Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with "101 Questions & Answers on Popes and the Papacy" Author Christopher Bellitto; Interview with Former NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad; Interview with Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center Director Alexander Gabuev; Interview with "The Two Popes" Actor Jonathan Pryce. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 22, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
As a Catholic church prepares for what comes after Pope Francis, historian Christopher Bellitto warns expect the unexpected.
Then a new threat to the pope's environmental legacy from the Trump White House. Rick Spinrad, former government climate official, fear's cutbacks
put people's lives at risk.
Also, as the war in Ukraine, grinds on Russia expert Alexander Gabuev looks at how Putin's invasion changed the course of history.
And finally, we look back at Christiane's conversation with a claimed actor, Jonathan Pryce, who portrayed Francis in the movie "The Two Popes."
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Mourners are flooding into the Vatican to pay their respects to Pope Francis. On Wednesday, he will lie in state at St. Peter's Basilica with
the funeral mass on Saturday morning. It will be a final humble gesture by Francis. His remains placed in a simple casket buried, not in the Vatican,
but it's Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, the church where Francis would pray before leaving on trips abroad.
World leaders from U.S. President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be there. Then at a date to be announced, the
conclave begins. 135 cardinals, all men, all under the age of 80, most chosen by Francis, will sequester themselves inside the Vatican to choose
the next pope. Their choice will determine whether the Catholic church continues on the progressive path set by Francis, or moves in a more
traditional direction.
For more on Francis' legacy and what comes next, let's bring in Christopher Bellitto. He's a historian at Kean University and author of "101 Questions
and Answers on Popes and the Papacy." Welcome to the program, Christopher. I won't ask you 101 questions, but we'll try to get as many as we can in.
I spoke with you on Good Friday, just days before the passing of Pope Francis, and we talked about his struggles with his health the last few
months, having been in hospital for so long, yet managing to be discharged and to address the crowd there on Easter Sunday. Just your reflections
about what that says about his convictions and his legacy, ultimately, that he leaves behind at the papacy.
CHRISTOPHER BELLITTO, AUTHOR, "101 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON POPES AND THE PAPACY": Well, I think that it's remarkable that both John Paul II and
Francis willed themselves to live. You can't think of it as any other way to Easter. Francis gets to Easter, passes away overnight. Well, John Paul
II got to Easter. Last time we saw him was on Easter Sunday, just like Francis, and John Paul II passed away the Saturday after that.
So, I think it was just kind of a force of will. His last messages to us on Good Friday and also in his very short will, which was just released, was
to link his suffering with the suffering of the world of Good Friday. John Paul II famously said, you don't come down from the cross. So, it's an
enormously welcoming message to people who are physically suffering or may find themselves suffering because their housing is not secure, their food
is not secure, their job is not secure.
GOLODRYGA: You know, John Paul II played such a pivotal role in my life, just throughout my childhood. He was the only pope I knew growing up, and
his papacy lasted longer, obviously, than Pope Francis', I believe it was some 27 years. But Pope Francis, no doubt leaves an indelible mark as well,
the Catholic Church and on the direction that he has taken it. Give us your thoughts on that.
BELLITTO: Yes. I want to say respectfully that I think the traditional progressive dichotomy is a little too much because if you take Catholic
theology and you put it along, say, an American or Western political spectrum, it doesn't work. John Paul II was as much a champion of the poor
as Benedict or Francis. We tend to put that on the left side of the political spectrum and not on the right side.
And so, I think it's more a matter of style that John Paul II and Benedict were very much kind of command papacies. If you will, John Paul II was a
diplomat. Benedict XVI more a college dean. Both of them were pastors, but being a pastor, I think, was how Francis conceived of himself, all
different shades, of course.
[13:05:00]
But the style was very different. Whereas John Paul II and Benedict were very much kind of, this is the way it is, Francis wanted to talk about
things. He did not change Catholic doctrine and the people who are kind of afraid of Francis, I think, forget that. He didn't change Catholic doctrine
in any way, but what he said was, let's talk about it.
And more importantly, the only way to move forward together is to listen humbly, shut up and listen. And I think that there's really these moments
in time where we need this kind of profit versus global indifference who reminds us that it's not about me, it's about we.
GOLODRYGA: And also, what was notable with John Paul II was he was sort of in line with the times, especially as an American growing up, observing it,
and really fighting against Marxism communism. Here you have a bit different with Pope Francis, who is an outlier of sorts, at least when it
comes to U.S. policy and other European policies that we're starting to see trend against migration, against allowing in migrants. And yet, he stood
firm by his convictions. And so, that also is quite notable.
I do want to now turn to where this leads in the search for his successor. You of all people can talk about the history of how a conclave works. I
believe up until before the -- before 1800 we had seen quite a different process. Since then, we have the cardinals of the past few hundred years
gathering and ultimately deciding on who the next pope will be. But walk us through the history of this process.
