Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Czech President Petr Pavel; Interview with Financial Times U.S. National Editor Edward Luce. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired April 28, 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]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETR, PAVEL, CZECH PRESIDENT: We need each other. I mean, the United States needs Europe and Europe needs the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: As the fragile stalemate in Iran continues and the Ukraine war drags on, could tension between the U.S. and Europe benefit Russia?

Christiane speaks with Czech President Petr Pavel.

Then, a call for U.S.-U.K. unity amid rising transatlantic tensions. Veteran journalist Ed Luce joins me as Washington welcomes King Charles.

And --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All the kids in Palestine suffer. They want to just live their life normally, but they pay the price.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- Israeli settlers block Palestinian children from going to school, Abeer Salman reports. And later --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, MEDICAL REPORTER, THE ATLANTIC: What's stealing money from your pocketbook and keeping you sicker is the way our health care

system is treating you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- "A 'Barbaric' Problem in American Hospitals." Hari Sreenivasan speaks to medical reporter Elizabeth Rosenthal about

dysfunction in U.S. health care.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

There's a chain reaction happening across the world. The longer the war on Iran drags on, the more the U.S. drains its global supply of critical

weapons. The longer oil prices remain high, the more Russia reaps the reward, leaving Europe increasingly exposed to Russian President Vladimir

Putin's aggressive instincts, questioning whether he'll set his sights beyond Ukraine.

Nonetheless, the diplomatic stalemate continues, with U.S. President Donald Trump signaling that he's unlikely to accept Iran's latest proposal to end

the conflict. And Europe left on the sidelines, not consulted by the White House before the war and targeted by Trump for not supporting the U.S.

during the fighting.

Well, now Europe is pushing back. In an appearance this week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticized the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): The Americans clearly have no strategy, and the problem with conflicts like this is

always that you just don't go in. You also have to get out again. We saw that all too painfully in Afghanistan for 20 years. We saw that in Iraq.

So, this whole affair, as I said, is ill-considered, to say the least.

This entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian state leadership, especially by these so-called revolutionary guards.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Our next guest is well-placed to discuss all of this. Petr Pavel is president of the Czech Republic. He is former chief of staff of

the Czech Armed Services and served as chair of NATO's military committee. An ardent supporter of the Western alliance, Pavel serves in one of the

most Euro-skeptic countries on the continent.

Christiane spoke to President Pavel about the dangerous cross-currents across Europe and the world at a conference in Prague. The conference,

called Money, Money, Money, was hosted by Czech affiliate CNN Prima. Here's their conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome to this interview. And can I just ask you, because I'm

here a couple of weeks after the political landscape around this part of Eastern Europe is changing somewhat, with the defeat of Prime Minister

Orban, I just wondered how you're feeling about the relative balance of power now.

PETR, PAVEL, CZEL PRESIDENT: Well, we may feel a little bit relaxed, because Viktor Orban was representing blocking power, especially in the

E.U., with regard to support to Ukraine. But I would rather wait for concrete deeds rather than words.

AMANPOUR: But I just want to ask you, because the Trump administration has vocally said, whether it was J.D. Vance, the vice president in Munich,

whether it's the State Department official, Mr. Samson, who's been going around Europe, allies, and essentially instructing them that they need to

be more right-wing in terms of more MAGA. That's my shorthand. But have you come across that here?

PAVEL: I would rather say that it was a misjudgment, because J.D. Vance clearly helped Peter Magyar to win by his intervention.

[13:05:00]

AMANPOUR: All right. So, we'll leave it at that. One of the latest things that certainly Ukraine and all Ukraine's backers are very pleased about is

that with the defeat of Orban, the pro-Putin Orban, and with the election of Peter Magyar, this 90-plus billion-euro loan to Ukraine has been

released. It's been approved. And I spoke to the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, last week, who said it was critical. It was literally

a matter of life and death. From your perspective, how important was it?

PAVEL: Any support to Ukraine at this point is critically important, being it the financial support just to run the country and acquire all equipment

and material they need to effectively defend themselves, military support, ammunition support, and, on the other hand, continuing pressure on Russia.

And while we maintain, I would say, the same effort in supporting Ukraine, we somehow fail in maintaining pressure on Russia.

AMANPOUR: Well, you know, President Zelenskyy said that to me. He said that actually the United States puts more pressure on him, and he is the

defender, as he says, than on the aggressor, Russia. What do you think can be done to change that, or is this how it's going to be?

PAVEL: Clearly, Middle East has become a priority over Ukraine for American administration at this point, and it gave Russia time to breathe.

