Christopher Bolido (3:55)

Well, I think that it's remarkable that both John Paul the Second and Francis willed themselves to live. You can't think of it as any other way to Easter. Francis gets to Easter, passes away overnight. Pope John Paul the Second got to Easter. Last time we saw him was on Easter Sunday, just like Francis. And John Paul the Second passed away the Saturday after that. So I think it was just kind of a force of will. His last messages to us on Good Friday and also in his very short will, which was just released, was to link his suffering with the suffering of the world of Good Friday. John Paul II famously said, you don't come down from the cross. So it's an. It's an enormously welcoming message to people who are physically suffering or may find themselves suffering because their housing is not secure, their food is not secure, their job is not secure.

Christiane Amanpour (4:52)

You know, John Paul II played such a pivotal role in my life, just throughout my childhood. He was the only pope I knew growing up. And his papacy lasted longer, obviously, than Pope Francis. I believe it was some 27 years. But Pope Francis no doubt leaves an indelible mark as well on the Catholic Church and on the direction that he has taken it. Give us your thoughts on that.

Christopher Bolido (5:17)

Yes. I want to say, respectfully, that I think the traditional progressive dichotomy is a little too much, because if you take Catholic theology and you put it along, say, an American or Western political spectrum, it doesn't work. John Paul II was as much a champion of the poor as Benedict or Francis. We tend to put that on the left side of the political spectrum and not on the right side. And so I think it's more a matter of style that John Paul II and Benedict were very much kind of command Papacies, if you will. John Paul II was a diplomat, Benedict xvi more a college dean. Both of them were pastors. But being a pastor, I think, was how Francis conceived of himself. All different shades, of course, but the style was very different. Whereas France, John Paul II and Benedict were very much kind of, this is the way it is. Francis wanted to talk about things. He did not change Catholic doctrine. And the people who are kind of afraid of Francis, I think, forget that he didn't change Catholic doctrine in any way. But what he said was, let's talk about it. And more importantly, the only way to move forward together is to listen. Humbly, shut up and listen. And I think that there's really this moment in time where we need this kind of prophet versus global indifference who reminds us that it's not about me, it's about we.

Christiane Amanpour (6:49)

And also what was notable with John Paul II was he was sort of in line with the times, especially as an American growing up, observing it and really fighting against Marxism, communism. Here you have a bit different with Pope Francis, who is an outlier of sorts, at least when it comes to US Policy and other European policies that we're starting to see trend against migration, against allowing in migrants. And yet he stood for firm by his convictions. And so that also is quite notable. I do want to now turn to where this leads in the search for his successor. You of all people can talk about the history of how a conclave works. I believe up until before 1800, we had seen quite a different process. Since then, we have the cardinals the past few hundred years gathering and ultimately deciding on who the next pope will be. But walk us through the history of this process.

Christopher Bolido (7:54)

Sure. So the Catholic Church is 2000 years old. For about 1200 years, the Pope or the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the Roman clergy or the Roman people, sometime in what's called acclamation, calling things out, sometimes Roman families in back rooms cutting deals. But in the year 1274, the church put into play what we call the conclave, locking them up with a key. In Latin, conclave becomes the Italian and English words conclave. And that was because there was too much outside interference. So between 1274 and now, we lock the cardinals up. Now, when you only had several dozen cardinals, now we have 135 electors. You could do that in the rooms outside of the Sistine Chapel. They're locked in the Sistine Chapel. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said, well, come on, this is ridiculous. We have to update it. And he built a dormitory, the House of St. Martha. And so the cardinals are like a sequestered jury. They'll be shuttled back and forth.

Christiane Amanpour (8:57)

And when I mentioned 1800, that is when the burning of the famous smoke. Right. Of their votes was actually introduced. And why every time we see a new pope, which we should note is not that often, you make a point that there have been 60 US elections election since 1788, only 16 conclaves in that same period. But when we're looking for that white smoke, that tradition began in 1800.

Christopher Bolido (9:26)

Right. So when people talk about the Catholic Church being very traditional, you always have to kind of ask, well, what do you mean by, what do you mean by tradition? As a historian, one of the things I say is that the only constant in church history is changed.

Christiane Amanpour (9:41)

Yeah. And you also say expect the unexpected. So explain why it's not a given that despite the fact that this is a pope who appointed the majority of the bishops who will now beor the cardinals who will now be deciding and voting on his successor, we shouldn't necessarily expect a name, even though there are already lists of who people are betting on.