BELLITTO: Sure. So, the Catholic Church is 2000 years old. For about 1200 years, the pope or the bishop of Rome was chosen by the Roman clergy or the
Roman people, sometime in what's called acclimation, calling things out, sometimes Roman families and back rooms cutting deals.
But in the year 1274, the church put into play what we call the conclave, locking them up with a key in Latin conclave, it becomes the Italian and
English words conclave. And that was because there was too much outside interference. So, between 1274 and now we lock the cardinals up.
Now, when you only had several dozen cardinals, now we have 135 electors, you could do that in the rooms outside of the Sistine Chapel. They're
locked in the Sistine Chapel. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said, well, come on. This is ridiculous. We have to update it. And he built a dormitory, the
house of St. Martha. And so, the cardinals are like a sequestered jury. They'll be shuttles back and forth.
GOLODRYGA: And when I mentioned 1800, that is when the burning of the famous smoke, right, of their votes, right, was actually introduced. And
why every time we see a new pope, which we should note, is not that often, you make a point that there have been 60 U.S. elections since 1788, only 16
conclaves in that same period. But when we're looking for that white smoke, that tradition began in 1800.
BELLITTO: Right. So, when people talk about the Catholic Church being very traditional, you always have to kind of ask, well, what do you mean by
tradition? As an historian, one of the things I say is that the only constant in church history is change.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you also say, expect the unexpected. So, explain why it's not a given that despite the fact that this is a pope who appointed
the majority of the bishops who will now be -- or the cardinals who will now be deciding and voting on his successor, we shouldn't necessarily
expect a name even though there are already lists of who people are betting on.
BELLITTO: Right. And there are a couple of reasons for that. Pope Francis' critics say he's been stacking the deck. Well, every CEO, every principal,
every president stacks the deck. If you define that as bringing in like- minded people around you, what moron wouldn't do that, right? And so, John Paul II, Benedict the XVI did the same thing.
And yet, when you've had 35 years of kind of two kind of monarchical papacies, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, how do you get Bergoglio, who is a
decentralized pope? Well, you've had Italian popes for 455 years, how do you get a Polish pope in 1978? So, there's a wonderful Italian word
papabile, literally means popable, you know, the 10 or 15 guys that everyone says, well, these are probably the insiders.
[13:10:00]
Well, there's a saying, if you go into the conclave as pope, you're going to come out as a cardinal. The only time that we kind of -- in recent
years, 1963, everyone was kind of like, yes, the guy from Milan and Mantini it's pretty much going to be pope. And he went in as pope and came out as
pope. That is Paul VI. But typically, expect the unexpected.
GOLODRYGA: Well, there's also a chance now, especially given the number of cardinals that he'd appointed who were not traditionally from Europe, but
from Africa, from Asia, that there's a chance we could have a first African or first Asian pope. Pope Francis, we should note, was a pope -- first pope
from Latin America.
Christiane spoke with Cardinal Turkson in 2013 before Pope Francis was actually chosen. I want to play sound from that conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDINAL PETER TURKSON: We beginning to see from all of this in our young churches, mature (INAUDIBLE), mature churchmen who are capable of
exercising leadership in the church. So, the possibility that a candidate or any of the guys, any of the cardinals to be elected pop can come from
the southern part of the globe is very real.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And here is Christiane's conversation with Philippines cardinal, Tagle, in 2015, sometimes called the Asian Francis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDINAL LUIS ANTONIO TAGLE: This is the most populous continent of the world, but the Christian population remains like only 3 percent of the
total Asian population and half of that Christian population is found in the Philippines. The past popes, the past 50 years, have been trying their
best to link Christianity with Asian cultures and sensibilities. We have the same hope with Pope Francis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Cardinal Tagle there from Asia. And obviously, we heard there from Cardinal Turkson from Africa. What is the likelihood in your view that
we will see the first pope from either Asia or Africa?
BELLITTO: Well, it's certainly going to happen in this century, maybe in our lifetime, maybe in the next two weeks or maybe not. For the first time
in history, half of the cardinals who are electing the pope will be from a place other than Europe and North America. So, about 70 of the cardinals
who are voting are from the Global South, below the equator.
We've had three popes in history who were from North Africa. This is the first 500 years of the church. But we've never had a Sub-Saharan African.
So, it's going to happen one way or another. We just don't know when.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you mentioned that the policies of Pope Francis weren't necessarily changed, but obviously the thought process and the open
conversation and the dialogue that he allowed was a bit different. And it's notable to hear from experts that say, listen, if you do have a first pope
from Africa, a first pope from Asia. These are also continents where typically these cardinals are more conservative at least -- even in their
dialogue than Pope Francis.
I'm wondering if you agree with that assessment that on the one hand you could see a first once again in history with either the first black African
pope or the first Asian pope, but at the same time, perhaps the progressive dialogue won't be the same.