And they also see that diverting all material support, especially interceptors for air defense to Middle East, and they are now missing in

Ukraine, gives Russia time to reconstitute their capabilities.

Also, increasing cost of oil gives Russia additional financial resources to support the war machine. And that also gives Vladimir Putin more hope that

he can achieve more than he probably believed a couple of months ago.

AMANPOUR: You were the head of your country's military. You know about war. Is he right? Can he win this on the battlefield?

PAVEL: I don't think so. First, the losses, the casualties that Russia is suffering are increasing. They are now exceeding capacity to recruit new

manpower. People in Russia are increasingly tired, and I would say also less capable to understand the rationale provided to them by Russian

propaganda. The war fatigue is omnipresent.

It's in Ukraine, in contributing countries, but also in Russia. And increasingly for Russian regime, it will be more and more difficult to

convince people that it's in their interest to continue the war. And war initiative on the battlefield is not fast enough to control more territory

and to express -- to, I would say, present it to Russian public is a success. And this is what Vladimir Putin desperately needs to somehow come

to the end of what he calls special operation with a great success.

AMANPOUR: But to my question about how then do you pressure him, how does the President of the United States, who's the head of NATO, the superpower

in the world, use his leverage to pressure Vladimir Putin to at least come to the negotiating table?

PAVEL: Well, one side of the coin is economic pressure continuing in sanctions, but also looking at third countries who are providing an

opportunity for circumvention of sanctions. But also, I think one part of it is diplomatic effort, offering Russia not only a negotiation on Ukraine,

but as a next step negotiation on security regime in Europe in general.

Because this is what Russia was calling for years. And I believe, let's use their own argument, that it's not just about Ukraine. It's about security

in Europe. And there is a big debate ahead of us on treaties that have expired, on conventional weapons, on nuclear weapons, on disarmament. There

is a great room for negotiation on military exercises, on modernization, on trust-building measures like open skies.

[13:10:00]

And I think if we are ready to open all these chapters, it will provide an opportunity for Russia to think bigger than just Ukraine or Donbas.

AMANPOUR: So -- but first they have to end the war in Ukraine?

PAVEL: Of course.

AMANPOUR: I see. So, that's the condition.

PAVEL: That's the first step.

AMANPOUR: You just touched on the war on Iran. Clearly, Europe and the rest of the world, Asia, Africa, the rest of the Middle East, is feeling a

real economic backlash right now.

PAVEL: I believe that we will need a serious debate about all potential impacts on our economy. On the other hand, I also think that there is now a

great room for negotiation to end up this conflict and to renew negotiation with Iran, especially on his nuclear program.

AMANPOUR: The two sides are in stalemate. They have zero trust. Do you see any route to a negotiation from your side, from the West side, from

President Trump's side?

PAVEL: Well, first, from the point of view of a Central European country, what I miss is more involvement of other actors. It is now actually a

trilateral issue between Iran, Israel, and the United States. I believe if Europe was involved from the beginning, at least through consultations,

Europe would also be much more engaged in post-conflict negotiatio. Europe, E.U. has done a lot in concluding this JCPOA agreement some time ago. There

is --

AMANPOUR: The nuclear deal, the 2015, yes.

PAVEL: Yes, yes. There is good expertise for negotiation of this nuclear deal. I believe that Europe could do much more, but we are not part of it.

European countries were blamed not to come to assistance, but how could we when we were not invited at the beginning?

AMANPOUR: Yes, and President Trump has threatened all sorts of punishments on European countries, particularly NATO countries. Are you concerned? I

mean, he's lashed out at Spain. He's just angry, calls you all cowards for not coming to help, you know, force the Strait of Hormuz open, for

instance.

PAVEL: Well, I know how difficult it is to tell President Trump anything that he doesn't want to hear. But --

AMANPOUR: Have you tried it?

PAVEL: Well, I didn't have a chance. But I believe that what he needs to hear that by having a different opinion, we are not an enemy. We are on the

same side. What we want is a fair treatment, and I believe that should European countries were involved at the beginning, that there would be much

more willingness to take part, potentially in also supporting operations, for example, in control access through Hormuz Strait.

But now when European countries were not treated as allies at the beginning and they are now blamed for being cowards, I fully understand that they

take it, let's say, unfair. And we want to be fair. We want to be fair allies. We have to talk to each other as equals, not as a dependent child.

AMANPOUR: Do you think it was a mistake for Trump to have pulled out of the JCPOA, particularly since there was nothing to put in its place?

Because right now Iran has jacked up over the last few years its enrichment to 60 percent.

