosecution office, anti-corruption court. They are empowered to

investigate top corruption and they are doing that, even during war time. All of these institutions were mentioned by Putin on the eve before the

invasion. It means it is a threat. These institutions are a threat to Putin. He failed to take Ukraine from inside using corruptions, the very

corruption. Therefore, he decided to invade Ukraine.

So, what the president needs to do, and this is what we are pushing him to do, is focus on strengthening these institutions and empowering them more.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you why you're against it? I mean, what is the risk to people like you? What is the risk of calling it treason?

KALENIUK: It's about who will investigate corruption. Because currently, treason is being investigated by Security Service of Ukraine, which under

the political control of the president of Ukraine. It's not reformed agency. We still need to do a lot of work to make it operate better.

However, all corruption cases are being investigated by all reformed agencies. There is a selection process of the director of NABU, of director

of SAPO.

There is proper legally -- legal race have to guarantee their independence. Also, they have exclusive jurisdiction. So, if they empower other agencies

to take cases from NABU, from this --


KALENIUK: National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.


KALENIUK: It has exclusive jurisdiction.


AMANPOUR: So, basically, they're taking the teeth out of organizations like yours.


AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's what you're worried about.

KALENIUK: Well, I'm -- my -- I'm still inside the organization.

AMANPOUR: You're the different one. Yes.

KALENIUK: The governmental institutions.


KALENIUK: Governmental organizations. The representatives of these institutions, by the way, are now in the U.S.

AMANPOUR: And what are they doing there?

KALENIUK: They have a visit there.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, you mentioned Russia. Can we just talk about the corruption there and how that's affecting the war effort and how -- you

know, I mean, it's not just Ukraine, but there seems to be decades and decades of corruption in this part of world. It just is a fact of life.

KALENIUK: As an anti-corruption activist, I really want to thank all corrupt officials in Russia for performing corruption. It weakens their

military and it allows them --

AMANPOUR: It weakens their military?

KALENIUK: It allows them to portray that they have much higher might and power than they have de facto. They have enormous corruption. And Kremlin

is using corruption to control the society, control the people. Yet, we can't compare better corruption in Ukraine of corruption in Belarus. No one

hears about corruption in Belarus, because you can't expose corruption there. You can be killed. You can be thrown into the jail. There are no

independent agencies which are investigating corruption.

And Kremlin use corruption to control Belarus from inside. It's slow occupation of Belarus. In Ukraine, completely different. During the war

time, large scale invasion, we are civil society organization, we are watchdog in our government. We are making hard time for our minister of

defense. We are telling them, listen, guys, you better do better in procuring goods for our soldiers. And if you're not, you will resign. We

will force our minister of defense to resign for the failure to do proper procurements.

AMANPOUR: And let's face it, we all reported what your own journalists here in Ukraine revealed in investigative unit here, talked about the

corruption and procurement of -- I believe it was food and other such thing in the military, and there was a bit, you know, clean-out by the president.

So, what -- he's now apparently fired quite a few recruiting offices around the country. You know, they're apparently people, like they did during the

Vietnam war, like in time and memorial, many people don't want to fight and they pay doctors or lawyers or whatever it is to get them, you know, out as

conscientious objectors or draft dodgers, whatever it might be. How --

KALENIUK: And somebody is paying to get drafted.

AMANPOUR: Right. What do you mean?

KALENIUK: So, some people who have military -- house conditions, which are not allowing them to go and fight, but they want to fight, they want to

volunteer, they pay bribed get to the fight. Even this happens in Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: Well, I mean, at least it shows a great patriotism. So, how much do you think this is harming the actual war effort? Because we've seen

about food, we've seen, again, about all sorts of things. We know -- I mean, I don't know how much military equipment may or may not be going

missing. Do you have any indication of that? How -- we asked you this before, and I've asked the U.S. watchdogs as well, all the money coming

that's from the United States, Europe and other places, you know, all the aid, military and otherwise, do we know that that is being accounted for?

