Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; Interview with Historian and "On Freedom" Author Timothy Snyder; Interview with Mercy Corps CEO Tjada D'Oyen McKenna. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 22, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: When you think that you have to close one war and then, you know, mediate another, I think that it doesn't
work this way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: With Ukraine's future now tied to the war on Iran, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy joins me to discuss how he has to compete for America's
attention.
And are President Trump's apocalyptic threats, warning of the death of a whole civilization and such, only words? Timothy Snyder, a historian of
totalitarianism, reads between the lines of Donald Trump's messages.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Tjada D'Oyen McKenna: This really is just a catastrophe that continues to pile on for the people of Sudan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- three brutal years of war in Sudan. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Mercy Corps CEO Tjada McKenna, who's just returned from that
devastated region.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Four years of virtual stalemate in Ukraine. Now, could the outcome of this war with Russia depend on Iran? Both Kyiv and the Kremlin are trying to use
this other war to their own advantage. President Zelenskyy visited the Middle East, offering battle-tested expertise and experience on fending off
Iran's drone attacks. While Russia reportedly backs Iran with critical intelligence and weapons support. And for now, it gains from soaring global
oil prices. President Zelenskyy says every dollar Putin makes is more fuel for his war.
Indeed, Russia is launching a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones almost every day. A civilian death surge in Ukraine. And despite Trump's
promises and pressure for a quick peace deal there, his one set of personal negotiators are tied up now with stop-and-start negotiations on Iran.
In better news for Kyiv, the election defeat of Hungary's Viktor Orban, pro-Putin, is unblocking a critical 90-billion-euro loan for Ukraine from
the European Union. And when I spoke with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from his presidential office today, I asked him how he plans to use that
money and how he's navigating an increasingly complex relationship with the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: President Zelenskyy, welcome back to our program.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Thanks so much. Good to see you.
AMANPOUR: You too. And can I just ask you, because it's never good news when we talk, but perhaps there's a little bit of good news. Do you expect
now the 90-billion-dollar loan from the E.U. to Ukraine to come to you? It has been provisionally approved.
ZELENSKYY: God bless, we will have it. And I count on the E.U. unanimity in this, positive unanimity. Of course, I think you understand that for us,
it's huge and very important. And this is not only strengthening our armies, also how to defend all the energy objects we need to prepare for
the next winter. So, it's also about social financial support and et cetera. So, this is very important decision.
AMANPOUR: And your own government, your deputy prime minister, called it literally a matter of life and death. What would have happened had this not
been provisionally approved? Had Orban not lost?
ZELENSKYY: You know, first of all, we have our own air defense system. Yes, we don't have anti-ballistic, but we have our soft and our system of
anti-drone interceptors. Yes, drones, interceptors. We have huge production for these. We need money. Otherwise, we will be -- I mean, this -- we now
we are under a tax, 500, 600 already, more than 800 during the 24 hours. Such attacks we have.
[13:05:00]
So, without financing, without funds, we can't produce as much as possible for today. We are producing about -- around a little bit less 1,000 of
drones and interceptors. We have money per day, per day, but we can produce 2,000. But we don't have for this funding. So, it's really the question of
our life, of the surviving, of defending. So, we need this money very much.
AMANPOUR: And let me ask you also, because obviously the war on Iran is detracting attention and maybe even equipment from you. Do you feel that?
Tell me how it's impacted the kind of equipment, anti-ballistic missile defense and the other stuff.
ZELENSKYY: We had the packages, according to our negotiations with Europe, France and with American partners. We had our program. Through this program
we can and could buy anti-ballistic missiles for systems Patriots and -- Patriot systems and also some other weapons, which is very important for
us, which is -- which we don't have in our European neighbors. So, this is very important.
And of course, according to the big challenge in the Middle East war in Iran and all these packages are in risk. So, we had some. God bless that
United States didn't close intelligence for us and didn't stop anti- ballistic missiles. But be honest, a small number. We had not too much, really not too much.
We understand why, because the production in the United States is not so big as all, not only Ukraine, other partners really wait and count on. So,
that's why this is a big challenge. And if the war will continue or ceasefire will be delayed, I mean, this something will be not good. And I
think that we will not have maybe we will have more risks with anti- ballistic.
AMANPOUR: You've said for Putin, a long war in Iran is a plus. President Trump has essentially -- I don't think he's called it a ceasefire. I mean,
they've extended it until they can get proper negotiations with Iran. Is this do you think this is hopeful, the fact that the hot war is on maybe
being shelved for the moment?
