Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

The Legacy Of Queen Elizabeth II; Charles II Proclaimed King; Interview With Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired September 11, 2022 - 13:00   ET



FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I am Fareed Zakaria coming to you live from outside Buckingham Palace in London.


ZAKARIA (voice-over): We will begin today's program with the passing of Britain's longest-serving monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. My guests and I will reflect on this one monarch's great legacy and the many challenges the new sovereign Charles III must now face.


ZAKARIA: Then, I travel to Kyiv this week to talk to the man in the crucible of the 21st century's war in Europe, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. We sat down for a wide-ranging conversation. We talked about Ukraine's ability to counter Russia's attack. Kyiv's big new push in the south and east. Whether he and his nation are ready if this turns into a long fight.

President Zelenskyy and I went for a walk outside. And I had to ask him, wasn't he worried that Putin might target him?

ZELENSKYY: It doesn't matter for me because we can't be afraid of him.


ZAKARIA: But first, here's my take. For me, the most striking aspect of Queen Elizabeth II's 70-year reign was her iron determination to be boring. Bear with me. In those seven decades, she very rarely let slip her views about any of the great political and public events over which she presided. She never even hinted at her views on any of the (INAUDIBLE) public figures with whom she dealt. We don't know what she thought of Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Margaret Thatcher. And we never will.

Elizabeth was the most disciplined public figure of the past century. In a confessional age when we post every idea, urge, impulse and image that pops into our heads, this woman kept her own counsel. As Tina Brown, the author of the fascinating book "The Palace Papers," notes, Elizabeth was careful even at her own family's weddings and funerals, rarely smiling or weeping, always maintaining dignity and the appearance of detachment.

That was her interpretation of her role as a constitutional monarch, one who leads all the people and never takes sides. And she played it better than anyone ever has. Even during the contentious debate over Brexit, she never let slip her own preferences. The then Prime Minister David Cameron had to apologize in person to her for revealing that she was pleased that Scotland voted down independence in its referendum.

It's easy to think of Britain's royal family as leading a charmed life. They get to live in grand palaces enjoying the world's attention, and for the most part, adulation. That is all true. But the Queen demonstrated the other side of that coin, that doing it right, fulfilling one's duty, can be hard and unsparing in its own way. An endless stream of public duties large and small must be fulfilled. Above all, it requires an abnegation of the self.

In a way the odyssey of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, reveals the challenges of the modern monarchy. Separate and apart from the incendiary charges of racism that they leveled against other royals, they seem to chafe at the life of ribbon cuttings and provincial visits, particularly given that as minor royals, they were destined to live a comparatively modest life. That's reported why Prince Andrew was always hanging around rich people hoping for a handout or more.

Given their fame, Harry and Meghan appeared to realize that they could break out, cash in, and enjoy much greater affluence with far more personal freedom. And so they did. But they were acting as individualists, maximizing their satisfaction. The Queen acted as an institutionalist, preserving the stature of the British government.


The 19th century writer famously Walter Bagehot famously wrote that any constitutional system needs two parts. One dignified, the other efficient. One to awe the public and the second to make government work. Elizabeth perfectly exemplified the dignified aspect, something we in the United States could use a bit more of in our constitutional system.

The American president is of course simultaneously the head of government and the head of state. That combination has its advantages. It fuses power and prestige and it makes the chief executive a commanding presence on the world stage. But it can also demean the office and American democracy itself.

When Trump as president acted in particularly egregious ways, he was not just behaving badly as a person but eroding norms for American democracy. After all, Britain has had its share of weak and unimpressive prime ministers, but their behavior hasn't had the same sweeping effect on the country's image. We live in an age in which few people think about institutions and even fewer are willing to make the sacrifices involved in upholding them.

One who did was George Marshall who served as Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman's secretary of state, secretary of defense, chief of the army, and was regarded by many people as the man who organized the United States' victory in World War II. Marshall refused to write a memoir of his time in office, despite being offered princely advances. He believed that to do so would be to improperly profit from government service.

Chief Justice John Roberts is one of America's last institutionalists. As a conservative jurist, he probably agrees with the conservative consensus that as a matter of technical, judicial reasoning, Roe v. Wade was deeply flawed. But he also wants to preserve the legitimacy of the court in a country where for nearly 50 years women have relied on Roe's established rights and protections.

