Loading summary
Transcript102 lines
- [00:05]
A
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:10]
B
Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again, the moment we bring back hope.
- [00:18]
A
Britain has yet another new prime minister. Can Andy Burnham bring fresh energy to UK politics? I speak to Lucy Fisher, who covers British government for the Financial Times, and former UK National Security Advisor Peter Ricketts.
- [00:34]
B
Then.
- [00:36]
C
It is very important that our partners understand what is happening and that we need air defense missiles to protect lives literally every single day.
- [00:45]
A
A plea for support from Volodymyr Zelensky amidst controversy in Kyiv as his government undergoes a major overhaul. Ukrainian journalist Natalia Gumanuk joins me with the latest politics and war news.
- [00:59]
C
And we see really problematic approaches from ICE officers in the way that they are stopping cars and the way that they're interacting with motorists and the way that they're communicating with people.
- [01:10]
A
Is ICE making US Streets more or less dangerous? Michelle Martin speaks with former police officer Seth Stoughton, who teaches excellence in policing and at the University of South Carolina. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodriga. New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Today, the United kingdom gets its seventh prime minister in just 10 years as Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester, enters number 10. Speaking without notes or a lectern, Burnham promised Britain a fresh start.
- [02:01]
B
Britain needs to show the world that we can regain our stability once again. And that is our challenge to make politics work. To make it work better, the new
- [02:17]
A
prime minister proposes an ambitious reset, sending power out of Downing street, making life's essentials more affordable and re industrializing Britain. But the list for changes for Burnham is long, from high energy costs to tax burden to the task of placating America's mercurial President, Donald Trump. There's no doubt Burnham is a stronger communicator than Keir Starmer, but questions persist about whether he is decisive enough to meet the challenges of office. For more on all of this, let's bring in Lucy Fisher, who is Whitehall editor for the Financial Times. Lucy, welcome to the program. So here we have a prime minister entering office with no general election, no contested vote. He was backed by 95% of Labor MPs. He addressed sort of the unconventional way he's entering office. Earlier today, here's what he said.
- [03:13]
B
I know people at home are fed up with politics. I hear you, and I want to be honest with you. We have not been good enough and we need to be better. We will be. We will make this moment a circuit breaker for Britain, bringing forward the biggest changes in the last 40 years.
- [03:42]
A
Does Burnham actually have a mandate with the British public to follow through on these changes that he's promising?
- [03:53]
D
Well, I think it's a very difficult tightrope that Andy Burnham has to walk, because on the one hand, he is an unelected Prime Minister, what political scientists in the UK now call takeover Prime Ministers. It's not unusual. In fact, a majority of the past 20 prime ministers in the UK have been these midterm takeover Prime Ministers who've come in without their own general election. But it does mean that he is bound by a manifesto that he himself did not put forward. And on the one hand, he's had to repeatedly promise that he will stick to that manifesto and he will stick to the fiscal rules laid out by the previous administration, while on the other hand, trying to present himself as the. This change maker who will answer the public's call for change and who want to see radical reforms coming in quickly. So that's going to be difficult for him to achieve.
- [04:47]
A
And some of those changes will come by way of new Cabinet appointments. How can he successfully navigate that tightrope with addressing concerns with both the right and left sectors of the party?
- [05:07]
D
Well, you know, we're waiting with bated breath here in Westminster for the first Cabinet appointments of the major roles to be announced. His Chancellor, his Foreign Secretary, his Home Secretary. What we have heard so far this afternoon is all those ministers from the Starmer administration who have been axed, and it is striking that there is a whole slew now of Starmer loyalists who have been forced out. That has raised some eyebrows here. He hasn't decided to keep on some of Starmer's key conciliaris to show that he wants a broad church. There's also eyebrows raised at the number of southern MPs who've been sacked from the Cabinet. Again, you know, he's made no secret of the fact, you know, he's from the north, he's a Manchester region mp, and wants to sort of rebalance the geographical emphasis in the country. However, there is a risk in doing that, that Southern MPs, particularly those representing London and the southeast, which traditionally have been the economic engine of the uk, feel, you know, their noses have been put out of joint by the choices he'd made in his Cabinet.
- [06:19]
A
Kemi Badnuk has challenged him to, quote, face a proper press conference. So far, he's given interviews to Gary Lineker, the LBC and a Reddit Q and A. How long can a Prime Minister govern without avoiding or While avoiding the typical type of interviews that Prime Ministers give.
- [06:43]
D
Well, I think possibly not long, not least, as in the uk, you know, it is the print, newspapers and the broadcast media that still very much dominate the narrative here. On top of that, I would note that there has been a lot of criticism for Bernie for sort of trying to avoid the mainstream media. But he did, within an hour of finishing his first speech as Prime Minister on Downing street, invite in the political editors of Westminster for a 10 minute briefing in the Rose Garden in Downing street to talk about, you know, his priorities and direction for his government. He gave some fresh newsline to those journalists, including making clear he wants to exploit flexibility in the fiscal rules. Also giving a bit of a hint he might introduce a new higher rate of income tax for the highest earners. So already while he's wanting to sort of look modern and show his authenticity on social media, with lots of reels showing a more tongue in cheek side by batting his eyelashes, which are unusually long, it must be said at the camera and sort of making jokes about the fact he likes to wear T shirts rather than suits, it does feel like he will have to engage with the mainstream media as well as wanting to give interviews to sort of friendly podcasters and so forth.
