Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Russian Diplomat Boris Bondarev; Interview with Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI); Interview with "Plundered" Author and USC Gould School of Law Professor Bernadette Atuahene. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired February 20, 2025 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Putin's talking points from President Trump. What do Russians make of all of this? I ask diplomat turned Kremlin critic Boris Bondarev.
Then, back home here in America, what will Congress do to assert its prerogative? Senator Elissa Slotkin joins me.
Plus, "Plundered: How Racist Policies Undermine Black Home Ownership in America." Author and Legal Professor Bernadette Atuaheni joins Hari
Sreenivasan to discuss how the deck is stacked against black families.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in Washington, D.C.
Ukraine has been fighting for its freedom for 1,093 days and must now contend not only with Russia but a stunning reversal in U.S. foreign
policy, in which the United States is welcoming Russia back into the fold and appearing to turn on its own ally, President Zelenskyy.
After Donald Trump called Zelenskyy a dictator, there were phone calls of support to Kyiv from the British prime minister and the French President.
Meanwhile, Trump's own envoy, Keith Kellogg, is in the Ukrainian capital meeting with Zelenskyy today. They were expected to give a joint press
conference, but that didn't happen. Afterwards, though, Zelenskyy said that their meeting was productive, and he repeated that he is grateful for U.S.
support. He also said his team is ready to work 24/7 with the United States on the best way to achieve a proper peace.
This was Mike Waltz, national security adviser for President Trump, who, of course, was at those talks with Russia, speaking to Fox News about
relations between the administration and Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There's obviously a lot of frustration here. President -- Vice President Vance was very frustrated
leaving the Munich Security Conference. Our secretary of treasury, who traveled all the way to Kyiv is also frustrated. All on top of the
president, obviously, who makes his frustration well known.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe that this is reconcilable? Do you believe that this is two people just getting mad at each other, or do you
think these are two countries going different ways?
WALTZ: Oh, I think so. The president also said how much he loves the Ukrainian people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, not forgetting, President Trump also tried to claim that Ukraine itself was to blame for Russia's invasion. One Putin acolyte, the
former president, in fact, wrote, quote, "If you had told me just three months ago that these were the words of the U.S. president, I would have
laughed out loud."
Let's get more now on the Russian view of things. Boris Bondarev was a diplomat who quit his post and denounced the Putin regime after it invaded
Ukraine. He joined me from Geneva.
Boris Bondarev, welcome to the program. I want to start by asking you some news that has arrived here in Washington, and that is U.S. intelligence
says that it does not believe Vladimir Putin is even interested in these peace negotiations. And let me quote, "We have zero intelligence that Putin
is interested in a real peace deal right now." This according to one of the congressional officials here. He thinks he's winning. Tell me how you react
to that.
BORIS BONDAREV, FORMER RUSSIAN DIPLOMAT: Well, I personally find these statements very close to reality. I think it is -- everything that we see
is telling us that Vladimir Putin is sure that he can achieve his goals. So, to say the -- to subjugate Ukraine without any other concerns by force
in -- I think in a few months.
So, he doesn't really need any negotiations and any deal because he's sure he can get what he wants himself.
AMANPOUR: Do you think he can? Because, you know, you quit and resigned in protest over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do you think after three
years in which the Russians are bogged down, despite some little small territorial gains here and there over the last year, can he win?
BONDAREV: If we speak about the -- about Ukraine that loses its ability to defend itself, then I think it's possible. It's not about Russian armies
being bogged down in Ukraine, it's about that Ukraine may lose its will to defend because they may feel betrayed by its western allies.
[15:05:00]
And then, Russia has a lot of -- a lot more manpower. And the value of human life in Russia we see is very low. Putin can waste thousands and
thousands of Russians just to break through Ukraine. Ukraine and its -- that's why he has still resources. He has still resources. And yes, he may
win if Ukraine is not supported for quite a long time.
AMANPOUR: So, Mr. Bondarev, how do you analyze what's going on, this sort of war of words between President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, who has resisted
all these years with U.S. and NATO support, and President Trump, who seems to be basically going at Zelenskyy for the moment using all Putin talking
points? What do you think will be the result of that? The psychological result, the actual result?
BONDAREV: Well, first of all, I think it wouldn't improve the morale in Ukrainian armed forces and in Ukrainian society. And they will ask
themselves, maybe it's time to stop, maybe it's time to find some agreements with Russia, though it's not very possible.
So, this U.S. rhetoric against Ukrainian authorities is very, very -- you know, is very, very -- against the very basics that United States had been
for since the beginning of this war. And of course, it plays in the hands of Putin. So, I really -- I can -- I have no clue why the United States
turns 180 degrees on all its foreign policy priorities.
AMANPOUR: Well, before I get into the talks with Russia, just I want you to think, why do you think the United States is doing that? We hear, for
instance, from Russian analysts and this and that, people analyzing the Kremlin, though we know why Putin is cozying up to Trump, because he
believes that under Trump America's leadership gets even weaker. And that suits him. It suits China. It suits everybody just fine.
Why do you think this 180 is happening, though, from the U.S. side?
BONDAREV: Well, I'm not an expert on America -- American politics, of course, but my impression is that, first, President Trump wants to have his
own personal foreign policy win, foreign policy success in ending this war, as he promised to his voters.
