Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Contrary to false claims, this is the best way to end the war and the best way to end its speed of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Netanyahu pushes on with plans to occupy Gaza despite mounting international pressure. Ha’aretz military correspondent Amos Harel explains
why this could be a road to perpetual war.
Then —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): The path to peace for Ukraine must be determined together and only together with
Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — Trump and Putin to meet in Alaska. But as it seems, Ukraine and Europe are excluded. Is real peace a possibility? I ask the E.U.’s top
diplomat, Kaja Kallas.
Also, ahead —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Stop these deportations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — as Trump’s immigration crackdown continues, the Russian defectors who risk facing Putin’s persecution once again. I speak to one
man about his mission to help them.
Plus —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: That sensation that the future has been cut off, that we didn’t know what we’re going to do next or where
we’re going to go, I ran into that over and over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — Sudan’s devastating Civil War. Veteran journalist Anne Applebaum and photojournalist Lynsey Addario on the horrors they witnessed
in a nation plunged into anarchy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York. Sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doubling down on his threat to capture Gaza City, despite a growing course of condemnation with U.N.
officials, warning that the move would lead to, quote, “another calamity” in the enclave.
After nearly two years of war, Israel controls 75 percent of Gaza, but this would bring it closer to fully occupying the enclave for the first time in
20 years. Now, it comes as Gaza faces heavy bombardment with a targeted Israeli strike on Sunday killing several journalists, including one of Al
Jazeera’s most prominent correspondents Anas al-Sharif. The IDF claims that he ran a Hamas terrorist cell. An allegation al-Sharif previously has
denied. The broadcaster called it a, quote, “desperate attempt” to silence voices in Gaza, others are seeing it as a worrying precursor to Prime
Minister Netanyahu’s next moves.
Amos Harel is a military correspondent and defense analyst for Ha’aretz, and he joins me now from Hod Hasharon in Israel. Amos, it is good to see
you. So, first, can you walk us through exactly what plan was approved by the security cabinet? Is it taking over militarily the entire enclave or
just Gaza City?
AMOS HAREL, DEFENSE ANALYST, HA’ARETZ: Hi, Bianna. No, this isn’t about taking over the entire enclave. Israel is already in control of about 75
percent of this small region. And the Gaza population is actually — it was actually pushed into free different — small different enclaves in Gaza
City.
The refugee camps in the middle of the strip and the Mawasi area, which was on the coast of the Mediterranean and the Southern Strip. So, what
Netanyahu is talking about right now is Gaza City. There are almost a million people there. It’s assumed that thousands of Hamas militants are
hiding there as well. And the debates in the Israeli cabinet last Thursday night was about this operation.
But while Netanyahu pushed forward this plan and it was approved by the cabinet, actually the IDF’s chief of Staff, General Eyal Zamir, suggested
another plan, a much more limited plan, which talked about a siege of those free enclaves without actually taking control of all of Gaza City.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And I believe that Eyal Zamir, the IDF chief of staff, who was just personally installed and handpicked by Prime Minister
Netanyahu a few months ago after he ousted his predecessor, had warned that such operation risks Israeli lives, that of the soldiers, and obviously the
hostages as well. I believe I saw a headline from Zamir though today saying that they could, in fact, take on Gaza City, take over military control
over Gaza City. So, is he walking back some of his previous concerns or are these two separate issues?
HAREL: Not really. These are separate issues. He’s a soldier in the end. He’ll probably of obey orders unless it feels that this is too dangerous
for the country, for the army, and for soldiers and hostages’ lives.
I don’t think he’s made up his mind yet. And this is a deeply Israeli kind of development. It’s true that the cabinet has made the decision and
approved the plan, but it’s yet unclear whether this would be fully implemented because Netanyahu has left the door open to negotiations. In
fact, negotiations are resuming between Hamas delegation in Cairo and the Egyptian mediators. The Qataris are also involved. And there’s still a
possibility that this is being used to push Hamas back into the negotiations, hoping to reach at least an interim deal, which would allow
the release of 10 Israeli hostages out of 20 live hostages and perhaps bodies of 15 out of 30, which are still held by Hamas in Gaza.
GOLODRYGA: So, do you hear from your contacts that they view this as perhaps more of the latter, that this is the prime minister trying to
squeeze Hamas even further by threatening to take over Gaza City and the entirety of the enclave if need be? Because I know this operation, even if
it does go forward, would require a few weeks at least to go into full effect. What is your take? Is this something that the prime minister is
dead set on doing or is this a negotiating tactic?
HAREL: It is hard to tell regarding Netanyahu because we’ve heard so many promises in 22 months. There was so many statements being made about full
and total victory, which was about — around the corner. You may recall, May 24 — and the big thing there was an issue, a debate with the Biden
administration. President Biden tried to convince Netanyahu not to enter Rafah and Netanyahu insisted, Israel pushed forward, and actually managed
to evacuate close to a million people from Rafah. Netanyahu presented that as a big victory, but was never able to follow up and reach a full victory
over Hamas.