BELLITTO: I don't see a moving back from the dialogue because a process was very important to Francis and people want to be heard. Don't you want
to be heard? I certainly want to be heard, right? We all do. So, I think that process is going to still be in place. But we should also note that
while conservative might mean theologically, conservative, nevertheless, we have many poor countries in the Global South, and these cardinals have been
leaders of those poor countries and looking and caring for the very same people that Francis was caring for when he, in fact, took the name Francis,
which he told us was for two reasons, the poor and peace.
GOLODRYGA: What else is interesting to me that perhaps our viewers aren't aware of is that for the first time these cardinals may be meeting, that
they may not know each other as well as one might think, given that they're spread around the world, and as we noted, these conclaves don't happen that
frequently. Just talk about that process. You go from not knowing anyone to all of a sudden being sequestered in a room for several days, if not weeks
together.
BELLITTO: Yes. One wonders what that summer camp is going to look like. There are cardinals who kind of have been campaigning, and Francis always
talks about what he called airport bishops who, you know, are -- they're flying around so often that they're never in one place very long and
they're kind of campaigning.
[13:15:00]
But I will say that because of the synods that have been taking place, which Francis wanted to be a much more participatory, he has been bringing
the cardinals into Rome with more frequency. So, even though there are 135 of them, none of them can know everyone closely. There has been more
interaction than has been the case in the past.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Christopher Bellitto, we didn't get to 101 questions, but listen, by the time a new pope is chosen, perhaps we will.
We'd love to have you back on in the interim until we do have that announcement and see the white smoke. Thank you so much for joining us.
BELLITTO: All right.
GOLODRYGA: Well, after this short break, a new threat to the environment, Pope Francis revered.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, today is Earth Day, an opportunity to celebrate Pope Francis' climate legacy as well. In 2015, he published a papal encyclical,
a brief to bishops on the environment, writing with love of God's creation, but declaring that the Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more
like an immense pile of filth.
Now, while Pope Francis helped inspire the world to fight climate change, the Trump administration is working overtime to undermine the pope's
legacy. Layoffs, funding cuts, and regulatory rollbacks are laying waste to indispensable resources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Organization, home of the National Weather Service.
Richard Spinrad -- Rick Spinrad is a former NOAA administrator and he joins me now live from Washington. Rick, welcome to the program. If we could just
begin on the legacy of Pope Francis and his dedication to climate as well. I wrote a bit -- I read a bit from his first papal encyclical focused
solely on the environment. Among the many tributes coming in to the man and to the pope were from climate activists and experts like John Kerry, Al
Gore.
But it's interesting to hear how one religious scholar, a Jesuit priest put it in his dedication to climate. He said, before Pope Francis, climate
change was seen as either a political issue or a scientific issue. What his encyclical did was frame it as a spiritual issue. Just wanting to get your
thoughts on his contributions to the subject.
RICK SPINRAD, FORMER NOAA ADMINISTRATOR: Thank you for having me, Bianna. His contribution was remarkable for a vast community going well beyond the
Catholic church. I mean, let's put this in context. So, he became pope just a few years after the Arab Spring, a crisis that we now know was caused in
large part due to a large regional drought and agricultural failure.
And so, just a few years later, as you said in 2015 when he issued the encyclical, he described climate change as, quote, "a global problem with
grave implications," a concept that really shook the world. And in fact, it was just a few months later when we think back that the U.N. had their
seminal climate conference in Paris, where the Paris Agreement was established, arguably one of the most influential policies associated with
how to address the problems of climate change.
[13:20:00]
Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis talked about what he called an integral ecology, and he was. Full of insight and recognizing that climate change
and ecological issues were integrally connected and intricately part of society, politics, economics. And throughout his papacy, he carried that
thought forward. I can only hope that the next pontiff carries the same kind of perspective, insight, and initiative for addressing climate change
and environmental issues writ large.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, we should note the 10 world leaders cited his encyclical while signing the Paris Climate Accord as well. As we noted, today is Earth
Day. I would dare to say you don't think there's much to celebrate here in terms of the progress or lack thereof or sort of the headlines coming out
of this administration as it relates to the environment and to climate.
Talk to us about your reaction to the protest that we're seeing and not just to climate change and policies focused on climate change, but to a
number of this administration -- still in its infancy, but a number of their policies that don't sit well with many Americans.
SPINRAD: Yes, I think to put it in context, and I'm old enough to actually remember the first celebration of Earth Day back in 1970, a time, I'll
remind your viewers, when President Nixon actually established NOAA. We passed the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act.
So, it's a very different time. But I think it was viewed back then 50 years ago, 55 years ago, as the purview of just a select group of
scientists.
