this is cnn. hello and welcome to

trenton. here is where we are headed this week. after a stunning political come back, what will donald trump 2.0 mean for the world and for america's own global standing? we ask trump's former eu ambassador. >> you can see a trump administration hitting the ground running. >> the newest member of nato, finland. >> this time around, everyone knows what donald trump stands for. his foreign-policy has been very clear. this is a decisive decade in the competition with china. >> a new pivot in asia? biden's former china advisor on why beijing is banking on trump speeding up america's decline. then, a closer look at vladimir putin's war in europe, with the former defense minister of beleaguered ukraine. which said will benefit from trump's idea of peace through strength. then, from the archives.

the fall of the berlin wall exactly 35 years ago was meant to settle the cold war in america's favor. three decades on, the backlash is reaching a crescendo. welcome to the program , everyone. i'm chrisitiane amanpour in london. in the end, it wasn't even close, as we all now know. donald trump's republican party will control the united states government with the endorsement of the popular vote. they have taken back the white house and the senate, while republican appointed conservatives dominate the supreme court. analysts and party stalwarts in the united states say trump can now govern unconstrained. his agenda as stated includes mass deportation's and deregulation at home, massive new tariffs on all foreign-made goods and broad, increasing the isolationist foreign policy that trump touts as peace through strength. gordon

sondland is trump's former ambassador to the european union and a supporter of his reelection bid. he joined me from washington with the view that trump has now a mandate for all of this. ambassador gordon sondland, welcome back to the program. we spoke to do a little bit before the election. i want to start by asking you were you surprised by this sweeping result? >> i was surprised, primarily because the pollsters were all talking about a neck and neck race. there are a lot of pollsters that will be out of business today. >> let us ask you now what this all means. first and foremost, as he said at his election, he said "america has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate. we have taken back control of the senate." no, will he, how will he rule, do you think? >> well, first of all, he will review the next four years in terms of a stopwatch. they will

be -bent on getting as much done as quickly as possible. he was in the white house previously, he remembers every mistake he made in terms of personnel, in terms of legislation. i think you can see a trump administration 2.0 hitting the ground running, with executive orders, the toughest legislation passed very quickly up front in order to codify it. you are going to see an incredible, incredible amount of forward movement in a very short time. >> let me ask you this. when democrats, this is being pointed out in the newspaper,

had full control of government, they enacted the affordable care act, the dodd/frank, the chips act, saved the auto industry, spent billions on renewable energy instructor, and more. trump has said and his people have said that even the chips act may be at risk. all of these things, the affordable care act, do you think that he's going to do that kind of stuff? in other words, rivers stuffed a previous administration put in and add to it what he has already talked about, which is mass deportation's and a whole new left of the regulations on everything from claimant to business to everything? >> i don't think trump is stupid. i think he is a very, very smart man and he will look very thoughtfully and carefully at each and every piece of legislation, executive order, etc., and decide what comports with his agenda, what is good for the country. in the case where it doesn't, i think he's going to reverse or introduce his own. elections have consequences . >> they do indeed. as you know, elections have been won and lost over the affordable care act. the american people supported by a vast majority. and, the chips act, i think, it precisely what trump wants to do, which is protect

american-made products. let me ask you about this. what about ukraine? he has also said he will fix that. president volodymyr zelenskyy has welcomed, congratulated trump, like many foreign leaders have, hoping for actual peace through strength and believing that should mean forcing vladimir putin to recognize the need to come to the negotiating table and not just have ukraine bend over and surrender. what do you think? >> i know quite a few potential members of trump's going forward national security team. i think trump had the right instincts during term one, which is that most of these regimes, whether it be the iranian regime, whether it be the russian federation, are cancers on an orderly world and the way you eradicate a cancer is you strangle them financially first so that they don't have the funding in order to create mischief. i think that is the first thing you are going to see. i think