ZELENSKYY: In any way, I don't know if it's a ceasefire or not, but in any way, any pauses in any war, I think this is good, because during any kind
of pauses, you don't lose people. The biggest challenge for any country, for any nation, any religions and et cetera is to lose people. That's why
any pauses -- and between us, there is no price for such pauses.
If you can save people, great. So, we support ceasefire. We support any pauses between us sometimes during Easter, during Christmas, during New
Year, during any kind of even days when people can have, I don't know, just meetings with their children when soldiers can write the letter, speak and
have some rest. And I think it's great. So, any pauses.
Of course, peace is the best way for ending war, long lasting peace. But if it's not -- I mean, this possible for today, but any pauses are great.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you then, because while they're trying to figure out a ceasefire and an end to the U.S. Iran conflict, what about the Russia-
Ukraine conflict? Where are the ceasefire talks there that the United States was, you know, meant to be mediating?
ZELENSKYY: Russia doesn't want ceasefire. And between us, I'm sure that they don't want to stop this war. Even if some of them are really -- the
price of their ceasefire is not acceptable, because we don't know what will be after, you know, such negotiations when you don't know what guarantees
that Russia will not come again with aggression, what guarantees we can have.
Really, we have the proposition from our American partners. If you don't have people on your battlefield or on the contact line during ceasefire, if
you don't have different representatives of different forces through the contact line, any kind of recommendations and trust and et cetera will not
stop Putin. Just stop.
[13:10:00]
But we support ceasefire. We're in this case now, America, they shifted to the Middle East and they are deeply in the Iranian question. And I know
that we have communication on the tactical level with their negotiation group and my group. And they have talks and they had, for example,
yesterday, some phone calls and et cetera. But we hope that we can organize the meeting.
I don't see now the -- you know, the opportunity to meet today or tomorrow until the question -- the case of Iran will not be closed or some
fundamental ceasefire or something like this.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's having to really rely on another war until you end yours. You have said that President Trump does not want to irritate Putin
and is trying to act like a negotiator rather than, you know, to take sides. Tell me what you think now about the United States, the reliability
of the Trump administration. Who are you depending most on now?
ZELENSKYY: First of all, I think that it's another -- it's big risks. When you think that you have to close one war and then, you know, mediate
another. I think that it doesn't work this way because it's -- I mean, this -- you have to think about security. We don't have too much negotiations
group from the United States. And in this case, I think it's a challenge that the same group is trying to manage both. And I think what is important
not to forget about Ukraine, because we have really full-scale invasion and big war on the land.
It's not only missiles and drones. Yes, the war is now another modern war and a hybrid war, yes. But in any way, it's a big land war with a lot of
casualties. Ukraine is already in such big tragedy. So, we have to find a way how to think and manage in parallel way. This is what I think.
The question is, if we want to stop Putin, we have to say Putin that he's not right. And if we start any kind of format of dialogue with Putin with
the question, look, we have to find some compromise for you and will you be able so kind or et cetera, all this, you know, I'm not sure that it works.
No, he feels that he's not guilty that the situation or somebody else, some sort of countries or some other administrations and et cetera. I'm not sure
that they are guilty. Putin is guilty.
And that's why I think that President Trump, President Xi, Modi. I don't know who are the biggest -- I'm not sure too much in the world. They have
to speak with Putin that he has to stop this war. They can't speak with Ukraine that you have to stop the war.
So, we are not -- I mean, we're in defending part of the war. We are not aggressors in this war. That's why it's not helpful to speak with us to
stop. To stop what? We have to stop altogether Putin.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ZELENSKYY: And we can stop it with weapon because he doesn't want to speak. And -- but they, what is the great leaders? What does it mean that
they can stop by diplomacy?
AMANPOUR: I understand.
ZELENSKYY: They can stop by diplomacy. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Can I ask you, because you obviously have been a major pioneer Ukraine of the drone warfare. And this has become very, very
important in the Iran conflict. You yourself have gone over during this war to the Gulf countries and you've signed all sorts of defense deals. How
important is that for you? What have you done and what will you get back?
ZELENSKYY: Yes. So, we signed it for today. We signed three documents. It's drone deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates. So, these -- but we
will continue. We work with other countries. We will do it. We will be ready to deliver them, of course, our expertise, we began from this and we
finalized this part. The second board, it's about training missions and -- because different countries.
[13:15:00]
So, they have France, they have Italy, they have United States, they have U.K. and they have Nordic countries and also German and Israeli and et
cetera. So, we have different cases. They don't work in one system. So, that I think this understanding expertise and this soft, what we have, how
to join any kind of systems. Because from the very beginning of the war, we didn't have these systems.
And when the different countries could give us all systems or new systems and different production, et cetera, we had to find a way how to organize
them and to join to the one system. That's why it's very helpful. We will do it.