- [08:04]
A
Yeah, and I'm sure you have already put in your request, as have we here at cnn for an interview. He claims that he has a secret economic sauce. The economy front and center for voters there, a quote, business friendly socialism, that that is what he says will be the most effective policy moving forward. He calls it Manchesterism. What is Manchesterism and can you scale it to a national economy in the uk?
- [08:36]
D
Well, he argues that the reforms that he helped continue within Manchester. We should point out he wasn't the author or architect of many of those reforms. They were the brainchild of other luminaries of the Greater Manchester local government scene before he came into office a decade ago, invited the court private sector in to play a crucial role in the regeneration of the city centre. It is fair to say that Manchester has been a success under his auspices. You know, in many metrics, whether it's unemployment or growth, it has topped European league tables in recent years. I think you're right to question whether it can be scaled across the country. That is a key question. And again, using terminology like business friendly socialism has given rise to criticism that, you know, it's a Boris Johnson formula of having one's cake and eating it. And already while, you know, he has tried to stress, including in his first speech as a Labour leader, last Friday that he'd be a pro business Prime Minister. Some of his other policy emphases, including trying to take public utility companies into more government control, you know, that could harbour bad news for shareholders if that means full scale renationalization. So I think a lot of people are waiting to see exactly what substance there is to that sort of very vibes based sentiment he's trying to project.
- [10:02]
A
Well, the inbox is quite brutal. A £58 billion welfare bill heading to £78 billion, 2 million elderly people with unmet care needs. He promised to end homelessness. The list goes on and on. Where does that funding come from?
- [10:19]
D
Well, it will be a difficult task for his Chancellor to work all that out. On top of that as well, Keir Starmer announced a £15 billion uplift to defence spending over the next four years. Five billion of that is completely unfunded. The rest is earmarked to come from departmental capital budget cuts. But again, the details of that are yet to be determined in. Not easy for any new Prime Minister to come in and start canceling school building and hospital building programs, that's for sure. But you know, he's trying to give a sense today of his policy, of the direction of his government by saying he wants to get the welfare build down. He's talked about trying to introduce more support, including mental health support, to get young people into work. It's really trying to stress a preventative approach to welfare, stopping people in the first place from getting onto the welfare benefits bill by helping more people into work. But a lot of these policies to do that will cost money up front. So it's not easy to see how he squares that circle.
- [11:24]
A
Well, Nigel Farage, the clause are out already. Nigel Farage is already calling for elections. Burnham believes that he can beat Nigel Farage in Labour's heartland here. No, British Prime Minister, let's just leave it at this. In the past decade has lasted more than three years. Is the party right to bet on Andy Burnham to break that trend?
- [11:52]
D
Well, they saw what he did in Makerfield where, as you point out, voters had plumped for reform in recent council elections in the Greater Manchester region. But he won with a very commanding majority and therefore his party are hoping that he can scale that across the country and build on that success to, you know, produce a platform in which Labour can beat reform at the next general election. So that is the million dollar question. But so far I think the Labour Party feel that after the drubbing they received across English councils and in Scotland and Wales in May he is their best bet to try and bring about that outcome at the next general election.
- [12:33]
A
All right, Lucy Fisher, we will leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it. As a former mayor and Cabinet minister, Andy Burnham has plenty of government experience, but on the international stage, he's an unknown quantity. And whatever his plans for Britain domestically, his success as prime minister could rise and fall on oversight of crises from Iran to Ukraine, and his global policy leadership on climate, migration and AI. So how will Burnham deal with the most pressing international challenges? Let's bring in Lord Peter Ricketts, former National Security Adviser under Prime Minister David Cameron. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. So we know the number one relationship here is that with the United States. He has already spoken with President Trump and per report reports, Andy Burnham assured President Trump that London would be committed to defense and security and would help support the safe reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. That is from Burnham's office in a statement issued not so long ago. Just talk about the dynamics at play with this relationship and what's at stake here, given what we saw, sort of quite successful start to a relationship with Keir Starmer that that began to fizzle out.