So, this is where we are right now. To me, you’ve mentioned the press conference yesterday. One was held in English, one in Hebrew. I saw a
leader who was losing the plot. For a long time now, Netanyahu has been making all kinds of promises. He is trying to reach a deal, but only under
his terms and he’s facing a lot of problems domestically.
His policies right now are deeply unpopular, and a large majority of the Israeli public supports a deal. People know that this is going to be
costly, that this would mean perhaps releasing a lot of prisoners of Hamas murderers in Israeli jails. And yet, I think most Israelis, their number
one goal now is to have the hostages freed alive if possible, the 20 remaining hostages, and to put an end to this war, in spite of everything
that has happened.
And this is why Netanyahu is having such a hard time. He’s having, as you mentioned, a hard time with the west, International Community, but also
back home with the generals and the public, and also with his far-right partners in the coalition. We’ve heard Minister Smotrich announcing that
he’s lost faith in the prime minister. He’s staying in the coalition, and yet he’s saying that this plan is not going to bring Israel to the final
victory. Again, for people on the far-right, this is not enough, for others in Israel, this is much too much.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you note that warning from the finance minister, Smotrich and as Amit Segal, somebody who covers the Netanyahu government
very closely, wrote in his note this morning, he said, Netanyahu now finds himself caught between a finance minister who can topple the government if
he so wishes, and an Israeli public that when it is truly fed up is more than capable of forcing the IDF to withdraw from enemy territory. Is it
your view that the Israeli public is closer to being fully fed up than they have in the nearly two years of this war?
HAREL: These are two separate things I’m afraid. The sentiment is quite clear against continuing the war and hoping to reach a deal soon. But it’s
very hard to reach that goal. One problem is of course, Hamas. Because Hamas is behind this war to begin with, it’s holding our hostages for so
long, and it feels in the upper hand since the outrage in the International Community regarding famine in the Gaza Strip two weeks ago. So, it’s hard
to convince Hamas to go back to the negotiation table and to show some flexibility.
And on top of everything else, the Israeli public is exhausted. There were so many demonstrations. We’ve had a year of domestic upheaval regarding
Netanyahu’s attempt of a judicial overhaul in the beginning of ’23, if you recall, in the first 10 months before the war began, then there were
demonstrations against the war. Then there’s this heavy burden on Israeli economy, on Israeli reservists still serving so many hundreds of days in
combat duty in Gaza Strip and other places. The public is exhausted.
It will take a lot to convince many Israelis to go back to the streets and demand to the war. We see demonstrations all the time. We see hostages’
families who are absolutely desperate to end this, but the public response has not translated into aggressive demonstrations trying to move the
government in the other direction.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the press conference that the prime minister held over the weekend, one in English, one in Hebrew. Let’s play some of his
English press conference where he listed five principles he views that will end this war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER: Five principles for concluding the war. One, Hamas disarmed. Second, all hostages freed. Third, Gaza
demilitarized. Fourth, Israel has overriding security control. And five, non-Israeli peaceful civilian administration. By that I mean a civilian
administration that doesn’t educate its children for terror, doesn’t pay terrorists, and doesn’t launch terrorist attacks against Israel. That’s
what we want to see in Gaza.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, for a long time now, there have been demands for a day after plan from Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government. It appears
that one was at least partially delivered in that press conference. You call him though a leader that has lost the plot. So, how realistic is the
accomplishment of those five points?
HAREL: I find it hard to believe that he would reach these goals this time. We’ve seen him time and time again improvising regarding Gaza. His
policy has been much more successful on other fronts. We’ve seen the Israeli army perform quite effectively in Lebanon on the Syria border, of
course, in Iran with that 12-day war this June. And yet, Gaza is a different matter, the hostages, the destruction, the death count among
Palestinians, all this is making it a lot more difficult for Netanyahu to reach his goals.
And of course, there’s the domestic political problem. His far-right partners do not want to hear anything about any kind of self-rule,
Palestinian self-rule in Gaza. They object to both Hamas, but also to the Palestinian Authority. People like Minister Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are
actually hoping to reestablish settlements in the Gaza Strip for the first time since Israeli evacuation of the Strip 20 years ago.
