Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Venezuela On Edge, Gunfire Near The Presidential Palace And An Acting President Is Sworn In; War and diplomacy in Europe; For All The Uncertainties Surrounding Venezuela's Future, The Trump Administration Is Projecting Total Confidence, Grounded And Forced, Though Not Diplomacy; Russia Launches New Deadly Strikes On Ukraine As European Leaders Meet In Paris; Jason Stanley On Why He Believes America's Democratic Guardrails Are Failing; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired January 06, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:32]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA (voice-over): Venezuela on edge. Gunfire near the presidential palace and an acting president is sworn in. I speak to U.S. Senator Angus
King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on what the U.S. is doing behind the scenes in Venezuela.
Then.
STEPHEN MILLER, UNITED STATES HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR: The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our
hemisphere.
GOLODRYGA (voice-over): Former National Security Council official Juan Gonzalez, on what this means for Venezuela, Greenland and America's role in
the world.
Also ahead.
(GUNSHOT)
GOLODRYGA (voice-over): War and diplomacy in Europe. Russia launches new deadly strikes on Ukraine as European leaders meet in Paris. Ukrainian MP
Oleksandr Merezhko joins me from Kyiv.
Plus, five years after January 6, author of "How Fascism Works," Jason Stanley, on why he believes America's Democratic guardrails are failing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The situation in Venezuela is growing increasingly tense. Reports -- rights groups' report checkpoints spreading across the country's journalist-faced
repression and security forces patrolling the streets under sweeping emergency powers.
Gunfire was heard overnight near the presidential palace in Caracas after the United States captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and took
them to New York to stand trial.
So far, Maduro loyalists remain in power, acting President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in yesterday. And the White House insists it is now in control,
though military pressure and through military pressure and economic coercion.
In an interview with NBC Monday night, U.S. President Donald Trump said that he is the one who is ultimately in charge in Venezuela.
The opposition, meanwhile, appears sidelined. Maria Corina Machado turned to Fox News, offering a fuse of praise of President Trump. Here's what she
said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: I actually spoke with President Trump on -- on October 10, the same day the Prize was announced.
Not since then, but I do want to say today, on behalf of the Venezuelan people, how grateful we are for his courageous vision, the actions,
historical actions he has taken against these narco-terrorists regime to start dismantling this structure and bringing Maduro to justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And notably, the Justice Department has now backed away from a central Trump claim that Maduro led a drug trafficking organization called
Cartel de Los Soles.
So, what's next for Venezuela at this moment? Independent Senator Angus King joins me now from the Capitol.
Senator King, it is good to see you. So, we do know that Congress was not notified ahead of this operation early Saturday morning in snatching
Nicolas Maduro and his wife by U.S. Special Forces bringing him to the U.S.
They were, however, updated shortly after. And then we do know that the Gang of Eight was updated and briefed yesterday. I would like to read for
you what Jeanne Shaheen, a member, who was briefed yesterday, said about that briefing, and she said it failed to detail a concrete plan for a post-
Maduro Venezuela.
I believe you and other senators will be briefed tomorrow by top government officials. What are some of the most urgent questions you have for them?
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Well, I think the most urgent question is, what's the plan? It appears now there isn't any.
The president, I think quite surprisingly, it looked from the reaction of Marco Rubio's face during that press conference at Mar-a-Lago, said, we're
going to run the country, but we don't know what that means. And we don't know through what means who they're going to be working with.
Ironically, what they've done so far is re-legitimize the -- the -- the -- the Maduro current regime, and that really sort of undercuts the rationale
for the change.
Instead of going to the fellow that rightfully won the election last year, they've reinstalled the vice president, who is part of Maduro's regime.
[12:05:07]
So right now, we don't see what the -- what the plan is. I should mention, by the way, you're talking about consultation with Congress. It's been
reported today that the president didn't consult with Congress before this action, but he did inform the oil companies before this action, which is,
you know, I don't know quite how to react to that, but we're the people's representatives that we should be informed about the kind of action that's
now taking place.
GOLODRYGA: Right, yes. There's been a report that the president had told top oil executives that -- that something big was coming, not the specifics
perhaps, but to get ready for something big in the region.
You have called Nicolas Maduro a bad guy who deserved justice but also said that doing the right thing only matters if it's done the right way.
What is the single biggest line that you are concerned with right now that the U.S. may have crossed? And what checks do you have as a member of
Congress to make sure that that doesn't happen?
KING: Well, I think the biggest problem -- there are two major geopolitical problems. The first is, this is a sort of re-establishment of spheres of
influence geopolitics going back 100 or 200 or 300 years where basically the president has said, we can do whatever we want in the American
continent. He's talking about Mexico, he's talking about Colombia. Of course, has taken action in Venezuela, threatening Greenland.