And also, interceptors, cheap drones, interceptors. And also, it can be about co-production and lines of production. They will destroy Shaheed, for
example, which cost can be from 80 to 100,000. And they will destroy it not by missiles, the price of each 3 million or 4 million. If they will destroy
it by drone interceptors, the price will be 10,000.
AMANPOUR: Amazing.
ZELENSKYY: Not 3 million. I mean, it's also about sea drones. We are very open for this. Yes, we have big expertise and we want to do it for them to
help -- by the way, help people to defend. This is what we can do. And also, we will continue with other countries.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you one last question? And it's kind of a funny one. The New York Times is reporting that Ukrainian officials sort of raised the
idea of naming a piece of Donbas, which you're fighting over, Donnyland during some ceasefire talks. Is that possible? Is that true?
ZELENSKYY: First of all, I never spoke this way and I never -- yes, I can't give the name of our part of our country and where so many people are
fighting. I don't want to give them any kind of name. For me, it's Donetsk region and Luhansk region with a Ukrainian flag. Maybe it's not so funny
and maybe it's not very successful name, but it's very original.
AMANPOUR: Got it.
ZELENSKYY: And I hope that we will save it.
AMANPOUR: I got it. President Zelenskyy, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
ZELENSKYY: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, the defeat of Hungarian prime minister and self-styled illiberal Democrat Viktor Orban is being seen as a major setback for right
and far right politics all around Europe and all the way to the United States and MAGA, where the Trump administration puts unprecedented stress
on key democratic institutions.
Timothy Snyder is an acclaimed historian of authoritarianism. His books "On Tyranny" and "On Freedom" are essential texts in a fast-changing world. He
sees a clear line between the conflicts abroad and the angry political climate in America, warning that President Trump may exploit the war to
cement his grip on power. Professor Snyder is joining us now to talk about all of this from his position as professor in Toronto in Canada now.
Welcome to the program.
[13:20:00]
TIMOTHY SNYDER, HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR, "ON FREEDOM": Very glad to be with you.
AMANPOUR: So, we've talked a lot in the past especially and often about the issues I mentioned but it's certainly about how they're manifesting in
Ukraine. You probably just heard president Zelenskyy and again, you know He's obviously standing up for the values that we've all been brought up
with democracy freedom human rights and it's now into its fifth year. Where do you think he stands now? What did you take from what he told us?
SNYDER: Well, first of all, the part just that it's in the fifth year, is itself a success. It's a success that comes with a terrible price, but
Ukraine has managed to resist a Russian invasion for now going on four and a half years, and on the battlefield, this comes through in the
undercurrents of what he was saying. Things are actually going pretty well for Ukraine.
The drone superiority that they've managed to achieve through their own, own hard work and innovation is managing to hold off a good deal of the
Russian invasion. And I think, you know, they are quite rightly understanding themselves as in the, in the middle of a larger international
constellation where what happens in Hungary is good for them. What's happening in Iran is not good for them, but they are their own force in the
world now. And I think that's in a sense, the bottom line of that conversation.
AMANPOUR: And it actually is very much a change, because in a way it's gone from supplicant to, as you say, being a force and actually sharing a
hard-won experience on the battlefield with, you know, the Gulf states and, and others.
But what did you -- you know, it's quite sad to see that Ukrainian situation is being kind of shunted to the side in terms of attention,
weapons, mediation, negotiation because of the Iran war. How do you think that that will, I don't know, continue? He clearly said that, you know, the
Trump administration doesn't have enough negotiating teams.
SNYDER: Yes. I mean, there are I guess three things maybe we could say as Americans that have gone wrong on our side. Number one is that we always
throw all of our attention towards what we are doing now. So, the Iran War becomes the center of everything, whereas. Frankly, from any kind of other
perspective, the Iran War is a pretty minor conflict compared to the Russia-Ukrainian war. In historical consequences the Russia-Ukrainian war
also for us, I think are going to be much greater.
Second, we have the problem that in starting the Iranian war we have artificially raised the prices of oil, thereby giving Russia the income
that it needs to continue the war. If we hadn't gone into Iran, if we hadn't raised the prices of oil around the world, the Russians would be
much more likely, I think, to be negotiating.
And the third problem, as you mentioned, is that we're not using the State Department, we're not using the massive elite, we're not using the
bureaucracy that we have, we're not using our civil service. We essentially have two men who are responsible for negotiating everything. And that's --
I mean, just to be clear about it, that is very unusual and naturally it's ineffective. Even if these two men were the best negotiators in the history
of the world, there's no way that they could possibly cover multiple major conflicts at the same time. So, in that way, also, we're letting Ukraine
down.