KALENIUK: They're pretty safe for the military aid, which is coming from the U.S. and other places because it's not coming in money, in the form of

money. It's the equipment which been procured somewhere in the U.S. and other countries and then delivered to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

And in our armed forces, which are a bit different from our minister of defense, people are very much motivated to use this equipment to deliver

results in the battlefields, to kill the enemy. As for budget support and other humanitarian aid, which goes to the reconstruction, there are tools

which citizens of Ukraine can use to expose corruption. And these are different mechanisms of transparency, there's a system of public

procurement, system of various registries. The flow of money for the reconstruction, which has been reported at the DREAM platform. So, there

are ways and means how to spot and expose corruption there.

AMANPOUR: And this, of course, is going to come, you know, really into focus after the war when reconstruction really begins in earnest. But let

me -- I'm going to play a little, you know, piece of a speech -- a soundbite from the president talking about elections in this country and

wondering whether actually even in war time, elections can be held. Let me put that out.


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We need a legitimate choice. We need this choice to be made by society so it does not

divide our people. We need the military to be able to vote. They are defending this democracy today and not giving them this opportunity because

of the war is unfair. I was against the elections only because of this issue.



AMANPOUR: So, what do you make of that? On the one hand, you know, he says he needs them to show that, you know, everybody is doing an honest day's

work and nobody is hiding behind war to stay in power.

KALENIUK: I think the idea of having elections during the martial law is very dangerous in Ukraine. First of all, it's unconstitutional. We can't --

it's -- constitutional of Ukraine directly forbids having elections during martial law. And I don't see in the foreseeable future the reason to leave

the martial law in Ukraine.

There is still ongoing war. Yes. We -- it's a calm Kyiv night, but any moment there can be air raid.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Certainly, two night ago it was --

KALENIUK: And we can -- yes.

AMANPOUR: -- terrible. Yes.

KALENIUK: And it can go in the bomb shelter. So, it's still a largescale war. Millions of people left the country. The question is how they will

vote. Millions of people are under occupation in occupied territories, the question is how they will vote. They are still citizens of Ukraine and

millions of people is defending the country and the military. The question is how to make sure that they are right in the interest and their thoughts

will be represented during the election competition.

So, I really -- I feel irritated when somebody from abroad, from the U.S., like recent a congressman came to Ukraine, Lindsey Graham, and pressed

Ukraine to do the elections.

AMANPOUR: Is that right? Do you think he's responding to pressure from the U.S.?

KALENIUK: I think that probably president is responding from this pressure -- for this pressure. And I would really much recommend and ask our

American friends and partners not pressure Ukraine to do the elections. Come first, see what is happening in the battlefield. Help Ukraine win and

then we will do the elections.

AMANPOUR: Well, so, let me ask you. You know, President Zelenskyy ran his own election campaign all those years ago based on an anti-corruption

platform and actually trying to make peace with Putin over the eastern occupied territories there. So, there's a poll that's come out that has

said that, you know, about 77 percent of Ukrainians, you know, blame him and hold him responsible for the corruption. How does that sit with you?

KALENIUK: Absolute majority of Ukrainians trust Zelenskyy, but also see that it is Zelenskyy who is responsible for the fight in corruption. And --

AMANPOUR: So, hold him responsible for fighting?

KALENIUK: Yes. Hold him responsible for fighting. So, they see him as the one who has to gather everybody and to arrange this fight with corruption.

So, it's a good sign from the side of Ukraine. Whether Zelenskyy is doing great in fight with corruption, honestly, I don't think so. There are very

good things which he's doing right. But also, I think, that as the president during the war, he has to do diplomacy, he has to do visits to

the troops and he has to do complex reforms.

There are other people who can do that reforms. I'm not happy with which people president appointed to do these reforms, like people in the office

of president in charge for coordinating fight with corruption like (INAUDIBLE) and others, they must be -- they must resign. But this is where

we are.