So the problem with that is, Bianna, that that's a hall pass for Xi Jinping and for Putin to do what they want in their, quote, sphere of influence. I
don't know how we say to Xi Jinping, no, you can't go into Taiwan, which is a lot closer to China than Venezuela is to the U.S. Or to Putin, no, you
have to stay away from the Baltics and leave Ukraine when we've essentially opened that door. It's a very, very serious geopolitical problem.
The second major problem is, as I've been doing this work now for a dozen years or so, I've come to realize that America's asymmetric advantage in
the world is allies. We have allies. China has customers. Russia only has people that they have their thumb on.
But the allies, the -- the alliances that we have around the world, not only in Europe, but in Asia, are what give us the power around the world to
influence events and to defend our interests by sort of systematically poking the eye of our allies, now Denmark, but also they go out of their
way to poke our European allies whenever possible. That undermines American national security. And that's what really worries me.
And if you read the so-called national security document that was issued about a month ago by the administration, it talks about the Western
Hemisphere, which is not a major problem. And, yes, drugs are a problem. I fully support efforts, again, drug trafficking.
But our major rivals in the world are Russia and China. Let's be serious.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
KING: It's not Venezuela. It's not -- it's not Colombia. We need to deal with the drug problem. But in the geopolitical sense, we're, as -- as my
mother used to say, we're -- we're straining at gnats and swallowing camels here.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as we heard last night on our network, top Trump advisor Stephen Miller introduced and said, effectively what you just described and
owned it, saying that this is going to be now the Donroe Doctrine, not the Monroe Doctrine, but the Donroe Doctrine, which essentially suggests that
because the U.S. is the world's leading superpower, it can effectively do what it wants, especially in its own hemisphere and also was asked about
Greenland, which he said inevitably should be part of the United States.
Here's what he said, though, about the logic behind what he views is the correct policy for the U.S. going forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're superpower. And under President
Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.
It is absurd that we would allow a nation, in our own backyard, to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us, to hoard
weapons from our adversaries, to be able to be positioned as an asset against the United States rather than on behalf of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So let me pick up on one of two points made there. The first is U.S. control over our own hemisphere here, which he called absurd that that
wasn't the case until now.
And he's suggesting that with control over Venezuela, a stabilized Venezuela, with the current regime minus Nicolas Maduro, who was the head
of the regime, if that regime will work for the foreseeable future alongside U.S. policies and initiatives, they can stay in place perhaps
later than can have elections.
[12:10:16]
There are some that are suggesting that that is a better path going forward than focusing on bringing in someone like Maria Machado from the opposition
immediately, because there may be some disjointedness between her government and that of the military there.
What is your take on that logic?
KING: Well, the first thing I want to say is, what this action has done has converted us from being a world power to be a regional power. It's reduced
American power and influence around the world by focusing on the narrow issues involved in this hemisphere.
Let me talk about Greenland for a minute. We've had a military base, an Air Force base, now a Space Force base in Greenland for 75 years, since 1951.
If in the present the last night on Air Force One, I saw the quote, he said, we need Greenland for national security. I am utterly convinced and
certain that Denmark and the people of Greenland will be very receptive and cooperative to working with us on national security issues, whether it's an
additional base, whether it's a port facility or whatever is needed to defend the national security of North America and the world generally.
So that really isn't the issue. It's sort of similar to Venezuela. This was all this talk about drugs and -- and the -- the -- the repressive nature of
the regime.
But if you listen to that press conference at Mar-a-Lago in the last two or three days, it's become more and more clear. This is really about
Venezuelan oil. And that's what the president keeps talking about and keeps talking about.
And is that -- is that a proper -- are we going to be in the business of invading and taking over other countries in order to deal with their
natural resources?
And I know there are questions about the oil industry in Venezuelan and expropriation in 1976 and all of those kinds of things. But I think we need
to be very clear about what the goals are here.
And as I said at the beginning, I just want to hear what the plan is. They've -- they've decapitated the leadership of Venezuela. They've
installed the vice president who is part of the Maduro regime.
They've said, well, maybe elections someday. But again, I -- I'm still trying to figure out what it is. A, what are our goals? What's our plan for
achieving them? And that my worry is, as I mentioned, Bianna, that this really undercuts our authority and -- and our ability to influence world
events across the globe.
This is a -- this is a narrowing of American influence as opposed to any kind of broadening influence.
I should have said all, by the way, what the military did was amazing and they're incredibly competent.
And I'm not taking anything away from that whatsoever. It's just a question of what happens next and it's become pretty clear in the last three days,
nobody knows.