AMANPOUR: And clearly, that's - you know, that's what President Zelenskyy can see happening right now, because there's actually, as he said, almost
no actual talks going on, some phone calls, et cetera, but nothing really.
Can I ask you for your opinion on -- the West is supporting Ukraine for many reasons, especially to support democracy, as I said, and freedom and
to be, you know, not subject to invasion by your neighbor. Many people who support the Iran War, including diaspora and others, say that that's what
the Trump administration and Israel are doing in Iran trying to cement some kind of future of freedom for the Iranian people. Do you see it that way?
SNYDER: I mean, all I can do is base my own judgment on the evidence of what the Trump administration, and for that matter, the Netanyahu
administration have said, and there is almost no trace even that they are pretending that that is what the war in Iran is about. And if we look to
the backdrop of other recent American interventions under the Trump administration, there was no sign -- although that would've been much
easier to do, there was no sign that they supported the Democratic opposition in Venezuela, although that, I think, was relatively easy
compared to transforming Iran.
It's sad to say, but I'm afraid we went into Iran on the basis of a strategy, which we are still unable to name. And the likelihood that what
we do was intended to be for the Iranian people or will somehow benefit the Iranian people in the end seems to me to be sadly quite low.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: And of course, many, not just the Iranian people, but many people all over the world, including some of the countries that tried to,
you know, initiate the ceasefire talks, were absolutely -- I don't think panic is too strong a word, when President Trump said that they were going
to wipe out a whole civilization. A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. That's what he said, before then saying,
well, actually, we're going to go into ceasefire talks.
You have said those words are now on legal record, and they are America's words, until America retracts them. What do you -- tell me what you mean,
because clearly, Trump, Hegseth, they're not going to retract those words.
SNYDER: Yes. I mean, there's a strategic point, which plenty of people have made, which is that you shouldn't make threats, which you're then not
going to fulfill, right? As strategy, this is sadly making a mockery of Americans. But you can be both incompetent and malicious at the same time.
As law and as ethics, this is actually horrifying.
To take a step back, the reason why it's usually hard to prove genocide is that there's a lack of an express intent on behalf of the commander-in-
chief or the political leader of a country. Now, we have on record the genocidal intent of the president and the commander-in-chief. And so, this
means that henceforth, anything United States Armed Forces do come under the shadow of that expressed intention.
But I would say there's something even more important. As Americans, we have to be able to say it's not normal to wish for the destruction of
entire civilization. Whether or not we end up doing things consistent with that, just having that wish expressed in our name changes us, entaints us,
or to put it more positively, it gives us a chance to say, no, there are actually lines, whatever we might think about other issues, there are lines
that ought not to be crossed. And the expressed wish for genocide is one of those lines.
AMANPOUR: And what would you say to those who always say Trump doesn't mean that, it's just his way of putting pressure, it's just his way of
negotiating in public and kind of showing who's boss?
SNYDER: Yes. I mean, his negotiation had obviously failed completely. It had no effect on negotiations. And if you look at the reactions of people
beyond the United States, there's no sign that anyone took that seriously as a display of power. But I'm afraid that when we say as Americans, when
we -- if we say things like -- well, if we make any kind of excuse, right, that this was just a tactic, it was just a technique, well, let's ask
ourselves, would we say that in a historical case or if somebody in another country was saying that?
We have to be very careful that we're not making excuses for ourselves, because when we say, oh, Trump doesn't mean it or she's just bluffing or
whatever, what we're doing is we're missing the opportunity to say, actually, the United States should not be a country where we express the
wish to destroy an entire civilization. So, I think whatever we say, it's kind of a dodge so that we don't say the thing that I'm afraid we really
should be saying.
AMANPOUR: This week has also -- or last week was also dominated by these images, this whole argument about President Trump dressed as a Christ-like
figure, healing, and then another one where he's being hugged by the figure of Jesus Christ. And there's this whole situation developing in the public
sphere now in the United States. Many Christians are very offended. They call it blasphemy, including some of his allies, his MAGA allies. Others
are just saying, well, it's just a thing, you know, as people do try to, you know, wipe these things away or push them away.
A lot of this war talk is actually, you know, sort of wrapped in religious speak, certainly from Hegseth at the podium. What do you make of that?
SNYDER: I mean, on the strategic side, it leads you to the conclusion which Hegseth himself has drawn, which is that war is just about killing
people that you regard as infidels. I regard that as morally wrong, but I also regard that as very poor strategy. It's no way to plan, win, or get
out of a war.