KALENIUK: We are pushing him hard despite the war and demanding clever decisions. Not equaling corruption to treason.


KALENIUK: But let's say reinstating a disclosure system for public officials.


KALENIUK: And this law is in the parliament now. It's going to be voted probably next week.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And we'll see whether it succeeds or not. All right.

KALENIUK: It will likely succeed. We'll make everything possible to get it done.

AMANPOUR: All right. Daria Kaleniuk, thank you so much.

KALENIUK: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: We turn now to devastating scenes in Johannesburg, where at least 74 people have died in an apartment block fire. That number

tragically includes 12 children and is bound to rise. It lays bare the poverty and inequality in the South African city there. President Ramaphosa

visited the scene today, calling the deadly fire a "wake-up call." Highlighting how the problem of inner-city housing must be addressed.

Correspondent David McKenzie has this story.


DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): A woman's wail pierces the streets of Johannesburg. More than 70 people are now dead and dozens

injured after a brutal fire tore through a five-story building in the center of South African City.

WISEMAN MPEP, BUILDING FIRE SURVIVOR: People were making noise, yelling, fire, fire, fire.

MCKENZIE (voiceover): Survivors like Wiseman Mpep say he was woken up by screams in the early hours of the morning and raced to get out of the

building, but the gates were locked.

MPEP: So, I come back in the gate, the fire is full, full. After that don't have any plan, I just sit.

MCKENZIE (voiceover): The smoke quickly smothering him.

MPEP: The smoke is coming to me. Yes. After that, I just fell down. Then, from there, I don't know anything until now.


MCKENZIE (voiceover): Authorities quickly on the scene, moving through the building floor by floor, and pulling our charred bodies, many though still

remain missing.

MPEP: I have brother, sister, sister's husband.

MCKENZIE: You don't know where they are?

MPEP: I don't know.

MCKENZIE (voiceover): Another survivor who lost three sisters describes how her niece was thrown out the window and caught by people who already

made it outside.

OMAR FOART, BUILDING FIRE SURVIVOR: My in-law hit the window and threw the daughter outside. They people then caught the daughter while it was hot in

the air.

MCKENZIE: If you look at this building behind me, you can imagine the chaos and the terror that ensued. People desperate trying to get out of

those packed apartments. Floors of it totally gutted as people were burnt to death. This is what's known as a hijacked building in South Africa,

taking over by gangs and mostly least to poor migrants.

HERMAN MASHABA, FORMER JOHANNESBURG MAYOR: This is not an accident. This, for me, it's (INAUDIBLE), because it was bound to happen. We are --

actually, what you see in this building, I can tell you, I can take you to buildings that are worse off where people live worse than pigs.

MCKENZIE (voiceover): This tragedy tangled into the deeply engrained inequality across the country. Many of the people lived here were migrants,

just hoping to start a new life. Instead, emergency services now sorting through the ashes of the little that is left.


AMANPOUR: David McKenzie reporting from Johannesburg there.

To Texas now where the state's Republican attorney general faces an impeachment trial. Ken Paxton was impeached by the Republican majority in

May on allegations including bribery and abuse of office. Scott Braddock is editor of "The Quorum Report" and news service dedicated to covering Texas

politics. And he's joining Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how this will affect the state and beyond.


HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks, Scott Braddock, thanks so much for joining us. Scott, you're someone based

in Texas. You have been covering state legislature and politics for years and years now. And next week, we are heading into an impeachment of the

state's attorney general, Ken Paxton. For, let's say, our viewers overseas who might not be following Texas politics closely, what's he being accused

of and why is this so significant?