GOLODRYGA: Would the status quo then, in your opinion, and not removing Maduro been more optimal for the United States?
KING: Well, I -- I don't know -- the question is, does it make any difference? Was -- was -- is -- is Maduro's vice president and leaving all
of the armed forces and the secret police and everybody that he had in place, does that improve a lot of the Venezuelan people? Does that change
the circumstances?
But the -- the issue is -- I mean, Maduro's a bad guy, as I said, and -- and he was illegitimate. He overran their democratic process. He definitely
was involved in drugs.
But even that is not a very credible argument since a month and a half ago, this president pardoned the former president of Honduras who was convicted
in --
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
KING: -- the American court of being a major drug smuggler. So it's hard to say that drugs are bad with Maduro, but it was OK with Hernandez.
It's -- there's no overall strategy or rationale for the policy that we've undertaken. And as I said, I think it really undermines American security
rather than enhances it.
GOLODRYGA: Let me finally end by asking you about something that happened much closer to home and the halls behind you there five years ago today,
that was the storming of the Capitol on January 6 five years ago.
Trump, as we know, has granted amnesty to the nearly 1,600 people who were implicated in the riot. Just earlier today, he was criticizing the
investigation into the riot, into the prosecution of those who had stormed the Capitol and continues to say that he won the election.
Just talk about your perspective and your concerns that there continue to be diverging narratives here on what happened that day, really a rewriting
of history for a large section of the country when we all saw with our own eyes exactly what happened.
[12:15:09]
KING: Well, that was what I was just going to say. This is the old saying, it was who you're going to believe me or your own lying eyes?
I mean, I was here, we all know what happened. You saw it, we all saw it on the -- on the -- on the screens of America and -- and of the world. And
also, we had police officers who were -- who were injured and attacked.
And the idea of pardoning people who violently attacked police officers, I just -- I don't understand that. I -- I think that kind of violence is
never justified.
And by pardoning the people, what you're really saying is, if you commit violence on my behalf, you're going to be OK. That's -- that's not law and
order where I come from.
GOLODRYGA: Senator Angus King, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it today.
KING: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, for all the uncertainties surrounding Venezuela's future, the Trump administration is projecting total confidence, grounded and
forced, though not diplomacy.
Here's White House aide Stephen Miller speaking to CNN yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: We live in a world in which you can -- you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world,
in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that
have existed since the beginning of time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, what does this assertive claim of U.S. power across the Western Hemisphere really mean, for not just Venezuela, but also now
Greenland?
Joining me now is former National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere, Juan Gonzalez. Juan, welcome to the program.
First, just your reaction to what we heard from Stephen Miller.
JUAN GONZALEZ, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE: Well, I mean, I think the removal of Maduro closed one
chapter, but it's opened a much more dangerous one.
And I think this actually risks implicating the United States in a much more drawn-out military conflict that the voters that supported Donald
Trump do not want.
And I think particularly in the Western Hemisphere, if you're using power, you're -- you know, I think you can -- you can point guns at your friends
for only so long before they start pointing guns back. So I think this is an approach that's going to alienate and marginalize the United States, not
just in the Western Hemisphere, but in the broader international community.
More broadly, it actually puts China in a role where they are the protectors of an international system. They just called the U.S. Security
Council meeting to -- to criticize what the administration is doing. So this is America first. It is America alone in this regard.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we've seen Russia and China criticize and speak against some U.S. actions. We actually haven't seen them physically respond and the
question is, will they? Is this a deterrent? Or is this a green light for China or Russia to act similarly in their own regions? That is yet to be
determined.
I do want to speak about your piece in foreign affairs calling the ouster of Nicolas Maduro, "The End of the Beginning."
You say many Americans see Maduro's removal as a clean victory. What is the single biggest illusion you think about how this played out and what has
unfolded in the first 48 hours since his ouster? What -- what are some of the concerns you have?
GONZALEZ: Certainly. We're already seeing it play out.
The scenario under -- underway right now is Delcy Rodriguez, the vice president is now the acting president, the military remains intact, the
security services remain intact, the criminal and patronage network remain intact.
And so it's not regime change. It's -- it's autocrating (ph). But -- but that head off is already unraveling. We've seen a spike in violence,
intensified crackdown. There's still roughly 800 political prisoners in the country. Rest intimidation are increasing.
And I think that tells you everything you need to know about how fragile and how coercive this arrangement really is. So I mean, I think
fundamentally stability without legitimacy doesn't hold.
There was also an election in July of 2024 where there was a legitimate elected president, Edmundo Gonzalez, and Secretary Rubio on Face the Nation
called that election illegitimate.