PAVEL: I heard a number of times that it was a bad agreement. But I'm not supporting the idea that it might be better to have no agreement than a bad

one. I think even a bad agreement is better than having nothing, because a bad agreement can be improved. Well, if we don't have any, then there are

no restrictions.

I think the only way will be to get again to a negotiation, sit at the table together, ideally not only the United States and Iran, but also the

European Union, potentially other actors, like big countries that have a lot of trade with Iran, like China, India, and then negotiating a new deal

that would be better than the first one. But I don't see any point in continuing military operation without having a plan B for post-war

arrangement.

AMANPOUR: Let's just talk about Israel for a moment. You've seen many of your European counterparts beginning to harden their views on how they send

military aid to Israel, et cetera.

[13:15:00]

What is your view of how your country and the E.U. should have an engagement with Israel? Is it just blind support, as there has been for

decades for obvious reasons, or are there conditions that can be or should be attached?

PAVEL: Well, this country is a long-time supporter of Israel. From the very beginning, we stood behind. We assisted Israel in a number of ways in

the original phase of forming the statehood, and we are supporting Israel even today. But it's not black-and-white support.

I think from time to time we have to distinguish between supporting Israel and supporting Benjamin Netanyahu. Not all his steps could be approved

without any concern. And I think we should be very firm but also very open and frank in maintaining support to Israel while keeping an opportunity and

possibility to be critical to some decisions of Benjamin Netanyahu.

AMANPOUR: Back to Europe. I've been -- I mean, people have been sitting around saying -- I mean, serious people, that get ready, there's going to

be war in Europe, i.e., Russia attacking Europe, let's say the Baltic states, and then and then. Do you subscribe to that fear? Do you think it's

an actual living possibility? I know in theory one has to prepare, but do you think we're close to war with Russia?

PAVEL: I would probably look at it from two perspectives. One is historical, where the Russian and before that Soviet leaders maintained the

argument that you cannot defend such a huge country without expansion. And that's why all the Tsars and then the general secretaries of Communist

Party and now the president, they try to create some zone of influence or buffer zone to protect Russia from external enemies.

Today, there's also another reason, and that is Russia has turned all its economy into a war machine. It's extremely difficult to turn it back. There

is no switch to peace mode. And maintaining such an economy running, in fact, needs an output where you would put all this production.

You have now more than a million and a half-trained soldiers. Many of them, if the war is over, will retire with all the difficulties and problems of

war. And then if you are in a position of Russian leader and you would see weakened Europe, weakened grip of United States over European security, I

would say, well, that's a good chance. Let's use it.

So, I should -- I would say let's look at it also from the point of view of opportunity for Russia, not necessarily to launch a massive operation in

Europe, but to humiliate NATO by starting, let's say, limited military action, for example, in the Baltics. And by doing that, to clearly

demonstrate that NATO is actually useless because it doesn't act.

AMANPOUR: Unless it acts.

PAVEL: Unless it acts. But the question is, if United States or President Trump continue in the narrative, we will not defend the countries that are

not spending enough. We will withdraw our capabilities. Then the whole Article 5 gets a different meaning because Article 5 is not an automatic

guarantee. It's an expression of political will.

AMANPOUR: And, of course, that Article 5 is an attack on one is an attack on all. Yes. Well, that's quite sobering to hear you say that as somebody

who commanded the sector of NATO and who commanded your own army. What about you then? This country is not paying, it's not spending its 2 percent

GDP to bolster. In other words, why aren't you doing it?

PAVEL: Well, you're right. That also makes me nervous because facing all these threats that are real, it's not just a hypothesis. We should be more

credible, not only to our allies, but mostly to our own citizens.

[13:20:00]

We cannot maintain the idea that we are safe, encircled by allies and friends. The war is far, far away from us. And if we express loud enough

that we want peace, we would have it. And I think this is not the way to go. And I have lots of debates with our government to behave more

responsibly, to not only express our willingness to spend a percentage demanded by our own commitment, but to spend on developing real

capabilities that are expressed by NATO defense planning, all these capability targets that lead to ready troops that will be physically

present and ready to defend us if we need them. Because the war will not be fought with the charts, it will be fought with real soldiers and real

equipment.

AMANPOUR: You just earlier said, you know, Russia has turned its whole economy over to a war economy. That's kind of what's being asked of NATO

countries as well. I mean, not the whole economy, but a huge sector of the economy is being asked to turn over, because President Trump has made it

clear that at least for the moment, you can't depend on the United States.