Christopher Bolido (10:07)

Right. And there are a couple of reasons for that. Pope Francis, his critics say he's been stacking the deck. Well, every CEO, every principal, every president stacks the deck. If you define that as bringing in like minded people around you, what moron wouldn't do that? Right. And so John Paul the second, Benedict the 16th, did the same thing. And yet when you've had 35 years of kind of two kind of monarchical papacy is John Paul II and Benedict xvi, how do you get Bergoglio, who is a decentralized pope? Well, you've had Italian popes for 455 years. How do you get a Polish pope in 1978? So there's a wonderful Italian word, popobile, literally means poppable. You know, the 10 or 15 guys that everyone says, well, these are probably kind of the insiders. Well, there's, there's a saying, if you go into the conclave as pope, you're going to come out as a cardinal. The only time that we kind of, in recent years, 1963, everyone was kind of like, yeah, the guy from Milan, Montini is pretty much going to be Pope, and he went in as pope and came out as pope, that is Paul vi. But typically expect the unexpected.

Christiane Amanpour (11:22)

Well, there's also a chance now, especially given the number of cardinals that he'd appointed who were not traditionally from Europe, but from Africa, from Asia, that there's a chance we could have a first African, African or first Asian Pope Pope Francis, we should note, was the pope first pope from Latin America, Christian, spoke with Cardinal Turkson in 2013 before Pope Francis was actually chosen. I want to play sound from that conversation.

Bianna Golodriga (11:47)

We're beginning to see from all of these young churches matured prelates, mature churchmen who are capable of exercising leadership in the church. So the possibility that a candidate or any of the guys, any of the cardinals to be elected pope can come from the southern part of dope is very real.

Christiane Amanpour (12:06)

And here is Christiane's conversation with Philippines Cardinal Tagle in 2015, sometimes called the Asian Francis.

Christopher Bolido (12:15)

This is the most populous continent of the world, but the Christian population remains like only 3% of the total Asian population. And half of that Christian population is found in the Philippines. The past popes, the past 50 years have been trying their best to link Christianity with Asian cultures and sensibilities. We have the same hope with Pope Francis.

Christiane Amanpour (12:42)

Cardinal Tegel there from Asia, and obviously we heard there from Cardinal Turkson from Africa. What is the likelihood, in your view, that we will see the first pope from either Asia or Africa?

Christopher Bolido (12:55)

Well, it's certainly going to happen in this century, maybe in our lifetime, maybe in the next two weeks, or maybe not. For the first time in history, half the cardinals who are electing the pope will be from a place other than Europe and North America. So about 70 of the Cardinals who are voting are from the global south, below the equator. We've had three popes in history who, who were from North Africa. This is in the first 500 years of the church, but we've never had a sub Saharan African. So it's going to happen one way or another. We just don't know when.

Christiane Amanpour (13:35)

Yeah, you mentioned that the policies of Pope Francis weren't necessarily changed, but obviously the thought process and the open conversation and the dialogue that he allowed was a bit different. And it's notable to hear from experts that say, listen, if you do have a first pope from Africa, a first pope from Asia, these are also continents where typically these cardinals are more conservative even in their dialogue than Pope Francis. I'm wondering if you agree with that assessment that on the one hand, you could see a first once again in history with either the first black African pope or the first Asian pope. But at the same time, perhaps the progressive dialogue won't be the same.

Christopher Bolido (14:24)

I don't see a moving back from the dialogue because process was very important to Frances and people want to be heard. Don't you want to be heard? I certainly want to be heard. Right. We all do. So I think that process is going to still be in place. But we should also note that while conservative might mean theologically conservative, nevertheless we have many poor countries in the global south, and these cardinals have been leaders of those poor countries and looking and caring for the very same people that Francis was caring for when he in fact took the name Francis, which he told us was for two reasons, the poor and peace.

Christiane Amanpour (15:07)

What else is interesting to me that perhaps our viewers aren't aware of is that for the first time these cardinals may be meeting, that they may not know each other as well as one might think, given that they're spread around the world. And as we noted, these conclaves don't happen that frequently. Just talk about that process. You go from not knowing anyone to all of a sudden being sequestered in a room for several days, if not weeks together.

Christopher Bolido (15:34)

Yeah, one wonders what that summer camp is going to look like. There are signals who kind of have been campaigning and Francis always talks about what he called airport bishops, who, you know, are, they're flying around so, so often that they're never in one place very long and they're kind of, kind of campaigning. But I will say that because of the synods that have been taking place, which Francis wanted to be much more participatory, he has been bringing the cardinals into Rome with more frequency. So even though there are 135 of them, none of them can know everyone closely. There has been more interaction than has been the case in the past.