So I think it's unclear here what the administration's approaches. There's no plan. It started out as democracy promotion. Then it was drugs. And now
it's about oil. I think it's been unclear and the administration's been lying to the American people and to Congress about.
GOLODRYGA: Well, there are some parallels that some are making out of concern that this could once again look like any Rock (ph) 2.0 sort of the
-- the mission accomplished when the result is anything but that.
And those who make that argument sort of miss what the U.S. has done thus far by saying, you know what, instead of bringing in the opposition
immediately and calling for elections immediately, let's work on stabilizing the situation.
[12:20:08]
And by working with some of these more pragmatic, as they're being described like Delcy Rodriguez, officials who will, maybe it's because of
strength and pressure from the United States, agree to follow U.S. policy and at least temporarily stabilize the situation before then elections are
held. This was, I believe, from some reporting, the suggestion and advice from the CIA.
Is that not, in your view, perhaps, an indication of some lessons learned and some actual planning that went into this operation?
GONZALEZ: Yes, certainly. There have been a lot of references to the -- this administration learning the mistakes of De-Ba'athification, where they
dismantled the whole kind of infrastructure around Saddam Hussein.
But, you know, at the same time, this effort to try to manage and run the country as Secretary Rubio is from the outside is not -- is not going to
age well. And we're seeing that in terms of the chaos inside of the country.
But I think we need to be clear with ourselves, you know, particularly if you look at the president's own worlds, that this is -- this is all about
oil. I think this is where the mercantilism that I refer to in my article in Foreign Affairs becomes more dangerous.
You know, when you -- when the control over revenues becomes the central prize, the -- it creates enormous incentives for corruption, not just
inside of Venezuela, but fundamentally in the United States, particularly with this president's tendency to -- to self-deal on this.
I point out briefly, when you -- when you approve licenses for companies to operate, individual licenses are private. So I don't think it would be
really important for this administration to be transparent about which licenses it's approving.
And it's a question of how many of them are going to be Mar-a-Lago donors. I think that's something that Congress needs to have incredible oversight
of what this administration is doing.
But -- but I think to what Stephen Miller said, I think the Donroe Doctrine, the idea that engagement is optional and unilateral is
sufficient, that -- that approach, I think, is something that leaves the Western Hemisphere with no agency. And it tells basically countries that
decisions will be made for you and not with you.
And I think right now, the democracies around -- along the Western Hemisphere are scared, frankly, not just of instability in Venezuela, but
what it means to the United States to start acting on that, like, whatever it doesn't like the -- the outcome. I think that's very concerning.
And I think there's a chance, maybe, that Marco Rubio pulls this off. But I think history tells us, and we're seeing this play out right now, that this
is going to go horribly sideways.
And the question is, are we going to put boots on the ground? Because it will take, I don't know, 30 to 50,000 U.S. Marines to actually control the
situation in the country. And that's not what this president was elected to do.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it's still unknown whether that will ultimately be the case, that the president has threatened, that that could happen. But thus
far, there are no U.S. troops on the ground in Venezuela. But we know we have a large naval presence still around the country.
You were instrumental in Venezuela, U.S.-Venezuela policy under the Biden administration. And on the one hand, he did take a hard line on Venezuela,
at least rhetorically, and tweeting as president, I will stand with the Venezuelan people and democracy that's speaking against Maduro.
On the other hand, senior officials traveled to Venezuela and met with Maduro and his government specifically over concerns of oil prices.
Looking back, were there mistakes made in your administration in perhaps neglecting the Western Hemisphere and this specific issue in keeping Maduro
in place?
GONZALEZ: Well, I mean, the Biden administration took a very different approach than Venezuela. So we invested in the democratic outcome, the
reason that there were elections, the democratic moment that led to the election of Edmundo Gonzalez was something that the United States helped
facilitate.
We worked through election sanctions relief tied to conditions and in an election legitimacy. And we treated Venezuelans as -- as like legitimate
political actors. That approach was slow and it was fragile and incomplete, but it was grounded on the idea that legitimacy matters.
I think where Biden tried to shape the outcomes, Trump is owning what is happening right now in Venezuela.
And you need to meet with your adversaries. The president has met with Putin. He's met with the leader of North Korea as well. You need to have
these conversations to negotiate an outcome.
And -- and I think understandably, the -- the democratic process takes time, but it is the sustainable approach. And that's what history tells us
that when the United States comes in and invades a country, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, but we've seen --
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
GONZALEZ: -- a lot of examples this century in the last -- the outcome is generally not good.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I think the concern and some of the criticism around the Biden administration engaging in talks with Maduro is that that seemed to
be out of a place of concern and panic and weakness with oil prices now looming after Russia invaded Ukraine, instead of out of a position of
strength. That -- that is some of the criticism.
