Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon and RAND Distinguished Chair in Diplomacy and Security Ryan Crocker; Interview with Chatham House Head of U.S. and the Americas Program Leslie Vinjamuri; Interview with Democratic Strategist and Consultant Simon Rosenberg; Interview with U.S. National Security Council Former Director of European Affairs Lieutenan Colonel Alexander Vindman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 21, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I told the prime minister of Israel yesterday, let's also make this moment an opportunity to seek a path to peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The president's advice to Israel after it eliminated the Hamas boss in Gaza. But the prime minister says the war is not over, and the
devastation continues. Veteran Middle East diplomat Ryan Crocker, former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, joins us on reshaping the region.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: He's becoming increasingly unstable and unhinged.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She's lying Kamala.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- with just 15 days to go, the race is still in a dead heat. We bring you the view from abroad and at home with Leslie Vinjamuri of Chatham
House and Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Donald Trump is not a peacemaker. He is not the
person that's going to avoid World War III.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- what the American election result could mean for allies and for Ukraine. Walter Isaacson asked Alexander Vindman, the former National
Security Council official whose testimony helped impeach Trump.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York. Despite killing Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar last week, Israel is stepping up
its military campaign in Gaza. Over the weekend, strikes on a residential building in the north killed dozens of people. And in Lebanon, Israel's
campaign appears to be straying further away from military targets, attacking branches of a Hezbollah financial center, which is used by many
civilians as a bank.
Meanwhile, a Hezbollah drone has hit the private residence of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was not there. No injuries have been
reported. All this against a backdrop of public statements by President Biden to use this moment as an opportunity to turn the page.
Joining me now is the former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and posts across the region. He's the veteran diplomat, Ryan Crocker. Welcome
Ryan Crocker, ambassador from Britain, where no doubt you're being able to absorb the international sentiment about the elections and about what's
happening in the Middle East.
So, let's just get going with the first question. Is this a moment, do you think, where Israel and the region can step off the road to war or not?
RYAN CROCKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO LEBANON AND DISTINGUISHED CHAIR IN DIPLOMACY AND SECURITY, RAND: I think there is a moment, provided both
sides and outside parties such as the United States think small and think realistically. The death of Sinwar clearly was a major blow to Hamas and a
major achievement for Israel, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the terms of the conflict. And similarly, the decapitation of the Hezbollah
leadership in Lebanon, as we have seen very dramatically with that drone strike that hit the prime minister's residence, has not curtailed their
ability to fire missiles across the border.
So, I would urge all parties to think small, think in terms of a ceasefire that can save lives in Lebanon, and among Palestinians in Gaza, and of
supreme importance, give the chance to get the hostages back alive. But this is not the moment in which we see a fundamental shift in the dynamics
of the Middle East.
AMANPOUR: But can I ask you, because you say the death of Sinwar hasn't fundamentally changed the dynamic on the ground. So, I guess Israel would
say the same thing, that, you know, yes, we've killed him, but the war continues. And it's really -- they're going at it in an extremely, you
know, sort of stepped up way. And likewise, in Lebanon, we heard today, Israel saying, we will strike Lebanon until Hezbollah collapses.
Do you think it's possible for Israel to achieve those maximalist goal? You were ambassador to Lebanon when Hezbollah was formed, I think.
CROCKER: I was assigned to the embassy in Lebanon when Hezbollah was formed as a result of the Israeli invasion in 1982 and the subsequent
occupation of Southern Lebanon. That was the birth of Hezbollah.
[13:05:00]
And let's remember that that operation, that invasion in 1982, was called Operation Peace for Galilee, intended to eliminate the threat of armed
action by the Palestine Liberation Organization across the border, whether by infiltration or by artillery fire.
Well, 42 years later, we are very far from peace for Galilee with 60,000 Israelis evacuated from their communities. It is -- it was an Israeli
occupation that gave birth to Hezbollah. Another Israeli occupation is highly unlikely to eliminate Hezbollah. Let me just put it that way.
AMANPOUR: And yet, obviously, you've just mentioned that those 60,000 civilians and others have been moved from their places of residence in
Northern Israel. And you know that Hezbollah started to fire on October 8th in support of Hamas. So, what would you advise, having known so much and,
you know, absorbed so much, not just in Lebanon, but, you know, we mentioned Iraq after the invasion, Afghanistan, all these places that have
dealt with the attempt to change regimes and to stamp out militantism?
CROCKER: Well, the harder one stamps, the more militants one seems to engender. So, again, I think the imperative has to be every effort possible
to get a ceasefire in the north, in Lebanon, and a ceasefire in Gaza. That is not going to be easy, but it is, I think, just possible. And I commend
the Biden administration and Secretary Blinken in particular for making the effort at this delicate juncture.
There are two different conflicts, obviously. In Lebanon, there is the architecture for a cessation of hostilities that rests in U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1701 that was passed after the Hezbollah, Israeli conflict of 2006 that would call for a deployment of the Lebanese army
throughout the south. The cessation of any armed action by any party that the Lebanese government assisted by the United Nations, interim force in
Lebanon would have the sole monopoly of power and that Israel would withdraw its forces.
It might be that Israel, because, again, the decapitation of the Hezbollah leadership has not stopped the rocket fire, that Israel might be interested
right now in a cessation of hostilities in which they could claim at least a victory of sorts by eliminating the command of their adversary. And it
might be that Hezbollah and Iran behind them would also welcome a ceasefire, at this point, to regroup and reorganize.