And second, I think he may still believe that he can succeed in in splitting Russia from China. And that's been a very popular American -- I
think, American foreign political narrative for years, that Russia can be somehow put against China. So, United States could focus on its strategic
competition with China.
And I think it's really baseless for now that Russia will not be split from China because they have a lot in common, they support each other, and the
United States is very, very unpredictable right now. So, the United States is not the country to be trusted, really. So, I don't think why this hope
is still surviving in American minds. It's a big question.
AMANPOUR: That's very interesting that they -- from their point of view, America is not to be trusted. It's very unpredictable at this precise
moment. So, what did you think when -- you know, he's a veteran in the Senate, Marco Rubio, the current secretary of state, and the Trump
negotiating team went to meet with Lavrov and his cohort there in Saudi Arabia, how do you think those talks went? From the perspective of Lavrov
and the Russian side, what do you think they achieved in those talks?
BONDAREV: First, they achieved that these talks took place. It's a great win for Russia. Russia is going now out from this diplomatic isolation. So,
the United States has started this negotiation process and Russia is more or less confident that the United States, for now, is going to continue
this process.
So, this is a good venue to squeeze the United States and President Trump and get as much -- as many concessions as possible. Taking into account
he's being so eager to strike a deal. And it's my personal impression again that it seems to me that President Trump is very much interested in
striking a deal and signing some agreement with Putin without going into detail what this deal will be really about.
[15:10:00]
So, I think for him, the main thing is just to sign something and to show all his people in the United States and in the world that he is a great
deal maker and a peacemaker. And what this peace will really look like, it's a secondary issue. So, I think Russians can exploit this to their
benefit.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's the danger for this American side. As I said, Rubio is a veteran of the Senate. He's said things in the past that, you
know, indicate that he knows who's to blame. It's Russia who invaded Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera. They all know that the Russians lied, lied,
lied about their intentions in 2022, saying they would never invade and then invading
But to your point about everything on the table, certainly, at that meeting, they talked about better, you know, economic ties between the U.S.
and Russia. They talked about, you know, more rapprochement diplomatically, potentially even opening their embassies and missions in each other's
country.
You have said in a recent interview that Trump's approach here is risky for him personally. What do you mean by that?
BONDAREV: I mean that President Trump seems to consider all international relations as merely as just business deals and business relations. And
Russians try -- trying to use it, trying to present themselves as the business partners and they trying to lure him into some profitable business
contracts.
And that's why they talk about economic ties. They speak about something tangible because they understand that President Trump values something that
can be touched by hand, so to speak, right? He doesn't care much about geopolitical advantages. He doesn't care much about human rights. He wants
something that can be valued, and preferably money.
So, that's we give you some economic opportunities, maybe some investments, maybe some oil and the gas deposits or something, anything to keep his
interest in this negotiation and in this deal.
AMANPOUR: And finally, I want to ask you, in 2022, as I said, you resigned your diplomatic post to protest the war in Ukraine. Many Russians have not
done what you've done. Can you tell me how you've been doing over the next three years? Do you think that what you did made a difference? And how do
you think it's going to play out this war as it continues in Russia itself?
BONDAREV: It brings no benefit to Russia. Life in Russia is growing poorer, is growing less and less free. And the Putin regime is growing more
and more repressive. But that said, for now, the majority of Russian citizen still do not feel much the impact of this war. Life goes on as it
was in the past.
And that is why most -- majority of population is still quite indifferent. They don't care about this war because the war does not touch them
personally. And that is -- that gives Putin another pillar of support, so to speak. The population doesn't want this war, but they do not oppose it
either. And thus, he can continue it as long as the war does not come to Russia. And it doesn't now. It's all in Ukraine. So, Putin, from this point
of view, he has good prospects.
AMANPOUR: It's really an incredible moment and we're really, really grateful to have your perspective and your, really, considered analysis on
this. Boris Bondarev, thank you so much for joining us.
BONDAREV: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: Well, from the beginning, analysts have predicted that Putin would simply wait out the West. Here in Washington, the condemnation of
Trump's words against Zelenskyy was swift, from Democrats at least. Only a few Republicans joined the fray. Former Vice President Mike Pence did. He
criticized the president for claiming that Ukraine is to blame for the war. And he said, and those in the halls of Congress certainly have a lot on
their hands with Elon Musk sweeping and chaotic cuts barreling through the U.S. government.
Elissa Slotkin is the Democratic Senator for Michigan, and she joins me now from Capitol Hill. Senator, welcome back to our program. I first want to
start by asking you some of what's happening here, for instance, what do you make of the current sort of contretemps between Trump and his officials
and Zelenskyy?
[15:15:00]
How do you think this is going to end? Zelenskyy tried to put a post out that said, you know, that tried to lower the temperature today.
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Yes. I mean, I think he has to do that, right? I think he feels -- he must feel under pressure. You know, at the Munich
Security Conference last week, you could hear different voices coming out of the Republicans writ large. You had, you know, sort of folks around
Vance, you had folks around Rubio, you had the Republican senators, that I was traveling with, who had very different views and very different
approaches to Zelenskyy.