[12:25:14]
I do want to ask you about additional criticism that you personally received after your last appearance on this program in November.
The Human Rights Foundation publicly accused you of a conflict of interest. They claim that you stand to benefit financially from the continuance of
the current Venezuelan regime due to links to bondholders who have financial interest in keeping the regime in place. How do you respond to
those accusations?
GONZALEZ: Yes. I mean -- yes. I mean, first of all, just on your last point is, United States was able to secure the release of all the Americans that
were detained inside of the country. I think that is one of the reasons to actually negotiate with this to bring Americans home and that's the number
one responsibility at the present at hand. We're not going to make any apologies for that.
On the second is -- is, look, you know, I don't -- I don't lobby. I don't represent foreign governments. And my position has always been consistent
from the time I was in the administration to now which is we need to support a democratic outcome in the country. And that the Venezuelans
really should be the ones that determine their future and they should have agency.
I'm not getting paid by people to say this. These are my opinions. And -- and they'll continue to be my opinions. They're not for sale.
GOLODRYGA: Juan Gonzalez, thank you so much. I urge everyone to read your piece in foreign affairs. It is a very thoughtful one and obviously very
timely as well. Thank you for the time. And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now to Ukraine where Russian strikes kill two people on Monday. The strikes forced nighttime evacuations into freezing temperatures. And
they came a day before leaders from the Coalition of the Willing, it's Ukraine's key allies, met in Paris.
They're discussing security guarantees for Kyiv as part of a renewed push to end Russia's war against Ukraine.
For more on this, we're joined by Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament and head of its Foreign Affairs Committee. Oleksandr,
it's good to see you.
So, what specifically does Ukraine need to see in the riding here to be confident that any sort of security guarantees will, in fact, hold if this
war, which hopefully comes to an end soon, if God forbid there is another attempt at reinvading or perhaps even better that it serves as a deterrent
from that happening ever again?
OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, UKRAINIAN MP: Thank you for having me.
You're absolutely right. This is a key point and the key subject matter for discussion right now within the framework of the Coalition of the Willing,
what can deter Putin if he decides?
And I'm unfortunately, we're all sure that he will definitely try to attack Ukraine in the future because he cannot be trusted, absolutely.
On the basis of all our previous experiences, we are absolutely certain that sooner or later, even if we have some kind of agreement or peace plan,
he will try to attack Ukraine again.
And the key question is how to deter him? What measures should be taken? And in our situation, the best security guarantee remains the same, which
is NATO membership for Ukraine because Putin, he doesn't dare to attack NATO members.
If we are talking about alternatives, of course, this is the matter to be discussed. And again, there might be some kind of measures having
cumulative, so to speak, effect to deter Putin.
[12:30:11]
But again, the key question remains the same. What can stop him from attacking Ukraine? And at the present time, we don't have clear cut answer
to this difficult but important question.
GOLODRYGA: Can that question be answered without the United States actively participating in guaranteeing security?
MEREZHKO: I believe that the United States might be a sufficient deterrent because this is the country which Putin is afraid of as a dictator. And
that's why participation of the United States will contribute highly would enhance our chances of survival and it will be a deterrent, a reliable
deterrent.
This is exactly what we need from another perspective, from another angle participation of the United States gives excellent example for the European
countries to follow. It encourages them to be more active in terms of supporting Ukraine and providing reliable security guarantees.
GOLODRYGA: In addition to security guarantees, President Zelenskyy has said that -- that Ukraine is 90 percent there in terms of this deal put together
by the United States and amended by Ukraine.
But the 10 percent not only concern security guarantees but territorial control as well. Ukraine constantly says that there's nothing they can do
on this issue because they are constitutionally bound not to give up territory, especially territory that they still remain in control of.
Do you see any potential for amending that in -- in hopes of getting to a deal?
MEREZHKO: President Zelenskyy has mentioned that now we have -- we have 10 percent to finish the deal. But he also said that in this 10 percent is
everything. This is a key issue including what is known as territorial issue.
Of course, we should always keep in mind that Ukraine is the victim of the aggression. And we cannot agree to any territorial concessions whatsoever.
We cannot sacrifice our territories, our people for lots of reasons, for constitutional legal reasons, for reasons of international law.
Politically, it's impossible. Morally, it's impossible.
And right now, I don't see any kind of alternative to that. I don't see any format which would allow to solve this issue.
I -- I strongly believe that we shouldn't make any territorial concessions because it will only encourage, not only Russia's aggressive state, but
also potential aggressors because they should be punished, not rewarded with territorial concessions.
GOLODRYGA: That is your view and that is the view of most Ukrainians. But - - but practically speaking, do you think at the end of the day that that view can hold?