So, all of this is going to be very, very hard for him to maneuver. My sense is that we haven’t seen the end of this yet, and that I’m not sure
yet whether Israel would in fact implement Netanyahu’s plan in the next few weeks or months.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, this plan he’s moving forward with as of now just by mounting pressure from international allies, Israel is increasingly finding
itself isolated, even among its closest allies, not only with the number of them recognizing or saying they’re going to recognize a Palestinian State
in the weeks to come, but then Germany now cutting off weapons sales for Israel in their war in Gaza. And yet, that hasn’t stopped the prime
minister. And there appears to be only one person that could really stop him right now, and that is President Trump. And yet, when President Trump
was asked about it, here’s what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: As you know, $60 million was given by the United States fairly recently to supply food, and a lot of food, frankly,
for the people of Gaza that are obviously not doing too well with the food, and I know Israel’s going to help us with that in terms of distribution and
also money. We also have the Arab states are going to help us with that in terms of the money and possibly distribution. So, that’s what I’m focused
on. As far as the rest of it, I really can’t say. That’s going to be pretty much up to Israel. Yes, please.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: How do you interpret that last sentence, as far as the rest of it, that’s pretty much up to Israel?
HAREL: Look, it’s quite an interesting phenomenon. Whenever Trump meets with Netanyahu, he enters the room of one position and leaves it with
Netanyahu’s position. We’ve seen this happen time and time again during the last six or seven months, but I’m not sure that this would remain the same
forever.
Trump is deeply concerned about those pictures of hungry children in Gaza. He’s made some statements about dead civilians in Gaza. I’m not sure that
the courts for Israel or for Netanyahu’s action would continue for months and months’ time. What I’m hearing from the Israeli side is that for the
moment they have a carte blanche from Trump as long as this ends quickly. And yet, the war itself or the operation itself, if in fact the IDF is
going to occupy Gaza City, may takes months — may take months. So, we’ll have to see if the president still has patience with Netanyahu for such a
long time.
GOLODRYGA: This, as we’re approaching the two-year mark of the war, I believe Israel’s longest in its history. Amos Harel, it is always great to
have your analysis. I know you are writing a book a about this war right now, can’t wait to read that book and get more of your insights from it.
Thank you so much for the time. Really appreciate it.
HAREL: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Now, all eyes are turning to Alaska, that is the venue for the meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States on Friday,
and it’s highly symbolic as well. Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. more than 150 years ago, leading critics to say that the choice serves as a reminder
to the Kremlin the national borders are not set in stone.
For Ukraine, it could be a worrying sign, and there’s apprehension for E.U. leaders too. There is zero indication that Putin has shifted on his
Maximalist demands. So, Europe may be left guessing what will be decided in their absence.
Let’s try to make sense of what could come next with Ivo Daalder. He was the U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama, now president
emeritus at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and he’s joining me live from Paris.
Ivo, good to see you. I don’t know if you were able to catch the president’s press conference specifically when he was speaking about this
upcoming meeting with President Putin. But he did say a number of notable things. One, he said that he will know in the first two minutes whether or
not he will be able to make a deal. And he also said that he will call President Zelenskyy out of courtesy immediately after the meeting, and then
notify other E.U. and NATO allies as well. What are your thoughts? What are your top priorities that the president should have on his agenda going into
this summit on Friday?
IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: I think the top priority is to tell Vladimir Putin that the ball isn’t in his court. He is the one who
needs to act, that Trump is meeting with him out of a courtesy. But ultimately, this war cannot end unless the main protagonist in the war are
both sitting at the table and the one country that is responsible for this war stops fighting.
From the very beginning, from the day this war started, which is back in 2014, it has been Russian actions that have led to the absorption of part
of Ukrainian territory, the bombing now for the last almost three and a half years of Ukrainian cities and it must end. There is no negotiation to
be done between President Trump and President Putin. The negotiation is to be done between President Zelenskyy and President Putin. And their — and
the people that they assigned to do that work.
So, the message has to be one of the ball is in your court. You need to move. If you don’t, there are serious consequences. The kind of
consequences that President Trump just a few days ago was reiterating he was willing to do, sanctions on Russia, serious implementation of an
enforcement of those sanctions and other measures that would really start to hurt Russia when — as it conducts this war. That is what this meeting
needs to be about, not a negotiation.
GOLODRYGA: And those sanctions and secondary sanctions were set to go into effect last Friday, but it was Friday when this summit was announced
instead. Is this a sign of President Putin just stalling and in fact, winning for himself in terms of showing his citizens and the world, quite
frankly, that he can still command the U.S. president to attend a summit in the United States of all places instead of the president saying, the time
is up, you didn’t agree to a ceasefire and we’re now announcing new sanctions on you?
DAALDER: Well, that would be far preferable. It would’ve also been far preferable that the president didn’t sent Steve Witkoff on his — what is
it, fifth visit to Russia in which he once again misinterpreted by all accounts what Vladimir Putin was willing to do. At first saying that that
Russia was willing to withdraw from the two provinces, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, when in fact, that is not what President Putin offered.