So he reportedly tried to get his conservative colleagues to rally around a compromise, one that would maintain the basic constitutional right to abortion but considerably reduce Roe's expansive protections. Not one of his conservative colleagues would side with him. For all of them, ideology trumped institutionalism.

We live life as individuals but also as part of a society. And to make societies function well, we've always needed some norms that ask the individual to step back, to sacrifice some ego, and to play a role in a larger project. No one has performed those duties better than Queen Elizabeth II.

Go to for a link to my "Washington Post" column, and let us get started.

Yesterday in a ceremony at St. James Palace, King Charles III was formally declared king. And today the late Queen's body was driven from Balmoral Castle where she died to her official residence in Scotland. It is a monarchy in transition for the first time in 70 years.

Let's dig in to all this. Joining me now are two celebrated historians. Simon Schama and Kate Williams. Kate is CNN's royal expert and Simon received a knighthood for his contributions to history in 2019.

Simon, Sir Simon, since we are in the title mood --

SIMON SCHAMA, HISTORIAN: You don't have to kneel yet, Fareed. Yes.

ZAKARIA: Why do you think the Queen inspires this awe in Bagehot's -- she doesn't have any power.

SCHAMA: Well, actually Bagehot said something else about the monarchy, which is very interesting. He described a constitutional monarch as needing to embody gust ceremoniousness, almost like a kind of secular devotional religion. But he also said something very startingly modern. He said the monarch will only be effective if he or she is intelligible to the ordinary person.

An extraordinary thing about the late Queen is that from this incredibly narrow upbringing, not being allowed to go to school, you know, some things that were criticized by people in the 1960s, like John Grigg, Lord Altrincham, who later said the reason why she behaves decently is because she's decent. But despite of her narrow upbringing, she managed absolutely to have the common touch that people responded to.

And I think the bigger issue about her life and her reign and indeed about constitutional monarchy, you touched on in your remarks is that one of the things which is most challenging, goodness knows that you and I who both live in the United States is to find a way to feel part of a nation that is not simply captive to brutal partisan politics, which is not simply a matter of oppositional politics, which is really -- you know, we know to our cost now is not simply a matter of oppositional argument but accusations of enmity, of bitter enmity.


And what the monarchy provided was a way to feel part of this extended family of nation without being suspected of being on an ego trip, lining your pockets as you beautifully evoked Marshall. So that is an extraordinary gift. If you think about other presidents, as it were, in Germany, for example, who are not politicians or in Israel. They do that but nowhere near. They can't possibly have this power of evoking as being coming from the past as the Queen did.

ZAKARIA: Part of it strangely seems to be that it's birthright. She hasn't had to earn it. You think about the Japanese emperor, the Thai emperor. You know, there's this sense of almost veneration.

But, Kate, there is also an impressive public relations effort, right, I mean, the Queen doesn't give -- it's fascinating, she has all this publicity but she doesn't give interviews. She gave one interview in her life. And yet here are, we have been given this gorgeous backdrop of Buckingham Palace by the palace. They are conscious of the need to allow, you know, the public to venerate.

KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL HISTORIAN: Yes, Fareed. And I thought your take, your point that she's had to work so hard not to intervene, not for people to know about what she thinks is very significant, to think she came to the throne so young, just 25, and really, as Simon was saying, her education had been quite sparse. She had had constitutional training. But she's expecting to be really watching her father for the next 15 years, that didn't happen.

She was pitched into a new role. And a new role in which there was, you know, it was a changing world. It was the 1950s, post-war Britain, there was a lot of anger about what people had suffered. It was still a world of rationing, and also it wasn't a time when people expected to see a working woman, especially not a working mother. Very few women were in positions of power.

We didn't have a female train driver or female bank manager, and of course not a female prime minister for another 25 years with Margaret Thatcher. So she was really people doubted her. We look on her reign as great, you know, her great memory, her great intellect, her powerful sense of duty. But there was what doubt at the start. Winston Churchill called her child. And so what you see it this massive exercise in producing and sort of creating this wondrous image of monarchy, which really we see the big push in the first televising of the coronation.