The positive side of this story is that in the ensuing 55 years, we've made great progress in understanding the environment to the extent that now we
can start to develop what solutions we might have to addressing the impacts of climate change. But, and this is a big but, a lot of that progress can
be turned around, stopped, basically inverted with the kinds of policies and budget initiatives that we're seeing coming out of this White House,
basically stopping research, taking the -- what we used to call the products and services of NOAA that are used by every sector of society, by
every community, by every individual in the country, taking those, if you will, offline, is going to have grave, grave consequences in terms of
lives, livelihoods, and lifestyle.
So, I am very concerned, I'm pleased to see the kind of attention that these issues are getting, but I don't think we've quite got to the point
where members of Congress, key industry leaders understand even just the return on investment that we're getting from the kind of work that is
provided by NOAA.
GOLODRYGA: So, explain it to us, because many Americans most would be familiar with the acronym of NOAA, but under the auspices of DOGE and
cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, Americans also seem to be on board with that too. It was an issue -- a campaign promise and pledge from this
administration. So, talk to us about exactly and tell our viewers what NOAA does for everyday Americans that they not be -- may not be aware of.
SPINRAD: So, Bianna, let me start that by saying what I'm about to tell you costs each American 6 cents per day. OK. So, now, let's figure out the
value. Obviously, the weather forecast. So, if you live in the southeast right now or the Central U.S., your lives are dependent on the hurricane
forecast, the tornado forecast. We're getting into fire season in the west and the northwest. Phoenix just saw 100-degree weather last week. So, all
of those weather products are part of what NOAA does.
NOAA is, I believe, the best way to characterize it, our nation's environmental intelligence agency. So, if you want to know something about
what's happening in the oceans, what's happening with sea level rise, are there red tides off my coast? And what is the potential for having a
vibrant fishery? How healthy and safe is my seafood? Space weather is another part of NOAA's portfolio. So, the safety of aviation, the accuracy
of our GPS and the reliability of our energy grids all depend on the products and services of NOAA.
So, all of that environmental intelligence, which allows people, industries, every sector of commerce is invoked in terms of what NOAA does
is provided for 6 cents a day. Strikes me that that's not the place to go looking for efficiency. In fact, I would argue that what we need to do is
invest even more in our nation's ability for producing environmental intelligence.
GOLODRYGA: So, according to details that have emerged from a planned report, again, this hasn't been made official, but it does appear that the
White House is at least considering cutting funding for NOAA quite significantly by some 27 percent. What impact would that have on the work
that NOAA provides?
[13:25:00]
SPINRAD: One of the main areas that have been identified by the White House to eliminate is NOAA's research portfolio, several hundred million
dollars of research and many thousands of researchers around the country. Well, what does that mean? It means that basically all the things I just
alluded to, your hurricane forecast here, tornado forecasts, your long-term seasonal outlooks will never get any better. That's one thing it means.
It also means that whether you are a recreational boater or a farmer, you're not going to be able to get the information you need. Think about
farmers right now who are busy developing their planning -- planting plans for this year. They need to know what is it that I should plan for in terms
of rain, in terms of temperature, you're not going to get that information.
So, basically, taking a step back, probably 20 or 30 years in terms of the ability to provide this information is what will be guaranteed if these
budget cuts are implemented.
GOLODRYGA: So, when you hear the administration, when you hear from tech billionaires and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk come in and say, we're not
taking away valuable technology. We are trying to invest in new, better, more accurate technology, that this is antiquated bureaucracy that the
administration and the federal government has been promoting and paying for for years, we're going to stop that. We're going to invest in the private
sector and make your weather radar systems even better. Your response to that is what?
SPINRAD: So, my first reaction is, show me where in the private sector they are actually interested in taking on both the operational and
maintenance expenses of something like the Weather Service. They don't have the capital to do that. They also are not prepared to take on the
liabilities. And more importantly, they ought to take a look and see what progress was being developed.
I'll give you a very specific example. The Weather Service has 122 Doppler weather radars around the country. Many of them are a couple of decades
old. While I was administrator, we undertook an aggressive program to develop a whole new radar technology. That program was well on its way to
implement state-of-the-art radar technology, coupled though, by the way, with state-of-the-art satellite technology.
Stepping in now and saying, no, we don't think the government can do that right is really shortsighted, misguided, and most importantly ill-informed.
GOLODRYGA: Why do you think they have such an axe to grind with what is objectively science? I mean, there's no political ideology attached to
improving fire surveillance and forecasting hurricanes. I mean, the number one things that Americans turning the television on in the morning look for
in local news is traffic and weather. Why has this become such a personal battle for this administration in your view?
SPINRAD: The only thing I can assume is that it's shooting for effect, to try to demonstrate that by cutting programs and firing federal employees,
we've reduced the cost to the American taxpayer, because when you look at the return on the investment. For the Weather Service, studies have shown
that every dollar we invest in weather we see about a $70 or $80 return. So, it cannot be for efficiency, it's got to be shooting for effect to
demonstrate action, even as misguided as it may be.