So, it would’ve been far preferable if from day one, President Trump has had decided that there was one victim in this war called Ukraine, one
aggressor in this war called Russia, and has stood up with Ukraine against Russia. But he’s not been willing to do that. He has it in his mind that
only he can bring peace in this conflict and deed in every conflict in the world, that his power of persuasion with someone like Vladimir and Putin is
all that it will take. As he said a few months ago, this war will not end until Putin and I sit down.
Now, you’re absolutely right. Sitting down in the United States, giving Vladimir Putin, someone indicted by the ICC for war crimes, the removal of
children from Ukraine into Russia, to sit down with this man at a time when he’s still actively involved in a war that is killing on a daily basis
innocent civilians, children and older people in cities that he’s bombarding is frankly beyond the pale.
But then, that’s not Trump’s worry. That is not what President Trump seems to be concerned about. He is concerned about finding a way to end the war,
which he believes equals fighting, the end of the fighting rather than a peaceful solution. And I fear that he’s — because Vladimir Putin has been
playing him for so long now that he may well come out of this meeting and say, here is what Zelenskyy needs to do, rather than here is what Vladimir
Putin needs to do.
GOLODRYGA: President Trump was asked why President Zelenskyy will not be taking part in these discussions on Friday. Here’s what President Trump
said in response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not invited on Friday?
TRUMP: He wasn’t a part of it. I would say he could go, but he’s gone to a lot of meetings. You know, he’s been there for three and a half years,
nothing happened.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what is the definition?
TRUMP: I mean, do you want somebody that’s been doing this for three and a half years?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I mean, how do you interpret that? He said that a number of times, repeating that President Zelenskyy has been in power for three and a
half years, somehow suggesting, at least I interpreted that as saying that he’s due to, you know, leave office and it’s time for new elections
perhaps? I mean, the irony here is not lost on any that President Putin has been in office now for 25 years, but how do you respond to that
justification for not bringing him to these talks as well?
DAALDER: With deep concern, because it demonstrates that, once again, the talking point that the president of the United States is using as a talking
point written in the Kremlin by Vladimir Putin and those around him, this idea that somehow Mr. Zelenskyy is illegitimate, that because he hasn’t had
an election, because his country has been bombarded and single every single day, particularly since President Trump has come back to office, the number
of bombings that are occurring has doubled in the last six months over that from any other period during this war.
And to somehow suggest that this war is Zelenskyy fault, that this is — has anything to do with Ukraine’s being at fault, that Ukraine has not done
enough to try to negotiate a piece and to leave aside the responsibility for Vladimir Putin, as you rightly say, who’s been in power 25 years,
changed the constitution twice in order to remain power and will do whatever he needs to do to remain power, to suggest that somehow Putin is a
legitimate interlocutor for the president of the United States, but Volodymyr Zelenskyy is somehow a little aid that he will do the work for
him is, frankly, outrageous. It is unacceptable.
And it just, again, underscores the deep problem that many people have. And I share with the president of the United States meeting with the president
of Russia unconditionally, without any sense of what it is that Vladimir Putin will offer, if anything. After everything that hasn’t happened in the
last three and a half years, indeed, since 2014 is frankly deeply, deeply concerning about what outcome we’re going to get.
This is a man who has never seen Vladimir Putin do anything wrong. And I fear we may come back and after this meeting in Alaska with all the
pressure on Ukraine and none on Russia.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. He did express some frustration with Putin today also saying that, you know, he says nice things on the phone and then he attacks
and bombards Kyiv and kills innocent civilians, but I understand your point. Let’s talk about what President Trump said on Friday that caused
quite a bit of frustration from the Ukrainians and confusion as well when he said that there could be some swapping of territories that would proceed
a cessation of hostilities, that led President Zelenskyy to call this proposal a non-starter, saying Ukraine will not hand over any territory
that Russia does not currently occupy.
Dana Bash asked the NATO ambassador, a man who holds a job you previously did, Matthew Whitaker, on this quote from the president. And he said, I’m
going to quote to you, “No big chunks or sections are going to be just given that haven’t been fought for or earned on the battlefield.” I found
that to be quite stunning to hear from a U.S. official saying that no chunks or no land would be given that haven’t been earned. I mean, what
could possibly be earned by Russia here?
DAALDER: Yes. I mean, President Trump has been very clear that he’s willing to sacrifice Ukrainian blood and Ukrainian territory in order to
find a way to get this war to end. I mean, we all know that the easiest way to end the war is for Ukraine to just give up and say, why don’t you take
it all? That’s — that was also one way to end the war.
And indeed, the proposal that the president of the United States and the United States put on the table some months ago for Saudi United and States
recognizing (INAUDIBLE) of Crimea as part of Ukraine, even as — excuse me, as part of Russia, even though of course it was illegally seized by Russia
from Ukraine, that it would accept the four provinces that Russia has wanted to be part of Russia, of — the Donbas, Luhansk and Donetsk,
Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, the four provinces in which they were illegal referenda to try to make them part of Russia. The United States was more
than willing to provide Russia with the legitimacy of seizing those provinces.