On the domestic political side, I think there's a different significance, which is that the president is facing a set of November elections where his
party is very likely to lose in a walloping fashion. And I think the appeal to the Christian imagery, the notion that Trump himself -- and, like, it
just pains me to say these words, is some kind of messiah, I think that is a claim for another kind of political legitimation that doesn't come from
the ballot box. In other words, even if I lose, even if my party gets destroyed in November, I still should have some kind of claim on power
because of this thing.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: So, let me play for you this piece from 2 Chronicles. That's the Old Testament. He did it in front of, you know, for a Christian group's
week-long Bible-reading event, and it was in the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their
wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I heard, you know, an analysis from a religious authority here in the U.K. that it seemed that he had never read that before, and it
does -- and it seemed, he thought, to do what you were suggesting, he has to bring the MAGA, the Christian evangelicals, back on side after all these
-- this is -- this person's analysis, after all this, you know -- I don't know what to say, what they call blasphemy in these pictures that he's been
posted. In other words, he has to re-cement the Christian evangelical vote that put him in power. Do you buy that?
SNYDER: I mean, I think he's waded into some difficult waters because the man himself is obviously an unbeliever, and he has -- he's -- as you say,
he has won a huge percentage of the evangelical vote before. But the moment where he actually tries to insert himself into a Christian discussion or,
worse, portray himself as a Christian savior, he's going to not only offend people, but he's also going to get himself into intellectual situations for
which he's not really prepared.
I think the move that he wants to make is to get himself understood as a kind of savior figure. I think that's what he's trying to do, but I think
it's harder than perhaps he thinks it is.
AMANPOUR: And just to -- you know, to sort of go back a bit, many American presidents have used Bible passages, you know, even on the inauguration
day. What's the difference?
SNYDER: Well, I think it's fair to say that in every previous case where a president cites a Bible passage, we wouldn't have been confused what he
meant by the word I. When Trump cites a Bible passage, one has good reason to think that he may be confusing himself or want us to confuse him with
the biblical actors themselves. That's the context that we have, right? The context that we have is that Mr. Trump is attempting to conflate himself
with people, with divinity, with Christian divinity. I would say that that is new.
AMANPOUR: And so is such a walloping row between American president and a Pope, in this case, an American Pope, Leo. And this is also very unusual.
There have obviously been disagreements between world leaders and the Pope in the past, but this huge disagreement is pretty noticeable. And you have
started using afraid -- a phrase, sorry, superpower suicide, to describe the state of America. You know, it's not decline, it's not collapse. You've
also called it attempted suicide. I'm not sure whether that's, you know, to leave room for a little hope. But tell us what you mean by that.
SNYDER: Well, I think, look, we've been talking about the war in Iran, which is a war for which we didn't have a justification, which we're
losing, and, as we've discussed, we're covering in genocidal rhetoric. And I think that's not a coincidence. I think that's a symptom of something
deeper.
And when I say superpower suicide, I'm trying to emphasize choices that are being made to make the United States much weaker than it has to be. And
those choices involve things like governing as a group of oligarchs rather than as a state. They involve not having a coherent ideology about the
future of the United States.
They involve deliberately missing technological transitions that are very important, especially involving energy. They involve having a completely
impossible fiscal policy, where you're spending much more than you're taking in. They involve undoing science and education, which are the
pillars of long-term strength. And all of this is a matter of choice, and all of it's happening in the last year.
And there are other things one could say, like deliberately alienating allies, which is historically very weird, not being able to handle
adversaries, losing a trade war to China, assisting Russia, breaking down the international order, which for generations was built up to put America
in the center. All of that's happened in the last year.
So, I'm just looking for kind of a conceptual cover, something to put around that, where we can see what's right in front of our eyes.
AMANPOUR: And what was also right in front of our eyes happened in the middle of Europe, where Orban, Viktor Orban of Hungary, lost in a walloping
fashion, to use your terminology. And I wondered whether you see that in the bigger picture. It clearly sent shockwaves through lots of right-wing
politics over here and in the United States. And the new prime minister, Peter Magyar, has made it a point to reverse and talk in a much, much
different way than Orban did.
[13:35:00]
So, I guess what I'm asking you is, that's accountability. After 16 years in power, the people finally said, even though he had his hands on all the
important levers of democratic institutions and power, Orban, he nonetheless lost. What does that tell you?
SNYDER: Yes, I mean, number one, the reason it sent shockwaves is that MAGA is part of an international coalition of which Orban was the center.
They've been borrowing memes and taking money from Hungary for quite a long time. And when I say they, I mean very specifically institutions like the
Heritage Foundation or CPAC.
And then for Trump and Vance personally, Orban is the sorcerer and they are the apprentices. Orban was the master and they were the students. They
learned from him. And the fact that he lost shows that it's not inevitable their kind of politics. They can be beaten.