- [13:54]
B
Thank you. Yes. I mean, this is a crucial relationship for the uk, of course, and it's encouraging to see that the first international contact that the new prime minister made was with Donald Trump. And I take that as a signal of continuity with Keir Starmer's policy on the big international issues. Of course, wanting to work with Donald Trump, inviting him to the G20 summit next year, which is going to be in Manchester and new Burnham's fief after the US G20 meeting in Miami this year. I think the differences that have been between Britain and America on, for example, Donald Trump's war on Iran will continue. I would expect Andy Burnham to be a figure of continuity on Ukraine, continuing to maintain the very strong British support for Zelensky and for arming Ukraine and stepping up on European, more European work in NATO. But he has got to find the money to back up commitments that Britain will continue to play that leading role. And as Lucy Fischer was just telling you, that is difficult to maintain the upward swing in our defence spending. So there are big issues, but it's clearly off to a good start if he's made it a priority to call Donald Trump.
- [15:12]
A
So let's talk about the challenges that one, on the one hand, facing constituents at home and the economic challenges that that he says is his top priority, while also on an international stage, pledging to continue support for the war in Ukraine. So I'll ask you the question I asked Lucy. Where does that money come from?
- [15:34]
B
Well, that's the big political challenge. It's the money and also the time. The money can only really come from finding reductions in welfare spending. I don't think our fiscal financial position allows us to borrow much more than the markets are expecting. Therefore, it's got to come from reductions in government spending or increases in taxes, which certainly wouldn't be popular here. So there's an issue of money. There's also an issue of time. I think Andy Burnham will be advised by his domestic people that Keir Starmer spent too much on international work. Always seem to be on a plane to a summit somewhere. And yet, as we found out with the Gulf crisis, conflict anywhere can have immediate economic implications everywhere and can affect prices in the us, in the uk, prices for energy, interest rates. So Andy Burnham can't afford to ignore the big international issues, even as he tries to put more energy and imagination into domestic politics. The two go together in this interconnected world. So both money and time on the international stage are going to be a challenge for Andy Burnham.
- [16:42]
A
Clearly, he is arguably a better communicator than Keir Starmer. President Trump was able to communicate very well with his constituents in the US for both the campaign and his first term, and then his second. And yet, when it comes to the war in Iran, many fault him with not selling the war and not making a case for. For the war with the American public effectively enough. How important is it for Andy Starmerfor Andy Burnham to do the same? Basically lay out what you just did for our viewers about telling the constituents, his supporters, the taxpayers in the United Kingdom, why supporting countries like Ukraine matters.
- [17:26]
B
It's absolutely vital he does that. Yes. I mean, we are asking British taxpayers to continue bearing a considerable burden to supply arms to Ukraine to help them financially at a time when there are so many domestic priorities. But we have war in Europe and we have serious military experts telling us that Russia will continue to be hostile, whatever the outcome. In Ukraine, we've already had sabotage, subversion, a whole lot of dirty tactics from the Russians in Europe. And there are some who say that we could face some kind of provocation with Russian forces coming across the border in the Baltic states, for example, really quite soon. So we have to explain to the British public, and this will be a task for Andy Burnham, that they are not facing normal times. These are dangerous times. The world's in a disordered state America is pulling back gradually from its support for NATO. Europeans are going to have to do more and that will mean spending more. And I hope Andy Burnham's excellent communication skills can be tuned to that. They're not where he's been at the moment. He's been very much focused on the domestic agenda, but he cannot ignore that need to go out to the British public and sell the need for more security and more defence in amongst all the other challenges.
- [18:42]
A
Well, in the moments that we've just been speaking, former British Defense Minister John Healy has been named as Chancellor, or for our American audience, a finance minister under Andy Burnham's new. Is that a surprise to you? Because that wasn't the top name that had been floated. And just reminding our viewers that John Healey actually stepped down from the post of Defense Minister over disagreements over budget concerns.
- [19:12]
B
That is a surprise to me. He's a very able minister, as you say. He was a very successful Defense Minister for two years. He stepped down because he didn't think there was adequate funding going into defence to fund the strategic defence review that we had last year. So the fact that he's been made Chancellor, I think is a very strong signal that Andy Burnham will take the defence and security aspects of the budget seriously. And that will be very encouraging, I think, to Britain's allies as well, because they will see John Healey, who they know very well, as someone who will take fully into account the need for more defence spending. So rather than one of the two figures that were under discussion, Shabana Mahmood, who? The previous Home Secretary or Ed Miliband, the long serving climate and energy Secretary. He's gone for someone in the middle of the Labour Party, a competent, well respected figure across the party and the country and with a good international profile as well. So that strikes me as a very interesting and rather encouraging appointment.
- [20:14]
A
What message do you think that sends NATO allies?
- [20:19]
B
Oh, a message that, you know, Andy Burnham's government is determined to keep Britain as an active, involved member of NATO, paying its way, rebuilding its military strength, meeting the requirements, the objectives we have from NATO over the next few years. Rather than constantly being doubtful about whether the Brits will have the money to have the resources to meet their NATO requirements, I think it will be taken as a very positive signal.
- [20:45]
A
Let me talk more about the relationship between President Zelenskyy and Andy Burnham, especially given that President Zelensky and Keir Starmer. I believe Keir Starmer just returned from a meeting with President Zelensky just a few days ago. This one is One to watch. Andy Burnham has put pledged to continue to support Ukraine. Obviously, words are one thing and welcome news to Ukrainians, but actions are quite different. Here's what Andy Burnham said on this issue about President Zelensky expecting steadfast support from Britain.