these regimes are going to need to buckle up becomes they are going to lose a tremendous amount of their cash flow in order to bring their behavior back in line and we organize the world order again. >> nevertheless, he has spoken pretty kindly about resident vladimir putin, president xi jinping and you know the whole fear about how he likes the idea of strongmen and they are men around the world. i want to ask you, finally, look, are you surprised, as much of the world is, that you know, donald trump, as everybody has said, appeared to be finished and j.d. vance called it the greatest comeback in american political history, but he was not disqualified by january 6th, which you also opposed, the criminal indictments, the overturning of roe versus wade, by his supreme court, none of this disqualified him? the civil suit he had to pay for

sexual predation. are you surprised, again, that the american people voted for this person? >> the american people are pretty smart, at the end of the day. i know hillary clinton called them a basket of deplorables but they are far from that. i think the american people have incredible wisdom. they have taken in all of the information, including all of the prosecutions for the sexual misconduct issues, basically they have taken in trump as a package and have made a decision that none of these are disqualifying. and, i think the trump comeback is a lesson to young people, which is resilience and persistence. never, ever, ever give up. i think that is something the u.s. stands for and i think

donald trump personifies that. >> ambassador gordon sondland, thank you very much indeed. the american people certainly have made a historic decision. just look at the latest cover of "vanity fair" magazine. it is the first time ever, for instance, a convicted felon has been elected american president. while gordon sondland says resilience and persistence are trump's listen to young people, vice president kamala harris also appealed to young supporters with a different message. >> to the young people who are watching, it is okay to feel sad and disappointed. please know it is going to be okay. on the campaign, i would often say when we fight, we win. but, here is the thing, here is the thing, sometimes the fight takes a while. that doesn't mean we won't win. that doesn't mean we won't win. >> coming up later on the show, the view from overseas and how the western alliance is coming to terms with trump's reelection. one of nato's newest members, finland's president joins the show. also ahead, the china conundrum. biden advisor rush doshi on how the trump second

term will affect competition with beijing.

welcome back to the program. european leaders have congratulated donald trump on his reelection this week. the former uk ambassador to washington says while this isn't the result they would have wanted money must, "work with what we have and try to moderate the most extreme

instincts." nato allies are inches the pricing for a change in anticipation about what america's support might look like, from a president who is consistently criticized nato and frames a successful alliance as a transactional deal. so, will the united states pull back on its commitment to europe and what does his reelection mean for ukraine? return to the leader for one of nato's newest member countries, the president of finland, alexander stubb. president alexander stubb now joins me from helsinki. welcome back to the program. i just want to ask you a general question to you can with. you all were there. i know you were doing your stint in government as a minister, now you are president, during the first trump term. do you remember what it was like? people called him a chaos agent. there was a sense of a collective nervous breakdown happening around the

world. >> there was probably, at that time, more a sense of surprise. a lot of people thought, including the posters, that hillary clinton would win the election. europe was trying to come to terms with the new president called donald trump. this time around, everyone knows what donald trump stands for. foreign policy has been very clear. in many ways, you can say a lot of european leaders are much better prepared and probably they are more willing and able to cooperate. >> let me ask you, from your perspective since you are a new nato member and public opinion shifted in your country to allow you to join because of the russian invasion, full-scale invasion of ukraine, there is a huge debate in washington as to what president trump will do to resolve or to continue this certainly american help for ukraine. what

do you think, what do you expect and can you pick up any slack? >> the starting point is to say that we need to work together with ukraine. and, you also have to, i think, take president trump at face value. when he says something, he does it. he has talked a lot about getting this done both in ukraine and in the middle east. the window of opportunity that we have right now is from when the election result came to probably inauguration day . then we will see what happens. my starting point is volodymyr zelenskyy will probably need four things. one is territory, two , security and security guarantees. number three is justice. so, russian war criminals indicted. number four is reconstruction. i'm sure that president donald trump elect and his administration are already working with the ukrainians on that. >> what about the notion of