SCOTT BRADDOCK, EDITOR, THE QUORUM REPORT AND JOURNALIST: Bottom line is, he's accused of deep seeded corruption in the office of the attorney

general, one of the largest law enforcement agencies, basically, in the country. Basically, taking that office and using it as a personnel

concierge firm for -- you know, for one of his political contributors. There is an allegation of a mistress here that's tied to a lot of the

allegations. And, of course, because he's one of the top allies of Former President Trump, there's a lot of national interest around the U.S. as


SREENIVASAN: So, what is it that kicked off the Texas House Investigation into the attorney general in the first place?

BRADDOCK: This is fascinating because the supporters of Ken Paxton will say that almost all of the allegations that have been made against him were

made before he was reelected last year, and some of that is true. Some of the things that he's accused of were known to voters both in the March

primary last year and the general election as well.

But something that's very different is that he had several people in his office who basically told on him to federal investigators, they blew the

whistle on what they said was corruption in the attorney general's office. Those rock rib conservative attorneys who ended up losing their jobs at the

attorney general's office, they have been in settlement talks with the attorney general about, you know, violation of what is the Whistleblower

Act in the state and the attorney general had been accused of retaliation against those employees in his office.

Well, he had asked for Texas taxpayers to flip (ph) the bill for the $3 million settlements to settle up with these whistleblowers. And when he was

asked by the legislature why taxpayers should be on the hook for that, he wouldn't answer the questions. And so, the Texas house took an

investigation under its own auspices and they basically set out to answer the question themselves to try to figure out why this money should be paid

to these people and not only the Texas house Republicans say that, no, taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for that. They say, instead, that, in

fact, what we found here is such deep seeded corruption that not only should we not pay money, but we should also impeach this guy and throw him

out of office.

SREENIVASAN: Give us some perspective, because state attorneys general are supposed to be the most powerful law enforcement in the state. But Ken

Paxton has had an outsized reputation over the past few years. Why?

BRADDOCK: Number one, around the country he would be known as the attorney general who was there at January 6th, before that riot broke out, that

violent, you know, insurrection in Washington, D.C., sort of egging on the crowd. But keep in mind, he's also the attorney general who is the only one

in the country to lead the charge when Former President Donald Trump tried to overturn election results in other states.


He sort of made this fight against what he calls voter fraud and others call voter fraud when really it's maybe kind of the other way around,

ironically, he's made that a center piece of his campaigns. And so, he's become very well known for that.

SREENIVASAN: And there are a couple of other characters in this, after that investigation, there's a real estate developer, a mistress, kind of --

lay out the playing cards, so to speak.

BRADDOCK: If you put all this in a movie, you would -- and watched it and you watched that, you would say, there's no way this could happen in real-

life. But this is Texas politics. There's an old saying in Texas which is, if ain't indicted, you ain't invited.

We've had, you know, people at the top who have been in legal problems before, legal hot water before. There is the allegation that he had a

mistress. And the way that this played out, according to Texas house impeachment managers or the prosecutors in the case, it turns out it looked

kind of like mission impossible. I mean, if we're going to keep with the movie theme. You had the attorney general accused of using burner phones

and Uber account using a fake name, which was Dave P., that he and this contributor, Nate Paul, they share this Uber account. That Uber account was

used to do things like take Paxton to and from his mistress's apartment here in Austin. That's the allegation. And burner phones were being used to

-- you know, to cover up the -- you know, the extramarital affair.

And of course, the prosecutors in the case has suggested that, hey, look, even if people think that his personal affairs and personal life that

doesn't matter, obviously, Paxton cared enough to try to keep it from people, the degree to which he went and the length that he went to, to try

to keep it secret is pretty significant.

But there are other things here as well. Things that -- and this is the way the impeachment managers described it, they said that for this character,

Nate Paul, who you mentioned, who is a developer here in Austin and an investor, this guy, Paul, basically got the advantage that nobody else in

Texas would get, which is to have the OAG, the office of attorney general, at his beck and call doing whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted,

including -- and this is insane, I've never seen anything like this, the allegation from the whistleblowers, one of them -- one of the allegations

is that Paxton hired an outside attorney from Houston to run interference on an Fbi investigation of that investor. And I should also point out, the

Austin American stateman here in town has reported that there is federal grand jury that's convened in San Antonio taking a look at some of all of


SREENIVASAN: Have the real estate developer or the alleged mistress, have they responded to any of this, or I guess, pre-emptively to what might be

on the stand next week?