GOLODRYGA: So, here we are, the U.S. once again headed into hurricane and fire season, though as we know with climate change, that season seems to be
year-round, especially as it relates to fires. We talked about the horrendous fires and focus so much on them out in the West earlier this
year.
With these cuts comes what? What are you concerned about for the American public as we approach these pivotal months?
SPINRAD: Safety is the number one concern. So, let's talk about hurricanes. We've been making a lot of progress in the track forecast.
Where's the hurricane going to make landfall? And the intensity forecast. Both of those require research observation capabilities, which will be
eliminated. And they also require people. And in fact, in the early terminations, the probationary terminations, some of the flight directors
for NOAA's Hurricane Hunters were fired. That meant that those airplanes can't fly. That means those forecasts for hurricanes will suffer.
On the fire side, we've seen the removal of any number of meteorologists from the National Weather Service. People who would otherwise surge, if you
will, when there are fires in the west and southwest and northwest, those people will not be there to be the on-scene meteorologist, which means,
quite honestly, the lives of firefighters are being put more at risk than they were before. Those are just a couple of the examples.
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you personally how this feels for you to see an organization where you spent so much time, invested so much of your life
potentially gutted?
SPINRAD: It's insulting. It hurts. I decided to be an oceanographer when I was in middle school. And seeing my colleagues whom I hold in such high
regard treated so disrespectfully tells me that the kind of things that we strive for in this nation in terms of being scientific leaders are not any
longer the principles and values we adhere to. And that hurts me a lot as an American.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I can imagine that that would. And as you note and warn, it's going to hurt millions of Americans as well if they follow through on
this. Thank you so much for your dedication and your time and service, Rick Spinrad. We appreciate it.
SPINRAD: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up for us as Russia's war on Ukraine grinds on, is a lasting ceasefire possible? We'll ask Alexander Gabuev, director of
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, we turn to Russia and Ukraine where an Easter ceasefire was quickly violated with Russian forces launching a mass drone attack on
the port of Odessa over the weekend. This as President Trump attempts to broker peace between the two nations, but so far to no avail.
Our next guest says that regardless of a lasting ceasefire, Russia itself has fundamentally changed under Putin. Director of Carnegie's Russia
Eurasia Center, Alexander Gabuev, of argues that confronting the west is now a core principle of Russian life, and he joins the program from Berlin
to help explain why.
Good to see you. Before we get to your piece, I do want to talk about some of the latest headlines now with Vladimir Putin say that he's willing to
talk directly for the first time to Ukraine to discuss the holding of strikes on infrastructure. We saw that headline from the secretary of
state, Marco Rubio, last week, which seemed to blindside everybody, threatening that the U.S. would just be out of trying to broker peace.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We came here yesterday to sort of begin to talk about more specific outlines of what it might take to end a
war, to try to figure out very soon -- and I'm talking about a matter of days, not a matter of weeks, whether or not this is the war that can be
ended. If it can, we're prepared to do whatever we can to facilitate that and make sure that it happens -- that it ends in a durable and just way. If
it's not possible, if we're so far apart that this is not going to happen, then I think the president's probably at a point where he is going to say,
well, we're done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: How is that interpreted by the Kremlin? And I'm wondering if, you know, after all of these weeks, early in this administration, where
we've seen the majority of sticks being directed towards Ukraine, and the carrots going from Russia's favor, is that viewed perhaps as the first
maybe ultimatum for Vladimir Putin, or not so much?
ALEXANDER GABUEV, DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE RUSSIA EURASIA CENTER: I didn't hear any sticks in Secretary Rubio's remarks actually. If he implies that the
U.S. will walk away from the situation, that's actually a gift from Vladimir Putin, if it means that the United States will stop supporting
Ukraine or that everything from now on is transactional, no American taxpayers' money are involved, maybe Europeans may purchase some weapons
for Ukraine.
The America stepped out from its role as major enabler of Ukrainian defense effort, that's very good news for Vladimir Putin, and he definitely can
uncork another bottle of champagne. ' GOLODRYGA: OK. And I think you're right actually, that wasn't necessarily a stick. What may be an inadvertent stick to Russia thus far are these
tariffs that President Trump has unleashed to more -- over a hundred countries. Now, he had been criticized for not including Russia directly in
these reciprocal tariffs, or even a blanket 10 percent tariff. But the price of oil has significantly gone down, and that has been the major
source of revenue for Russia for many, many years. But obviously, it's helped fund this war as well.
[13:35:00]
Are we seeing any cracks in the Russian economy early on, even now, given that Russia's supply or the price of oil has declined?