But again, there should be no illusion on the part of anyone that the killing of Nasrallah and so many of his other commanders fundamentally
alters the will or the ability of Hezbollah to prosecute this military campaign.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just quote what you yourself said in a Politico interview just this week, "One thing I've learned over years, especially in
Iraq and Afghanistan, is that the concept of the defeat of an adversary only has meaning in the mind of that adversary. If that adversary feels
defeated, he is defeated. If he doesn't, he's not."
And I think you've just said that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah, degraded and damaged and hurt and wounded as they are feel defeated.
CROCKER: I think that is exactly right. And the further application of Israeli force is unlikely to change that basic mindset on the part of its
adversaries. What it will do is kill even more civilians in Gaza and in Lebanon, and that is in no one's interest, not in Israel, certainly, not in
the interest of the peoples of the region, and not in the interest of the United States.
AMANPOUR: And of course, still the hostages are still languishing there. Those that -- those who remain and there seems to be no movement towards
that. In fact, you mentioned, you know, praising the administration. But just today, their spokesman, national security spokesman, basically poured
some cold water over the prospect of any ceasefire or any improvement before the election. I mean, it's a little bit of a change in their talking
points.
And so, I want to know what you think, A, in Lebanon, because today, as we reported, not only was there a rocket fire onto the Israeli prime
minister's private residence, but the Israelis conducted many strikes over these banks, these financial centers, which apparently exist also in
residential neighborhoods. And you know, Israel says that it wants to cut Hezbollah off financially and therefore, add to crippling it. What do you
think that is going to lead to?
[13:10:00]
CROCKER: That is going to lead to further devastation, further suffering, further deaths of innocent Lebanese. We have -- again, we've seen this
movie before, Christiane, and you remember it as clearly as I do, that was the Israeli campaign strategy in 1982, 1983. Strikes into Beirut throughout
the south, at Palestinian targets, at civilian infrastructure, at financial centers. It eliminated the PLO as a military threat to Israel, but as we've
already discussed, it engendered Hezbollah, a far more lethal, more potent adversary than the PLO ever dreamed of being.
And this campaign that Israel is undertaking in Lebanon is simply not going to silence the rocket fire or the guns.
AMANPOUR: So, what is the answer then? Because you've mentioned a Resolution 1701. And that was what was in place as a sort of a ceasefire
mechanism after the 2006 war that we've just been talking about between Israel and Hezbollah.
And yet, I think all sides, including observers, you tell me whether you agree, it just was never implemented, and the U.N. was unable to, it
doesn't have force as its mandate, and it just apparently wasn't implemented. Do you agree with the fact that it was -- it failed, and
therefore, what is the answer?
CROCKER: The answer, if there is one, is in the change in circumstances. That Hezbollah has been badly hurt with its leadership eliminated. Iran is
on its back foot. Israel has a huge problem with continued fire across its borders, it prevents 60,000 Israelis from returning home. So, it may be
that all parties would have an interest now that they did not have in 2006 in first a ceasefire, and then an effort to implement 1701.
The Lebanese government, such as it is, has announced that it is prepared to send the Lebanese army to the south. UNIFIL would strengthen its
presence, and we would have to see if there are the makings of at least an indefinite calm in this region, because the course that Israel is on now is
simply not producing the results it seeks. The 60,000 Israelis are no closer to going home than they were on October 8th.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you this? Because there has been -- have been leaks, and apparently, the Biden administration is investigating about the Iran
situation, leaks from Pentagon documents, which seem to suggest their views or what they've been told by Israel or what they've noticed about Israel's
military and armament maneuvers, which they think is ahead of a retaliation strike that everybody's waiting for against Iran.
At the same time, we've heard, whether it's leaked or whether it's fact. that Israel says that it will hit military targets rather than oil and
nuclear sites. What do you think is going to happen and what will the result be? What can Israel expect by striking Iran?
CROCKER: I can't begin to predict what the nature of an Israeli strike would be. We've heard, as you say, that they have taken the nuclear and oil
facilities off the target list, but whatever they do strike, assuming it is a hard hitting one, I think it's going to push the conversation in Tehran
even more sharply toward the development of a nuclear weapons capability.
Because what we have seen, what they have seen, certainly, is that their conventional weapons against Israel, their ballistic missiles, intermediate
and medium-range missiles, have been singularly ineffective. So, that leaves them, I can imagine the argument again Tehran, with one viable
option for regime survival and security, and that is the nuclear option.
So, the longer this conflict pursues between Israel and Iran directly, and the more it intensifies, I think the more likely it is that Iran will go
into overdrive in the effort to produce a nuclear weapon.
AMANPOUR: Which would be completely the opposite of what the world was trying to do before they pulled out, the Americans pulled out of the Iran
nuclear deal. So, given that, given that's what did happen under the Trump administration, what do you think, noticing everything that's been going on
in this year, as the U.S. has tried to exert influence while remaining a steadfast ally of Israel, that it doesn't appear that they are being
listened to.
[13:15:00]
And even after killing Sinwar -- I'm just going to play what Netanyahu said, given that Biden said it should be, you know, take the win and try to
get to peace. Here's what Netanyahu said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Now, it is clear to everyone in Israel and in the world why we insisted on not
ending the war, why we did insist, in the face of all the pressures, to enter Rafah, the 45 stronghold of Hamas, where Sinwar and many of the
murderers hid.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he's basically saying in the full flush of that victory for Israel, that the war continues.