BRADDOCK: No. And it will be really interesting to see what they say or don't say, what questions they answer and what questions they don't answer

when they are on the stands. And look, the legislative proceeding that's going to play out, it is a proceeding in which you can be compelled to

testify. They can't just not show up. That's not going to work. In fact, you can be jailed for a year for refusing to testify to the Texas


And so, a lot of truth may come out if this is a fair and open trial, as the lieutenant governor has promised it will be.

SREENIVASAN: OK. OK. So, to add to the drama here, his wife is a state senator. And she's going to be sitting for the trial.

BRADDOCK: Yes. His wife, Angela Paxton, a state senator from North Texas, she will be there for the trial. But they've had to kind of thread the

needle on this. These impeachments, as you know, don't happen very often. And so, what does it really mean to be an impeachment expert? I don't know

that we really -- I mean, this is only the third one in the history of Texas.

So, what happens with these senators, you got to break out the Texas constitution. That's the owner's manual. Dust it off and see what it says.

And it says that senators have to sit for trial, and it says that two- thirds of senators are required, two-thirds of those present are required to vote to remove to make that happen, you know, for the --

SREENIVASAN: So, she doesn't necessarily have to vote against her husband?

BRADDOCK: Well, she's not going to get to vote at all. So, the Senate, in trying to thread this needle, what established as part of their rules was

that she'll get to sit for the trial, but she doesn't get to be in on their private deliberations and she does not get to vote. However, there's a

caveat here, the fact that she sits for the trial means that the threshold for removing her husband, the attorney general, stays at 21 votes in the

Texas Senate. There are 31 members, and two-thirds of those present would be 21.

But if she was not on the floor when they voted, then the threshold would go down to 20. So, her -- you know, he being there, that in and of itself

does have an impact on the proceedings.

SREENIVASAN: The lieutenant governor usually oversees this, and this is Dan Patrick, Republican.


SREENIVASAN: Any conflict of interest? Does it come down to any sort of a tiebreaker scenario where the lieutenant governor might have influence?


BRADDOCK: Well, he doesn't get to vote in this. He does get to be the judge, as you suggest, to sort of access the jurist in the trial. Sort of -

- it's going to be a real spectacle to see this play out next week. There is conflicts of interest -- there are conflicts of interest everywhere. For

example, just before the trial, you did have the lieutenant governor accept $3 million in contributions from some supporters of Ken Paxton. There's a

political action committee here call Defend Texas Liberty Pack, and they have been running billboards, text messages and robo calls and social media

posts trying to defend Paxton and say that he should be remove. That same group giving the lieutenant governor $3 million, $2 million of which was a

loan, that's been a source of consternation for the senators.

It's my understanding that, at least, a few of them have gone to him, gone to Patrick and said, hey, don't you think that that looks, at least, like a

conflict of interest? And it's been my reporting that what he told them was that he didn't see a problem with it and he doesn't know why anybody else

would have a problem with it.

But I would ask this, you know, for the $2 million that's a loan, what are the conditions for that? If the trial goes a certain way, is that loan

forgiven? We just don't know.

SREENIVASAN: Wow. So, you could have a trial where the person presiding over it can take $2 million or $3 million from people supporting the person

on trial, and the lieutenant governor cannot understand what is wrong with that? OK.

BRADDOCK: Yes. And I would also point out that he doesn't really need the money. Even if he didn't accept the $3 million, he'd still have about $20

million in the bank. So, that looks extra bad to a lot of people around here.