GABUEV: It is contingent, Bianna. And indeed, I think that decrease in the global oil prices is one of the unintended consequences that's negative for
Russia. It's not a stick that's really pre-mediated and that's some result of Trump's genius directed at Vladimir Putin. It's just a result of a very
clumsy approach to his tariff war.
The Russian budget is balanced at a price of around $69 dollars for a barrel. So, the current oil price is below that, and that means that Russia
will need to grab into its stash, into its sovereign wealth fund in order to compensate for a deficit. But the Russian authorities that are managing
the budget and running the Central Bank are very capable. That's the most capable part of Putin's bureaucracy. And probably if the price goes down to
even $50 a barrel, Russia will have problems, but it will still have resources to sustain its security state domestically to be repressive and
brutal, and to persecute the war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the mechanisms with which the technocrats and the head of the Russian Central Bank Ha has managed to keep this economy afloat has
really been a lifeline for Vladimir Putin over the last three years.
I want to turn to your piece now in Foreign Affairs entitled "The Russia that Putin Made." And it's quite provocative in your argument. First, you
note that a confrontation with the West has now become the organizing principle of Russian life. And this is something that's been indoctrinated
in young school children on television, on state media and propaganda. How has it permeated as quickly as it has though throughout Russian culture and
society?
GABUEV: You have a quarter century that Putin is in charge now, that he has cultivated the learned helplessness, itemization (ph) and social
inertia that have been in the Russian society already, thanks to centuries of brutal service regime. On top of that comes communist dictatorship. 10
years of pretty messy transition to a market economy that left a lot of people traumatized. And then comes Putin bringing some sort of social
stability, but also increasingly repressive regime that's suppresses freedom of speech, cancels independent media, sends people who disagree
with the regime into exile long before the 2014 annexation of Crimea and before the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine.
Now, 2022, when Russia assaulted Ukraine without any reason, that repression is now on steroids. And Putin consolidated his control and
injected a lot of this poison of hatred towards Ukrainians, but also anti- western propaganda that I think starts to work on this society. Because on the other side, the West is also attempting to cancel Russia or at least
some Russians.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you note that deterrence may be the -- or must be the cornerstone of western policy going forward, and that the first priority
for Europe is to scale up defense production. But you also warn Europe not to be too hostile towards Russia as well. That is a delicate balance to
walk. Talk about why you think Europe may be capable of doing both.
GABUEV: I think that deterrence is indeed bread and butter and that should be the ultimate priority and the focus of Europeans, particularly if we are
running into risks that the U.S., which was a bedrock of European securities for decades after the end of World War II, throughout the Cold
War, and afterwards being the anchor of NATO might be reducing its commitment in Trumpian way that's very unstructured, unpredictable, and
inserting a lot of anxiety.
The fact, Bianna, is that Russia will not be defeated in Ukraine anytime soon to an extent that will not pause a threat to Europe. It's embarking on
a very costly military modernization program. It's integrating lessons that is learned in this war. It's expanding its armed forces with all of the
capability for modern war fighting with drones and so on.
[13:40:00]
And if one day, Vladimir Putin, that's increasingly unchecked domestically, wakes up and decides to take his army on a little excursion into Estonia,
in one of these smaller Baltic states that used to be part of the Soviet Union and are more vulnerable to Russian invasion, who is there in the
Kremlin to stop that?
So, the bottom line is that Europeans really need to invest in their defense effort, deterrence, expanding military production. There's no way
around that. But at the same time, Vladimir Putin is not in the picture forever. One day he will depart from it. And then, we'll have a moment
similar to the moment after death of Joseph Stalin, where there will be a collective leadership with probably discussions whether the state should
double down on Putin's posture, or it should start to dig itself out of the hole that Putin has dug.
And then, if Europe provides incentives for this faction that's more moderate, more pragmatists, though it's not going to be saints definitely
because they will come out of Putin regime, you have more chances to structure this regime and embark Russia on a more pragmatic way where there
is a way for more peaceful and less costly coexistence.
Final point, you see a lot of populace in Europe, both on the right and on the left who don't want to see open confrontation with Russia. And if you
tell them there is another strategy that Europe has, that its approach is not only about defense, but it has diplomatic tool in it, maybe there is a
way to convince the population to be behind this foreign policy strategy.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, well you're -- and you're right to talk about what happens after Putin, but at the same time, it doesn't appear like he's going
anywhere. He's 72 years old. I know there's been rumor, speculation for many years about his health. You note that you don't think the fall of his
regime will come from sort of an internal coup.
And given the state of his predecessors, he looks quite healthy at this point. So, we could be seeing another five years, 10 years, who knows how
long of Putin's reign. How does the West approach that if this war, which you say right now, Ukraine, it's not winnable for them, how do they
maintain a more pragmatic approach to an unjust war?
GABUEV: Again, focus on European deterrence, expanding defense production, and doing everything possible to beef up Ukrainian defense capabilities is
the priority course of action. That's a must. That's what you can do.