CROCKER: Well, if that's what he is saying, it is not going to lead to a definitive victory for Israel or for anyone else.
AMANPOUR: No. But, Ryan -- sorry, Ambassador, what I meant was, despite what the Americans say, what leverage can their strongest ally exert for
the, you know, U.S. and regional, national interests?
CROCKER: Well, I think the administration -- and I'm not an overall fan of the administration's foreign policy. I think what they did in Afghanistan
is something that is going to haunt U.S. security interests for a very long time. But I think, in the case of the Gaza conflict, they have played a
dubious hand exceptionally well.
I think the Biden administration was right to come down immediately and wholeheartedly in support of Israel. Because as I look at the events of the
last year, there has been -- the word genocide has been tossed around a lot. There was only one genocidal action, in my estimation, and that was on
October 7th itself. Not in its scope, but in its intent.
And the effect of that massacre on October 7th of last year on the Israeli psyche is impossible to overestimate. That that -- to think that we could
or should have stopped weapons deliveries or taken other punitive steps against Israel would have been, I think, morally wrong, but it also would
have been strategically wrong. It would have pushed Israeli public opinion farther into a corner that is them against the world, that they can count
on no one, including the United States.
So, the administration has taken a lot of grief for its solid support of Israel. I think that was the right thing to do, but I also think that the
Israeli government and the Israeli people have to recognize where their own interests lie. And they do not lie. There is nothing that they're going to
gain by continuing operations indefinitely in Gaza. You cannot kill them all.
AMANPOUR: And I have 30 seconds left. Do you think Netanyahu can reshape the Middle East as his -- he and his faction says?
CROCKER: Absolutely not. Not in the way that he was seems to be intending. Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin reshaped the Middle East all right with
their action in 1982, but it was not in Israel's interest to see the creation of Hezbollah.
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Ryan Crocker, thank you. Your decades of expertise really right in the middle of the subject that we're talking about. Thank
you so much.
The whole region and beyond, of course, could be profoundly further impacted in just over two weeks, when American voters cast their ballots
for the next president. With just 15 days to go, the race is tightening ever further, both in national and in swing states, it is in a dead heat,
as usual.
Rival candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are packing in events as they sprint to the finish line. While Harris has brought in a record haul
of donations and is campaigning with big name Republicans like Liz Cheney, Donald Trump's rhetoric is seen to be taking a more erratic and vulgar
tone.
But how will America's place in the world change? And is the world preparing? Well, I recently discussed that and the stakes with Leslie
Vinjamuri of the U.K. based think tank Chatham House and the Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, who is in Washington, D.C.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Leslie Vinjamuri, Simon Rosenberg, welcome back to the program.
LESLIE VINJAMURI, HEAD OF U.S. AND THE AMERICAS PROGRAM, CHATHAM HOUSE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Can I start with you, Leslie, because President Biden has been overseas there's a lot going on, and obviously, the world is looking at the
next president and what it'll mean. What do you think of what the allies are thinking? For instance, will there be another G7?
VINJAMURI: I think that people are very concerned if Donald Trump were to be elected, whether there would be a G7. Some people are talking about how
to move ahead, even if Donald Trump was elected, doesn't wish to participate, it turns out to be a disruptive force.
So, now, I guess the key thing is, America's partners and America's allies understand what could be coming. This is what makes us very different from
2016, as we all know.
[13:20:00]
They are preparing. We have been traveling across Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Chatham House has been fielding teams with former U.S. government
officials, experts, meeting with government officials and experts in country. And we've been astonished at how well-prepared people are, how
much they're thinking. And especially a very high level of pragmatism in everywhere but Europe.
In Europe, people are very distressed, they're very concerned, there's a level of excitement and not in a good way.
AMANPOUR: Anxiety.
VINJAMURI: Anxiety.
AMANPOUR: Just before I turn to Simon, what -- so what sort of pragmatic steps are the other part of the world taking?
VINJAMURI: Well, I mean, I think first of all, take Mexico, there's a recognition that actually they worked out how to work with Donald Trump.
They renegotiated NAFTA. They got the new U.S. MCA, the Trade Accord, they understood that there were some better parts to that, the labor rights that
were in that agreement. So, they could see, you know, that they'd had experience they're steeled for it. There's a degree -- but there's also a
signaling thing going on here, knowing that we're going to come back, we're going to talk about this. The Japanese leaders that we met with all said,
we're prepared to work with anybody. This is incredibly important. We'll work with Trump. We'll work with Harris.
The other thing that really came out in spades though, was that the deep disappointment across both sides of the aisle with what America has to
offer when it comes to economic policy, market access. They understand, I think, that this could be much more difficult, disruptive with a Trump
administration, that we'll see a return to the tariff wars, that the instability, that the rhetoric, that the language, the style of diplomacy
would be difficult.
But there's no real optimism that the Biden administration is going to start opening its markets.
AMANPOUR: Biden?
VINJAMURI: Sorry, a Harris administration. And that -- that's a very interesting slip on my part, right? Because there is a sort of, you know,
implicit conversation, will there be much difference? We didn't see -- I think there will be a difference.
AMANPOUR: Between Biden and Harris?
VINJAMURI: We didn't see America's partners and allies thinking that there will be a significant difference between Biden and Harris. So, they're
assessing it as a continuity on the Democratic side.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you, Simon, then, because you are an insider's insider, is it a good or a bad thing that the perception, at
least overseas, is that there wouldn't be much difference? I mean, Kamala Harris, vice president said, I will not be a continuation of the Biden
presidency. What does she mean?