MEREZHKO: I cannot imagine whether it's at all possible and practical terms. Because the previous suggestions with regard to demilitarized zone
or so-called free economic zone, to me they don't sound something which can be implemented in practice.
I cannot imagine for example what will happen to the cities which are right now successfully defended by Ukraine and army in the Donetsk region.
What will happen to the cities, to the people living in the cities under which control, under which jurisdiction they will be. That's why for me,
it's even from a practical -- for many perspective is just impossible.
GOLODRYGA: The U.S. capture of Nicolas Maduro has triggered outrage in Moscow. Russia accusing Washington of imperialism, without irony there.
I'm wondering whether this weakens Russia's stance in these negotiations. Does the U.S. show that it has strength and perhaps views that as a
deterrent for Russia to not only continue its war but perhaps finally agree to end it? Or do you think that this stands to benefit Russia by saying, if
-- if the President of the United States is going into other sovereign countries, I can continue to do the same?
MEREZHKO: Putin has lost his ally. Maduro was a dictator who had been helping Putin to wage war against Ukraine in different ways, but he was
very helpful.
And it's a great news for Ukraine, it's a great news for democracy, for people in Venezuela that Maduro was toppled.
[12:35:01]
But now, we are at the dangerous crossroads. And now, we have to make a choice to continue to stand for democracy, for rule of law, including
international relations, or to divide the world into spheres of influence. And it might be a very dangerous path to take.
But I hope that President Trump will take the right path. He will support democratic elections. He will give a chance to people in Venezuela to
decide their fate at the democratic elections.
I'm a member of a focus in Ukraine and parliament free Venezuela. We support democratic forces in Venezuela, bravely fighting against
dictatorship.
And for me, from my perspective, it gives a chance for people in Venezuela to choose democracy and to build a free democratic society. And they need
support in this.
But at the same time, I'm a professor of international law. I strongly believe that we -- America should give examples, should set examples of
complying with supporting respect and international law, the unchartered, and its principles.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Language specifically, as you outlined, supporting democracy in Venezuela is not something we've heard from the president,
yet, since that raid to take Maduro and his wife on Saturday here to the United States.
We'll see if he changes and focuses on that in the future. I do want to end by asking you about what Vladimir Putin also has as a top goal. And that is
the division of the West and of the Western Alliance, NATO specifically.
Now with President Trump saying, and his administration saying that their next target perhaps could be Greenland, Denmark, their leadership saying,
if that's the case, that is the end of NATO as we know it, how concerning is that for Ukraine?
MEREZHKO: Denmark is one of our closest friends and supporters. We're tremendously grateful to people of Denmark, their government, parliament
for helping Ukraine. They're helping a lot. And they value very highly international law. They respect territorial integrity of Ukraine. They're a
NATO member.
So I believe that we should allow Putin to sow discord and to -- to undermine transatlantic solidarity, because when we're talking about
democracy, it's also about rule of law. It's also about international law.
And I strongly believe that we should respect territorial integrity of Denmark. And I am absolutely sure that President Trump --
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MEREZHKO: -- will also respect territorial integrity of Denmark.
GOLODRYGA: Oleksandr Merezhko, appreciate you joining us today. Thank you.
MEREZHKO: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, a lot can change in five years and many people watching the January 6th insurrection on this day and 2021 might not have predicted
Donald Trump's re-election.
When he returned to office last January, Trump pardoned groups of supporters who stormed the Capitol after he lost the 2020 election.
While the president has made no official mention of the anniversary today, some protesters marched to the U.S. Capitol to commemorate Ashli Babbitt
and four others who died in the rioting.
Pardoning the insurrectionists is just one of many actions Trump has taken since returning to office that critics call an attempt to reduce January
6th to an afterthought in American history.
Philosophy professor and author of "How Fascism Works," Jason Stanley says the U.S. Supreme Court has played an outsized role in those efforts. And he
joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why.
[12:40:12]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks.
Jason Stanley, welcome back to the program. You are joining us on January 6th. It's the fifth anniversary and -- of the January 6th insurrection. You
served on -- as an expert advisor to the January 6th Committee.
And about a year after, you wrote that America was entering, quote, a legal phase of fascism, mourning that the insurrection was being followed by
legal and legislative mechanisms, like rewriting election laws and restricting voting rights.
Here we are now, five years later, has your opinion changed?
JASON STANLEY, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO: No. And I think the Supreme Court ruling that has given the president essentially
cart -- well, cart blanche over so-called official acts makes the situation we face even more dire as we've seen in this past year.