That incredible moment of post-war Britain surrounded by all this light at the coronation. The Queen is brilliant sense of this huge performance, you know, all the pomp, all the ceremony. And there was so much support for that because initially there was a concern that it would be too much to televise it or it would undermine the majesty of royalty. And really when it was, there were all these newspapers saying the coronation, the monarchy is no longer just for lords and ladies.

We are watching it on TV. It's for all of us. And that throughout her reign, she has been the television queen. She's used television to get her message out. And as she say, it has been a brilliant selling of monarchy. The Duke of Edinburgh said we fight an election every day, and that's what they did.

ZAKARIA: I have 30 seconds before we go to break. I just want to ask you, she presided over the decline, the collapse of the British empire, though.

SCHAMA: Yes. Other long reigning monarch Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria at the end of their reigns Britain was much mightier or more powerful. So she had a much, much harder assignment.

ZAKARIA: All right. Stay with us. We are going to be back with Kate and Simon. Later on GPS, we have an exclusive interview with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy. But first I will be back in a moment with my guests here at Buckingham Palace to talk about Charles III and the difficult path that may lie ahead for the British monarchy.



ZAKARIA: And we are back in London with the historian Simon Schama and Kate Williams.

Kate, Charles III, can he evoke that aura of inscrutability? Because, you know, we know a lot about Charles. He has views on architecture, on nature, on urban planning, on Islam. Can he now step into that role of being the empty vessel that everyone puts whatever they want into?

WILLIAMS: Yes, this is a good question. And there have been doubts about Charles before. His opinion ratings are usually quite low, under 50 percent. But in his speech to the nation, and also in his speech on accession, he made it very clear that he's going to follow his mother's tradition of service and uphold constitutional monarchy, and he also really said in not so many words, I'm putting my causes aside.

So what he's saying is that he's going to be like his mother, he's going to stay neutral, stay out of politics in that respect. And I think at the moment there's a lot of support for him and see how he keeps it. But certainly she's a hard act to follow.

ZAKARIA: One of the things they've been able to do under Elizabeth is maintain this broader association with the world, that Charles is now head of state in Candana and Australia, a bunch of Caribbean countries. Do you think that kind of thing is viable and Britain is not the power it once was, this is almost seems a kind of balancing act, you know?


SCHAMA: No. I think there's an enormous opportunity actually. Remember, it was the Queen who wanted -- not the British commonwealth or others, she was in full of support that it should be just the commonwealth. And she was very proactive about wanting it. I mean, there's a moment in her Christmas broadcast in 1983, got her into some trouble. She wasn't always boring, Fareed, where she said the great core existential problem of the world is the gap between rich and poor countries.

Extraordinary thing about the commonwealth is it's growing. It's not shrinking. There are members of the commonwealth like Gabon, for example, and Mozambique that had no connection with British imperial past that are now members of the commonwealth. I don't believe, I know the king, not very well, but we do know each other. I've been part of a teaching state school organization, she's done wonderful work.

With all -- I'm sure he has the best intentions to button his lip. I think it's going to happen quite the same way. And I don't think it should. I think he's got to be himself. Now, it so happens that you said his love of nature, let's not undersell it. For 40 years he's been rather obsessed with climate change, with environmental destruction. Well, that happens to be the greatest of all our present existential crisis. It affects pandemics, it affects global economics.

He needs to find a way to finesse his strong views about that. But you think of him on a stage with David Attenborough speaking to the world, who is going to be against that, I think? So it will be a matter of form. And weirdly, everything we know about his opinions might actually conceivably stand him in good stead.

ZAKARIA: So you pointed out his approval ratings, let's be honest, I mean, are a lot below 50. I mean, the last one I saw it was at 18 percent or 20 percent, whereas William is at 60 or 70. Do you think that kind of thing affects -- I mean, it must have an effect, right, to have this feeling that -- I think he's less popular than all three of William's children.