Christiane Amanpour (16:17)

All right, Christopher Polito, we didn't get to 101 questions, but listen, by the time a new pope is chosen, perhaps we will. We'd love to have you back on in the interim until we do have that announcement and see the white smoke. Thank you so much for joining us. Well, after this short break, a new threat to the environment Pope Francis revered. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, how to choose the right vpn, whether to trust public WI fi, what to do with those annoying cookie pop ups, and more. To help me answer these rapid fire questions, I've invited Rachel Toback back to the show. You may remember her from our episode about setting and managing your passwords. Rachel is an ethical hacker and the CEO of Social Proof Security, where she helps people and companies keep their data Safe. Listen to CNN's terms of service with me, Claire Duffy, wherever you get your podcasts. Now, today is Earth Day, an opportunity to celebrate Pope Francis climate legacy as well. In 2015, he published a papal encyclical, a brief to Bishop on the environment, writing with love of God's creation, but declaring that the earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. Now, while Pope Francis helped inspire the world to fight climate change, the Trump administration is working overtime to undermine the Pope's legacy. Layoffs, funding cuts, and regulatory rollbacks are laying waste to indispensable resources, including the national oceanic and Atmospheric Organization, home of the National Weather Service. Richard Spinrad. Rick Spinrad is a former NOAA administrator, and he joins me now live from Washington. Rick, welcome to the program. If we could just begin on the legacy of Pope Francis and his dedication to climate as well. I wrote a bit, I read a bit from his first papal encyclical focused solely on the environment. Among the many tributes coming in to the man and to the Pope were from climate activists and experts like John Kerry, Al Gore. But it's interesting to hear how one religious scholar, a Jesuit priest, put it in his dedication to climate. He said, before Pope Francis, climate change was seen as either a political issue or a scientific issue. What his encyclical did was frame it as a spiritual issue. Just wanting to get your thoughts on his contributions to the subject.

Bianna Golodriga (18:58)

Yeah, thank you for having me, Bianna. His contribution was remarkable for a vast community going well beyond the Catholic Church. I mean, let's put this in context. So he became Pope just a few years after the Arab Spring, a crisis that we now know was caused in large part due to a large regional drought and agricultural failure. And so just a few years later, as you said, in 2015, when he issued the encyclical, he described climate change as, quote, a global problem with grave implications, a concept that really shook the world. And in fact, it was just a few months later, when we think back, that the UN had their seminal climate conference in Paris, where the Paris Agreement was established, arguably one of the most influential policies associated with how to address the problems of climate change. Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis talked about what he called an integral ecology, and he was full of insight in recognizing that climate change and ecological issues were integrally connected and intricately part of society. Politics, economics. And throughout his papacy, he carried that thought forward. I can only hope that the next pontiff carries the same kind of perspective, insight and initiative for addressing climate change and environmental issues writ large.

Christiane Amanpour (20:37)

Yeah, we should note the 10 world leaders cited his encyclical while signing the Parents Climate Accord, as well, as we noted, today is Earth Day. I would dare to say you don't think there's much to celebrate here in terms of the progress or lack thereof, or sort of the headlines coming out of this administration as it relates to, to the environment and to climate. Talk to us about your reaction to the protests that we're seeing, not just to climate change in policies focused on climate change, but to a number of this administration still in its infancy, but a number of their policies that don't sit well with many Americans.

Bianna Golodriga (21:18)

Yeah, I think, to put it in context, I'm old enough to actually remember the first celebration of Earth day back in 1970, a time, I'll remind your viewers, when President Nixon actually established noaa, we passed the Endangered Species act, the Clean Water act, the Clean Air Act. So it's a very different time, but I think it was viewed back then 50 years ago, 55 years ago, as the purview of just a select group of scientists. The positive side of this story is that in the ensuing 55 years, we've made great progress in understanding the environment to the extent that now we can start to develop what solutions we might have to addressing the impacts of climate change. But, and this is a big but, a lot of that progress can be turned around, stopped, basically inverted, with the kinds of policies and budget initiatives that we're seeing coming out of this White House. Basically stopping research, taking what we used to call the products and services of NOAA that are used by every sector of society, by every community, by every individual in the country, taking those, if you will, offline, is going to have grave, grave consequences in terms of lives, livelihoods and lifestyles. So I am very concerned. I'm pleased to see the kind of attention that these issues are getting. But I don't think we've quite got to the point where members of Congress, key industry leaders, understand even just the return on investment that we're getting from the kind of work that is provided by noaa.

Christiane Amanpour (22:53)

So explain it to us, because many Americans, most would be familiar with the acronym of noaa, but under the auspices of DOGE and Cutting Waste, Fraud and abuse, Americans also seem to be on board with that, too. It was an issue, a campaign promise and pledge from this administration. So talk to us about exactly, and tell our viewers what NOAA does for everyday Americans that they may not be aware of.