Obviously, it got very hot this week because of Trump's comments. But if you're in Zelenskyy's shoes, there's nothing to do but try and lower the
temperature. I think what we're all trying to understand is, you know, this moment in time, right? A country that for 80 years has had a pretty
consistent policy towards first the Soviet Union and now Russia, and just watching an American president cozy up to Vladimir Putin is, I think,
stunning, not to mention just a bad negotiating tactic.
But I think Zelenskyy is trying to lower the temperature because he's trying to do what he needs to do to save his country.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you then about -- you just mentioned historically, particularly the Republicans have had a very, you know,
traditional, tough against Russia, anticommunist, you know, clear position historically on Russia, and that seems to be changing. Why do you think the
Republicans are not stepping up more to fulfill their historic role?
I just want to hear -- read what vice president -- Former Vice President Mike Pence wrote. He was obviously Trump's vice president. He said, Mr.
President, Ukraine did not start this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The road to
peace must be built on truth.
So, digest that and then why do you think the Republicans are sort of ceding their historic role on this issue?
SLOTKIN: Well, look, I mean, I come from Michigan. There's definitely concerns, you know, a sort of an isolationist feeling in the country.
People feeling like, you know, we shouldn't be sending as much money overseas. That's a very real feeling. But I think the responsibility of
leadership is to say, look, you know, we're not trying to prolong this war. We want to negotiate an end to this. But we can't do it on the cheap. We
can't do it by just giving everything to an autocratic leader like Putin. We have to negotiate in good faith in a way that makes clear that if you
invade another country, you don't get a bunch of toys and kudos afterwards.
So, I think I understand the instinct and a lot of the leaders in the White House are populist. They're responding to the sentiment in the country,
which is real. But leadership has a special responsibility, not just to close a deal today, by the way, but to also think about the impacts down
the road.
So, all I think about is the message that sends not just to Europe, but to China. And I think if you care about who's going to kind of lead in the
next century, every day of the week, I want that to be the United States over someone like Putin or something like China. And I think this sends the
opposite message, bad message.
AMANPOUR: And, Senator, with your military and intelligence background, would you agree that, OK, you might not want to send, I don't know, $40
billion of U.S. aid, or $67 billion of U.S. aid to -- you know, to Ukraine, but is it not cheaper to do that than then to have to go to war or
whatever, manage a Putin victory?
SLOTKIN: Yes, I think that's what we've been trying to say to people is, look, you know, we see that we are spending a lot of money on Ukraine, as
are the Europeans, to help them defend. But if we just let Putin roll over this country, roll over Ukraine, he won't stop there, right? He's like a
toddler. Like until he hits a boundary, he's not going to stop. He's been open about that. So, next he'll be in NATO country, and we'll be prompted
to get in. He'll keep going.
And to me, I think it is the value proposition of let the Ukrainians defend themselves so that we don't have to have American sons and daughters being
carted off to war with a nuclear power. I -- that is the value proposition.
But I have to say, I think everyone at the Munich Security Conference understood that we're at a bit of a stalemate, you know, that we're in
Ukraine, that it's not -- you know, one side isn't able to completely win. And so, most people accepted that we were going to go to a negotiation.
I think the difference this week is that Trump has completely shown his hand. He's so cozied up to Putin and said, look, this is between us and we
want to do all these things with you, that he's given away the farm before the negotiations barely have begun. So, even if you agree with the
president, just giving away your leverage like that makes no sense as a negotiator.
AMANPOUR: And, Senator, you're right, so many people believe that it's time to end this war, and were looking to Trump to try to do that and see
whether he could fulfill that campaign promise. But as we've seen, and I was at Munich as well, it sort of looked like it was around the back of
Ukraine, which clearly is an unviable proposition.
[15:20:00]
But more to the point, I want to ask you what you make of the latest, apparently, U.S. intelligence assessment that says we've seen zero evidence
that Putin actually wants to negotiate a real -- you know, a real end to this, and he thinks he's winning.
SLOTKIN: Yes. I mean, I don't think you actually need an intelligence report to see that, right? I think that if you're Putin, you were really
excited to have Donald Trump win the election. You're now sitting at the big boy table with him in Saudi Arabia and having a real conversation.
You're being brought back into the diplomatic family after being kind of ostracized for years of the war. You're like -- you feel like you're the
puppet master here and you're getting to play the American administration.
So, I think, you know, at the Pentagon, we always used to say, you never negotiate about them without them. Meaning, of course, I believe that the
Ukrainians should be in the room. They're going to have to accept this deal too. But the idea that somehow Trump is masterminding everything, when to
the casual observer, if you're Vladimir Putin, you're popping champagne in Moscow.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about something else that caused a bit of a rupture. Zelenskyy said it to me on stage when I directly asked him about
the idea of selling, giving, whatever the correct terminology is, a portion of their rare earths or making some kind of deal with the United States.
We know the Biden administration wanted to do it. We know that Zelenskyy held out in order to make this deal with the Trump administration. But now,
we know also from National Security Adviser Waltz that this whole business is causing a lot of frustration for President Trump. And this is what Waltz
told CNN, who asked what Keith Kellogg's message would be to Zelenskyy today. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Let's tone down the rhetoric and sign the economic opportunity. Sign the deal.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that Kellogg's directive today is to get him to sign the deal?