WILLIAMS: Yes, I think certainly Charles felt that. He felt he was a sincere man whose really efforts didn't come across. And certainly, I think, he'll be thrilled by all this joyous reception, and particularly the joyous reception of Camilla. It's always very important to him that she is Queen when the eve of the Queen --

SCHAMA: And she is popular. Camilla is very popular.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes. You just think about the Queen made it very clear earlier this year on the eve of the anniversary of 70 years of her accession that Camilla would be Queen. And he has repeatedly referred to her in his speeches. So I think the she'll be very heartened by this enthusiasm. But I do think we're in a honeymoon period. I think Charles has a lot on his plate. We are in a difficult world crisis with Ukraine.

The country is also heading into a possible economic crisis, and heating, energy crisis. And as you say the possibility that some countries may wish to -- they are saying that opening the conversation, Jamaica, Australia, about no longer having the monarch as head of state. Barbados did last year. It may be that we see quite a few of the other reals saying no, we no longer wish at the monarch, we wish to be a republic. And things are changing. And it's the monarch's role, I think, to make it very clear that these are decisions of the people he cannot interfere.

ZAKARIA: I agree with you, Simon. A lot of the things he said have been incredibly, you know, wise, even on urban planning he was decades before his time. The question I have for you is finally -- and we have about a minute -- is this is Britain's greatest soft power, it seems to me, that the monarchy and the BBC is what Britain is. British hard power is not going to increase. Can it use this soft power?

SCHAMA: I think the opportunity is there really. Precisely, look all around us. You know, I mean, people have come from all over the world (INAUDIBLE) to be in Britain, because there is something extraordinary actually about a power that is not about political advantage. People are desperate all over the world, I think, for a kind of global citizenship that is not a zero-sum game, that is not just simply about self-advancement.

So the possibility, you know, to actually exercise some sort of moral authority is really promising. Will it happen? We'll see.

ZAKARIA: Sir Simon, Kate, pleasure to have you guys on. This is such a fascinating conversation.

Next on GPS, we will take you to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. I was there this week for an exclusive interview with the man of the hour, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.



ZAKARIA: This has been a major week for Ukraine as it made extraordinary, unexpected strides, pushing back against the Russian invaders. Just yesterday, Ukrainian forces entered the city of Izium in the country's east, causing Russian forces to flee. Ukraine's troops are also fighting a counteroffensive in the southern region of Kherson. The Ukrainian Defense minister said on Saturday that his country's allies were amazed by the successes of his troops.

Zelenskyy said in his nightly address that Ukraine had retaken some 700 square miles of territory this month. Moscow claims its military is simply regrouping.

Well, I was in Kyiv this week and had an exclusive interview on Friday with President Zelenskyy about the counteroffensive, his Russian enemy, and much more. We met for the interview not in a dark bunker but at the Mariinskyi Palace, the ceremonial residence of Ukrainian presidents.


It was President Zelenskyy's first interview there since the war began.


ZAKARIA: President Zelenskyy, a pleasure to see you again.

ZELENSKYY: Thanks so much. It's great to meet you.

ZAKARIA: The last time we did an interview in person was one year ago in Kyiv. And I remember the most important issue for our safety was we had to stay six feet apart because of COVID. Now it's a different world. For you, what has -- if you were to summarize what this year has been for you, how would you describe it?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): You said that the year passed, and actually I have a feeling that it's a completely different page from a completely different history book. At that time, the gravest danger was COVID. Well, COVID is still the problem in some of the countries, more or less. But the full-fledged war of Russia against Ukraine has completely washed all those troubles with a big wave.

The priorities of our country have changed for me personally and I'm convinced for each citizen in this country. Certain issues that were forgettable before, they became in clear focus and the most important. Values and targets became two poles. And I believe the whole world is now between the same values and goals. Ukraine is definitely now fighting for those values.

ZAKARIA: Mr. President, let me ask you about the battle right now. It does appear that Ukraine is moving forward in Kherson in other parts of the east. Is this the beginning of a campaign to roll back the Russian invasion of February 24th?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): You know that our goal is to de-occupy our whole territory. The main goal is de-occupation. We just cannot allow Russia to continue the same occupation that they started back in 2014. Now they invaded some more, now a pause, freezing of the conflict, some agreements, negotiations, then time passes, they become stronger, and then they keep moving forward again or set some conditions.

Well, first of all, setting ultimate conditions, and you meet them or we will keep invading. So that's their strategy. The gradual, very slow dining, they are eating you piecemeal bit by bit. Russian cannibalism, I would call it this way. And I don't want to play this game. I don't like this. I cannot tell you right now all the details about certain operational plans, but you understand what I'm talking about.