trump proofing? what i mean by this is if trump decides to change the terms of nato protection and all of the things he said before, we have heard president emmanuel macron, who is in budapest, there was a big meeting of european leaders, volodymyr zelenskyy was there as well, he has said that europe must stop outsourcing its security and write its own destiny. there is an idea that bending together with germany, the two big powers in europe. both are very, very, very grievously wounded. emmanuel macron kind of shot himself in the foot with that election that he basically lost. he has a massive budget shortfall. olaf scholz's coalition has fallen apart. where do you think europe stands in terms of being self-sufficient? >> two points on this. europe needs the united states and the united states needs europe. the u.s. wants to be a superpower and in order for it to be able

to compete with china, it needs allies. those closest allies come from europe. there are about 40 of us who have the same values and interests that the united states have. one thing that i told my european colleagues is it is time to start taking care of our own security a little bit more. what we will see with a new trump administration, i think correctly so, he is going to force, or at least persuade european states to increase their defense budgets. remember that in 2014, there were only three countries in nato that hit that 2% margin. now there are 23. the movement is already there. i would argue we are probably going to have to increase our defense expenditure and the way in which it happens is a different story. i think we do it for two reasons. one, because the united states wants it, and because it is in our self-interest in the current security situation. >> i just want to play this soundbite. i know it is

repeating what you just said but this is also the view of the new nato secretary-general, mark ritter. >> when he was president, he was involved in nato and stimulated us to move over the 2% and now also, thanks to him, nato, if you take out the numbers of the u.s. for a moment is above 2%. very much that is his doing, his success and we need to do more. >> i just wanted to put that out there, which you commented on. you talked about alliances. trump is notoriously skeptical of alliances and it was considered when biden became president that he did a lot to restore the strength of the transatlantic alliance. on one issue, if donald trump decides that america will no longer pay that amount to ukraine, deliver that amount of weapons to ukraine, can europe, does europe have the wherewithal to fill the necessary gap? >> europe has already filled the necessary gap. i think there is this narrative that the u.s. has done more than

europe . that is not the case. it is about 50-50. if you start looking at gdp per capita, finland is the fifth the biggest donor. if you look at ron donations, then it comes from the u.s. i think europe needs to take more responsibility. this is probably one of the incentives also to start ending the war or trying to find some kind of a peace settlement. i think the money funnels are going to be a little bit more in a windward situation. when the war is over, it's going to be all about reconstruction. suddenly, we are going to start seeing a lot of companies, european, american, and others who want to do the reconstruction of ukraine. i do think europeans understand we have to take more responsibility. but, we will survive and we will survive together with the united states. coming up, my next guest, rush doshi, on how china views the united states, hurtling toward decline.

it's our son, he is always up in our business. it's the verizon 5g home internet i got us. oh... he used to be a competitive gamer but with the higher lag, he can't keep up with his squad. so now we're his “squad”. what are kevin's plans for the fall? he's going to college. out of state, yeah. -yeah in the fall. change of plans, i've decided to stay local. oh excellent! oh that's great! why would i ever leave this? -aw! we will do anything to get him gaming again. you and kevin need to fix this internet situation. heard my name! i swear to god, kevin! -we told you to wait in the car. everyone in my old squad has xfinity. less lag, better gaming! i'm gonna need to charge you for three people.

welcome back . the world now knows donald trump will again lead the world's most powerful nation. but, there is another one vying for that very title, china. it was barely mentioned during the campaign but many analysts and experts say the u.s. china rivalry will

dominate this century and, perhaps, even be decided by the end of this decade. so, what are the possible scenarios ahead in a fundamentally changed world? rush doshi is a former deputy senior director for china and taiwan on the national security council. he is also the author of "the long game , china's grand strategy to displace american order." he joined me from washington. rush doshi, welcome to the program. >> thank you, it is great to be here. >> first , let's hear the stakes. what are the stakes of beijing's efforts to dispatch the u.s. as the superpower? >> it is a great question. many of the folks in the biden administration, both political parties, understood this is the decisive decade in a competition with china. in many ways, if the united states doesn't take urgent action, they could fall behind china technologically, they could become dependent on china