Bianna Golodriga (23:18)

So, Diana, let me start that by saying what I'm about to tell you costs each American six cents per day. Okay, so now let's figure out the value, obviously, the weather forecast. So if you live in the Southeast right now, or the central U.S. your lives are dependent on the hurricane forecast, the tornado forecast. We're getting into fire season in the west and the northwest. Phoenix Just saw 100 degree weather last week. So all of those weather products are part of what NOAA does. NOAA is, I believe, the best way to characterize it, our nation's Environmental Intelligence Agency. So if you want to know something about what's happening in the oceans, what's happening with sea level rise, are there red tides off my coast? And what is the potential for having a vibrant fishery, how healthy and safe is my seafood space? Weather is another part of NOAA's portfolio. So the safety of aviation, the accuracy of our GPS and the reliability of our energy grids all depend on the products and services of noaa. So all of that environmental intelligence, which allows people, industries, every sector of commerce is invoked in terms of what NOAA does is provided for 6 cents a day. Strikes me that that's not the place to go looking for efficiency. In fact, I would argue that what we need to do is invest even more in our nation's ability for producing environmental intelligence.

Christiane Amanpour (24:43)

So according to details that have emerged from a planned report, again, this hasn't been made official, but it does appear that the White House is at least considering cutting funding for NOAA quite significantly by some 27%. What impact would that have on the work that NOAA provides?

Bianna Golodriga (25:02)

One of the main areas that have been identified by the White House to eliminate is NOAA's research portfolio. Several hundred million dollars of research and many thousands of researchers around the country. Well, what does that mean? It means that basically all the things I just alluded to, your hurricane forecasts, your tornado forecasts, your long term seasonal outlooks will never get any better. That's one thing it means. It also means that whether you are a recreational boater or a farmer, you're not going to be able to get the information you need. Think about farmers right now who are busy developing their planting plans for this year. They need to know what is it that I should plan for in terms of rain, in terms of temperature? You're not going to get that information. So basically taking a step back, probably 20 or 30 years in terms of the ability to provide this information is what will be guaranteed if these budget cuts are implemented.

Christiane Amanpour (25:57)

So when you hear the administration, when you hear from tech billionaires and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk come in and say, we're not taking away valuable technology, we're trying to invest in new, better, more accurate technology, that this is antiquated bureaucracy that the administration and the federal government has been promoting and paying for for years. We're going to stop that. We're going to invest in the private sector and make your weather radar systems even better. Your response to that is what?

Bianna Golodriga (26:27)

So my first reaction is show me where in the private sector they are actually interested in taking on both the operational and maintenance expenses of something like the weather service. They don't have the capital to do that. They also are not prepared to take on the liabilities. And more importantly, they ought to take a look and see what progress was being developed. I'll give you a very specific example. The weather service has 122 Doppler weather radars around the country. Many of them are a couple of decades old. While I was administrator, we undertook an aggressive program to develop a whole new radar technology. That program was well on its way to implement state of the art radar technology coupled, oh, by the way, with state of the art satellite technology. Stepping in now and saying no, we don't think the government can do that. Right is really short sighted, misguided, and most importantly, ill informed.

Christiane Amanpour (27:18)

Why do you think they have such an axe to grind with what is objectively science? I mean, there's no political ideology attached to improving fire surveillance and forecasting hurricanes. I mean, the number one things that Americans turning the television on in the morning look for in local news is traffic and weather. Why has this become such a personal battle for this administration, in your view?

Bianna Golodriga (27:43)

The only thing I can assume is that it's shooting for effect to try to demonstrate that by cutting programs and firing federal employees, we've reduced the cost to the American taxpayer. Because when you look at the return on the investment for the weather service, studies have shown that every dollar we invest in weather, we see about a $70 or $80 return. So it cannot be for efficiency policy. It's got to be shooting for effect to demonstrate action, even as misguided as it may be.

Christiane Amanpour (28:13)

So here we are, the US Once again headed into hurricane and fire season. Though as we know, with climate change, that season seems to be year round, especially as it relates to fires. We talked about the horrendous fires and focused so much on them out in the west earlier this year. With these cuts comes what. What are you concerned about? For the American public as we approach.

Bianna Golodriga (28:36)

These pivotal months, safety is the number one concern. So let's talk about hurricanes. We've been making a lot of progress in the track forecast, where is the hurricane going to make landfall, and the intensity forecast. Both of those require research observation capabilities, which will be eliminated. And they also require people. And in fact, in the early terminations, the probationary terminations, some of the flight directors for no hurricane hunters were fired. That meant that those airplanes can't fly. That means those forecasts for hurricanes will suffer. On the fire side. We've seen the removal of any number of meteorologists from the National Weather Service, people who would otherwise surge, if you will, when there are fires in the west and southwest and northwest. Those people will not be there to be the on scene meteorologists, which means, quite honestly, the lives of firefighters are being put more at risk than they were before. Those are just a couple of the examples.