SIMON ROSENBERG, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND CONSULTANT: Well, it's almost a sort of an obvious thing, right? Of course, she's going to pursue her own
course. And as we would expect any president to do. I mean, you know, maybe because she's a woman, she's being expected to just to follow the guy in
what he's doing. I mean, obviously she's going to pursue her own course.
And I think that, she's -- you know, she's already laid out a series of things that she's wanted to do domestically, like tackle the housing crisis
in the United States, that are things that just didn't get done in the Biden era. She's got a new set of challenges that Biden, and it's going to
be a very different administration.
I think that one of the reasons I'm a little bit more optimistic about some of the things that we've discussed is that, President Harris, who I've
known for 20 years, comes out of Northern California, Silicon Valley, the booming economy, she's talking a lot about entrepreneurship and small
businesses, and it's a very different language, I think than what -- how President Biden often talked about the economy. I think we should expect
her to have -- to be drawing more from the experience she had as being in one of the economic dynamos of the world in Northern California and
understanding innovation, entrepreneurship as a more central theme of her administration if she wins, and I think she will win.
I mean, her rhetoric around the economy is very different from Biden's, and I think it's much more tied to her optimism, upward mobility, you know,
this line she has about how she wants people not to just get by, but get ahead is very in sync with where the Democratic Party has been over the
last 30, 40 years.
AMANPOUR: Simon, I do need to ask you, you seem to be confident, and certainly, you have your Hopium blog in which you are just radiating. Hope
and change and all the rest of it.
ROSENBERG: Optimism, optimism.
AMANPOUR: There you go. There you go. And some people say, what are you sniffing? Sorry, I don't know whether I should actually say that. But why
are you so optimistic given that it's so incredibly knife-edge right now, that we are inundated with, you know, from the democratic perspective,
horror stories of how the black vote is being whittled away, moving towards Trump, the Latino vote to an extent, why are you so hopeful and how do you
analyze those particular demographics?
ROSENBERG: Yes. So, three things, right? One is, in the polling today, we have a modest lead nationally, after having -- when the vice president got
into the race, we were down by three points, we're now up by about three points. We have a modest advantage in the battleground states. We're closer
to 270 than Donald Trump is.
[13:25:00]
And I think that the confidence that we have is that, A, since the Dobbs decision in the spring of 2022 Democrats have continually overperformed
polling and expectations, Republicans have continually underperformed polling and public expectations, that there is this reticence as there was
in Europe and France to, you know, vote for the far-right when it came to the day of actually voting. And you've seen this incredible unprecedented
effort by Republicans and by former Republicans to push Republicans towards Harris, and I think it's going to matter on Election Day.
But the second reason I think we have quiet confidence that we'd much rather be us than them, is that we just have much more money and a far more
sophisticated ground game to close strong in these final few weeks. I mean, it's close now, but if one of the two parties is likely to push the
election towards them, it's us, because of our advantages in terms of we're going to have more ads on the air, we're going to be talking to voters
more.
And our candidate is much more popular and is seen as much more favorable and likable than their candidate. And in the end, that's where you would
rather be. But the American people get to decide, and we just have to work our butts off and do the best we can. But I feel In every bone in my body,
30 plus years in this business, I would much rather be us than them at this point.
AMANPOUR: OK. That's a nice way to put it because I was going to say you're the guy also who told us that, oh, no, there's nothing there.
Biden's fine. You know, he should be allowed to continue, et cetera, et cetera.
ROSENBERG: Yes. Listen, I mean, we had Joe Biden -- I spoke to one of the senior campaign people on the campaign two days before the debate who said
he was doing unbelievably well in the debate performances, and it didn't happen. And we made a change. And I think it was a sign of maturity of a
political party that when we needed to make a change and did so in a very graceful manner and effective manner, that we are where we are now.
And the vice president -- again, I'm going just based on data and facts here, right? I mean, I'm not going beyond any of that. Could we lose? Of
course, we could lose. But I think it's far more likely at this point that we win than the other guys do.
AMANPOUR: Very interesting. So, Leslie, I want to ask you, and I'm afraid it is a relevant issue, the whole mental acuity thing, because now, Kamala
Harris is so far -- well, so she's recently tweeted, hope he's OK. This is Donald Trump. And, you know, strange performances at various -- you know,
the bopping and the head nodding and this and that. Then the constant doubling down over Haitians eating pets and all the rest of it.
I mean, just, what does the world think of Donald Trump's mental acuity? I mean, they're proofing themselves in one way, but what do they think about
his fitness, his mental fitness?
VINJAMURI: You know, people have seen this, they're used to it, they understand that some things look nastier. It's sometimes hard to tell the
difference between nasty Donald Trump rhetoric and mental acuity and decline. I don't think we're all equipped to make that judgment. But I
think at the end of the day, people understand this is such a divided election.
There is a, such a stoicism that even if there is a mental acuity problem, they will have to deal with Donald Trump. If you're on the receiving end of
American power, it doesn't really matter. We've got a country that spends, what, $900 billion a year on its defense budget. A lot of that goes
overseas. There is a need for access to the American economy.
You know, people talk about working around the United States or Trump America or having alternative solutions. But when you really start to look
at what that means, there isn't a lot of choice. I think people are really concerned that a second Trump administration will be -- won't have the
grownups in the room. We know the story. It won't have the sort of rational people around the outer circles, that there is a plan. People still think
that -- now everybody knows about Project 2025, the great irony, right? The former president has divorced himself from the plan. Everybody else thinks
it is the plan.