economically and can be defeated militarily in the taiwan strait or south china sea. this decade with accounts and the stakes are high because in sector after sector in the economic and technology side, china is making major gains. there is a real question about what the united states will do if sector after sector, it falls behind. automotive's is the most recent example. the stakes are pretty enormous from washington but also the average american citizen. the stakes are can the u.s. maintain its position as china puts pressure on every foundational element of american power. >> you credit donald trump with having been the first president to do the put competition on the table. yet, you say that it was a great idea, a positive thing. what is the but? >> i think president trump in

his campaign in 2015 helps articulate this critique, this idea that the international trading system or some of the terms of trade with china windsurfing american interests. we were seeing deindustrializat ion across the board. the question is what do we do next? president trump's approach was to raise tariffs on china, and approach you see the biden administration continued elements of. there was an additional terrace increase on china it was more narrowly tailored than president trump's. the point of the terrace increase was to get a deal, a deal that would allow america to do something members of both parties want to do, rebuild its manufacturing sector. the problem in part, and i hate to put it this way, is president trump was so eager for a trade deal that he took a bad deal. he wanted a deal ahead of his reelection campaign and the deal he took was one that led to the united states to keep importing chinese manufactured goods. china wouldn't change unfair practices and america would export commodities to china. that was the phase one trade deal and that trade, commodities for manufactured goods, is a time tested recipe for industrial decline. the diagnosis was right. his staff did not want that deal but he thought that he was in his own

interest and that is the one he pursued. you see that pattern across key issues where there is bipartisan consensus on china. president trump takes that approach outside the norm. >> bipartisan consensus, don't, what would have been the right way not to squander what trump started off by doing, what would have been the right deal or the right next step? >> there are a few things that could have been a part of a different approach. you want a more tailored set of tariffs. it is not every single manufactured product in china that is a concern to american workers, american industry. putting tariffs on everything can be inflationary. there is an element of calibration that could have been there. more fundamentally than that, the focus of negotiations for a long time was on getting china to change the industrial policy approaches. should of been the focus of the phase one trade deal rather than saying we will

accept this deal if you buy our commodities. once we accepted the deal with them, we should have lost the ability to sustain the case on industrial policy. all of this once five or six years ago but the point is, now in a second trump term, will there be a desire to strike a quick deal i can or will he stay the course and push harder for the kind of changes on industrial policy the united states wants to see that gives ever manufacturers a better chance to compete? >> how interesting, rush doshi, thank you so much for this analysis. thank you. >> thanks very much. when we come back, trump says he will and russia's war in ukraine on day one but he hasn't said who he wants to win. the country's former defense minister joins us next.

welcome back to the program. israel's government might be comforted by donald trump's return, america's other ally in war, ukraine, is undoubtedly feeling more uncertain about america's promise to defend it. trump's affinity for putin and his insistence he could end the war "in a day" has raised fears his administration could mean serious setbacks for the delivery of aid and weapons or push ukraine toward a bad peace deal. his vice president, j.d. vance has described a piece unfavorable to the russians, in which they would keep the land

lay have taken, and a demilitarized zone would be erected along the border. so, i asked the former defense minister whether president volodymyr zelenskyy could bank on trump's stated policy of peace through strength. welcome back to our program, minister andrii zahorodniuk. we want to get your perspectives. in the wake of a new direction in american leadership. so, peace through strength , of what trump is saying. how do you interpret that? >> the situation is that president putin is clearly adamant to keep war in ukraine and the only thing that can stop him is that we construct a perspective that he loses. so, that is the only way . he clearly sees the perspective of living, if he sees the perspective of a disaster at home, economic or military over both, then he will consider the ideas of somehow stopping the