On the other side, it has immediate significance for institutions around the world. It will be much easier for the E.U. to function, much easier, as
you discussed, for Ukraine to get aid. And if you are part of an opposition to the kind of oligarchic authoritarianism that Orban pioneered, say, in
the United States or anywhere else, what you learn is that you can win an uphill election. You can win an uphill election in decisive fashion if you
are able to bring together organized protests with the election and if you're able to make the case that Magyar did, which is that your daily
life, the struggles in your daily life, the things we call affordability in the U.S., that those things are connected to democracy, that the abuse of
power that goes on and on, that thing, that failure, that weakness, that attempt to bring down democracy, that is also the thing which is making
your life harder. Magyar did a wonderful job at explaining that, and that's one of the reasons why he galloped away to victory.
AMANPOUR: In 30 seconds, you have gone to Canada to be a professor. Do you think that's what Canada is doing under this current leadership of Prime
Minister Carney?
SNYDER: Yes. I'm actually in New York now.
AMANPOUR: I know you are, but you came from Canada. Yes.
SNYDER: Yes. But it's -- you know, it's refreshing to see a government that has a majority and have the leader of the government stand up and say,
here are all the laws that I can pass. And it's also refreshing to see the leader of a government stand up and say, yes, there's turbulence to our
south and around the world, but we're taking this opportunity to do things more clearly and to see the world more clearly. Yes, that is refreshing,
and I take some hope from that.
AMANPOUR: All right. Professor Timothy Snyder, thank you so much for being with us again. And we will be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now to Sudan, where millions of people are trying to survive on just one meal a day, according to a new report published by several
humanitarian organizations who say many Sudanese have resorted to eating animal feed and leaves. Tjada McKenna, CEO of Mercy Corps, joins Hari
Sreenivasan to discuss their report and what she witnessed on her recent trip there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Tjada McKenna, the CEO of Mercy Corps, thanks so much for joining us. You
recently just returned from Sudan, and I want to point out some of the grim milestone numbers that your organization, Mercy Corps, released in a recent
report.
[13:40:00]
It said 15 million people have had to flee their homes. You say about twice that number, almost 30 million people are in need of some sort of
humanitarian aid, which makes this the worst humanitarian aid crisis on the planet at the moment just by sheer numbers. What did you see on your most
recent visit? What are the people that you spoke to telling you?
TJADA D'OYEN MCKENNA, CEO, MERCY CORPS: What we saw is, you know, civilians who are entering year four of this conflict. Several people told
me stories of having to flee more than once to different areas to get away from conflict. And that fleeing, one of our own staff members told me that
she was walking by foot for 21 days, right? And in that 21 days, you're dodging conflict, you're dodging robbers, you're looking for food, you're
looking for sustenance.
The Sudanese people are quite resilient and they're working to help themselves, but they are really struggling with lack of availability of
food, displaced family members, people haven't seen some of their families in multiple years as people have fled here and there, and really trying to
make a living and keeping things going as this conflict grinds on and on.
SREENIVASAN: So, what's the most pressing need right now? I suppose it's probably dependent on location that you talk about, but is it healthcare?
Is it food? Is it shelter?
MCKENNA: Yes, a lot of the systems that civilians rely on to live have been decimated and deliberately attacked during this conflict. What we're
hearing from people closest to the conflict lines are that healthcare facilities have been systematically destroyed. So, there is very little
healthcare. Also, this is a severe food crisis. Sudan is an agricultural producing nation. We have turned agricultural fields into battlefields. So,
close you are to the conflict, the food that you're eating has had to cross battle lines.
Right now, particularly with the war in Iran, prices are up, fuel prices are up over 35 percent. You need fuel for generators for any agricultural
production. It's planting season right now. Fertilizer, they rely on fertilizer and other supplies coming in through the Strait of Hormuz. And
all those fuel prices increases rocket through society, right? So, it's food prices. It's everything they need to do is now more expensive. So,
this really is just a catastrophe that continues to pile on for the people of Sudan.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at this kind of ripple effect that you're talking about, about fertilizer costs and fuel costs, I mean, this
is sort of an American frame, but most of the imagery that we're familiar with Sudan, at least in the recent past, is a war-torn land. And what
you're describing is that there was actually and is agricultural potential and there were and are sort of crops that are being grown there.
MCKENNA: Yes. Sudan is quite a large country geographically. And a lot of the violence has been localized to certain areas or it has moved. So, you
do have pockets that have been relatively stable through the war. You have pockets that are newly stable.