And at the same time, you can gum inside the tent and strategize what you're going to do afterwards. Because, yes, Putin, looks healthy, is
formidable, but you remember very well that two years ago we had this Prigozhin mutiny that caught a lot of people off guard that didn't
challenge the regime, but it had good chances.
Think about sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad regime. A lot of this regime are more brittle than they seem, and then when that happens, the West is
surprised, unprepared, and doesn't know what to do. So, lack of strategic discussion at the end provides more polarizing effect to ability to act in
a coherent, strategic fashion than lack of this internal discussion.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you note that not everyone in the Kremlin shares Putin's anti-western obsession. In private, many Russian elites admit that the war
in Ukraine was not a moral -- not only a moral crime, but a strategic mistake.
So, in that post-Putin era, how do you have a reproachment without holding Russia accountable and having Russia pay for its sins of the war with
reparations and other mechanisms?
GABUEV: It'll be very, very hard, obviously. And Ukrainians definitely have a just right to be at the table when all of these things are discussed
and determined. But if you look at defeated Nazi Germany, the Nuremberg Tribunal and many other issues, not everybody was persecuted, even in a
country that was totally under Allies' control.
It's very unlikely the Russia dismantle this criminal system itself. And then, it's very difficult to see how it will treat itself as a defeated
nation when it's not fully defeated. So, you can say that perennial spending of 10 percent European GDP on defense, perennial piling up of
weapons and so on is the only course of action. And that course of action will be there all the time with the assurance capabilities.
[13:45:00]
But if there is a course of action, when you can enter arms control negotiation, gradually re-establishing protocols that existed during the
Cold War on how to put the guns on the table, but at the same time don't point them at each other, I think that's a far less costly, a far less
risky future.
GOLODRYGA: A really thoughtful insightful piece as well. Alex Gabuev, thank you so much for joining the conversation. I know we had some
technical difficulties with the Wi-Fi, but I think we got your points across loud and clear. Appreciate the time.
And finally, returning to our top story, the death of Pope Francis and his remarkable legacy. As we have discussed, his influence went far beyond just
the Catholic church, having an impact on everything from climate and migration to popular culture.
Back when Francis ascended to the papacy, it was under the most unusual circumstances after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. And it's these
high stakes drama that prompted the Hollywood film, "The Two Popes." It explores the unique relationship between Francis and his conservative
predecessor starring Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins, and renowned British actor, Jonathan Pryce. Back in 2019, Christiane spoke with Pryce about
taking on the role of Pope Francis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Jonathan Pryce, welcome back to the program.
JONATHAN PRYCE, ACTOR: Thank you. Nice to be back.
AMANPOUR: So, "The Two Popes" is getting a huge amount of attention and critical review. Very good critical acclaim. I've watched it. It's amazing.
I just want to know, were you born to play this part? I mean, you look identical to Pope Francis.
PRYCE: Well, yes. I mean, it's not what I would see when I look in the mirror. I feel more Brad Pitt than -- yes. The day he was declared pope was
the internet was full of images of the two of us, either me or High Sparrow compared to the pope. And it seemed, as I've said, inevitability that I --
you know, if there ever was to be a film about him that I would play him.
AMANPOUR: Did you have any inkling there might be? I mean, that this might actually happen? And it happened in this way because -- I mean, the vehicle
is so compelling. Essentially, tight shots of you and Anthony Hopkins playing two living popes and really mostly just a discussion between you, I
mean, an important one but it's not action and adventure and intrigue and, you know, Vatican high crimes and skullduggery.
PRYCE: Well, it is about all of those things, high crimes and skullduggery. It's also about faith and about forgiveness and compassion.
And when you read it on the -- you know, you get the screenplay sent to you, and it seems a very dry read. It's two men of the church, two old men
of the church, having a debate and an argument and there are flashbacks to Bergoglio's life in Buenos Aires.
But, you know, when you know that it's going to be directed by Fernando Meirelles who -- as a wonderful film that is one of my favorite all-time
films, all-time favorite films, "City of God," there is going to be a different kind of energy to it. It wasn't going to be a hagiography, it was
going to have some life and vitality and have a political point of view, well as a religious point of view.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's break that down because, again, you embody Pope Francis in a way that's just -- I mean, eerie really. And you start to
really believe that Anthony Hopkins is the spitting image of Pope Benedict and the two of you are having these discussions. And let just talk first
about the politics. Because, I guess, explain to me where the politics are for you and for the two popes.
PRYCE: Yes. Well, I'm not religious. When I was a child, I was brought up in the Welsh Presbyterian Church. I used to go to chapel. And like many
teenagers, moved away from the church. And not being a Catholic, I had never really taken much notice of any popes. I was aware of them to a
certain extent. But Pope Francis was the first pope that I began to listen to because not only was -- he was on the TV screens and the newspapers were
full of him, he was -- I felt he was talking to me and he was talking to me about political issues and about the economy, about the inequality in the
world, talking about the environment, talking about issues that me and millions like me want to hear our leaders talk about. So, I was drawn to
him because of these issues, less to do with the church.