And then, also telling Ukraine that it could not join NATO and would not have security guarantees beyond whatever the Europeans were able to
provide. That was a U.S. proposal put on the table just three months ago. And I fear that what the president is saying and the fact that he continues
to be informed by Steve Witkoff, who frankly has not really ever understood what this conflict is about, has not really understood that the problem
here is in Moscow and not in Kyiv or indeed anywhere else, that that relationship between how the president sees the conflict and how President
Putin sees the conflict, that is too close.
And I think the intent here is that he wants to end the fighting, not because he cares that the conflict ends, but because he wants to get his
Nobel Peace Prize for having ended the war, but you can’t end a war unless you also resolve the conflict that underlies it. And that conflict is
caused singularly by the fact that Vladimir Putin wants to deny Ukraine its sovereignty, its independence, and its ability to choose its own alliances.
That’s what this war is about, and it won’t end until that is resolved.
GOLODRYGA: In the final few seconds we have, this hastily announced meeting has notably excluded not only Ukraine and President Zelenskyy, but
Europe as well. I know that E.U. foreign ministers are meeting for an emergency meeting today. Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, has said
that it could only be Trump and that could test the waters with President Putin. But what are you hearing from European officials in terms of their
being left out of these talks?
DAALDER: Well, the same deep concern that has been around for the last five plus months since really the Munich Security Conferences and the
confrontation between president and Vice President Vance and President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. This idea that the United States has chosen
Russia aside that it doesn’t believe Ukraine has the right to be at the table, that this is something that, you know, big powers and big people
like Putin and Trump can resolve. And then, Ukraine will do what they tell them to do. And so will the Europeans, if they don’t have a role on the
table, even though they’re the ones who will have to provide for security and live with the consequences.
But this is how Donald Trump sees the world, great powers get to do what they want. Others will just have to abide by those wishes, and that’s what
is now clear, in this case, in the Alaska Summit and with the issue of Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Ivo Daalder, we appreciate you taking the time to join the show. Thank you so much.
DAALDER: My thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, next, President Trump’s immigration crackdown continues with sweeping mass arrest by ICE. Russian asylum seekers who fled Putin’s
repression know about the risks all too well. In recent years, many have applied for political asylum in the United States with some facing the
threat of detention and even deportation back to Russia.
Our next guest, Dmitry Valuev, set up a nonprofit to assist those whose lives are on the line. And he joins me now from Washington, D.C. Dmitry,
welcome to the program. So, you’ve said the U.S. is changing how it’s treating Russian asylum seekers. Explain how, specifically from the Biden
administration to now the Trump administration?
DMITRY VALUEV, RUSSIAN PRO-DEMOCRACY AND ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST: Thank you for having me. To be short, the issue with Russian asylum seekers started about
a year ago in May-June, 2024 when most of the Russian asylum seekers at the asylum border, when crossing the border with the U.S. and requesting asylum
in the U.S. started being detained in huge numbers. Most of them have been detained since then with the requirement to defend their case in court.
However, in detention, without access to internet to — without any support infrastructure, without being able to translate the documents, because
immigration courts do not accept any documents other than in English, most — many people started failing their cases without an ability to defend
themselves effectively.
When Trump took over in January 20, 2025, with his executive order to close the southern border drastically changed the policy. So, most of the
Russians who tried to apply for asylum at the southern border are being deported right away, back to Russia, regardless of the case, regardless of
the harm — potential harm that they can face in Russia.
And in addition to that, people who’ve been detained since May-June, 2024 who are still in detention, they started failing the cases. They started
losing their asylum and they started being deported back to Russia, again regardless of their threat back in Russia.
GOLODRYGA: Do we know how many Russian asylum seekers were here in the U.S. and how many have now been deported back to Russia?
VALUEV: Unfortunately, the immigration authorities do not release those exact numbers. They — the statistics gives the overall population of
immigration detention facilities. I think as of now it’s more of 50,000 people. As of — based on our numbers, our estimates and based on our
service that we collect from asylum seekers in detention, we can say that more or less Russian asylum seekers are probably estimated to be about a
thousand people in detention. But again, it’s very rough.
GOLODRYGA: And what do they fear specifically? I mean, one can guess. But just talk about the consequences of what happens if they are in fact sent
back to Russia.
VALUEV: We can use the example of Leonid Melekhina who was a Russian asylum seeker, who spent about nine or 10 months here in the United States
in detention. He lost his case. He lost his appeal as well, without any support, without any legal representation. He was deported back to Russia,
was arrested, charged in terrorism, and he’s in Russian prison now facing a very lengthy prison term.