PAVEL: That's true to some extent. But understanding that we were spending for at least a decade much less than was required, I think what we now try

to do with increased defense production is just getting to the level that used to be here, let's say, 10, 15 years ago. And in the past, we all

understood that about 2 percent of GDP was just good enough to meet all the criteria for collective defense. Now, it will be more for some time.

But once we, again, get to a sufficient level where we will be in a position to say, well, we can effectively now defend this continent, then

there will be no need to increasing trajectory. But obviously --

AMANPOUR: How long will it take?

PAVEL: Well, I believe that it will take about one decade of increased spending to fill all the gaps that we created over the last decade.

AMANPOUR: And I guess final question, do you fear that NATO will be busted? That even Trump talking about, you know, talking it down could just

cause the end of the transatlantic alliance in that regard, and therefore put all of you to have to defend yourselves and have to have a whole

another arrangement?

PAVEL: Frankly, I believe that we need each other. I mean, the United States need Europe and Europe needs the United States. But we were actually

never equal partners. I think Europe has to grow up, to come up with own capabilities, to be a partner means not to be dependent, to be able to act

independently from United States, but with clear preference of always acting together.

But if United States from any reason decide not to take part in European defense, we should be able to do it on our own. And that's in my way, good

partnership. That means we will be both equally strong, equally independent, but always preferring to work together. This is the end, in my

view, for Europe.

To develop all strategic enablers to enable us to act on our own, to come up with substitute of American positions in NATO command structure, if

necessary, to have some replacements, and also to create sufficient will in decision making to act within European pillar of NATO with or without

American presence. That is, in my view, the end of -- not the end, it's the way to better transatlantic partnership. Not the end of NATO, not the

beginning of new NATO, but it will be finally NATO that we wanted from the very beginning.

AMANPOUR: And you're going to NATO, right, to the summit?

PAVEL: I believe so.

AMANPOUR: And you will put this down on the table?

PAVEL: Well, I think there is no need to change the practice that we used to have up to now.

[13:25:00]

AMANPOUR: President Petr Pavel, thank you so much indeed.

PAVEL: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Well, normally the president of the Czech Republic would be going to the NATO summit, but this time there is a question mark

surrounding his attendance, with the Czech prime minister instead vying to represent the country at the talks. Just the latest dispute and a string of

clashes with the president and the coalition government there.

And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Now, there is pomp amidst the politics in Washington today, as the Capitol welcomes Britain's King Charles III and Queen Camilla. On this,

the second day of his U.S. visit, King Charles attends a formal welcome ceremony at the White House, addresses a joint meeting of Congress. And

it's just the second time that a British monarch will be speaking at the Capitol. Tonight, he will be attending a state dinner at the White House.

The royal visit comes at a tense time between America and the U.K. Relations have been strained since the start of the war with Iran. Here to

discuss, Ed Luce is U.S. national editor for Britain's Financial Times. And he joins us now from Washington. Ed, you could argue that the relationship

hasn't been strained between these two countries as much as it is now. You have to go back to the Suez Canal crisis so many decades ago. And yet, the

president seems to have welcomed the king and the queen with open arms, quite affectionate towards the royal family there himself.

And you write in your latest column that King Charles has to thread a royal needle this week. What exactly does he have to do both to please President

Trump, but also please his constituents back home?

EDWARD LUCE, U.S. NATIONAL EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, thanks for having me on, Bianna. And the threading of the royal needle is, I think,

you know, obviously bringing fruits to the volcano, as some people say, trying to sort of bring Trump on side, but also to convey to the American

people that he's here to celebrate their 250 years of independence. He's not just here as a guest of President Trump. And I have no doubt because

this is what King Charles is trained to do, his whole life's been about this, that he will subtly and through various illusions speak to both

audiences in his address to Congress.

There have been plenty of difficult moments in Anglo-American relations. I think the Vietnam War was another. Harold Wilson, the British prime

minister, did not commit British troops to Vietnam. And LBJ, Lyndon Johnson, was not happy with that. But they didn't get a royal visit to help

ease tensions. This one, if to judge by what President Trump said this morning, seems to be working from the British point of view.

GOLODRYGA: And he stuck to script as well. And that speaks positively of how the president feels towards King Charles and Queen Camilla. But there

has been some breaking news this morning that may make at least Downing Street a bit uneasy in terms of the timing here.

And that is Keir Starmer's new ambassador to Washington, D.C. Your reporter at the Financial Times actually leaked audio of the new ambassador telling

students back in February of this year British students visiting that America's only true special relationship actually leaked audio of the new

ambassador telling students back in February of this year British students visiting that America's only true special relationship was actually with

Israel. I believe we have a portion of that audio to play for our viewers.