WALTZ: Well, he's out there talking to us on a number of things, but that would be -- I think that would be a tremendous step forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, how do you see that, given that the Democrats also wanted to do a deal on this?
SLOTKIN: Yes. I mean, Zelenskyy talked about this in our meeting with him, with senators and the Munich Security Conference. I think, you know, there
-- if you're Zelenskyy, right, you're just trying to turn to your countrymen and say, we know you've been fighting, we know you've been
dying. We've been defending our country. We were not the aggressor, Putin was the aggressor, and now, we're having to really face facts and make a
deal. So, you want to make that deal as positive as possible.
It seems that he is willing to have this economic conversation, but you better believe he's looking for some sort of security guarantees in
response to that, right? Otherwise, what are we doing? Otherwise, Putin's just going to wait for Trump to move on to something else. And just start
the war back up, start taking it back again.
So, if you're Zelenskyy, you know, there's a trade to be made, I'm sure. But you're not going to do it without some sort of guarantee that you're
not just going to be re-invaded in two, three, four years down the line. So, it seems like he's willing to have the conversation, but he's going to
want something for it.
AMANPOUR: And he clearly said that he was told, sort of, take it or leave it, that the U.S. -- this administration, wanted 50 percent almost in
perpetuity, and he said, I can't sell out my country. I don't know what you know about that.
And then if you could, we tried to get out of him in in Munich, what security guarantees would actually look like. Do you have any more clarity
on that?
SLOTKIN: Well, look, he did describe in the meeting that he had been presented with a document by the Trump administration and sort of shoved in
front of him, and they wanted him to sign it without reading it. So, look, that's not the way we deal with partners and allies. No matter what you
think of the war, that's just not effective. And he wouldn't sign it, to his credit.
But I think, you know, in terms of the security guarantees, there's a bunch of ways to skin this cat, right? There's a bunch of ways to think about the
Europeans being involved. There's a bunch of ways to think about, you know, us doing occasional training with the Ukrainians. There's all kinds of ways
to do it. But if you're him, you cannot end this war if you don't have a commitment that another war isn't going to start for your territory.
So, I think that's where we should be having a real conversation with NATO and the Europeans. Trump has been open that he wants the Europeans to lead
on this. Fine, then let's have that conversation. What I'm concerned about is that Trump is already giving away the farm and saying to Vladimir Putin
like, don't worry, you know, we won't have any troops in there. The Europeans won't have troop -- NATO won't have troops. We won't do this, we
won't do that. He's eating away at any sort of assurances that Zelenskyy will need that there's not going to be a reinvasion. So, that's why it pays
to have people at the table with you.
[15:25:00]
AMANPOUR: And just to be clear, early on Zelenskyy was ready to have negotiations, it wasn't received and reciprocated by Russia. Russia's
maximalist demands that they want everything, including essentially the abject surrender of Ukraine, have not changed.
So, President Trump said in remarks yesterday that he will soon be having lunch with Democrats. I assume he means senators like you. If you were to
be included, with all that we've just talked about, including Europe's role and how this concludes, what advice would you give?
SLOTKIN: I mean, my advice was -- would be, first of all, have a conversation with the players, all the players. If you want Europe and NATO
to do more, they got to be included in the endgame conversation. You can't just expect them to do more and then not bring them into the conversation.
And remember, Ronald Reagan, right? Remember the Republican leader who helped us win the Cold War over the Soviet Union. He understood that there
was a fight going on globally for leadership of the next century. And he put a stake in the ground that he wanted it to be the United States.
Not that we're perfect, not that we do everything right, but that any day of the week I want American leadership over Chinese leadership or Russian
leadership. Make that same claim. And you don't have to give it as much aid, and you don't have to -- you can cut back things that you want, but
decide that you want to have a national security posture that creates international peace and security.
And if you say you care about China, they are watching everything that we're doing right now. They're taking notes.
So, Mr. President, I would say, please, like, think about not just making your deal today, but what it means for history and the Chinese who are
watching every move.
AMANPOUR: And so, let's talk a little bit about the sort of earthquake that's happening here inside the United States with President Trump trying
to completely reshape the federal government, and it appears to be totally testing the bounds of executive authority.
I want to read you something from a Washington Post column. Trump's first month is striking, not just because of the president's actions, but also
because a significant number of Americans and members of Congress are applauding his aggressive approach to the job. The country appears to be in
a dark mood, with some voters' hunger for disruption outweighing their impulse to follow American traditions.
Would you agree, and what would you say should be the Democratic response to this Republican administration?
SLOTKIN: Yes. I mean, I think that's actually a fair description. You know, I represent Michigan, which voted for Donald Trump and me on the same
ballot just recently in November. And I think people feel like they want, you know, to understand what their government is doing for them in a more
significant way. And they've been hearing and repeating, you know, that the government is too big.
But here's the thing, we're watching all these cuts happen. We're watching them, you know, just kind of willy-nilly, you know, let go a thousand
people here, a thousand people there. I think American citizens are fine with that until it affects them, right?
Some of the people being let go our flight safety instructors. We've had a lot of plane crashes just in the past like six or eight weeks. People who
are let go who are working on avian flu, right? And I've got dead birds showing up all over Michigan. They've got people who are being let go from
our nuclear security apparatus, the Defense Department, people who, in the dark of night, keep us safe.