SREENIVASAN: This is a Republican controlled house, a Republican controlled Senate with a Republican lieutenant governor that presides over

this. What does that tell you about how this party is going to have to kind of look at itself through this process?

BRADDOCK: You know, I've often said that the Republican primary in Texas is one of the most important elections on earth that nobody pays attention

to. In the state of 31 million people, you have about 2 million who vote generally in that primary. So, that means 750,000 to a million people get

to set the course for this state.

And you have not had Democrats be competitive in a general election in a generation in this state. And so, that means that any corruption that

exists in state government is going to be in the Republican Party. And, you know, I think nationally what you see is always just tribalism, right, it's

Democrats versus Republicans when it came to the impeachment of President Trump.

Now, in Washington, they're talking, as you know, about, you know, maybe impeaching President Biden, and that's Republican going against the

Democrat. But here in Texas, it's basically a one-party state at this point at the state level. And so, here you have an example that flips the script

on all of that where you have Republicans potentially policing one of their own. And I think that's why this is sort of gotten the attention of people,

not just in Texas but around the country and internationally as well.

SREENIVASAN: You know, you reported recently that there was a possibility that Ken Paxton could resign to sort of, well, prevent all of this from

coming out in the light of day as on-camera spectacle? Any possibility of that happening now?

BRADDOCK: It looks like he's not going to resign, but there was some serious chatter about that among top Republicans last week. I can tell you

that people at the capitol, people who are in charge were taking that seriously. And there's been sort of an off and on rumor mill about whether

he would resign to try avoid testimony.

And look, the testimony is going to will get ugly, right? I mean, we've already talked about the fact that he's got an alleged mistress who is on

the witness list, by the way. And all of these allegations are going to be, you know, litigated in just a nasty way in this trial for sure. You have

some legendry attorneys on both sides who are really going to fight this -- you know, fight each other, tooth and nail, during this. And maybe he would

just rather avoid it all.


BRADDOCK: There's a report out last weekend that he was considering resigning. He said, no, that he wasn't. And so, we'll take him at his word

for now. I would say, there's a good legal reason for him to not to resign because the walls are sort of closing in on him. You don't just have this

impeachment trial in Austin, there's a state level prosecution of him for securities fraud in Houston. And as I mentioned, there is that federal

grand jury that has convened down in San Antonio taking a look at him as well.

And if you're somebody who holds a constitutional office, like the office of attorney general, that may be your only bargaining chip if you're trying

to get a lighter sentence, if there is a federal prosecution.

SREENIVASAN: In response to your report about the possible resignation, Ken Paxton said he would not resign. Did he say anything about the specific

allegations, the impeachment that he is facing?

BRADDOCK: No. And it's been interesting that the supporters of Paxton almost never talk about the allegations against him. Instead, they say that

he's one of the most conservatism attorney generals in the entire country, that he's done such a great job of fighting the Biden administration. But

the folks that are supporting him almost never talk about the actual allegations against him. And so, I think that's a pretty telling fact.


SREENIVASAN: You know, what have his attorneys done in this lead-up? Are there any kind of legal moves that they've made that might make -- well,

that might tip it in his favor or at least give him less of a disadvantage?

BRADDOCK: So far, Paxton's attorneys have tried to dismiss the entire thing as political theater and a witch hunt, the same kind of rhetoric that

you would hear from Former President Trump as he deals with his legal issues.

The legal moves that they've made on Paxton's side have been to try to get the Texas Senate to dismiss this out of hand, to say that the articles of

impeachment against Paxton are unconstitutional. It does not look like the Texas Senate is going to do that. Instead, it looks like the Senate is

moving ahead with a full trial. And we'll get to hear what their actual defense of this is.

SREENIVASAN: You know, speaking of those felony charges back from 2015, where is that at now?

BRADDOCK: That has been hung up in the courts for almost, as you point out, since 2014, 2015. You know, we've been looking at the fact that our

attorney general has been under indictment for securities fraud in the proceedings in Houston where that's finally starting to go forward,

although it's sort of on all at once again, because of the impeachment trial that's about to happen in the Texas Senate.