- [21:21]
B
I'll be making very clear later today to President Zelensky that, you know, there is no change. I will be with him 100%, as Keir Starmer has been.
- [21:35]
A
Are those reassuring words in Kyiv and is there any possibility for perhaps even more security guarantees that the United Kingdom can offer to Ukraine?
- [21:51]
B
I think there will be reassuring words. I mean, it's a cross party issue now, a cross party agreement in the UK ever since Boris Johnson was Prime Minister six or seven years ago, that Britain stands stalwart with Ukraine and each government, each prime minister have recommitted to that. Keir Starmer, I think, had a very good relationship with Zelenskyy. I mean, he was instrumental in the hours after that rather very difficult Oval Office meeting at the beginning of Zelensky's period to pick him up in London and help him and get him back on track. So they had a very strong personal relationship. I think the fact that Andy Burnham said that I know he's intending to make Zelensky the second phone call he makes after Donald Trump will all send a signal of continuity and that's, I think, important in Ukraine now, yes, it's got to be backed by real results. But with John Healey sitting in the treasury, that sounds like a very good alignment of the planets for Ukraine and that they should expect no change in British support as they confront this summer of continuing massive Russian attacks night by night.
- [23:00]
A
As it relates to other conflicts, Andy Burnham has said that Keir Starmer was too slow to call for a Gaza cease fire, yet he hasn't offered a fine set of policy changes toward Israel that perhaps he would implement. And as it relates to President Trump, prior to their conversation, Andy Burnham said that he would meet him wherever he was. And that was viewed as somewhat of a vague statement. What does that actually mean? We're starting to see a little bit of that play out. I read you the readout from ten Downing about their conversation. As it relates to the war in Iran and the Strait of War moves, but as it relates to climate and energy. In a post on Truth Social, President Trump celebrated what he said are plans by Andy Burnham to allow unrestricted drilling in Britain's invaluable North Sea oil and gas fields, frame the policy choices there. If in fact this is accurate, as Donald Trump is outlining.
- [24:03]
B
Well, I think that probably Donald Trump is slightly over estimating some comments that Andy Burnham made about that. I mean, there has been a long running issue in our politics whether we should invest more in the North Sea oil and gas resources or whether we should, to respect our climate change targets, put all the available money into, for example, wind or solar energy. Keir Starmer took a very restrictive approach to that. Andy Burnham has suggested that he might facilitate more investment by the oil and gas companies in the fields in the North Sea. He's not said that he would give new licenses. And I rather think the president has interpreted what he said to be open season for new licenses for more drilling in the North Sea. I think the president talked about people dancing in the streets of Aberdeen. Well, I'm not sure they're dancing in the streets of Aberdeen because I think that Andy Burnham's plans are much more restricted than that. Some easing up of restraints on investment because in the end, oil and gas is still important in our energy mix. But I don't think it's going to be open season for the oil majors to go drill in the North Sea. So I fear there's a bit of corrective is required there. But on that whole agenda, I think Andy Burnham and his government will continue again pretty much the standard British approach on climate change. One of the international conferences coming up in a busy autumn is the climate change conference in Ankara in November. And one of the signals that Andy Burnham will send is whether he goes to that in person or not to keep up some kind of leadership on climate change. And there we will have to wait and see.
- [25:44]
A
Yeah. And as you noted there, Andy Burnham has not yet issued any licenses to allow further drilling, despite what President Trump and his interpretation of that policy is going forward. Peter Ricketts, thank you so much. Appreciate the time.
- [25:59]
B
Thank you very much.
- [26:01]
A
And later in the program, battered by Russian ballistic missiles, Ukraine pleads for international support. We get the details from Ukrainian journalist Natalia Gumeniuk. That's after the break.
- [26:19]
E
I'm Adi Cornish.
- [26:20]
A
I'm Ari Shapiro.
- [26:21]
E
And it's engagement party.
- [26:23]
C
And we get to talk about what
- [26:24]
E
we're obsessed with, what we're engaged with, what we need to process with a
- [26:27]
C
friend, your favorite Love island.
- [26:30]
E
Young people are actually gathering in person,
- [26:32]
A
in public places to watch it as
- [26:34]
E
if it were, I don't know, the
- [26:36]
C
World cup or something.
- [26:37]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [26:38]
E
The takes are coming in hot and
- [26:40]
A
fast, but not as hot and fast
- [26:43]
E
as the takes coming in for Christopher
- [26:46]
A
Nolan's the Odyssey, which is crazy because this movie, it's only just now coming out.
- [26:53]
E
Follow Engagement Party wherever you get your podcasts.
- [26:58]
A
Tech reporter Claire Duffy this week on the podcast Terms of Service. Adam Alexik is a linguist and the author of the New York Times best selling book Algo Speak. He posts to his millions of followers as the etymology nerd.