So, I think it's one thing to say, yes, theoretically, I want to cut the federal government, it's another thing when your water isn't being tested
and lead shows up in your community, right? Something so sensitive to Michigan. So, I think that, again, the job of a leader is not just to do
what feels good to the average person, but to actually make sure you keep people safe from physical harm.
And what I'm concerned about is that they've -- they're so interested in showing political cuts, right, for political reasons, they're not thinking
about the safety of Americans. And the chickens will come home to roost on that.
AMANPOUR: So, you didn't tell me how Democrats should respond, maybe you can in a second because I want to read you what Vanity Fair has said,
quoting a Republican who, you know, has basically said that it swayed his decision making because they fear for their personal safety. Here it says,
according to one source with direct knowledge of events, North Carolina senator, Thom Tillis, told people that the FBI warned him about, quote,
"credible death threats" when he was considering voting against Pete Hegseth's nomination for defense secretary. Tillis ultimately provided the
crucial 50th vote to confirm the former Fox & Friends host to lead the Pentagon.
Have you heard anything like that from your Republican colleagues? And again, what is the answer?
SLOTKIN: Yes, I haven't heard that from my Republican Senate colleagues, but I cannot tell you how often I heard that from my House colleagues on
the Republican side, particularly after January 6th.
[15:30:00]
I remember a very pointed exchange with the Republican congressman who voted against certifying the election for Joe Biden, even though he knew
and could say that Joe Biden actually won the election. And he said, Elissa, you know what, I've got militias forming in my district, they're
threatening my family, they're threatening my staff, so I had to vote against certification.
And I said, you know what, Congressman, you know what we call that in my state? Wednesday. Like, welcome to it. Lots of us receive threats. Lots of
us have had people convicted for threatening us, but if you are someone who's going to change your vote because you are threatened, this is not the
right job for you.
So, I hear it and I don't want anyone ever threatened, it's just wrong no matter who you are, what political side of the aisle, but we cannot start
voting out of fear because then what do we have as a country? What do we have?
AMANPOUR: So, what is the Democratic -- your party's response? Is it to wait out and work towards the midterms? We've got one minute left.
SLOTKIN: Yes, I would just say four things. It's legislation, things we can do here, and we're about to, you know, have the budget come in front of
us. It's litigation, that's almost the front foot right now, like all courts all over the country, pushing back on DOGE. It's messaging and
trying to catch up to the Republicans on social media. And lastly, it's elections. We need, I think, four seats in the House of Representatives to
flip. Those are the four things.
AMANPOUR: And I've got 45 seconds left. There are rumors that Pete Hegseth, defense secretary, might fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
General Brown, and maybe even the head of the Navy, the admiral, female head of the Navy. What will be the reaction from colleagues?
SLOTKIN: I mean, we've always had an apolitical military. People who have served and risk their life way more than Mr. Hegseth. And have, like, put
themselves on the line without a political affiliation. So, I think it's deeply disturbing for our apolitical military. And it's hard to miss that
the chairman is African American and the secretary is female. I mean, those are things that are hard to miss.
AMANPOUR: Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
SLOTKIN: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Now, we heard Russia's political perspective from Boris Bondarev earlier, but what about ordinary people there? How are they reacting to the
new U.S. approach to their country and their president's war in Ukraine? Correspondent Fred Pleitgen spoke to people in Moscow.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Breaking news on Kremlin-controlled TV. Even the anchor can hardly believe
her eyes. U.S. President Donald Trump calling Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, quote, "a dictator" in a social media post.
Attention, this is incredible, the host says. Trump is obviously angry. Having had modest success as a comedian, Zelenskyy, writes the U.S.
president, couldn't have won in the Ukraine conflict and the U.S. was giving him money in vain. Zelenskyy is doing his job poorly. Donald Trump
now called Zelenskyy a dictator. This is what he wrote.
Many Russians now hoping that Trump induced thaw in U.S.-Russian relations could bring fast sanctions relief. At the Skazka Souvenir Shop in Moscow,
boss Alexander is rearranging the Matryoshka dolls according to what many here hope could be the new world order.
ALEXANDER TSUKANOV, OWNER, SKAZKA SOUVENIR SHOP, MOSCOW: Our president and American president, and also, we have Mohammed bin Salman also with us. So,
all friends of Russia.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): On the street, much praise for President Trump, sometimes maybe a bit too much.
PLEITGEN: What do you think about Donald Trump?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think, maybe small Stalin.
PLEITGEN: You think small Stalin. Why?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Why, but character.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): Of course, I like Donald Trump, this man says. He's a positive president. He will change America and make it great again.
Moscow's leaders optimistic saying they believe the Trump Administration understands their view of the Ukraine war. Where Russian troops continue to
make modest gains, this Russian defense ministry video purporting to show drone units hitting Ukrainian positions in Russia's Kursk region.
Russian Leader, Vladimir Putin, visiting a drone factory, also praising Trump, saying a face-to-face meeting is in the works.
We're not in a position where it's enough to meet each other, have tea or coffee, and chat about the future, he says. We need to make our teams
prepare issues that are crucial for both Russia and the U.S., including the Ukraine conflict but not only it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Fred Pleitgen reporting from Moscow. We turn now to a story of American neighbors on different sides of the racial and class divide.