Christiane Amanpour (29:34)

Can I ask you personally how this feels for you to see an organization where you spent so much time, invested so much of your life, potentially gutted?

Bianna Golodriga (29:43)

It's insulting. It hurts. I decided to be an oceanographer when I was in middle school. And seeing my colleagues whom I hold in such high regard treated so disrespectfully tells me that the kind of things that we strive for in this nation in terms of being scientific leaders are not any longer the principles and values we adhere to. And that hurts me a lot as an American.

Christiane Amanpour (30:07)

Yeah, I can imagine that that would. And as you note in Warren, it's going to hurt millions of Americans as well if they follow through on this. Thank you so much for your dedication and your time and service of Rick Spinrad. Appreciated it.

Bianna Golodriga (30:21)

Thank you.

Christiane Amanpour (30:23)

Coming up for us, as Russia's war on Ukraine grinds on, is a lasting cease fire possible? We'll ask Alexander Gabu, director of Carnegie's Russia Eurasia center, after the break. Now we turn to Russia and Ukraine, where an Easter cease fire was quickly violated with Russian forces launching a mass drone attack on the port of Odessa over the weekend. This as President Trump attempts to broker peace between the two nations, but so far to no avail. Our next guest says that regardless of a lasting ceasefire, Russia itself has fundamentally changed under Putin. Director of Carnegie's Russia Eurasia Center, Alexander Gabouev argues that confronting the west is now a core principle of Russian life. And he joins the program from Berlin to help explain why. Sasha, good to see you. Before we get to your piece, I do want to talk about some of the latest headlines now with Vladimir Putin saying that he's willing to talk directly for the first time to Ukraine to discuss the halting of strikes on infrastructure. We saw that headline from the secretary of State, Marco Rubio last week, which seemed to blindside everybody, threatening that the US Would just be out of trying to broker peace. Here's what he said. We came here yesterday to sort of begin to talk about more specific outlines of what it might take to end.

Christopher Bolido (31:47)

A war, to try to figure out.

Christiane Amanpour (31:49)

Very soon in, and I'm talking about a matter of days, not a matter of weeks, whether or not this is the war that can be ended. If it can, we're prepared to do whatever we can to facilitate that and make sure that it happens, that it ends in a durable and just way. If it's not possible, if we're so far apart that this is not going to happen, then I think the president is probably at a point where he's going to say, well, we're done. How is that interpreted by the Kremlin? And I'm wondering if, you know, after all of these weeks early in this administration where we seen the majority of sticks being directed towards Ukraine and the carrots going from Russia's favor, is that viewed perhaps as the first maybe ultimatum for Vladimir Putin or not so much?

Claire Duffy (32:35)

I didn't hear any sticks in Secretary Rubio's remarks. Actually, if he implies that the US Will walk away from the situation, and that's actually a gift from Vladimir Putin. Because if it means that the United States will stop supporting Ukraine or that everything from now on is transactional, no American taxpayers money are involved. Maybe Europeans may purchase some weapons for Ukraine, but the American step out from its role as major enabler of Ukrainian defense effort, that's a very good news for Vladimir Putin. And he definitely can uncork another bottle of champagne.

Christiane Amanpour (33:14)

Okay. And I think you're right, actually, that wasn't necessarily a stick. What may be an inadvertent stick to Russia thus far are these tariffs that President Trump has unleashed to over 100 countries. Now, he had been criticized for not including Russia directly in these reciprocal tariffs or even a blanket 10% tariff. But the price of oil has significantly gone down. And that has been the major source of revenue for Russia for many, many years. But OB obviously has helped fund this war as well. Are we seeing any cracks in the Russian economy early on even now, given that Russia's supply or the price of oil has declined?

Claire Duffy (33:57)

It's contingent, Bianna. And indeed, I think that decrease in global oil prices, one of the unintended consequences that's negative for Russia. It's not a stick. That that's really premeditated. And that's some result of Trump's genius directed at Vladimir Putin. It's just a result of a very clumsy approach to his tariff war. The Russian Budget is balanced at a price of around 69 USD for a barrel. So the current oil price is below that. And that means that Russia will need to grab into its stash, into its sovereign wealth fund in order to compensate for a deficit. But the Russian authorities that are managing the budget and running the central bank are very capable. That's the most capable part of Putin's bureaucracy. And probably if the price goes down to even 50 USD a borrow, Russia will have problems, but it will still have resources to sustain its security state domestically, to be repressive and brutal and to persecute the war.

Christiane Amanpour (35:04)

Yeah, the mechanisms with which the technocrats and the head of the Russian Central bank has managed to keep this economy afloat has really been a lifeline for Vladimir Putin over the last three years. I want to turn to your piece now in Foreign affairs entitled the Russia that Putin Made. And it's quite provocative. In your argument, first you note that a confrontation with the west has now become the organizing principle of Russian life. And this is something that's been indoctrinated in young schoolchildren on television, on state media and propaganda. How has it permeated as quickly as it has though, throughout Russian culture and society?