[13:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIAN TURNER, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Special relationship is a phrase I try not to utter, because it's quite nostalgic, it's quite

backwards-looking, and it has a lot of sort of baggage about it. I think there is probably one country that has a special relationship with the

United States, and that's probably Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: He went on to say that he thinks it's extraordinary that the Epstein scandal, which cost his predecessor Peter Mandelson his job hasn't

touched anyone here in the United States as well. How much does this pull the rug out from under King Charles's message today if at all and how is it

being received back in London?

LUCE: So, I mean, I'm guessing that when Charles addresses Congress that's going to sort of blot out any other attention in -- on the special

relationship or not as the case may be. It is unfortunate for Christian Turner, he turned up in January, he's sort of top of his field of his class

in the British Foreign Office and the fact that you know some teenager recorded this and leaked it you know is unlucky I think. I suspect he'll

survive this he's Britain's top diplomat he it wasn't a controversial appointment and I suspect, I might even say hope he'll get past this.

GOLODRYGA: The timing though I would imagine isn't ideal and we'll see if the president is asked about this specifically the Epstein part of this

audio as well because you know that he gets quite irked as he did with the 60 Minutes interview when was asked about this would-be assassins apparent

motivation and manifesto that was found on him.

Let's talk about just the span of relationships between these two countries over the last decade alone we're nearly 10 years out from the Brexit vote

and you still see a British economy that continues to be marginalized in the world. What exactly is it that if anything that President Trump and the

king can address behind closed doors to perhaps ease up in on issues related to tariffs or other economic ties between these two countries to

integrate them better?

LUCE: Well, there are a number of things and I'd add to that list that Britain and I think from what I understand the king personally are quite

committed to the Ukrainian cause. And so, I would be surprised if he didn't allude to that in some way in the speech but also perhaps more directly

with the president in private.

This is an extremely difficult patch in U.K.-U.S. relations. I tend to agree that special relationship is an overused really overwrought term and

usually used more by the British side than the American side. But at a time like this, you know, when there is huge divergence on things like the Iran

war on things like multiculturalism because the Labour government in Britain does embrace British multiculturalism that it's going to be quite

hard for a king, no matter how practiced or experienced he is, to do a huge amount to bridge those gulfs. These are deep and political and they're not

just confined to U.K.-U.S. relations they're most European countries relations with the U.S. are strained.

What Charles can do is provide the king with, you know, the sort of royal company that he always seems to really like and crave ever since, you know,

his mother had him watching the coronation of Elizabeth when he was six years old. So, there's a diplomatic bond that the monarchy brings

particularly with Trump and I have to stress the speech Trump gave this morning was more fulsome than anything I've ever heard about the U.K.-U.S.

relationship. It was, I mean, arguably way over the top. But it does show that, you know, the royal magic works on President Trump.

GOLODRYGA: Does it change at all the president's perception relationship with the prime minister at this point?

LUCE: Maybe for a few days but you know if the prime minister doesn't as he won't swing behind the Iran more in anything other than helping with the

defense of allies in the Gulf and Israel then Trump is going to continue to be irked by that what he sees a political letdown by Britain and he's going

to continue to refer to Starmer as somebody who isn't like Winston Churchill.

[13:35:00]

So, I don't think that's going to last for very long in terms of Keir Starmer, and neither might he in his job, which was, by the way, another

portion of the sort of leaked comments that the ambassador made to those students back in February. Starmer is on the ropes.

GOLODRYGA: The reverberations of the Epstein scandal still being felt across multiple dimensions in the United Kingdom. Ed Luce thank you so much

good to see you.

LUCE: Great to see you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, now, while the world's attention is focused on the prospect of renewed war in Iran and Israel's ongoing attacks in Lebanon

despite the ceasefire Gaza is still in ruins and as people there attempt to pick up the pieces of their lives U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says

there have been some promising signs regarding the push for Hamas to demilitarize.

Meantime in the West Bank Israeli settler attacks are surging with Palestinians being subjected to a campaign of fear and violence, including

reports of sexual assaults, smashed water pipes, destroyed farms and forced displacement to name just a handful of the issues that past Palestinians

there are experiencing. The most recent example of physical intimidation settlers setting up a razor wire near a village blocking Palestinian

children from going to school.

Now, students as young as five are protesting, calling on settlers and Israeli soldiers to reopen the road. Abeer Salman has this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): They don't want me to learn like other children around the world.

ABEER SALMAN, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER (voice-over): These Palestinian children have been demonstrating every day for two weeks. All they want to do is go

to school. But razor wire is blocking their way --

(CNN U.S. SIMULCAST)

[13:40:00]

END