And so, they are worried. They're worried that not only the mental acuity, the fitness of the man, the age of the man, but that the direction of
travel in America's democracy, in America's leadership, would be very difficult for them to manage. But they have no choice.
AMANPOUR: But how do they think of, for instance, they may not have any choice, but four years of Trump showed that a desire or a claim to fix his
relationship with North Korea failed. That to put, quote/unquote, "maximum pressure" and get a better deal out of Iran by coming out of the JCPOA
nuclear deal failed, that, you know, he says that he will solve Russia, Ukraine, you know, even before he's inaugurated, nobody can see a path to
that except for forcing Ukraine to surrender.
VINJAMURI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, on those matters of national and global security, not to mention the Middle East, where he did help enable some very far-right
members of the Israeli, you know, body politics, how do they look at the very security of the world that we're living in?
VINJAMURI: I think that, you know, you sort of put your finger on one of the big issues that came up in all of our meetings was there's been a
relative quiet on the question of North Korea's nuclear ability and intentions.
[13:30:00]
We know North Korea is emboldened now by its relationship with Russia. Everybody across Northeast Asia is concerned about this. They're especially
concerned. They all believe it will be one of the top issues, foreign policy matters back on the table in the next U.S. administration,
regardless of who it is. And they understand that Donald Trump not tried to move the needle and failed. And in fact, you know, nuclear abilities, if
anything, went up in North Korea.
AMANPOUR: And in Iran.
VINJAMURI: But again, what -- and in Iran. But again, what is -- you know, what are they doing to prepare? It's very unclear that there is an easy
solution to that. We know that there is a conversation in Seoul about whether eventually to consider having a nuclear capacity of their own. All
of those conversations are ongoing.
AMANPOUR: In other words, the world is becoming a less safe place.
VINJAMURI: Less safe, but it's really -- you know, the one where the difference seems to be so clear and so stark is on the question of U.S.
support for Ukraine and, importantly, what America's policy would be with respect to Russia. It's not just about defending Ukraine, it's the broader
question of U.S. and Russia, and this is where everybody knows it could be very, very different.
And the Europeans don't have a good plan. The Europeans, as we know, are divided. They have their own internal concerns with their own democracies,
with economic competitiveness.
AMANPOUR: Yes, but they know they have to support Ukraine against Russia.
VINJAMURI: They know they have to support Ukraine, but it's a difficult thing to deliver without the United States.
AMANPOUR: It sure is. And, Simon, we saw both candidates going, as I said, kind of out of their comfort zone. President Trump went to Univision to
have an immigration town hall. That's not his, you know, most friendly venue. Vice President Harris went to distinctly unfriendly venue on Fox
News. Do you think either of them actually scored some -- the points that they wanted to score with the voters they needed to address outside their
base?
ROSENBERG: First of all, we're in the final few weeks of the campaign, and the intensity now of the day-to-day here is incredible. I mean, there's
just so much coming at us every day. The vice president is working unbelievably hard and is doing every possible media venue, is traveling to
all the battleground states. I mean, she is -- her schedule -- and now, we've seen Barack Obama join the trail. Bill Clinton now is campaigning
aggressively in addition to the vice -- you know, our vice presidential nominee, Governor Walz. The level of intensity in this election has
increased dramatically.
And I think that what you have to understand about the Harris campaign is that they are trying to get every vote. They're speaking to every
demographic. They have targeted things towards young black men. They are -- they did the Univision debate to speak to Latino voters in Arizona. They've
did a huge series of events talking to Republicans in the battleground states. They are trying to grow their coalition and make sure that we win
the election. And I will tell you, I think they're doing a really good job.
Donald Trump, you know, in the last few weeks has been unraveling. I mean, his public performances have been much more erratic and wild than they've
been in some time. You know, Europeans should be right to be concerned about what happens if Donald Trump becomes the president, because he is
working literally to end the global economy that -- as we know it, that has kept us prosperous. To end the western alliance that's kept America safe.
And he's working to end American democracy, which has kept us free.
The level of threat to the system that we've known since the 1940s is unprecedented. And it's why I think you're seeing all of us work so hard
here.
AMANPOUR: Just to be clear, I need to define, when you say end the global economy, you mean by the massive protectionism and the massive tariffs?
ROSENBERG: Yes. No. I mean, the tariffs would unravel the entire global economic system that was put into place after World War II. I mean, it
seems to be -- you know, I describe Trump as a Russian-backed wrecking ball against the west and the -- and everything that has made the west
successful.
And so, I think it would be naive, I think, you know -- because with Trump, it's always the worst-case scenario, right? And I think it would be naive
to view what he's doing as anything as an attempt to unravel the American led global order that was put into place after the 1940s that has created
unprecedented prosperity and unprecedented freedom for the people of the world.
And so, I -- you know, we understand the stakes here. And I think it's why you've seen the vice president in her public comments, raise the questions
of his -- of how unhinged and unwell he has been, the threat that he really means to American democracy and to our freedoms, I think she's really
ratcheted that up in an appropriate way, because I think she's being honest with the American people about the threat that's in front of us, and people
deserve to know this before they go into the voting booth.
AMANPOUR: And yet, Leslie, he does have a higher polling on the economy, and black and Latino voters are migrating towards him. How does the world
process that?
VINJAMURI: Well, you know, African American voters, black voters are still vastly in support of her.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I know. But the percentages, the margins.