- [27:12]
C
Why is everybody saying the word adjacent all of a sudden? Has anyone else noticed that the word crunchy kind of changed meanings? If you think you're somehow immune to sounding more like AI, you're wrong.
- [27:20]
A
I spoke with Adam in a live event at the Paleo Museum in New York City last month.
- [27:24]
C
Creators are using certain linguistic strategies that work better for the algorithm. There are memes that are replicating around what goes viral, around what resonates within certain clusters of the Internet. Then that bleeds over into our real speech. And now we have children in middle schools writing essays about how Hamlet contemplated unaliving himself. And that's fascinating to me. It's fascinating to me that the Pope is doing 6, 7. I think we should get to the bottom of that.
- [27:51]
A
Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts. Now. Russia has carried out intense ballistic missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. Overnight, dozens have been killed or injured. Once again, President Zelensky pleaded for more anti ballistic interceptors from international partners. But Zelenskyy is facing more than just a shortage of defensive weaponry. Political protests have grown over his decision to fire his popular defense minister, Mykhailov Fyodorov. Zelensky chose to side with his commander in chief, Alexander Syrsky, known as the Butcher for tolerating high casualty rates among his troops. By contrast, Fyodorov famously champions Ukraine's successful use of drones. So what will all of this mean for Ukraine? Let's ask journalist Natalia Gumeniuk, who is joining us from Kyiv. Natalia, welcome to the program. Before we get to internal dynamics there and the fallout from the firing of the defense minister, let's start with the overnight assault, one of the largest ballistic missile barrages of the war thus far on Kyiv, the third major attack on the capital in just over the last month. You're there. Tell us about its impact and how it is affecting residents 24 hours later.
- [29:15]
F
So of course, Kyiv, the capital, has become one of a really, really dangerous place because it's targeted precisely, especially with the ballistic missiles. Within the last year, Ukraine developed the anti shahed anti drone interceptors, homegrown technology. So Russia started to use the more and more ballistic missiles, which is harder to intercept because specifically the ballistic missiles can be intercepted with the Patriot missiles and we know there is a global scarcity. I'll dare to remind that as according to the Ukrainian the president office of Ukraine within those three months, three weeks of the campaign in Iran the amount of the Patriot missiles used it was a half of what by the US and by the Gulf countries, half of what is used in Ukraine within the four years of the war. So there is a deficit and Ukraine tried to get more Ukraine trying to intercept Ukrainian air defense most which is possible to do so Ukrainian answer is not really the short term. There are these decisions about the anti ballistic missile coalition within the Europe those the money would be invested to develop the technology which won't be dependent from the US but meanwhile of course the the nights are more dangerous. There are the attacks which are precise on the specific neighborhoods. Russia this time is using kind of old Soviet maps so they are trying to attack all kind of facilities
- [30:50]
E
where
- [30:50]
F
they allegedly consider to be any type of the drone production. But that could be. We don't know what is there. And we for instance would learn the news that one, one and a half million of the books which has been printed has been destroyed. Of course there are civilian casualties. Luckily there are not that much. But Russia does it because they can't do much in the battlefield. That's the point. Ukraine kind of managed to reach some kind of the parity in the battlefield. The only thing Russia does is this terrorizing of the civilian population with no much military gain but trying to destroy the morale. However, we understand that it's hard for people. It's very exhausting. It's dangerous, it's dangerous in the capital. However, it doesn't change the Ukrainian attitude towards Russia. Ukrainians are not going to give up because of that because it's because of Russia trying to terrorize the civilians.
- [31:47]
A
Let's talk about that internal debate now over what happens to the battlefield and the war as this war is now entering and has entered its fifth year. And of course I'm referring to the firing of Defence Minister Fyodorov. He is the first fourth defense minister since the larger scale invasion in 2022. He is very young, 35 years old, no military background, but is quite popular and is really being championed for turbocharging Ukraine's drone warfare there and cutting off Starlink access for Russia as well. It appears that President Zelenskyy sided with his commander in Chief Alexander Syrsky, who has many supporters and many critics. Many say that he is viewing the military and the Troops there as too expendable. That's why he's been dubbed the Butcher. How did we get to this point and how much pressure is President Zelensky under right now? Given the decision he made?