SREENIVASAN: I want to get to the legality of the Supreme Court in a second, but let's talk about Venezuela. Right now, does the -- you know,
does the end justify the means? Because there are people that are rejoicing in Venezuela and outside who even -- even the Nobel Prize winner, Maria
Corina Machado, she celebrated this operation.
She said in a statement, "As of today, Nicolas Maduro faces international justice for the atrocious crimes committed against the Venezuelan people
and against citizens of many other nations. In light of his refusal to accept a negotiated solution, the government of the United States has
fulfilled its promise to uphold the rule of law."
I mean, is -- is there justification in the eyes of the administration saying this was a despicable human being and he should not have been in
power? We tried to negotiate an end to it, but didn't work out.
STANLEY: Well, what would you think if another country kidnapped President Trump saying that he has done all these illegal things? He's not very
popular. He's despotic. Obviously, that would be a violation of international law.
Obviously, Maduro is horrific. Obviously, Venezuela has faced terrible, terrible things under his rule and under the prior rule of Chavez.
However, none of that is an excuse just as it's they would not be, you know, Trump's misrule, Trump's open illegality would not be any kind of
excuse for to take out Trump.
Similarly, Trump isn't suggesting at all that Putin should be -- should be taken out in any possible way.
And Putin is -- is in -- has destroyed his own country, killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and a pointless war, killed thousands of
Ukrainians. There are plenty of dust spots.
But what's the difference here? The difference here is that Trump can -- there's oil in Venezuela and Trump can benefit those who support him. Trump
can benefit -- can benefit companies.
Look, this connection between oligarchical interests and autocrats is well- known from history and the current moment.
If you support the oligarchs -- if you support the autocrat, he will enrich you. So -- so that's what we're seeing now. Presumably, there are oil
companies, oil executives who are going to profit from this as well as people close to the president.
So the motivation here is clear. It's nothing to do with democracy or the betterment of the Venezuelan people.
Also, Trump has used this to -- to say he's going to target other countries. Colombia -- Colombia's -- has a leftist president. He said that
he's now threatening Colombia. There's no sign that Colombia is collapsing in any way.
And now he's saying he's going to target Greenland. And Greenland, obviously, is not -- Denmark has not subjected Greenland to -- to -- to any
kind of autocratic rule.
SREENIVASAN: So, you know, you have documented and pointed out that there is a global shift towards the right. And I wonder what the actions of the
United States in the past week and the past year, what they do to other authoritarians, other despots, other dictators around the world.
STANLEY: Well, Trump is clearly signaling to Putin and Xi that they can do whatever they want in their local areas.
And, of course, his Ukraine policy has immensely favored Vladimir Putin. And now these actions are signaled to Putin that there is no international
order left that every authoritarian leader and every dictator can -- can exert power over neighboring countries or any countries they wish to profit
from.
[12:45:18]
Trump is signaling that there is nothing the United States would do. In fact, the United States is taking the lead on just these kinds of actions.
SREENIVASAN: The -- the response from most people when they hear you, and - - and as you draw these parallels and these comparisons, they're going to say, look, it's not fair to compare the United States to a place like
Hungary or wherever. We have these institutions that are checks and balances on the White House.
So let's first -- let's talk a little bit about the Supreme Court's. What layer of confidence do you have that the Supreme Court is going to be able
to be any sort of a check on a rise in executive power?
STANLEY: No, because the Supreme Court seems fully committed to keeping this far-right machine in power.
So even well after Trump, we can expect the supermajority, the conservative supermajority, many of whom were appointed by presidents who are not
elected by the popular vote. We can expect this conservative supermajority to -- to -- to legislate in such a way that keeps the machine behind Trump
in power.
We've seen that with the use of the shadow docket. The shadow docket, they have ruled again and again and again and again for the Trump
administration.
This Supreme Court was a block on the Biden administration. They halted the Biden administration, its policies across the board. Most -- one of the
most notable examples would be the attempt to forgive student loans.
So -- so the disparity between their relationship to the Trump regime and the relationship to the Biden administration is notable. That disparity
shows that this is simply a partisan -- a partisan really undersells what we're -- what we're seeing here.
This is the Supreme Court that's going to block anything any democratic administration is going to do. They blocked so much of what the Biden
administration was trying to do. And they're going to use the shadow docket. There' going to be -- use various methods to simply overrule lower
courts decisions that find problems with the Trump -- with what Trump -- the Trump administration is doing.
And they're just going to keep -- keep handing this administration what they want. And they'll keep on doing that for whoever is in power as long
as they are part of this far right machine. So that's a problem that's going to extend well past Trump.
SREENIVASAN: You know, this was part of the reason when we spoke last time about why you had personally chosen to move to Toronto, move to a
university there because you felt like the views that you express could be targeted.