war. that is what we need to construct. all other options are not to work. they have been tried for at least 10 years and have not worked. that is a person who understands only strength. the strengths of the other side. if he sees the strength, if he sees the opportunity that his position may be extremely vulnerable, extremely difficult, then he would consider some sort of negotiations or some sort of way out and stopping the war. so far, he doesn't see that. >> putin has said donald trump's claim to be able to end this war in one day, which is what he said throughout the campaign is "an over exaggeration." you said, what many analysts say yes, strength is the only thing putin understands. let me just play what j.d. vance has said about it and the fact that they believe you should essentially sue for peace. here's what he said. >> what this looks like it's trump's it's them, he says the russians and ukrainians, the europeans, you guys need to figure out what is a peaceful

settlement looking like and what it probably looks like something like the current line of demarcation between russia and ukraine, that becomes a demilitarized zone, it is heavily fortified so the russians don't invade again. >> does that sound like it makes sense to you? >> this is not the war about territory, it is a war about the existence of ukraine, it is an existential war for ukraine and it is a war about the world order, international order . this is not about some regions or some villages or some towns. we have seen quite a lot of ideas, from all kinds of politicians and policymakers and analysts saying that in order to get peace, ukraine needs to cede some territories. this is a complete deviation from the actual situation. putin is not waging this war to get a little bit more territory. his goals are much more strategic and much more serious and much bigger than that. so, we shouldn't be talking about the territories,

we should be talking about the principal matters of the war and putin needs to see that his endeavor, his adventure failed. >> let me ask you on the ground , we have heard your defense, chief of the military , and other senior leaders, including soldiers defending on the ground, things are very, very tough. even in kursk, which was a show of strength, and easily occupied that part of russian territory, they are pushing you back. apparently they have north korean soldiers. it is really bad on the frontline. how do you assess that? and, what is the number one thing you need? >> clearly we should always remember that things were always tough. there has been a tough world all the way through for the last three years. also we have been always fighting it with one hand tied back because

we always have some limitations. we have limitations of using the fire power. we have constant shortage of the weapons and we have the shortage of some classes of weapons, for example, airpower. things are extremely difficult and we certainly need all these issues resolved. there is nothing new which appeared over the last week or months of our requests and our sort of pledges to the allies. we still need shells, we still need weapons, we still need ground-based air defense, we still need to protect our cities but we need to bump up long-range firepower capabilities such as airpower and muscles. restrictions such as don't shoot at russians or don't shoot at russian land, it doesn't make militarily any sense. >> do you think that is going to change under a president trump?

>> we don't know because this is a new administration and there will be new policy and we have to see what happens. all that we hear from donald trump, which is, i have to say encouraging, is he wants to stop the war. we also want to stop the war. we want the war to end. nobody in ukraine enjoys that at all and we want to at least be over. the only thing is that contentions are not going to stop the war. the only thing that can stop the war is strength. if he wants to stop the war, really, then he will have to face the reality that the nature of vladimir putin's regime and we need to show him strength and we need to show a perspective of losing and that gives us chances to stop it. coming up on the program, 35 years since the fall of the berlin wall. how that era of hope and democracy is all but over across the former soviet union.

welcome back to the program. exactly 35 years ago, with hammer and chisel in hand, german crowns began to tear down the berlin wall. until that day, november 9th, 1989, it stood as the greatest symbol of the cold war division of

europe and its fall promised to usher in a new era of liberal democracy. that vision was triggered by the soviet leader, mikhail gorbachev, and his policies of openness, and more freedom. but, that era feels further awafor russia's authoritarian president, vladimir putin, who once called the fall of the soviet union, "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." on this 35th anniversary, we go back to my archives and my interview with gorbachev, taped a decade after the fall of the berlin wall in his words that sound so pressing it today. 10 years ago, the berlin wall came down. piece by small concrete piece , east and west germans chiseling in a frenzy of newfound freedom. today, some observers say a statue should stand in every east european capitol, a

statue to mikhail gorbachev, for it was he who allowed their independence, he who changed history . for the west, it was a moment of triumph over tyranny. mikhail gorbachev had been a cmi cmunist. how did he feel when he saw everyone tear down that wall? >> translator: by that time, i had changed my mind about many things. in 1988, i came to the conclusion that the system could not be improved. we needed political reform and more freedom . freedom of choice, political parties, give people some oxygen. >> how did you feel your self watching that wall come down? >> translator: you know, there is a lot of talk about the wall. for me as a politician, it is a moment, it is a sign, a