We deal with people now who are in very similar situation with Leonid — as with Leonid, people who’ve been prosecuted back in Russia, who’s — who
have criminal cases against them in Russia for their political views, not because they’re criminals, but because of their political views, because of
their prodemocracy views. We have a woman in detention now over — a little over 60 years old from Vladivostok who helped Ukrainians who’ve been
abducted on occupied territories and reallocated all over the country to Vladivostok, and she helped them to get back to Ukraine.
Because of that, she was prosecuted. She fled the country and seek for asylum in the U.S., and she’s still in detention. She lost her case
unfortunately because of lack of legal representation and because of lack of abilities to defend themselves. And there are many — unfortunately,
there are many, many cases like that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Well, your group, America — Russian America for Democracy in Russia. I know you’re trying to help some of these asylum seekers. Just
tell our viewers exactly how you are helping them.
VALUEV: We assembled a team of about 40 volunteers. It’s a purely volunteer initiative. About 40 volunteers. We help with very, very basic
things. We cannot provide legal support because we’re not attorneys. However, we can seek for legal support. We work with immigrant attorneys
who provide pro bono support. We sometimes finance individual consultations that help significantly, really, for people who do not have any legal
representations. We provide free translation.
And we provide — what’s important we provide communication for people who are in isolation and detention. Sometimes with people — for people who are
— you know, who do not have any communication with their family members in a different detention because, unfortunately, family separation is one of
the things that happen.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
VALUEV: One member of a family is placed in one detention, another in a different detention. There are two different immigration cases. They cannot
communicate with each other properly, so we help with that too.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we know that the majority of asylum seekers who are against the Russian government and specifically against this war have left
for European countries. But when everyone asks, how do Russians feel about it? Why aren’t more speaking out? This is a case study on Russians that are
trying to speak out and leave the country and sound the alarm. So, very interesting and important initiative that you’ve taken on.
We should note, Dmitry, that we’ve reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, obviously, which oversees ICE, we have not had a
statement from them just yet, but if we do get one, we will update our viewers as well. Dmitry Valuev, thank you for joining us. Really appreciate
it.
VALUEV: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Now, to Sudan, where civilians are bearing the brunt of the country’s brutal conflict. The World Food Programme now warning of
starvation in the besiege city of el-Fasher and North Darfur. It’s another crisis in the devastating civil war that has been raging since April of
2023, rooted in a power struggle between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary group, RSF.
Just last month, the International Criminal Court found that there are reasonable grounds that war crimes are being committed in the country.
Journalists Anne Applebaum and Lynsey Addario witnessed the immense suffering firsthand, and they joined Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what the
U.N. is calling the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Lynsey Addario, Anne Applebaum, thank you both for joining us again.
Anne, I want to start with you. You’ve got a new report out from Sudan. You cite some statistics in this story, and about 14 million people have been
displaced by the years of fighting. That’s more than from Ukraine and Gaza combined. At least 150,000 people have died in the conflict, and that’s
probably a significant under count.
And half the population, nearly 25 million people are expected to go hungry this year. You know, those are kind of abstract numbers for people when you
see such large numbers. But how do you put that in perspective? You know, what does it feel like on the ground when you see people that are in this
place?
ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I think the place in Sudan that where those numbers came home the most for me actually was, it was a,
I guess you’d call it a displaced person’s camp, but it wasn’t really camp. It was a group of people who were living in a former school. This is
outside of Khartoum, kind of suburbs of Khartoum. And they’d been moved from wherever it is that they had been, and they brought some blankets with
them and they were — I mean, there weren’t tents, there wasn’t any organized food distribution. There was no evidence of any international
organizations or anybody else.
They were simply sleeping on the ground or lying on the ground. It was very hot. It was a hundred degrees Fahrenheit and it was also Ramadan. So,
people weren’t eating much during the day. And the feeling there of stasis, you know, everybody was stuck. It wasn’t clear where they would go. It
wasn’t clear how they would get out of this place and go to another place. And that sensation that the future has been cut off, that we didn’t know
what we’re going to do next or where we’re going to go, I ran into that over and over again.
SREENIVASAN: Lynsey, you have so many different powerful images throughout the reporting. This — the piece that just came out and the piece in May as
well. And I wonder if you could just kind of describe a little bit for our audience, the context of these images. One is of — or several are of
literally children scrambling for bowls of food on the ground. And, you know, tell us, is that a daily occurrence? Is that often? I mean, how
widespread is it? It’s, I think, hard for most Americans to imagine that sort of insecurity.
LYNSEY ADDARIO, PHOTOJOURNALIST: Correct. So, those images are from Chad. And that situation we were covering actually one of the emergency response
rooms. It was a community kitchen. They’re given a certain amount of money and they make as many meals as they can to feed the refugees, the Sudanese
refugees who have just come across to Chad. And that is a perfect illustration of the fact that the U.N., WFP, they did not have enough
budget to feed people, give them one hot meal when they arrived.