- [32:49]
F
I should say that's probably one of the biggest Zelenskyy mistakes within the last years, which would cost him a lot. Mainly because he kind of didn't read the attitude of the people. Fedorov was not really that popular before, however, of course he's young, he's progressive and important. To explain what was specific about Fedorov, who joined, who was like the social media manager for Zelensky during the election campaign and then developed this very successful Ministry of Digital Transformation. But that ministry before Fedorov has become the Minister of defense since 2020 was Pioneer for building the infrastructure for the drone war. So more or less creating the system capable to scale, to streamline the procurement of the drones, to procure drones and all other things outside of the old system, where drones were not considered that important weapon before 2025, when the drones now account for 95% of the casualties both on the Russian and Ukrainian side. So Federer was really doing all kind of like accelerators for the drone producers. And then he was appointed as a Minister for Defense in early first days of this year, 2026. And I would try to explain what really happens because it was quite surprising. Ukraine looked like very successful in changing the course and the tide of the war with the technology substituting the manpower, which Ukraine obviously lacked compared to Russ with the technology. And further very interesting put himself that people in Ukraine felt that initiative is finally again in the Ukrainian hands and the trajectory was, you know, shut down with this, his unexpected dismissal. I won't demonize Syrsky that much, however, he kind of represent more or less like the old conventional guard of the military. So Ukrainian army is the army of the civilians. There is this revolution of the drone warfare. So there are different views to how the war should be fought, whether there should be more military discipline or whether this new technology can really be game changer. I would personally insist that the drone technology is a game changer. But that's dismissal. That's why was so unexpected and it caused the everyday protests in Zen in Ukraine. We can imagine that there are people coming close to the presidential office, to the square every single day, even today. And for the last days. It's quite clear that most possibly Zelensky will need to fire Syrski. He would for the last day he's meeting the candidates for the new Commander of the General Staff. You know, it's still pending, but it was very unexpected what happened with, you know, also the Minister of Defense coming out to the open briefing and saying that like I need to tell truth. There are problems, problems in the army after four years. There are things we have to change. We should be honest, otherwise we won't win this war. We would be in a dire situation if we would, you know, fight in the law in the old way. So that's what is the conflict in a nutshell.
- [36:11]
A
Yeah, this does seem to be sort of a battle, an intergenerational battle here. As you said, old guard versus new guard and Fyodorov really representing drone warfare and the technology that they've explored around the world beyond just the battlefield there in Ukraine. What does President Zelenskyy need to do in the next 24 to 48 hours to quell some of this frustration? As you noted, and it's been reported he is meeting with potential generals to replace maybe even both of these men at this point. On the one hand, it's a sign of democracy holding that a country in five years of war is allowing its citizens to come out and protest. On the other hand, it's a sign of underlying tension and frustration. What does he need to do?
- [36:59]
F
So the demand of the people and it's a very active part of the society. The people who come on the streets all over the country are mainly very young people. They are fathers mainly fighting in the army, fathers, mothers, maybe, you know, brothers. I think that the demand is formally to bring back Fyodorov because after the initial, initial shock, the parliament, you know, kind of seized the moment not to vote for a new minister. They needed to, to give this time. It's a bit unlikely that he will return further of to his position. And I don't want just to speak a lot of rumors because situation, you know, the rumors are every hour there is something new coming. But he needs to return some way to, you know, like to bring the new commander in chief. First of all, it moved to that level. The federal need to have quite position somewhere in the government. But the influence of that decision on the Zelenskyy would be quite, you know, what he has already done would be quite harsh. But again, it's indeed the symbol of the democracy during the war having this type of protests.
- [38:10]
A
Natalia Guminyuk, I'm so sorry we are out of time, but we will continue to monitor this very rapidly developing story coming out of Ukraine. Appreciate it. And coming up for us after the break, anger rises after US Immigration tactics spiral into violence again. Michelle Martin speaks to a former police officer about what's going wrong. That's up next.
- [38:39]
C
I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. We're going to talk to Dr. Jennifer McIntyre. She's a microbiologist and also founder of Food Safety Strategy, which consults with food companies about how to deal with food safety, including cyclospora. Also, perhaps most importantly, we'll tell you what you can realistically do to protect yourself beyond the standard guidance to wash your fruits and veggies.
- [39:05]
E
If we look at outbreaks that have
- [39:07]
D
happened in the past, we usually hypothesize
- [39:11]
A
that there was water that was contaminated with raw sewage, including from somebody or maybe a few people who were carrying cyclospora.
- [39:22]
C
Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [39:32]
A
We turn now to Trump's immigration crackdown, which has turned deadly again. In the last few weeks, three people have died during encounters with ICE agents, sparking public outrage and raising questions about law enforcement tactics. Michelle Martin speaks to Seth Stoughton, former police officer and now professor of law, about this rise in violence, what might be going wrong and how to fix it.
- [39:57]
E
Thanks, Bianna. Professor Seth Stoughton, thank you so much for joining us.
- [40:01]
C
Thank you for having me.
- [40:02]
E
We're talking to you today because roughly in the last week, three different people have been killed in encounters with ICE agents or ICE officers. You know, two of them from being shot in a moving car. One of them was running away and then was hit by another car. But this is not these are not the only examples. I mean, federal immigration agents have opened fire in at least 22 incidents since President Trump returned to office, resulting in six deaths, including three U.S. citizens. The Washington Post has reported that They've identified like 17 instances in which these immigration officers fired into moving vehicles. They didn't all result sort of in deaths. And so just the first question I had for you, as a former police officer yourself, as a law professor and as a person who studies the use of force, how does this strike you?