Claire Duffy (35:49)

You have a quarter century that Putin is in charge now that he has cultivated the learned helplessness, atomization and social inertia that have been in the Russian society already, thanks to centuries of brutal tsarist regime. On top of that comes communist dictatorship. Ten years of pretty messy transition to a market economy that left a lot of people traumatized. And then comes Putin bringing some sort of social stability, but also increasingly repressive regime that suppresses as freedom of speech cancels, independent media sends people who disagree with the regime into exile long before the 2014 annexation of Crimea and before the full fledged invasion of Ukraine, now 2022 when Russia assaulted Ukraine without any reason, that repression is now on steroids and Putin consolidated his control and injected a lot of this poison of hatred towards Ukrainians, but also anti Western propaganda that I think starts to work on this society because on the other side, the west is also attempting to cancel Russia or at least some Russians.

Christiane Amanpour (37:07)

Yeah. And you note that deterrence may be the, or must be the cornerstone, cornerstone of Western policy going forward. And that the first priority for your Europe is to scale up defense production. But you also warn Europe not to be too hostile towards Russia as well. That is a delicate balance to walk. Talk about why you think Europe may be capable of doing both.

Claire Duffy (37:38)

I think that deterrence is indeed bread and butter and that should be the ultimate priority and the focus of Europeans, particularly if we are running into risk that the US which was a bedrock of European securities for decades after the end of World War II, throughout the Cold War and afterwards being the anchor of NATO, might be reducing its commitment in way that's very unstructured, unpredictable and inserting a lot of anxiety. The fact, Diana, is that Russia will not be defeated in Ukraine anytime soon to an extent that will not pose a threat to Europe. It's embarking on a very costly military modernization program. It's integrating lessons that it's learned in this war. It's expanding its armed forces with all of the capability for modern war fighting drones and so on. And if one day Vladimir Putin, that's increasingly unchecked domestically, wakes up and decides to take his army on a little excursion into Estonia, on one of this smaller Baltic states that used to be part of the Soviet Union and are more vulnerable to Russian invasion, who is there in the Kremlin to stop that? So the bottom line is that Europeans really need to invest in their defense effort. Deterrence, expanding military production. There is no way around that.

Christiane Amanpour (39:05)

That.

Claire Duffy (39:05)

But at the same time, Vladimir Putin is not in the picture forever. One day he will depart from it and then we'll have a moment similar to the moment after death of Joseph Stalin where there will be a collective leadership with probably discussions whether the state should double down on Putin's posture or it should start to dig itself out of the hole that Putin has dug. And then if Europe provides incentives for this faction that's more moderate, more pragmatist, though it's not going to be saints, definitely, because they will come out of Putin regime. You have more chances to fracture this regime and embark Russia on a more pragmatic way where there is a way for more peaceful and less costly coexistence. Final point, you see a lot of populace in Europe, Europe both on the right and on the left, who don't want to see an open ended confrontation with Russia. And if you tell them there is another strategy that Europe has, that its approach is not only about defense, but it has diplomatic tool in it, maybe there is a way to convince the population to be behind this foreign policy strategy.

Christiane Amanpour (40:19)

Yeah, well, and you're right to talk about what happens after Putin, but at the same time it doesn't appear like he's going anywhere. He's 72 years old. I know that there's been rumors, speculation for many years about his health. You note that you don't think the fall of his regime will come from sort of an internal coup. And given the state of his predecessors, he looks quite healthy at this point. So we could be seeing another five years, 10 years, who knows how long of Putin's reign. How does the west approach that? If this war, which you say right now, Ukraine, it's not winnable for them, how do they maintain a more pragmatic approach to an unjust war?

Claire Duffy (41:04)

Again, focus on European deterrence, expanding defence production and doing everything possible to beef up Ukrainian defence capabilities is the priority course of action. That's a must, that's what you can do. And at the same time you can come inside the tent and strategize what you're going to do afterwards. Because yes, yes, Putin looks healthy, is formidable, but you remember very well that two years ago we had this prigozhin unity that caught a lot of people off guard, that didn't challenge the regime, but it had good chances. Think about sudden collapse of Bashar Al Assad regime. A lot of this regime are more brittle than they seem. And then when that happens, the west is surprised, unprepared and doesn't know what to do. So lack of strategic discussion at the end provides more polarizing effect to ability to act in a coherent strategic fashion. That lack of this internal discussion.