Both sides in that case, the attorneys for Paxton and the prosecutors, have said that if he's removed from office by the Texas Senate, then the state

level prosecutor in Houston would immediately go to a plea-bargaining situation, because Paxton has for, all intents and purposes, he has

admitted to engaging in that securities fraud that he's accused of, which is why his attorneys have tried to drag it out forever and not have it go

to trial.

SREENIVASAN: Are there national implications just for the very fact that this impeachment trial is happening and if, in fact, Ken Paxton, the

attorney general of the State of Texas is impeached?

BRADDOCK: Hard to tell. You know, I'm wondering every day, you know, how much people can pay attention to things that are in other states when often

seems like whole world is on fire with, you know, the former president who is going through his own, you know, impeachments and now, you know,

criminal trials as well.

Politically, I'm not sure how much folks are going to pay attention in other states to what's happening here. This seems to be kind of a family

affair here in Texas. But I do think that is has, you know, real implications for, you know, what folks are willing to do as Republicans. I

mean, keep in mind, this is the only to attorney general who would file that lawsuit for Former President Trump to try to overturn the election in

other states, and maybe it turns out that there are Republicans who don't agree with someone who would do that. And that's in and of itself has been

said to be, you know, another act of corruption.

The State Bar of Texas, the -- you know, the entity that licenses, you know, lawyers here, there are attorneys in this state who want Paxton to be

disbarred over his conduct, and that's been revealed by the evidence in this impeachment trial so far. So, what the reverberations are going to be,

hard to say. But it's going to be a fascinating month or so as this trial plays out in the Texas Senate.

SREENIVASAN: Yes. Does this entire episode affect how the Republican vote stack up in the state? I mean, it's a south Republican state over and over

again. Does this harm the brand enough where we could see perhaps more competitive races coming up?

BRADDOCK: I think that the brand of Republican that we have in Texas and the brand of Republicans we have nationally right now are different. That's

always been the case. I mean, President Trump talks about when America first and in Texas, I'm sorry, people around here would say, it's Texas

first. That's kind of a little -- it's sort of a different thing.

But, look, if you look at the MAGA influence, the Make America Great Again influence, MAGA as Steve Bannon calls it, Bannon, you may have seen on his

shows, the "War Room," he said that Texas is the heard of the MAGA or one of the hearts of MAGA. I would push back on that a little bit. You know,

you had Governor Abbott who was booed by MAGA folks at a MAGA rally last year and still he wins his primary by 60 -- you know, with 66 percent

against four challengers. The same thing with U.S. Senator John Horhn and our senior senator, he's been booed by the MAGA folks and he wins his

primary with just as many challengers, he gets 76 percent in his primaries.

And I would point out that the last time that the Texas Republican primary at the presidential level was contested, that was back in 2016, that Trump

didn't win here. That was Ted Cruz, and it wasn't close either. Trump, I think, he got 50 delegates to -- Cruz got something like 100. So, he got

trounced when he was taken on by another Republican in this state.

SREENIVASAN: Scott Braddock of "The Quorum Report," thanks so much for joining us.

BRADDOCK: It's my pleasure. Thank you.


AMANPOUR: And despite most fellow of his Republicans voting to impeach, Ken Paxton maintains it's a politically motivate sham. His trial begins

next week.


And finally, women's sports just keep creating history. 92,003 colleague volleyball fans in Nebraska broke the attendance world record for a women's

sporting event. Before Wednesday, the largest crowd for college volleyball match was close to 19,000. And as women's sport in Spain is at a reckoning,

the president of Europe's Football Association has now finally condemned the actions of Spain's football federation president. His comments come 10

days of Luis Rubiales' in appropriate behavior towards the Spanish women's World Cup winners.

And that is it for now. Thanks for watching and goodbye from Kyiv.