[13:35:00]
VINJAMURI: They are migrating, and the men in particular. It's a concern. We've seen that. But, you know, my concern is that the white voters. And we
see a split along gender lines, but that split along educational lines continues to be really significant, even amongst white women. White women
who haven't gone to college, very significant numbers of them support Donald Trump. White women who have gone to college support Harris'
campaign.
So, it is an educational split that, but when -- you know, when Kamala Harris goes on Fox news, the most important thing I think she's doing is
trying to motivate white American voters. It's absolutely critical. We talk about getting out the minority vote, the Democrats do it, it's key, but
really getting the white voters that are registered for Democrats in most - - in those three Rust Belt states we're talking at just under or just over 80 percent, depending on the state of registered voters are white
Americans. It's more white than the rest of the country.
So, you cannot leave -- even with -- you know, we talk about demographic change, we talk about, you know, the coloring of America. But at the end of
the day, you've got to have white American voters behind you. And you have to have white men behind you as well.
AMANPOUR: Just fascinating. We could talk on and on. Leslie Vinjamuri, Simon Rosenberg, thank you both very much indeed.
VINJAMURI: Thank you.
ROSENBERG: Thanks so much, Christiane.
VINJAMURI: Thanks so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And, still overseas, talking about democracy and freedom, another former Soviet Republic has made a move to break free of Moscow's
continuing control. Moldova has voted in favor of joining the European Union.
In a referendum, which was much closer than expected, President Maia Sandu has accused foreign interference of undermining this democratic process,
with Russian influence a longstanding concern. Recall Putin personally intervened to block Ukraine's vote for closer association with the E.U.
back in 2013, which set off a decade of invasion, occupation, and war.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is in Kyiv today announcing nearly half a billion dollars in new military aid for the country. But my next guest
warns that a Trump win November could put all that at risk. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was director for European Affairs on
the U.S. National Security Council. He also testified during Trump's impeachment case. And he speaks to Walter Isaacson now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Alexander Vindman. Welcome back to the show.
LT. COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Walter, a pleasure to be on with you. Looking
forward to the conversation.
ISAACSON: I loved your piece in Foreign Affairs, and it was very tough, but it said, what can be done in Ukraine? What can Ukraine do? What should
we do with the possibility of Trump coming back into office? If Donald Trump comes back into the office, what will that mean for Ukraine? And how
can they proceed with this war?
VINDMAN: You know, it's -- that piece was written because there was a request from senior policymakers, folks serving in government, for a theory
of victory for Ukraine. We don't have one. We have a policy which says that we'll follow the Ukrainian's lead, but that is not always in the U.S.
national security interest.
So, I do -- I did what I did in U.S. government. I wrote the strategy for Russia, the national military strategy. So, I put together a strategy, a
feasible, viable, realistic strategy for Ukraine that looks a year out, how we get Ukraine in the best position to compel Putin to end the war and to
suit for peace.
And what I settled on was a combination of what the U.S. can do, what the west can do its entirety of the NATO member states, democracies, and
Ukraine, everybody has to pitch in order to help end this geopolitical earthquake, which is the Russia-Ukraine war.
ISAACSON: You just said something that was interesting, which is that the strategy now has been to follow Ukraine's lead, and they have a plan for
victory that President Zelenskyy just presented to the parliament. But then you said, no, we have to do what's in our interest, not just follow their
lead. Explain the distinction.
VINDMAN: So, that's really what he announced his parliament. The errata is not all that dissimilar to what he briefed to the U.S., to Vice President
Harris and President Biden when he visited here, when he's -- for the U.N. General Assembly.
Really, we always need to remember that we are a sovereign independent state, our fundamental responsibility is to the American public. So, we are
helping Ukraine, not because it's simply in Ukraine's interest, but because it's in our mutual interests. What does that mean? It means that Ukraine's
security is tethered to the security of Europe, it's tethered to this -- to the global security, geopolitics.
That's why I spent so much time in this theory of victory talking about the -- this pressness that we're on, that will be -- that will decide the fate
of not just the U.S. but the world on November 5th. A scenario in which you have Harris, in certain ways, continuing on or branching off and maybe
being more fulsome in support to Ukraine or a completely different world in which you have Donald Trump abandoning the world with an American first
strategy, but that even in itself is a misunderstanding because it's not America first, it's Trump first.
[13:40:00]
And that means we abandon our alliances. We are friends to our adversaries and threats to our friends. And that's why it's so critical that the
Ukrainians and that the Europeans start hedging now. They start planning for this worst-case scenario, it is a worst-case scenario, in which they
have to go out alone and belligerent, increasingly aggressive Russia already active in this hybrid -- just below the level of full armed
conflict means attacking European infrastructure has to be warned off, has to be deterred.
But what gets us to a peace settlement is actually the U.S. being there, and that means a Harris administration. That's why this is so important
that the American public weighs in and determines its future, a brighter, more prosperous future, or one that's highly regressive, isolationist, and
frankly, a very stark departure from where we -- at any point we've been in our recent history.
ISAACSON: Well, you talk about what would be the theory of victory we could have if Former President Trump does win. Tell me, what theory of
victory is there if President Trump wins and U.S. support for Ukraine is cut off?
VINDMAN: It is more of a -- it becomes less a theory of victory and more of a survival because the world as a whole will regress to something that
we haven't seen in a long time, pre-World War II, where the strong prey on the weak. The rules of the jungle.