Christiane Amanpour (42:09)

Yeah. You note that not everyone in the Kremlin shares Putin's anti Western obsession. In private, many Russian elites admit that the war in Ukraine was not a moralnot only a moral crime, but a strategic mistake. So in that post Putin era, how do you have a rapprochement without holding holding Russia accountable and having Russia pay for its sins of the war with reparations and other mechanisms.

Claire Duffy (42:37)

It will be very, very hard, obviously. And Ukrainians definitely have a just right to be at the table when all of these things are discussed and determined. But if you look at defeated Nazi Germany, the Nuremberg Tribunal and many other issues, not everybody was persecuted. Even in a country that was totally under allies control, it's very unlikely Russia dismantled this criminal system itself. And then it's very difficult to see how it will treat itself as a defeated nation when it's not fully defeated. So you can say that perennial spending of 10% European GDP on defense, perennial piling up of weapons and so on, is the only course of action. And that course of action will be there all the time with the deterrence capabilities. But if there is a course of action when you can enter arms control negotiation, gradually reestablishing protocols that existed during the Cold War on how to put the guns on the table, but at the same time, don't point them at each other. I think that's a far less costly, a far less risky future.

Christiane Amanpour (43:52)

A really thoughtful, insightful piece as well. Alex Kabueuf, thank you so much for joining the conversation. I know we had some technical difficulties with the WI fi, but I think we got your points across loud and clear. Appreciate the time. And finally, returning to our top story, the death of Pope Francis and his remarkable legacy. As we have discussed, his influence went far beyond just the Catholic Church having an impact on everything from climate and migration to popular culture. Back when Francis ascended to the papacy, it was under the most unusual circumstances after the resignation of Pope Benedict xvi. And it's this high stakes drama that prompted the Hollywood film the Two Popes. It explores the unique relationship between Francis and his conservative predecessor. Starring Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins and renowned British actor Jonathan Pryce. Back in 2019, Christiane spoke with Price about taking on the role of Pope Francis.

Christiane Amanpour (44:50)

Jonathan Price, welcome back to the program.

Jonathan Pryce (44:52)

Thank you. Nice to be back.

Christiane Amanpour (44:54)

So the two popes is getting a huge amount of attention and critical review. Very good. Critical acclaim. I've watched it, it's amazing. I just want to know, were you born to play this part? I mean, you look identical to Pope Francis.

Jonathan Pryce (45:09)

Well, yeah. I mean, it's not what I see when I look in the mirror. I feel more Brad Pitt than Pope.

Bianna Golodriga (45:17)

Yeah.

Jonathan Pryce (45:18)

The day he was declared Pope was. The Internet was full of images of the two of us, either me or High Sparrow compared to the Pope. And it seemed a certain inevitability that I, you know, if there ever was to be a film about him, that I would play him.

Christiane Amanpour (45:34)

Did you have any inkling that there might be? I mean, and that this might actually happen and happen in this way? Because, Because, I mean, the vehicle is so compelling, essentially. Tight shots of you and Anthony Hopkins playing two living popes and really mostly just a discussion between you. I mean, an important one. But it's not action and adventure and intrigue and, you know, Vatican high crimes and skullduggery.

Jonathan Pryce (46:00)

Well, it is about all of those things. High crimes and skullduggery. It's also about faith and about forgiveness and compassion. And when you read it on a, you know, you get the screenplay sent to you and it seems a very dry read. It's two men of the church, two old men of the church having a debate and an argument. And there are flashbacks to Bergoglio's life in Buenos Aires. But you know, when you know that it's gonna be directed by Fernando Moraes, who. Who has a wonderful film that is one of my favorite all time films. All time favorite films. Sorry. City of God. There's going to be a different kind of energy to it. It wasn't going to be a hagiography. It was going to have some life and vitality and have a political point of view as well as a religious point of view.

Christiane Amanpour (46:58)

Okay, so let's break that down because again, you embody Pope Francis in a way that's just. I mean, it's easy. And you start to really believe that Anthony Hopkins is the spitting image of Pope Benedict. And the two of you are having these discussions and let's just talk first about the politics because I guess explain to me where the politics are for you and for the two popes.

Jonathan Pryce (47:24)

Yeah, well, I'm not religious. When I was a child, I was brought up in the Welsh Presbyterian Church. I used to go to chapel and like many teenagers, moved away from the church. And not being a Catholic, I'd never really taken much notice of any popes. I was aware of them to a certain extent. But Pope Francis was the first pope that I began to listen to because not only was on, he was on our TV screens and our newspapers were full of him. He was, I felt he was talking to me. And he was talking to me about political issues and about the economy, about the inequality in the world, talking about the environment, talking about issues that me and millions like me want to hear our leaders talk about. So I was drawn to him because of these issues less to do with the Church.