AMANPOUR: So, let me play the clip that we have. And it's not necessarily about the politics, but it's about your character, playing Bergoglio, who
was then the cardinal, Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina, actually coming to Rome to try to retire, resign, and to ask then Pope Benedict for
permission.
[13:50:00]
And then, Pope Benedict does a 360 or a 180 and totally surprised you by suggesting that, in fact, that's what he's going to do. Here's this clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRYCE: Why do the presidents of America and Russia and China come to you? Because, unlike them, your authority comes from the fact that you will
suffer and die in the job, a martyr to justice and truth.
For this, all people come. Forgive me, but --
ANTHONY HOPKINS, ACTOR, "THE TWO POPES": But?
PRYCE: -- Christ did not come down from the cross.
HOPKINS: Ah, God always grants you the right words.
PRYCE: No. No. No. A pope must go forever, be the personification of the crucified Christ. If you do this, you will damage the papacy forever.
HOPKINS: And what damage will I do if I remain?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You see, it's so powerful, that, because just that last question from Pope Benedict sums up the difference between them, right, I mean, that
he was the sort of old guard, that Francis was perhaps the new God. And Pope Benedict, at least in this film, has a lot of self-doubt when he's
talking in this particular scene. Talk to me about the self-doubt, because it's not just him. It's your character as well, particularly Pope Francis,
or, again, Jorge Bergoglio, about what he did as a Jesuit priest in Argentina during the military junta.
PRYCE: Yes. Well, it's -- they're not supreme beings, even though he is the pope. And that is what's wonderful about both men, is that they are
self-aware, they question themselves, and they have doubts. And Bergoglio, his history in Argentina, he carries with him. He is still seen as a
divisive figure there because of his possible collaboration with the junta and not doing enough to protect his priests who were accused of being
communists and taken away and tortured and killed.
So, he has -- he's aware of his fallibility. And I think this makes him much closer to people. And he certainly was a reformer. He needed to reform
the church. The church needed reform, should I say. And he was there in order to do that. Benedict, I think, saw himself as part of the problem.
And he needed a new broom to come in and sweep it clean.
AMANPOUR: Well, so interestingly, we're looking at a shot right now, which is -- without giving any spoilers, Benedict in this scene asks you to hear
his confession. And then, he starts to talk about what we think is about the church child sexual abuse, the pedophilia amongst the priests, and then
it goes silent. And you don't hear exactly what he's saying. But you see this rage then from Bergoglio, after he has said what he said.
And I just want to play for you something that director Wim Wenders told me when he actually interviewed Pope Francis for eight hours or so for his
documentary. And he talked to the real Pope Francis and described him as being incandescent and somewhat powerless to affect this sexual abuse
crisis. Just listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERNST WILHELM, DIRECTOR, "POPE FRANCIS: A MAN OF HIS WORD": He got very upset, sometimes. My question about pedophilia, he got very angry, really
angry. And you realized, if only he could, he would do so much more right now, right away. And you feel it in the conversation. There was a
completely fearless man in front of me. And that is very rare to see that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I don't know what you make of that. Of course, today, Pope Francis has lifted the veil of secrecy over all the sort of texts and other
notes and the information about the sexual abuse. I guess the struggle, to know which direction the church is going in, was encapsulated by these two
characters, Benedict and Pope Francis.
PRYCE: Well, everything we say is either taken from things they have either written or they have spoken in public in speeches and whatever. And
this moment that -- when you see Benedict confess to Bergoglio, we don't -- it's not on record what he felt about these particular issues. So, we felt
it wasn't incumbent upon us to make these public.
And I think it -- in some ways, it's even more powerful, because you don't hear what he says. I mean, it's another film to be made about what Benedict
felt about the issue of child sexual abuse. But you do -- as you say, you do see it played on Bergoglio's face.
[13:55:00]
And it's -- again, I go back to say, it's why Benedict would want Bergoglio to come in, as -- because he -- Benedict was part of the problem, not that
he was a perpetrator of sexual abuse, but that he didn't do enough, the same as Bergoglio hadn't done enough in Argentina.
He didn't do enough to bring the priests to justice or to help the victims. And that's what Francis' -- his main objective is to saying that the
victims need help, and you can't -- it's not a stain on our society. It's a wound that needs to be healed. And he saw himself as the man who and does
himself as a man who can heal and will heal.
AMANPOUR: Jonathan Pryce, thank you so much for joining us.
PRYCE: Well, thank you. It's nice to talk to you again. Thanks.
AMANPOUR: You too.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that's it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