So, thousands of people were coming across the border into Tiney, into Northeast Chad, and they literally had nothing to eat and they had no
tents, they had no shelter. And they would just sit for days, sometimes up to 10 days in the sweltering sun. Again, over a hundred degrees, no food.
So, when one of these trucks full of giant pots of food would come to feed people, there was a mad scramble, and people were literally jumping over
each other. At the end of one of these situations, literally the children just could not hold their patience anymore and just started literally
diving onto the ground for food. And it was complete chaos.
And it just speaks to how hungry and how desperate people are. And I think, you know, inside of Sudan, inside of Darfur and el-Fasher, there’s been an
official famine declared. Now, we don’t have images. BBC was able to sneak in a few cameras to locals, but we have not been able to cover that because
no journalists have been allowed inside to document that.
But what I imagine we would see and what has been described are, you know, literally people withering away to the bone because there is no food. It’s
under siege at el-Fasher.
SREENIVASAN: And you know, these images are pointing to a complete destruction of any sort of aid infrastructure. What is the relationship of
the role that the United States used to play and compared to what it does now and how that kind of has an effect on the International Community and
the aid that flows in?
APPLEBAUM: So, the United States previously supplied about 40 percent of the world’s humanitarian aid, but the U.S. also supplied most of the
logistics for that aid. And so, that means everything from trucks that moved grain around, to websites that collected statistics and allowed
people to plan bank accounts and payment systems that were used to pay for aid.
And one of the things that happened when USAID was shut down, especially given the way it was shut down, I mean, literally just shut, people were
told to leave their offices. They weren’t given access to their e-mail, they weren’t given access to those payment systems, and they were told to
go home, is that you had these cascades of chaos.
And even U.N. organizations that didn’t know they had some relationship with U.S. aid found that they were suddenly missing something or pieces of
the puzzle weren’t working, or the funding for some of their staff was disappearing. And you can feel it all the way down to really the kind of
micro street level.
We were in a soup kitchen, one of the soup kitchens that’s run by local Sudanese. And they told us, well, we used to serve people, I think, it was
five days a week and we’ve had to cut down to three days a week. because we aren’t able to get the same amount of supplies and we’re — the supplies
we’re talking about are beans, you know, or, you know, a little bit of grain. I mean, this is nothing very complicated or sophisticated. But even
that tiny amount of food, and this is probably pennies worth of food, was being cut because of the chaos of what happened in Washington for reasons
that are still pretty obscure.
And the effects of that are many, and they’re multiple, and they’re still flowing through the system and, you know, there are — there will be people
who will die or who will starve, who will not have access to medicine because of the decisions that were made in Washington.
SREENIVASAN: There’s a photo of a little child, Lynsey, that you took wearing red shorts and this little girl is clearly been wounded and has not
gotten the treatment she needs. I mean, what happens when a child like this gets injured? Where do their parents, if they have parents, take them?
ADDARIO: So, I mean, the answer to that really depends on where they are when they’re injured and sort of who is controlling that area. What we saw
both in Darfur and also in Khartoum were that the civilians, of course, are always paying the price of being injured in mortar attacks and airstrikes.
And so, if they were in SAF controlled areas, they were lucky because they had a hospital that they were able to go to if they could get there. And
there were trained doctors. There was minimal medicine, but enough to treat them. And so, for example, Anne describes in the beginning of her story how
there was shelling going on. And after one of those attacks, I ran to the hospital in the middle of the night and there were literally 36 wounded
children and women splayed out on the floor of the hospital.
And there were so many wounded that actually there absolutely was not enough medical care to take care of them, but they were being treated, they
just had to triage them and figure out who obviously was most gravely injured.
In the case of that girl, she was also injured Omdurman, in — close on the outskirts of Khartoum. But she was on the RSF side. So, she could not go to
that hospital. She, obviously, instead of crossing front lines, they fled then to Nyala or they fled elsewhere in Darfur. And so, I don’t know
exactly what kind of care she got initially, but when I met her, she was already in Junaynah, had been displaced twice and was — clearly, had not
been treated properly for her wounds because she had trouble with movement, the scarring had caused her — her muscles were frozen up. And you know, it
was a family that was living literally in an empty, unfinished building in Junaynah and waiting for food.
And so, there are so many issues at once. You have civilian casualties, you have victims of mortar strikes and airstrikes on both sides, and then you
have short a shortage of access to medical care and not proper nutrition to feed people so they can properly get better.
SREENIVASAN: You know, Anne, I’m old enough to remember an era where, you know, celebrities tried to raise the visibility of Sudan. This was just a
couple of decades ago or less, right, and there were evangelical Christians that made it a point to, you know, raise awareness in churches on Sundays.