- [40:53]
C
Troubling. It's troubling. Some of it might be attributable to an increase in operations. As we increase the total numbers of ICE encounters, then it makes sense that we're going to increase the total numbers of even those small percentage of encounters that involve use of force. The troubling part, though, is the consistency that we see between some of these events that have been depicted on the media. We see poor tactics. We see really problematic approaches from ICE officers in the way that they're stopping cars and the way that they're interacting with motorists and the way that they're communicating with people. And then after incidents, we see some troubling things from the agency as a whole that suggests we might not be just dealing with individual officers who may not be as well trained as we might want, or maybe deviating from their training, but instead there might be some agency level pressures that are creating this behavior that is contributing to bad outcomes.
- [41:55]
E
So let's take these things piece by piece. When you talk about sort of problematic approach approaches, what are you talking about? Because this is, frankly, this is a job that most of us aren't going to have to do. So when you talk about problematic approaches, what are you talking about?
- [42:09]
C
That's a great question. And although most people don't make traffic stops, most people don't arrest other people. There are a group of people who do. State and local police officers. State and local police officers make a bunch of traffic stops, well over 10 million a year. It's the most common way for someone to eat, interact with a police officer in the United States. They arrest about a million people a year, according to data that's reported to the FBI. So although it's not in sort of general public knowledge, we do have a specific professional group, officers, who are used to doing exactly the kind of things that we see ICE agents doing, stopping cars and arresting people. And that's really important because policing as a profession has developed standardized ways that officers, officers stop vehicles or don't stop vehicles, or approach a vehicle once it's been stopped or not, or the way that officers may go about arresting someone, for example. In other words, ICE agents are not writing on a blank slate. They are building on a historical practice that has been developed not in some ivory tower, but on the street as policing and as officers have engaged in very similar actions. It may not be for immigration enforcement, but the actual actions are very similar. So when I'm talking about problematic practices, I'm looking at things like how ICE agents are actually conducting traffic stops, that is how they're initiating those traffic stops. In at least some cases, we see vehicles that are unmarked. And even worse, some of the vehicles don't appear to be equipped with, or at least don't have activated any kind of emergency lighting, the flashing red, blue and white lights, overhead lights, or even onboard lights. Right. And that's really problematic in policing. We have a general preference for marked units, that is visibly identifiable police vehicles to stop cars, one, so that people Know it's a police officer that's stopping you, and two, so that the overhead lights that are flashing alert not only the driver that someone is trying to stop, but also all of the other motorists or pedestrians on the road who now have to address that there are vehicles stopped in what might be a lane of traffic. So when ICE deviates from that specific, very basic practice, it creates some problems. ICE officers are often approaching vehicles, sometimes stepping into or maintaining positions in front of or behind a vehicle, which exposes the officer to danger if the vehicle moves, or sometimes just breaking windows with very, very little provocation. Right. Not giving the person in the car an opportunity or an explanation to comply, but instead breaking windows really abruptly in a way that can actually provoke someone to flee rather than to comply.
- [45:15]
E
So that leads me to a question of whether are these people engaging in these stops poorly trained, or is this intentional conduct being dictated by their superiors for some purpose apart from best law enforcement practice? Because what I'm hearing you say is these de escalation tactics and these professional tactics for making a stop are not just to make the person feel better, it's to protect the officer as well. It's a best practice because it protects both parties.
- [45:51]
C
I don't have a complete answer there. I would note that ICE has been in the business of immigration enforcement since it was created. So the idea of stopping people, arresting people or detaining them on civil immigration orders, even conducting raids, that's not new to the agency. I have a really hard time believing that the agency and that officers at the agency haven't been exposed either recently or historically to the kind of training that we're talking about. Right. The basic professional approaches that we're talking about. Maybe, maybe newer officers aren't getting that training. Again, I'd be surprised, because they go to one of the federal law enforcement training centers for their basic training. And even if the training schedule, these are the kind of things that I would certainly expect to be continued even in a compressed training schedule, because they are essential not just for the effective performance of the job, but for the safe performance of the job. Right. Ensuring the safety of the agents and the community members.
- [46:59]
E
After these most recent killings, administration officials reportedly instructed ICE to suspend most vehicle stops while it reviewed its tactics. Okay, but just hours later, President Trump publicly disagreed, writing on one of his social media platforms, we cannot give up one of ISIS most important and effective crime fighting tools, the traffic stop in all caps. What do you make of that? And what message does it send when the president sort of contradicts this in such a public way.