In that kind of scenario, you will still have alliances that will coalesce absent the U.S. backbone. That means NATO minus the U.S., which has been
already investing in massive resources to bolster its defense. 23 nations now meet that threshold of 2 percent spending. They're already doubling
down on what they need to do to defend themselves, worn off adversaries. But the U.S. is really the backbone. It's the arsenal of democracy.
So, what you have is a much more kind of evenly weighted struggle between authoritarianism and democracies absent the U.S., which is in a much, much
more ambiguous place. Europe will have to be a lot more aggressive in defending its own interests.
But seemingly with the opportunity for Russia to win, to exploit opportunities, to exploit divisions and fractures between Eastern and
Western Europe. So, you have a mix, where I forecast it's actually a mix for a spillover in the conflict. Europeans will have to be more aggressive.
They'll pour resources into Russia -- into Ukraine, and Russia will do the same in reverse.
And it's much more -- we don't like fair fights. We want to be -- we want to have the upper hand. And the U.S. being absent, the U.S. withdrawing
gives our adversaries much more of an even fight to press their advantage.
ISAACSON: You talk about a spillover if all of this happens. It keeps spreading. Isn't that deeply against America's national interest?
VINDMAN: It is. This is what I've tried to -- I've struggled with communicating to the American public at large. Donald Trump is not a
peacemaker. He is not the person that's going to avoid World War III. My next book that comes out, called "The Folly of Realism," I talk about the
fact that we can't be overly transactional. We can't be short-sighted and look at these ideas of -- and each situation, minimizing risk because it
actually doesn't work.
When those -- when you do that consistently, you actually invite opportunism, aggression, build a sense of impunity and adversaries. You
actually have to consistently defend your own interests. And in this case, that means fulsome support to Ukraine, being a good ally to our allies
around the world, not withdrawing because that invites the kinds of aggression that is most dangerous to U.S. national security. That builds us
to a confrontation in which China is more aggressive towards Taiwan, in which Iran is much more adventurous in the Middle East, in which our
adversaries, again, cross thresholds that eventually we'll have to defend.
So, it's better to be on a team like we are with democracies and NATO than to go at it alone, let our friends be picked off one at a time, and then be
a very easy target for our adversaries that coalesce against our interests.
ISAACSON: One of the parts of President Zelenskyy's victory plan that he presented over the past couple of weeks, both in the U.S. and then to his
parliament, is that Ukraine has to join NATO. Now, of course, that's a total nonstarter. Is there any way to deflect that issue, defer that issue,
or do we -- do you advocate Ukraine being brought into NATO?
VINDMAN: I do advocate for Ukraine being brought into NATO. I think it's not realistic and not something that President Zelenskyy should be pushing
for at the moment because it's actually, in a lot of ways, a bit of a poison pill for the peace strategy that he's advocating for.
[13:45:00]
The smarter thing to do would be to get the kind of support he needs. What that's -- you know, we're going to get a little bit more wonky into the
military sphere, but to train his forces to be able to conduct complex combined arms operations, to get the kinds of equipment he needs in order
to launch a successful operation, to get the investment he needs in his own industrial base, to produce more drones, to repair western donated
equipment. Those are far more practical activities that actually gets him to where he wants to be, which is a end of the war scenario.
NATO is going to happen. I'm confident it's going to happen. It's just not going to happen this year or next year. It might be five years. It might be
a little bit longer, because that's the only thing that really prevents Putin from continuing to conduct these kinds of aggressive moves
periodically when he feels he's rebuilt the strength.
So, I believe in NATO. I believe that that's where Ukraine should end up being, but it's just not where -- or what should be advocated for at the
moment. We should be looking at much more practical solutions.
ISAACSON: Why did the Ukrainian offensive of last year fail?
VINDMAN: It failed for several different reasons. It failed for probably the most important one, which is something I advocate for strongly is that
the Ukrainians were not trained to pull together a complex combined arms operation to really achieve their strategic objectives. They wanted -- and
they try to poke and prod to see where the Russians were vulnerable and they spread their forces too far apart.
So, you need something called mass. You need to focus all your resources on the main effort. They didn't really do that, nor could they synchronize
operations between battalions within a brigade or brigades within a larger footprint. These are organizations of 5,000, 10,000, 15,000. They cut --
they're not equipped to do that. They've shown success in being able to do smaller operations, like the Kursk incursion with their elite units, but as
a whole, they weren't able to do that. That's one.
The other thing is that they were under equipped. The U.S. western equipment came in too late. It didn't -- we promised -- over promised and
under delivered. That's another issue. I think the fact is that, you know, we under invested in Ukraine being able to build out the critical
components of its own offensive capabilities. Ukraine was 25 percent of the entire Soviet industrial base. That's languished. The Ukrainians themselves
have invested in there.
Mobilization, this is another thing that I push for. The Ukrainians need to mobilize troops all the way down to the age of 18. It's a tough thing to
do. They want us to preserve that.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, let me stop you there. That mobilization, you're talking about 300,000 more troops in Ukraine. Man, Zelenskyy is getting a
lot of public unrest about that. Isn't that a dangerous thing to do?
VINDMAN: It is a dangerous thing to do, but it's navigable. Why is it navigable? Because if you have a viable theory of victory, if you're
getting the resources, the western equipment, the western training, that gives the troops confidence and morale in order to fight on, it gives the
population some confidence in the fact that they will be prepared for those battles that they need to face.