And I wonder, I mean, you spoke to a — the prime minister, Abdullah Hamdok, who, you know, ran the short-lived civilian government, and he had
an interesting line in your story. It says, the world we got to know, the consensus, the Pax Americana, the post-Second World War consensus, is just
no more.
How do we get from that era just a few short decades ago where America seemed so interested and engaged in what was happening to the people of
Sudan to this sort of a statement?
APPLEBAUM: It’s been a very fast shift actually. I mean, we maybe don’t notice it because we are so distracted by all the other things that are
happening inside our society. But elsewhere in the world, the Withdrawal of America, the loss of interest of America is felt pretty sharply. And I
don’t want to exaggerate the role that America played in Sudan. I mean, it was — you know, it’s never been a priority in American foreign policy, but
you could see that it was a subject that people were aware of, cared about and were interested in. There was an exhibition at the Holocaust Museum in
Washington about Darfur as well.
And I think, you know, the U.S. also, I should say, played a role then in ending one phase of the Civil War. It played a role in South Sudan, which
had been part of the of the rest of Sudan seceded from Sudan and created its own country. And the U.S. had played a kind of mediating role as — you
know, in all of that.
And for Sudanese now, the — you often meet people who aren’t even necessarily pro-American or you know, huge fans of the United States, but
you still meet people who say, where is the United States? You know, we miss having someone who would occasionally come from the outside who had
the diplomatic clout to organize a conference or a conversation or a negotiation who could get all the warring parties in one room together, you
know, make them sit down and talk.
And there is this feeling that there used to be more of an order, there used to be more influence of the U.N. Security Council, used to have its
envoys that it would send to various places and they would have some status, and they were able to play a role. I mean, as the U.N. Security
Council has grown weaker, and I talk about that a little bit in the story too, and as the U.S. has become distracted and focused on its own problems,
focused on other parts of the world, then, as I said, you have this feeling of vacuum, you know, this feeling that there’s nobody who cares about Sudan
as a whole.
You know, there are only, as I say, these middle powers, these, you know, neighboring countries who have interests or are of economic interests or
who, you know, have alliances with different groups. You know, you’ve lost any sense of there being what we used to call a liberal world order. So, a
set of rules, a set of organizations and institutions, a pattern of people who could in a crisis help out.
And, you know, there’s a way actually that you can measure the decline of that system, which is, if you look at the number of refugees in the world
as a whole you can see throughout the ’90s and early 2000s, it’s about the same the whole time. It’s about — I think it’s about 40 million, you know,
it goes up and down a little bit year in, year out.
And then, starting about 15 years ago, there begins to be this very rapid climb. And we’re now at about two and a half times that. And I think that’s
a reflection of the fact that wars aren’t solved and conflicts aren’t ended.
SREENIVASAN: You met some interesting people on the ground who were trying to do their best. You spoke to a doctor who treats severely malnourished
people. You met an activist. But what were they — tell us a little bit about them. What were they trying to do? What were they telling you?
APPLEBAUM: So, I met a lot of Sudanese people who are very committed to staying inside their country and to doing what they can as long as it’s
possible to make things better. Some of them are organized. There’s a movement called the emergency response rooms, sometimes they’re also called
mutual aid groups.
And they — many of the people who work with them or who volunteer there are people who were part of previous democratic movements in Sudan. There
was an era when there was a lot of pressure from students and professionals and others to open up Sudan, to bring back the rule of law, to create a
good legal system, to make a more just state, you know, to do more reconciliation and to calm things down. This is before the Civil War broke
out. And many of the people who were part of that are now running food kitchens or they’re — you know, they’re helping people get medicine or
they’re raising money outside the country to bring in something.
And so, you do have the sense that there’s a kind of patriotism and a sense of the importance of community that I think must be very old there. And
then you do start to worry that if the situation continued to get worse or if there were no end to the fighting, how many of them would become
discouraged? Would they leave? I mean, you still have the possibility, you know, you still have people who want a different kind of Sudan and who can
articulate it and imagine it who are still there and who are still on the ground and working. And we have to hope that, at some point, those people
begin to be — have a — begin to have a larger role in how their country is run.
SREENIVASAN: Photojournalist Lynsey Addario and staff writer for The Atlantic Anne Applebaum, thank you both for your recording and for your
time today.
ADDARIO: Thank you.
APPLEBAUM: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, to the City of Eternal Spring. Medellin, Colombia has been celebrating its 68th annual flower festival with a brilliant
parade of color and bloom. The crowds cheered on more than 500 silleteros this Sunday, who carry artistic creations and rural pride on their
shoulders. The flower bearers pay tribute to Colombia’s rich heritage, turning a practice from Colonial times to a beautiful show of cultural
identity. As one happy participant said, you can’t wait for the day to arrive. And boy did they shine with those arrangements yesterday.
All right. That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York