We will not be standing still. We will be slowly, gradually moving forward. We will not be talking to them. As soon as we stop and stay still, and I know certain countries will be pushing us towards Minsk process. I want the world to recognize there's one thing, a diplomatic solution, and then Minsk 2, 3, 5, 10. That's two different things because Minsk is an empty paper to allow Russia to rest before the next phase of the invasion.

ZAKARIA: Do you think this war can end with Vladimir Putin still running Russia?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): Most likely, depends on him only in this particular point of time. Yes it might well be that he will still be leading the country while the war is over. In principle, I believe for him that's the only chance to get out of this situation. There is no other way for him out of this. Everything will be over after him, and then the big question to the whole world will be when this time after him would come.


ZAKARIA: Would you negotiate with him at some point?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): Not today. I don't see any willingness on their side to be constructive. As to their ultimatums, well, I don't care who sets those ultimatums, him or somebody else. Well, then, that's my principle, I will not talk to those who set those ultimatums to me.

If this is an agreement that will reach after they leave our territories, yes, then afterwards in order, well, to recognize that Russia still would have borders with us. It's our neighbor with huge populations. So when after we de-occupy our country one way or another, we would still have to live as neighbors.


ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, we will turn to Ukraine's biggest benefactor, the United States. I ask President Zelenskyy if he worries that American politics may cause that generosity to dry up. Would a Republican-controlled House of Representatives offer less money and less aid? Hear his answer, when we come back.



ZAKARIA: Back to my exclusive interview with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy taped on Friday in Kyiv.


ZAKARIA: The country that has provided the largest support to Ukraine, by far, is the United States.

ZELENSKYY: Yes, that's true.

ZAKARIA: Tens of billions of dollars. There's a midterm election coming. And every vote so far -- I think I'm right -- the Republicans supporting Ukraine have declined. If the Republicans take the House of Representatives, which is the power of the purse, that's where the money comes from, do you worry that this American aid will slow down or stop? And what would be your message to the House Republicans?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): First of all, I would like to immediately say that I'm grateful to President Biden and the White House, and the bipartisan support because they are leaders in size and volume of the support. Without this support, we will not be able to return our lands. And I recognize that myself, and I'm quite candid about this. And I recognize their leadership position on those matters. I know and hear the messages that you just brought up that the representatives of the Republican Party might happen. So they would be supporting Ukraine less.

I want to believe that bipartisan support will remain strong and steadfast. For us, that's extremely important. And how we act to this war, by fighting, I am ready to meet politicians. And I'm quite open to provide the opportunities to the wide world to make everything possible not to weaken the support of Ukraine. Because otherwise Russia can win this fight. And that will be the tragedy of the 21st century.

It's extremely important for me that if there are certain political trends and if they send signals that there is some weakening of our support or supporting the Russian side, like through this regime, we will communicate this immediately because we will help to defend the funds of the taxpayers, of the people of the United States. They need to know that those funds are being spent to fight for those values.

ZAKARIA: You know Donald Trump, and you've talked to him a lot. We in fact in previous interviews have talked about those famous phone calls. He's always said nice things about Vladimir Putin. He's always -- even after the invasion of Ukraine, I think he said he's a genius. He says this. What do you think he doesn't understand about Putin? What will you tell Donald Trump to help him understand the Putin you see?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): I believe he had enough time, plenty of time, to understand who Putin is. I think he was sitting at such a high position where it's not even possible not to recognize that he is the opponent in terms of values to your own people. And he has all the might of this country, intelligence data, to create psychological profile, and thus in this position you need to understand who Putin is, what he's driving at and what steps he will make to get there.

So I was surprised that even after the beginning with the full-fledged invasion, Donald Trump mentioned things that you just said. I believe that he needs to look at this not only from the standpoint that this is a threat to Ukraine. Well, Ukraine, in his eyes, is too far away. But this war has no distances it could not cover.