symbolic event. the wall had been built when confrontation reached a very acute stage. >> reporter: now, confrontation was ending and mostly peaceful revolutions swept across europe that year. first, poland, then hungary, east germany, czechoslovakia, and romania. in the midst of all of this, mikhail gorbachev met the u.s. resident, george bush, on a warship of the island of malta to declare the cold where war over. >> translator: the model that had been implemented in the soviet union and forced on east and middle european countries after the second world war lost . but, i still devoted to socialism. if you think of socialism as freedom, social justice, democracy, where individuals play a significant role . look at western europe. most of them are run by social democrats and there is nothing bad about it. >> reporter: indeed, 10 years later, many are saying the unbridled capitalism that

followed communism has unleashed misery on citizens who had had all their social needs taken care of, especially in the former soviet union. esther president, you were regarded by many people in this world as a hero for causing the end of tyranny and the collapse of communism but you also criticized heavily by those who say you opened a pandora's box and they say look at the strife now, look at the economic chaos, look at the mafia structure, look at the corruption. they say that you opened and started a plan that you did not know how to finish. >> translator: that is in accusation of pygmies. i do not accept it. i can give you the following answer. first, there are no lucky reformers. we had a concept . give up totalitarianism, lead society to freedom, political, ideological, and religious pluralism. economic freedom. so i didn't know where we were heading but when such

developments get underway, no one can predict specifically what it will lead to. look at how the west was teaching russia market reforms. just one thing and see how they got mixed up and look what we have in russia as a result today. >> just a note about a warning from the esteemed american historian arthur/injure, who wrote around that very time that western triumphalism over "winning the cold war" would mask major challenges the united states and other democracies would also soon confront. this is what he wrote as the 20th century drew to a close . "the political, economic, and moral failures of democracy have handed the initiative to totalitarianism. something like this could happen again. if democracy failed to construct a humane, prosperous, and peaceful world, it will invite the rise of alternative creeds apt to be based, like fascism and

communism, on flight from freedom and surrender to authority." when we come back to the view from israel's destruction of gaza, a year after it was invaded and viciously attacked by hamas. the cemetery and told that we cannot ignore.

and finally, to israel and the major headline you might have missed amid all the election coverage this week. prime minister benjamin netanyahu has fired his defense minister, yoav gallant, who had complained there was no evident political strategy to their war on gaza and no cease-fire deal to return the israeli hostages. benjamin netanyahu has warmly praised trump's reelection. meantime, gaza continues to face a daily pounding, especially in the north, which many fear will lead to the permanent displacement of palestinian residents. i have been speaking with jan egeland, secretary general of the norwegian refugee council, which constantly has tried to get desperately needed humanitarian aid into gaza. he joined me from inside via a dodgy skype connection to tony what he's seeing there. >> reporter: gaza is destroyed. there is no other way to describe it. it is a densely populated urban area, filled to

the brim with refugees, to start with, and it is destroyed. there are tens of thousands of dead people, and most of the families i meet, including my own gaza palestinian colleagues, they have been chased around the map here 10 times. they have lost their home, the home of their relatives, the home of their aunt, their uncle, etc. they are on the bottom of the pit. this senseless war has to end. we have humanitarian help from the biden administration but they were incapable, incapable of doing anything to end the violence. and, also, the procedure meant of the population here. donald trump has said "i will end this war, i will bring peace. he says he

is a forceful allocation. i think he can assert pressure on the strongest pockets, which is israel, and maybe work with eric and other nations to make the list in the inside come together, be coherent, recognize israel, release the hostages, so that not more thousands of more children are killed. >> that is all we have time for. don't forget, you can find all of our shows online as podcasts and cnn.com/audio and all major platforms. thank you for watching, i will see you next week. thank you for joining .