Right now, they -- without a viable theory of victory people don't want to sign up. They don't want to be cannon fodder. They don't want to -- their
lives squandered. But if you propose a vision for success and resource it with the ways and means to implement it, you can get people to sign up like
you did in the beginning of the war, when people were very, very you know, in mass numbers joining in.
There's also corruption issues that have to be addressed. The rich are buying their way out of this war. It's a war that is being waged by the
middle class and the poor in Ukraine. That needs to end. It's a whole of society problem. People cannot, you know, look for excuses to get out.
So, if you address these problems and you have time to do it, it's diminishing, every day counts, but you have nine months to address this
issue, you could start filling your troops for rotations so people could work off those lines. You could train more new forces in order to bring him
into the fight. You have time to do it, but it needs to be implemented sooner rather than later, and you need to have the resolve -- the leader
needs to have the resolve to cast a vision and then follow through on that vision.
ISAACSON: One of the parts of the resources you talk about needing -- that Ukraine needs in order to do an offensive and maybe set the ground for
victory is, of course, longer-range weapons that would strike in Russian territory. Which of those, do you think, the U.S. should be sending right
now, and what's the danger of doing that?
VINDMAN: I would say the danger is relatively minimal. We could never be dismissive of state and nuclear saber-rattling just because the
consequences are too high. But when you look at risks, you don't just look at the consequences, you look at the probabilities.
[13:50:00]
So, in this case, the consequences are catastrophic, but the probabilities are negligible. Why? Because of this idea of mutually assured destruction.
It is not in the Russians interest to wage nuclear war that risks their own wellbeing, their own national security imperatives.
So, on that basis, you don't want to then succumb to nuclear extortion. You can't just every time the Russians say that they're conducting a nuclear
exercise, you bend and break because that encourages them to continue to advance this idea. And eventually, they'll get to a point where we have to
defend ourselves. We have no choice. You know, if it's NATO at stake, if it's NATO Article 5 at stake, we have to be able to, you know, demonstrate
the resolve to be able to defend those key critical national security interests.
So, what does that mean? That means it gives you lots of operating space below that. That means long-range weapons that are transferred over to
Ukraine become the sovereign weapons of Ukraine. There are no longer U.S. weapons. It's a standard practice international norms.
ISAACSON: But doesn't our Congress require otherwise when we're sending weapons overseas?
VINDMAN: We do something called end use monitoring. We have some constraints that have to abide by basic norms that they're not being used
for war crimes, for instance, or for terrorism that they're not seeping into some sort of international black market exchange. Those things could
be accomplished. Those laws -- the provisions of those laws can be met. It's a question of what we can do outside of that, with regards to arming
the Ukrainians to be able to better wage a defensive war, a war of survival for themselves that also implicates U.S. national security.
Look, we only have this choice in one scenario. If Kamala Harris is elected, we have maybe the continuation of a less than perfect policy,
although there's a huge opportunity for a relook a policy review that allows a Harris -- the Harris administration to be more thoughtful in
provisioning support to Ukraine.
On the other side of the equation, you have Trump. There we know it's clear also. We have a withdrawal of the U.S. from the international stage,
catering to our enemies, a threat to our allies.
ISAACSON: But Congress is a player in this and Congress seemingly, just judging from what happened last time, is not about to pass a whole lot more
appropriations aid to Ukraine. So, even if Kamala Harris wins, aren't we in the situation you describe in your article?
VINDMAN: Yes, so I think actually we are not. What we have is the capture of the Republican Party, by an individual, a highly charismatic individual
that has dragged the Republican Party, in certain ways, away from its roots. It's Reagan era you know, Pointe du Hoc speech, defense of
democracies, fending off authoritarianism.
In some place -- in some ways that's a current for the Republican Party, but a lot of it is this charismatic leader that's dragging him in that
direction. So, once Trump is out of the picture, you have a portion of the Republican Party returned to its roots.
And you do have -- if you look at, for instance, the Senate, you have overwhelming support -- for continued support to Ukraine. The House, which
is far more kind of under the sway -- you know, the rapture of MAGA and Trumpism and the extreme right wing tends to be more fluid.
And we -- in this moment, they're not supportive of Ukraine, although they were compelled to move on that issue after nine months. Why? Because it
wasn't the speaker that moved him on that issue, it was individuals. It was the fact that you would have Republicans peel away and support aid to
Ukraine. I think it's harder now, nine months on, it's going to be harder to get another round of appropriation.
But with a theory and victory, with a vision where Ukraine -- where the war could potentially wind down in the -- in 2025, deeper into 2025, you could
get at least one more push and support. What you want to do is you want to communicate resolve, though, and you don't want to say that this is finite
because that encourages Putin, for instance, to continue on, continue to wage the war for another year or two years.
But he's also -- Putin doesn't have unlimited resources. The Russians have lost vast quantities of troops, the vast quantities of resources. They're
running -- starting to run thin. So, if there's a successful campaign in 2025, we can get there and the U.S. can play a critical role in doing that.
ISAACSON: Alexander Vindman, thank you so much for joining this show again.
VINDMAN: Thank you. I look forward to the next time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Great analysis. And finally, tonight, right here in New York, a win for the history books.
[13:55:00]
The New York Liberty basketball team has won its first ever title, becoming WNBA champions. And not only that, they've brought home this city's first
professional basketball trophy since the mid-70s for men's and women's teams. The New York Knicks last won the NBA championship back in 1973.
Sunday's exciting decider went into overtime, with the Liberty beating the Minnesota Lynx, a close 67 to 62. And the celebrations say it all.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