Christiane Amanpour (48:22)

So let me play the clip that we have. And it's not necessarily about the politics, but it's about your character playing Bergoglio, who was then the cardinal. Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina, actually coming to Rome to try to retire, resign, and to ask then Pope Benedict for permission. And then Pope Benedict does a. Does a360 or a180 and totally surprises you by suggesting that in fact, that's what he's going to do. Here's this clip.

Jonathan Pryce (48:51)

Why do the presidents of America and Russia and China? Because unlike them, your authority comes from the fact that you will suffer and die in the job. A martyr to justice and truth. For this, all people come. Forgive me, but. But Christ did not come down from the cross. God always grants you the right. No, no, no. A Pope must go on forever, be the personification of the crucified Christ. If you do this, you will damage the papacy forever.

Christiane Amanpour (49:32)

Yeah. What damage will I do if I remain?

Christiane Amanpour (49:37)

You see, it's so powerful that. Because just that last question from Pope Benedict sums up the difference between them, right? I mean, that he was the sort of old God, that Francis was perhaps the new God. And Pope Benedict, at least in this film, you know, has a lot of self doubt when he's talking in this particular scene, talk to me about the self doubt because it's not just him, it's your character as well, particularly Pope Francis, or again Jorge Bergoglio about what he did as a Jesuit priest in Argentina during the military junta.

Jonathan Pryce (50:10)

Well, it's. They're not supreme beings, even though he is the Pope. And that's what's wonderful about both men is that they are self aware, they question themselves and they have doubts. And Bergoglio, his history in Argentina, he carries with him. He is still seen as a divisive figure there because of his possible collaboration with the junta and not doing enough to protect his priests who were accused of being communists and taken away and tortured and killed. So he has, you know, he's aware of his fallibility and I think this makes him much closer to people. And he certainly was a reformer. He needed to reform the church. The church needed reform, should I say. And he was there in order to do that. Benedict, I think, saw himself as part of the problem and he needed a new broom to come in and sweep it clean.

Christiane Amanpour (51:18)

Well, so interestingly, we're looking at a shot right now which is without giving any spoilers, Benedict in this scene asks you to hear his confession and then he starts to talk about what we think is about the, the church, you know, child sexual abuse, the pedophilia amongst the priests. And then it goes silent and you don't hear exactly what he's saying. But you see this rage then from Bergoglio after he said what he said. And I just want to play for you something that director Wim Wenders told me when he actually, actually interviewed Pope Francis for eight hours or so for his documentary. And he talked to the real Pope Francis and described him as being incandescent and somewhat powerless to affect this sexual abuse crisis. Just listen to this.

Jonathan Pryce (52:06)

He got very upset sometimes. My question about pedophilia. He got very angry, really angry. And you realized, if only he could, he would do so much more right now, right away. And you feel that in the conversation there was a completely fearless man in front of me and that that is.

Christiane Amanpour (52:25)

Very rare to see that.

Christiane Amanpour (52:27)

I don't know what you make of that. And of course today Pope Francis has lifted the veil of secrecy over all the sort of texts and other notes and, you know, the information about the sexual abuse, I guess the struggle to know which direction the church is going in was encapsulated by these two characters, Benedict and Pope Francis.

Jonathan Pryce (52:49)

Well, I. Everything we say is either taken from things they've either written or they've spoken in public, in speeches and whatever. And this moment that when you see Benedict confess to Begoriel, we don't. It's not on record what he felt about these particular issues. So we felt wasn't incumbent upon us to make these public. And I think it, in some ways it's even more powerful because you don't hear what he says. I mean, it's another film to be made about what Benedict felt about the issue of child sexual abuse. But you do as you say you do see it played on Bogoglio's face. And again, I go back to say it's why Benedict would want Bergoglio to come in as. Because Benedict was part of the problem. Not that he was a perpetrator of sexual abuse, but that he didn't do enough. The same as Bergoglio hadn't done enough in Argentina. He didn't do enough to bring the priest to justice or to help the victims. And that's what Francis is. His main objective is to say the victims need help. And it's not a stain on our society. It's a wound that needs to be healed. And he saw himself as the man who and does see himself as a man who can heal and will heal.

Christiane Amanpour (54:26)

Jonathan Price, thank you so much for joining us.

Jonathan Pryce (54:29)

Well, thank you. It's nice to talk to you again. Thanks, you, too.

Christiane Amanpour (54:33)

And that's it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye. From New York.

Jonathan Pryce (54:46)

News Fatigue.

Christiane Amanpour (54:47)

Have I Got News for you?

Jonathan Pryce (54:49)

Is the cure and also the disease.

Christiane Amanpour (54:51)

CNN's Comedy Quiz show is back.

Jonathan Pryce (54:53)

Making sense of the mayhem and definitely adding to it.

Christiane Amanpour (54:57)

Have I Got News for you. Return Saturday, September 6th on CNN.