- [47:31]
C
I think what it tells me is that we don't actually know who's calling the shots or what the basis for their strategic and tactical decisions are. It would certainly make sense to me if you have an agency that has identified a potential problem for the agency to take not even a full step back, but just a half step back and say, all right, how do we improve future outcomes? How do we make our enforcement efforts safer and more effective? And by the way, I'm not even getting into the immigration policy debate here. Right. It's not about whether ICE agents should be engaged in the kind of operations they're engaged in. All we're focusing on now is how they should be doing it. Assuming they are engaged in these operations, how should they be doing it? And the answer, and I think this answer would probably be shared by whoever at the agency decided to pump the brakes a little bit, should be they should be performing these operations in a professionally appropriate, competent way that is not likely to prove counterproductive and undermine the safety of the officers and the community members involved. Maybe the administration does not entirely share that perspective, but it feels like a breakdown in communication about what is happening and why it's happening.
- [48:50]
E
Needless to say, I and other reporters have asked the Department of Homeland Security multiple times over the last couple of months about their. About their tactics, procedures, and strategy. Okay. Especially, you know, earlier this year, there was a lot of focus on Minnesota, where two citizens were killed in encounters with ice. You know, one was driving a vehicle, one was on the street. So in defending its tactics, DHS has said repeatedly that ICE officers are facing an 8,000% increase in death threats and a more than 1,300% increase in assaults while carrying out arrests. And so their argument is that this is their mission is increasingly dangerous, and that is what justifies these tactics. How do you respond to that?
- [49:36]
C
This is where being a researcher helps a little bit, because whenever we see numbers like that, I want to know what we mean by those numbers. How are we defining those numbers? Right. When we're Talking about an 8,000% increase in death threats, is that at an individual level, or are they pulling comments on social media that are not actually directed at agents specifically, but have some rhetorical flair?
- [49:59]
B
Right.
- [49:59]
C
There's a huge difference between those two things, especially with what we consider to be a death threat In a country with a First Amendment, we certainly have the right to criticize, including in very harsh terms, the way government acts. Now, in no way am I supporting threats of Violence or wishes of violence. Right. Political violence or interpersonal violence is something that we should not condone and should condemn. And I do condemn very strongly. But when they say an 8,000% increase in death threats, I'd like to know exactly what they mean and how they're developing that number. The same thing is true with assaults. If someone is driving away from a traffic stop and they pass by a ICE vehicle, or if an ICE agent has to step out of the way because they were standing in front of the car in a position that they never should have been in, is that really an assault or is that interaction that is sort of incidental to the nature of the encounter? Right. Something that is effectively one, entirely avoidable had officers used good tactics, and two, is really more of an attempt to escape. Here's another example. If ICE agents are arresting someone and that person is resisting and pulling away, is that an assault? Because if that's what you mean, a 1300% increase in assaults, then that might actually just go along with an increase in operations. Right. The more operations you have, the more resistance you're going going to have. And if you're classifying that as an assault, that feels kind of inevitable. So given this administration's history, I have to admit that I am at least somewhat skeptical of numbers that they throw out without some specific definitions and methodology to support them.
- [51:47]
E
You actually wrote about immigration agency tactics earlier this year. Earlier this year, there were some very high profile incidents where two United States citizens were killed in encounters with ice, neither of whom was the target of an ICE operation. You said that one of the biggest departures from professional policing is the failure of agency leadership to respond responsibly to critical incidents. Tell us what you mean by that.
- [52:16]
C
Unfortunately, we have a long history of critical incidents like officer involved shootings in the United States. And that means we have a pretty well informed body of professional knowledge among police executives and among folks who look at and study this field about how an agency should respond and maybe more importantly, how an agency shouldn't respond. For example, it takes a while to generate even good preliminary facts about an incident, and then it takes a little longer to check those facts out. Right. In a sort of trust but verify approach. You don't want an agency head to be providing information to the public that is maybe speculative. You don't want them to characterize information before we actually know what that information is and we have a chance to understand the full context. You don't have to wait months and months for a complete investigation, but you do have to wait some period of time until you feel pretty confident in the nature of the information that you're providing. And what we've seen from ICE this year has been extremely confident, definitive statements about what happened and about how to characterize what happened. That is, these are the facts. And officers acted appropriately in this situation. And often those statements have come within hours of the critical incident. And it's just not credible to think that there is the type of robust, methodical investigation that we need to come to that kind of conclusion in that timeframe. And when those statements have been offered and then been discredited with publicly available video, for example, that shows often pretty clearly that what's being said did not happen in the way that it's being described. Rather than taking an appropriate level of backtracking and saying, we are continuing to look into this, this is an emerging investigation, we are still understanding and gathering the facts. What you see as statements doubling down on the initial description and characterization, that's just not professional leadership.
- [54:27]
E
Professor Seth Stoughton, thank you so much for talking with us.
- [54:30]
C
Thank you for having me.
- [54:33]
A
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media media. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye from New York.
- [55:08]
C
Go inside the sports moments that brought
- [55:10]
E
us together and made history.
- [55:12]
C
From the underdogs to the rivalries and and the miracles.
- [55:15]
E
The new CNN original series, Decades in
- [55:17]
C
Sports Watch back to Back premieres August 2nd on CNN.
- [55:21]
E
And next day on the CNN app.