Bernadette Atuahene is author and a law professor and her new book, "Plundered," explores what she calls the systemic bigotry in America's tax
system.
She joins Hari Sreenivasan now to reveal what she's learned following the lives of two families in Detroit, one white, one black.
[15:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks. Bernadette Atuahene, thanks so much for joining us. You are a trained lawyer from
Harvard and Yale, and you recently wrote a book called "Plundered: How Racist Policies Undermine Black Home Ownership in America." And you
mentioned that you -- originally, this is not the book you were setting out to write. What happened?
BERNADETTE ATUAHENE, AUTHOR, "PLUNDERED" and professor, USC Gould School of Law: Yes. So, initially, my first ethnographic project dealt -- all my
work deals with land stolen from black people. And so, my first ethnographic project dealt with land stolen and apartheid and colonialism.
And so, that project was uncomfortable for me in many ways, because it was, again, black people as victims. So, my next ethnographic project, I wanted
to look at vulnerable populations doing the stealing. And so, I decided to do a big project on squatting.
And I got a big National Science Foundation grant to study squatting in Detroit because Detroit has one of the largest modern-day squatting
phenomenons in America. And then, through the research of squatting, I accidentally found the property tax foreclosure crisis and then switched my
project.
SREENIVASAN: What was the property tax foreclosure crisis in Detroit all about?
ATUAHENE: So, since 2009, one in three homes has been -- has completed the property tax foreclosure process. One in three. We haven't seen this number
of property tax foreclosures in American history since the Great Depression.
So, the question is, what is going on in Detroit? Well, I did a study that shows between 2009 and 2015, in each of those seven years, anywhere between
53 and 84 percent of homes, the city was assessing in violation of the Michigan State Constitution, which quite clearly says no property can be
assessed at more than 50 percent of the property's market value.
But what I need you to understand, Hari, is Detroit is -- this is not a problem unique to Detroit. Detroit is just ground zero for a national
problem. A recent study found that blacks and Hispanics pay, on average, a 10 to 13 percent higher property tax rate than whites for the same bundle
of goods, which equals, on average, $300 to $400 dollars more per year.
So, racialized property tax administration is a racial justice issue that our nation has not yet begun to address.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, how does it actually get implemented? How do those -- I mean, because what you're describing is sort of unequal conditions for
parcels of land that should otherwise be worth the same, right? So, who or how is a particular ZIP code or an area on a map getting one property tax
designation versus another?
ATUAHENE: Yes. So, the way property tax valuation is done, it's different. So, with appraisals, it's individual house by house. And a lot of your
listeners have heard of appraisal bias. The story where there was that one professor from Baltimore for John Hopkins who put -- tried to sell his
house and then did it again by putting his white colleagues' pictures there and got a higher evaluation. And so, that's called appraisal bias.
What I'm talking about is what we call the double bind, right? So, black and brown homes, when it comes time for appraisal, they are undervalued.
But when it comes time for property taxation, they are overvalued. How does that happen? Because property taxation is not done with appraisal, it's
done something with what's called mass appraisals.
So, they do the appraisal for a larger area. And for instance, in Michigan, they have something called an ECF, an Economic Condition Factor, which is
just an area, and what they do is they take the average. And so, necessarily, by definition, an average means that the higher value homes
are going to be undervalued and the lower value homes are going to be overvalued.
Hari, who lives in those lower valued homes? Right? Vulnerable populations. Intersectionality tells us black and brown people, women, poor people. And
that's -- that -- the phenomenon of over assessing lower valued homes is called regressivity. And that's when the lower valued homes are taxed at a
higher rate than the higher valued homes. And we see regressivity throughout the United States.
SREENIVASAN: You write in here that, really, Detroit is an example, and again, that there could be other cities that this is happening in as well,
but of predatory governance. What do you mean by that?
ATUAHENE: Yes. So, predatory governance is when public officials intentionally or unintentionally raise public dollars through processes,
written and unwritten laws that produce racial inequity. So, what's happening in -- you know, Myresha is a character in my book, and her story
is, it really exemplifies this.
So, Myresha had her house, she inherited her house from her grandparents, and that, the City of Detroit then overtaxed her home, because most of the
homes that were overtaxed are the lowest valued homes, and then she lost that home through tax foreclosure.
[15:40:00]
Who's winning from this? It is the local governments, not some kind of corrupt public official. We also see predatory governance. We've seen it in
Ferguson beyond what happens to Michael Brown. We have an excellent DOJ report that shows police in Ferguson were engaged in unconstitutional
policing and charging African Americans excessive fees and fines. Who benefited from that? Not some corrupt police officer, but the City of
Ferguson itself, whether it's Ferguson or New Orleans or Philly or D.C., and not just property tax, but it's a phenomenon that I identify in the
book called predatory governance.
SREENIVASAN: You have this sort of nice vehicle, two families that you track over time from grandfather on down. And really, it becomes a little
bit of a story of intergenerational wealth and you see how crucial homeownership is in that. Summarize for us kind of the juxtaposition
between these two gentlemen.