And so, what you have are people who have moved to security. When they moved to Sudan, they've moved to these pockets of security. Sudan, the
largest piece of the economy is agriculture. People depend on food to survive, but also for income, for exports. And so, right now, we are in the
middle of planting season. So, people need inputs. They need fertilizer. They need seeds. They need to make decisions about those things. And with
prices up, those things are in scarce supply. And with agriculture, there's like a small window of time for things to happen.
So, decisions people make now affect food security for months, even a year to come in some places where there's only one crop cycle a season. So,
people should think of it as a big country. And particularly before the war, when I talked to our staff, especially people that were living in
Khartoum, the whole city had to flee when it was taken down. These are people who were going to university, who had jobs, quite cosmopolitan, used
to going to restaurants every night, families forced to flee in all directions.
And what you still have in parts of Sudan are people that are working to make a living, that are providing a lot of people who've been displaced,
who are providing income for their relatives still in conflict areas, and people trying to reunite their families and determine how to survive and
what they're going to do as this conflict grinds on.
SREENIVASAN: So, if I'm a farmer and the cost of running my tractor just increased significantly because the fuel is not flowing through the Strait
of Hormuz and it's gotten more expensive, if the price of fertilizer, which I need for this planting season, is now through the roof because half of
that comes through the Strait of Hormuz, do I give up on this crop season? Who absorbs the cost?
[13:45:00]
MCKENNA: Yes, if you're a farmer, you're likely to not give up just because that is your income and you need some of that for your food
themselves. But the chief economist of the food and agriculture, the U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization said farmers have like a 40-day window
where they make choices and don't look back. So, either you're farming a smaller piece of land or you're deciding to go ahead with suboptimal inputs
and hoping for the best.
And particularly with fuel prices, where you may need some of that fuel to run tractors or to run your irrigation system, you quite literally are at
the mercy of weather and all kinds of other things. So, you are planting and hoping for the best. And in some cases, what we've seen from farmers
who are closer to the conflict, you're also praying that you are there and have not had to flee by the time that harvest comes.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. So, what happens to the long-term infrastructure costs to this economy if the irrigation systems that the farmers depend on are
attacked or bombed? Because that takes a long time to rebuild.
MCKENNA: We do need to rebuild them. And what we're seeing now in areas that are kind of past the conflict or who've settled into a more stable
day-to-day is, you know, already the funds that were needed for emergency humanitarian assistance were quite low. But now there really are no funds
for what we consider long-term developments. That is things like rebuilding irrigation systems, rebuilding civilian infrastructure.
And you still have tens of millions of people trying to live in these places that need that infrastructure. They need the irrigation. They need
functioning health care system. They need functioning markets. And that's what people at Sudan are asking for. They're saying, invest in us. We are
competent. We are resilient. We are here. We're not leaving our country. Help us to rebuild. That's exactly what people are asking for at this
moment.
SREENIVASAN: I also want to ask a little bit about the sort of youngest victims of this. According to a recent report from UNICEF, more than 4,300
children have been killed or maimed this year alone, and an estimated 4.2 million children across Sudan are expected to suffer from acute
malnutrition. How does Mercy Corps respond to something, a crisis like this?
MCKENNA: Women and children are always the most vulnerable in these situations, and Sudan has been no different. When you're attacking health
care centers, you're attacking children. When we have situations where people are down to one meal a day, it's children, especially the youngest
children, that feel that most acutely.
In one area of Darfur, of the children that we were able to get to and measure, more than 70 percent were suffering some effects of malnutrition
already. And depending on the severity of that, that can cause, like, brain damage and other damage that people don't recover for from life. So, we're
quite worried about young people, very focused on making sure they have safe spaces, that they are able to go to school where necessary, and making
sure that their families have access to cash to supply their needs and to help them, and access to food as well, so that they're not starving and
suffering.
SREENIVASAN: Something that's a little bit disconcerting, I think, is how normalized it's become for us to hear about attacks on civilian
infrastructure. And I know that you also recently visited Ukraine, and I'm wondering if there's this, you know, through line, something different
happening in how we prosecute wars, whether it's Ukraine or Sudan or Iran. I mean, we recently had the U.S. president threatening desalination plants
and power plants as if that was normal.
MCKENNA: Yes. We are sadly entering what I'm calling an era of indifference. You know, attacks on infrastructure or conserved war crimes,
they're not legitimate means. And starting with the Ukraine war and on down, we've seen increasing attacks on civilian infrastructure, like, you
know, deliberate attacks on hospitals. In Ukraine, you're seeing deliberate attacks even on large agriculture facilities, particularly now in this area
of drone warfare. Those attacks have become even more personalized and specific to civilian infrastructure, whether they be agriculture areas,
hospitals, electricity supplies.
And so, increasingly, not only are civilians being targeted, but the lifelines that they need to survive are being seen as legitimate targets.