So I believe he needs to look at this situation without, as we say, thin glasses on. I don't know, probably he needed this to promote his domestic policy, to show that he's ready to find understanding with the president of Russia. ZAKARIA: To the West, is your message, do not lift the sanctions until

the complete de-occupation of Russia? Because, as you know, lots of people by next year in the West will be talking about relaxation of sanctions, if not only.

ZELENSKYY (through translator): No. We cannot lift any sanctions. We cannot agree with Russia now. We cannot discuss the substance with Russia until they get out of our territory. Afterwards, yes, we can start talking about the sanction, policy, lifting certain sanctions. We can talk about reparations. We can talk about the monetary payments from them, diplomacy, dialogue. Yes, we can involve the presidents of all of the countries or an institutions and involve in those discussions anyone from the Russian side. But after they vacate our territory because that's the new page of the history would start from there.

ZAKARIA: We don't know the losses on the Ukrainian military side, Ukraine, the government doesn't release them. But it is tens of thousands. Can you go on? Can you fight if this goes on for years?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): We have no other way. And it's not our weakness. I believe it's our strength because Russia does have a way out. They can go back home. We have this home to defend. Where could we live our home? Nowhere. That's why the question is not how much more victims. It's how much more victims will we have to have to win?

ZAKARIA: But you will keep fighting to the end?

ZELENSKYY (through translator): Yes.


ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, President Zelenskyy and I go for a walk outside. Sounds normal, but nothing is normal in war. We know Zelenskyy is a marked man. Is he afraid? I ask him.



ZAKARIA: After I finished the main interview with President Zelenskyy, we decided to go outside for a walk. Now that is a bold move for a man who knows that Russia has marked him as target number one of its invasion. Take a look.


ZAKARIA: So I feel like every time I've talked to you in the past, you've been in a bunker. Now here we are, we did the interview in the presidential palace, on the grounds. Is this a confidence that Putin can't hit you here?

ZELENSKYY: Nobody knows where he wants to push rocket. From the mind is this, nobody, I think, understand it until they begin to do. This morning and in the night, the rockets can come from even Belorussia -- from Russia, occupied. It doesn't matter for me because what -- we can't be afraid of him and I'm not afraid.

ZAKARIA: But this is probably target number one. I mean, we know that he's been trying to kill you, and here you are in the presidential palace.

ZELENSKYY: Yes, but I'm like, you know -- first of all, I'm not sitting here. That is for you and for leaders, and so I'm not here. I'm in my office. Yes, of course.

ZAKARIA: Which is the bunker.

ZELENSKYY: No, no, no --

ZAKARIA: Not the bunker.

ZELENSKYY: Upstairs, downstairs, anywhere, yes. When we hear signals, we have to go to, like, bunkers.

ZAKARIA: And there are still air sirens in Kyiv.

ZELENSKYY: Yes, yes. All the territory of Ukraine. Sometimes it goes through Kyiv to other territories, but our systems, anti-rocket systems, are working so the rocket can't come to the capital anyway. Anyway, they want, they shoot because the idea is to shoot each day, their idea, to do house for people to be afraid and to run. Run, that means no economy, no business, no relations.

Now Kyiv, of course people are afraid because nobody wants -- don't want to die. It's OK. It's normal. But I think we are ready to live in this, how to say it in English, in this case, in this variant --

ZAKARIA: In this circumstance.

ZELENSKYY: Circumstance. We are ready because our soldiers are in more difficult situations. All the money we have, we give money to our soldiers. All the money we have. Of course also to medicine and to teachers which also on the frontline because they have to teach children. Yes. That's it.


ZAKARIA: Do you think when you look back, when you started the campaign for president, I mean, you are somebody who comes out of TV. You're a writer, a producer, you have to be a wartime president. I think when I look at you I think you have two qualities that seem to have prepared you very well. One is your communication. You're a great communicator. But the other is courage. You didn't run away, but nobody in your government ran away.

ZELENSKYY: No. The main thing is to have real honest people. Nobody was ready to the war. It's how to prepare to the war, how to prepare your character. You can't prepare. You can do it during the war. So for today our people, we are ready for the war. But I think, I hope we will not have next war. I hope so.

(END VIDEOTAPE) ZAKARIA: From a new king to a very uncertain war, there's a sense that we are truly living through history.

Thanks to all of you for being part of our program from London and Kyiv this week. I will see you next week.