ATUAHENE: Yes, Hari. So, the book, like you said, starts with two grandfathers. One is Grandpa Bucci. He's from Italy. He was a sharecropper
in Italy. And then, he makes his way eventually to Detroit to work at Ford River Rouge's factory. And the other grandpa is Grandpa Brown, who was also
a sharecropper, but in North Carolina, and he also makes it through the great migration from North Carolina to Detroit to also work at the very
same factory, Ford's River Rouge factory.
So, I start with these two men who start there in 1905, 1903, within a couple of years of each other, they start the same job. And I track their
lives. Again, not to tell you about racist policies, but to show you that Grandpa Bucci, he did not have an easy life. Before he made it to the U.S.,
he worked in the coal mines of France. He literally had one finger cut off through a work accident, but Grandpa Bucci, at no moment, had to deal with
racially restrictive covenants, like Grandpa Brown did, which are covenants tucked in deeds that prevented African Americans from finding housing in
the suburbs where the houses were larger, cheaper, bigger, with better amenities.
Although, Grandpa Bucci didn't have an easy life, he at no moment had to deal with redlining, which is when racially restrictive covenants
sequestered black people in neighborhoods, then the federal government, through the Fair Housing Administration, drew a red line around the black
neighborhoods just because they were black, right, saying these communities are now a credit risk, and then banks did not lend money to these
communities. And so, there were no mortgages, there were no home improvement loans, and the inevitable result of that is a deteriorated
community.
Although Grandpa Bucci had it hard, he never dealt with his community, the federal government, creating a policy like redlining that made the very
presence of your people -- made your very presence have the ability to reduce property values, right? Redlining made black people a pariah.
And so, it goes through the -- all of the racist policies that Grandpa Brown had to deal with, and Grandpa Bucci did not. And it looks at their
progeny. Grandpa Bucci's grandson, Robert Focano (ph), currently lives in his grandfather's home, the home that he inherited from his grandfather.
And I asked Robert, why do you still live in this home? He said, duh, I don't have to pay a note. Myresha Brown, who's the granddaughter of Grandpa
Brown, she inherited her grandfather's home and it was not a valuable asset. It was a money pit worth less than $10,000 and it required, you
know, all kinds of maintenance. Why? Because through years and years of redlining, the home in -- her home and the homes around it were deprived of
investment. And so, the maintenance was not done. And so, she inherits a money pit instead of a valuable asset.
SREENIVASAN: You've -- in your research, you found that between 2010 and 2016 Detroit overtaxed homeowners by at least $600 million. And yet, you
say the city itself isn't really gaining from all this money. Who is?
ATUAHENE: So, when you follow the money in Detroit, just as you said, it's not the City of Detroit benefiting from this over taxation, it's actually a
net loss for the City of Detroit, because when you foreclose on a home, the value of the home next to it reduces, foreclosure causes blight, et cetera.
[15:45:00]
So, then who is benefiting? And that's one of the main reveals in the book is to show the number one benefactor of property tax foreclosure and
delinquency in Detroit was Wayne County. Because a lot of people know that Detroit went through the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history and
was taken over by an emergency manager, but what lots of people don't know is at the very same time, Wayne County was in a financial emergency and it
saved itself from emergency management and bankruptcy using something called the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund, which is where that 18 percent
interest on delinquent taxes goes, which is where the money from any home sold through the property tax foreclosure option goes. And so, they save
themselves from emergency management and bankruptcy using this money in the -- in this particular account that comes from property tax delinquency and
foreclosure in Detroit.
But again, that's the biggest moneymaker. But then, as we talked about earlier, I go through the various different entities that are also, in
addition, making money from property tax delinquency and foreclosure in Detroit.
SREENIVASAN: So, is there a way then to figure out what is at the root of this? You know, is racism part of this at a human level or is it really at
a policy level? Because that's what you kind of seem to be looking at.
ATUAHENE: Yes. And you know, the way we talk about racism in this country, we're looking for the racist, right? Hollywood has taught us to look for
black cats, white hats, good guys, bad guys. And I'm trying to -- we need to shift from that to really thinking about this in terms of racist
policies. So, there are certain policies, whether they're implemented intentionally or unintentionally is not my concern. I'm saying, let's move
away from intent and just look at the various policies. And if those policies are causing racial inequity, then I call them a racist policy. I
get that term from Ibram Kendi. His work has influenced me greatly.
And so, once we have these racist policies, then the idea is to then disassemble them. What are those racist policies look like in the area of
Detroit? Well, it looks like the lowest valued homes in the city being taxed at a greater rate than the higher value home, it looks like the
statutory -- statutorily mandated 18 percent interest penalty on property tax debt, which makes sense if people have the money and they're not
paying, but it makes no sense if it -- poor people aren't paying because they don't have the money.
And that's why we actually have to make the shift from talking about structural racism, systemic racism, right, to talking about racist
policies, because racist policies, number one, is something that people can understand. Number two, when you talk about structural racism, that is so
overwhelming. What do I do about that?
But when you talk about racist policies, it forces the person articulating the idea to enumerate exactly the policies, just as I have done, so that we
can move to the space of trying to disassemble those policies.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I wonder, there are people who are going to watch this conversation and say, look, where is the personal responsibility and
all this? Why is it Detroit seems to have this kind of problems over and over again? And I think that there also are people who want to blame the
victims, right? And say, look, this is your fault. You should have known better. You should have read the fine print before you signed, et cetera.