And that's unacceptable. And it is something that we, as a world, need to recommit to saying that this is unacceptable and that these are not
legitimate rules of war. And we're seeing these practiced by states as well as armed groups. It's unacceptable.
SREENIVASAN: So, how does an organization like yours, Mercy Corps, try to assist when it's these larger structural problems that you're having to
overcome and the people who are coming to you are saying, listen, I'm a farmer, but the irrigation system just got bombed, and I need money for
seed, and my fertilizer costs and my fuel costs are up. Where do you begin?
[13:50:00]
MCKENNA: Yes. Almost every single one of my staff members are people that are displaced themselves, people that are working for us in cities where
often they're not from, far from home. And so, what we -- we really look at the resilience and the strength of the people that we work with and try to
mirror them. We work with a lot of local Sudanese organizations who may have access to places that we don't. We are talking to them about their
informal networks and bringing people together.
We're trying to keep the economies going. There are still local markets that are functioning. We're trying to balance out supply and demand. We do
that a lot through the provision of cash so that people can buy what they need. We also are helping small businesses that buy agricultural supplies
or that buy other goods to keep these markets going so that people do have healthy and sustainable ways to make a living and to get the other supplies
that they need.
So, we really try to work within the systems that they -- that exist, while also doing our best to advocate in foreign capitals and other places for
pressure to not be harming civilian infrastructure, to do peace negotiations, and to provide funds for people who are trying to help
themselves do that better. People in Sudan are working so hard and so hard just to survive, and they deserve more from us.
SREENIVASAN: Give me some perspective on what the kind of international aid community's capacity is, because, you know, look, we've gone through
different natural disasters. We've gone through different conflicts before. But right now, it just seems like you've got, you know, Gaza to Ukraine to
Lebanon to Sudan. There are so many different crises, these conflicts that are happening around the world right now that are putting so much pressure
on different populations. Are we at capacity, near capacity, over capacity, and what we can do about it?
MCKENNA: Yes, the aid system has really been severely disrupted and devastated. The United States funding accounted for more than 40 percent of
humanitarian funding worldwide. That just wasn't funding. A lot of United States work was underpinning supply chains and its entire ecosystem of
actors from the U.N. to international NGOs to local NGOs.
So, the way that the U.S. kind of unilaterally pulled out of the system in a very sudden way really, like, upended all of those things. And then on
top of that, you have crisis after crisis compounding. So, when the U.S. pulled out, then we saw several European donors also with pulling back
funds to fund their own defense.
On top of that, we've seen escalations in the war in Ukraine. This war in Iran, all of a sudden, Lebanon, you see large numbers of people in need
throughout the Middle East that were not in need before. So, at the same time that we have pulled back money from the humanitarian aid system, we've
also increased conflicts and disruption to add to the number of those people needing assistance.
So, the system really does need to be funded, and we really need more efforts towards peace efforts around the world so that we can get to the
people that need it the most.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I know one of your former jobs was at USAID around food insecurity. And I wonder if you have, you know, kind of a before and
after that you can tell us or think about where when you were in that job, what was perhaps the assistance in a crisis like what's happening in Sudan
versus what you are seeing on the ground today without USAID's presence?
MCKENNA: I did have the privilege of serving at USAID for a number of years. Before in a crisis like this, you would see like, you know, a lot
more of a diplomatic effort on the ground, like a strong cadre of USAID staff who were very in the know of what was going on, funding a variety of
international and local actors. You saw a U.N. that was much more robust and had a lot more capacity to do coordination services across agencies.
And you saw a lot of flexibility in terms of really like meeting people's needs.
Right now, that there was also a certain amount of diplomatic pressure that the presence of the diplomatic corps could exert on local authorities and
people in the conflict who are causing it to kind of to protect civilian infrastructure and do that.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
MCKENNA: Now, not only are you seeing that funding not being there, you're seeing people that aren't as aware of what's happening, aren't as in touch
with the different actors on the ground, not helping play that central coordination function. And you're just seeing a lot of people struggling to
serve and less of a sense that there's a bit of a calvary that's on its way. There's a void. There's a big void there. And it's felt.
[13:55:00]
SREENIVASAN: The CEO of Mercy Corps, Tjada McKenna, thanks so much for your time.
MCKENNA: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, today we mark Earth Day, a celebration dating back to the 1970s and an annual reminder to protect and champion environmental
action, as demonstrated by these activists in Cape Town, South Africa. This year's events have been themed Our Power, Our Planet, and they reflect the
importance of sustained daily action from educators, families, and communities across the globe, instead of relying on a single administration
or organization. It's all about the collective.
And that's it for now. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