STANLEY: Yes. I mean, I'm of -- I'm of two minds about that. I mean, I think my move to Toronto will make sense if what I can build here, along
with others, at the Munk School, at the University of Toronto, can help U.S. democracy.
If it can be a place where people can come and we can bring people who are free to speak and free to strategize about how we can get out of this
situation, and liaison with other people from countries like Ukraine, Russia, Brazil, who have faced or who have faced or do face similar
situations, then the move will be positive.
I think, you know, it goes -- I don't think that this regime has been successful in targeting. I mean, I think they have too many targets now.
Right. I think they're brutally targeting non-citizens.
So many people in the United States are now wondering whether they're a target. And I think what we've seen is a normalization of that.
When I go to the United States now, what I see is this very crazy situation being normalized. And people are like, see, you could have stayed. And I
think I -- I could have stayed without a doubt at this point.
But, you know, this situation where you constantly have, you're like, wow, legally, they could target this huge swath of people. And -- and that might
include me or definitely could include me because I'm definitely calling the Trump administration fascists.
[12:50:18]
So -- but they can't target everyone. And there's a lot of incompetence here. So, does that mean you're safe? Does it mean you're not safe? Who
knows?
And -- and I think people in the United States are learning to live with that situation. And so you see this incredible normalization, which is kind
of remarkable to me.
There's a term that's emerging, sanewashing, that I think you'd find the media doing. That is related but different concept than normalization.
Sanewashing is sort of representing what this administration is doing, the extreme actions they're taking is same, trying to find some rationale for
them.
The normalization seems to me something sort of more in the air when I go to the United States. People are more careful about what they say. People
are -- are sort of accepting the craziness of the situation and the situation does seem crazy from the outside.
So, I go back and forth about my decision. I mean, my decision had multiple elements. I -- It's been very hard. It's been -- it's -- it's really hard
at the age of 56 to uproot yourself from your home to separating yourself from all of your friends to start anew in a completely new place. That has
been much harder than I accepted.
And I meant my decision less to be a decision about myself, more -- and more to be an expression of a political statement about the United States.
And I think it was a political statement about an effective political statement about the United States.
It did express to the world, OK, when -- when people leave, that is -- that is concerning. Probably more effective than any other political statement
I've made.
SREENIVASAN: You know, we've also witnessed the sort of dismantling of certain agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, or
even just in the last couple of weeks, we had Donald Trump add his name to the Kennedy Center Building.
And, you know, when you're talking about normalization, I guess -- do you see this sort of, whether it's collusion, marriage, cooperation between
state and corporate interests, getting any better?
Because it seems like if it has essentially four years, at least two years, plus two more to flesh itself out, that we might be at a point of no
return.
STANLEY: I don't -- we are at a point of no return. There is no return from -- and right, the merging of state and corporate interests is -- is, of
course, a signature sign of fascism. But we are at a point of no return.
What are we going to return to? I mean, how would you re-impose -- you know, I mean, any future president can become, you know, make billions of
dollars now. What are you going to say? You're going to say -- you know, suddenly the rules apply again.
You know, the future of the United States is very, very unclear. The reputation of the United States is in tatters. America is very unpopular.
America will never stand for democracy again. America stands for cruelty and white supremacy right now in the world.
America -- inside America, the -- the banks, you know, Jamie Dimon, it was reported today, has made over 700 -- he has something like $700 million in
compensation.
The -- the billionaire, you know, people are just gobbling up the money -- the -- the -- the profits. And we have this classical structure of
throwing, you know, cultural meat to -- to poor men, and -- and then just the -- the corporations and the oligarchs gobbling up the money. How do you
return from this level of corruption? I don't see how you can return from it.
The question is just how we build something new. There's got to be something new that is built. Mamdani in New York is kind of possibly
sketching that. It's got to be something that stands up to this merging of state and corporate interests, but it's got to be something new.
There is no return. There has to be some future politician. We'll have to sketch a new vision for America and really some kind of new country.
SREENIVASAN: Professor Jason Stanley from the University of Toronto, thanks so much for joining us.
STANLEY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[12:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, as many Ukrainians continue to live the strain of war, some are finding reprieve in braving tough conditions of a different
kind, the ice cold.
Stripping down in the snow, these Kyiv residents are marking Orthodox epiphany by plunging into a frozen lake. It's a ritual symbolizing
spiritual cleansing and renewal.
And indeed, many participants came out feeling rejuvenated with one saying, quote, after dipping in icy water, I feel less pain. And yes, it does give
hope. I want the war to be finally over.
Word said as the war's approaching its fourth year now.
All right. That is it for us for today. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast.
And remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
END