From your research, how do you sort of square that?
ATUAHENE: The Myresha, again, the character in my book, she even blamed herself. When I first met her, she said, you know, well, the problem is I
wasn't doing what I was supposed to be doing. And when I interviewed all of the various kind of government officials who touch the property tax
foreclosure process, they also had what I call these narratives of personal irresponsibility.
One said, the problem is Detroiters just don't want to pay their taxes. Another said, well, Detroiters bought houses they couldn't afford. And
another had the audacity to tell me, well, Professor, instead of buying -- paying their taxes, Detroiters decided to buy purses.
And so, my research tells a very different story. It's not a story of personal irresponsibility, it's a story of structural injustice. I've
interviewed over 150 property -- homeowners who are property tax foreclosed, I've interviewed almost every government official who touches
the process, I've interviewed investors, and I even took a nine-month course and passed the state exam to become a certified Michigan assessor.
And so, through my comprehensive investigation, I found that, again, it's a structural issue, 53 to 84 percent of properties were being assessed in
violation of the Michigan State Constitution. About 30 percent of Detroiters live below the poverty line. And so, they could not afford these
illegally inflated property taxes.
[15:50:00]
There was injustice hidden in these very complex property tax calculations. Racist policies had you trying to slay a dragon with a butter knife. And
so, that's what -- that's what's happening here, Hari, is, again, we need to make the shift from these narratives of personal irresponsibility and
focus on the racist policies, both focus on the structural injustice that's at play here.
SREENIVASAN: So, Bernadette, if there are these structural forces at play, what is kind of -- what's the purpose of individual effort against this,
right? If someone finds themselves the victim of one of these predatory policies, what can they do?
ATUAHENE: Before I went to law school, I was a community organizer in South Central L.A. So, when I found the -- you know, that one in three
homes had completed the property tax foreclosure process in this 80 percent city called Detroit, I couldn't just write about it and keep on moving.
So, my students and I joined with over a dozen grassroots organizations to create something called the Coalition for Property Tax Justice. And we have
three goals. Number one is to stop these illegally inflated property taxes, not only in Detroit, but throughout the nation. Number two is to make sure
that people in Detroit, before they are foreclosed, we can make sure that the taxes they owed are not illegally inflated. And number three is to
provide compensation.
And so, we have something that we call the Dignity Restoration Project, and we're raising $10 million to compensate the hardest hit Detroiters. And
this is a really important moment in the reparations movement, Hari, writ large, because if we can't -- you know, there's a whole debate. Where
should we start reparations? Slavery, Jim Crow. And I'm saying let's start reparations yesterday, with what happened in Detroit, this 80 percent black
city, because if we can't get it right in Detroit, where their evidence is uncontested, and it's so clear, then we will likely not be able to get it
right in general.
SREENIVASAN: Professor of Law at the University of Southern California, Bernadette Atuahene, also author of the book "Plundered: How Racist
Policies Undermine Black Home Ownership in America," thanks so much for joining us.
ATUAHENE: Hari, tThank you for having me. This was a lovely conversation. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And of course, one that reminds of the slogan, no justice, no peace. And finally, tonight, we remember the life of a champion for peace
and a loving father, grandfather, and husband. Oded Lifshitz, aged 84, was one of the founding members of the Nir Oz Kibbutz in Israel and a vocal
advocate of the two-state solution.
As a journalist, he was a staunch critic of Netanyahu's policies in Gaza, penning this op-ed for Haaretz back in 2019, when he wrote, when the Gazans
have nothing to lose, we lose big. All the rounds of fighting in Gaza have brought us back to the same starting point, with a sense of failure and a
bloody and desperate draw.
Oded was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7th. He was held for more than 500 agonizing days. His family has now confirmed that his body is amongst the
remains of four hostages released by Hamas. Shortly after he was taken, his daughter Sharone told me about her father's unwavering fight for justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHARONE LIFSHITZ, DAUGHTER OF ODED LIFSHITZ: My father had very strong opinion about things, but he always felt that you make peace with enemies,
that our job is to find a shared ground, I think grounded in humanity, and that there's no alternative. And I don't think history show us that there
is an alternative.
I think that he fought all his life for the rights of Palestinians, for the rights of Bedouins and North Sinai in the '70s. He felt that that was worth
pursuing in the face of an ever-growing shift to less collaborative rhetorics in the face of huge settlements that were made there in order to
stop the possibility of the two-state solution.
I believe he will -- if he was here, he would say that this present a new opportunity for that. He was part of an organization of people from the
region that will regularly had a route (ph) and will simply take Palestinians from the border to East Jerusalem and other hospital in
Israel. You have to remember that these people are not living on another planet. They live a mile from us. We know they are there. We hear them. We
hear their mosques. We hear them. They hear us. We had relationship with them. Those relationship were really destroyed with Hamas taking control.
But they are there. We know they are there. And we know there are people that were our friends there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[15:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Such strong words reminding us of the humanity that endures beneath the darkness. Sharone's mother was also kidnapped with Oded, but
she was released very early on. And we want to finish with Oded and his piano. His music now an indelible memory for both his family and all of
those who share that pain.
Thank you for watching, goodbye from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:00:00]
END
