How US Weapons Shortage Impacts Ukraine

Summary

Amanpour - Podcast Episode Summary

Episode Title: How US Weapons Shortage Impacts Ukraine
Date: August 13, 2026
Host: Christiane Amanpour (CNN Podcasts)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Amanpour delves into the ripple effects of US weapons shortages, particularly on Ukraine amid intensifying Russian attacks, touching on the broader geopolitical consequences of US military commitments in Iran and the impact on NATO and transatlantic security. The program also covers urgent issues in the occupied West Bank, reflects on the fifth anniversary of Kabul’s fall to the Taliban and the plight of Afghan women, and discusses Democratic strategies for reviving American democracy with Wisconsin’s former party chair. The episode combines in-depth analysis, first-hand reporting, and thoughtful interviews, providing listeners with a multifaceted understanding of current global affairs.

---

Key Segments & Discussion Points

1. US Weapons Shortage and Ukraine’s Defenses

Timestamps: 00:34–13:52

Main Points

• Ukraine’s Plea for Missiles:
  • President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pleads for the US to sell Ukraine 5%–10% of its existing missile stockpile, arguing it could save lives and tilt the battlefield (02:45).
    • "I'm asking American partners to sell me 5%, 5% of missiles, what they have in their stocks." — Volodymyr Zelenskyy [02:45]
• Depletion and Replenishment Concerns:
  • The US has heavily drawn down its supplies, especially THAAD and Patriot missiles, due to previous military operations in Iran (01:46–03:15).
  • The replenishment of high-end munitions might take until 2030, raising alarm for both Ukraine and long-term US military readiness (04:47).
    • "We simply aren't replacing them fast enough." — Evelyn Farkas [04:05]
• Divergent Official Claims:
  • Despite well-documented shortages, President Trump asserts munitions supplies remain "massive," contradicting Pentagon reports (03:15).
• Impact of Prioritizations:
  • Evelyn Farkas (former Pentagon and McCain Institute) advocates prioritizing Ukraine: helping Ukraine deters Russia, weakens Russian support for Iran and China, and supports US interests globally (05:02–06:42).
• Trade-Offs in US Strategy:
  • The current shortage influenced Trump's choice not to escalate further against Iran and highlights unavoidable trade-offs in global US commitments (06:42–07:16).
    • "We have to have enough to make sure that China doesn't decide to do anything risky. Essentially, that's called deterrence..." — Evelyn Farkas [07:16]
• Risks in Europe:
  • Concerns that depleted US and NATO readiness may embolden Russian aggression, with NATO allies vulnerable to provocations, as warned by Czech President Petr Pavel (08:37–09:56).
    • "That's a good chance, let's use it ... to humiliate NATO by starting, let's say, limited military action..." — Petr Pavel [09:17]
• Assessment of Risks:
  • Farkas agrees risk-taking from Putin may increase amid perceived Western weakness, reinforcing the need for robust deterrence and support for Ukraine (10:04–11:07).
• US Military Doctrine—Two-War Capacity:
  • Traditional doctrine calls for capacity to fight two wars; current depletion challenges this, especially with growing connections between Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea (12:36–13:52).

---

2. West Bank Settler Violence and Military Inaction

Timestamps: 13:52–19:04

Main Points

• Settlers Besiege Homes:
  • Jeremy Diamond reports from the occupied West Bank where Israeli settlers have surrounded Palestinian homes, cutting off supplies and pressuring residents to leave.
• Israeli Military Response Criticized:
  • IDF presence fails to remove settlers, sometimes even joining them in prayer; military actions to remove settlers prove ineffective, raising concerns of selective law enforcement (14:51–16:44).
    • "[The soldiers] start hugging the settlers, and absolutely did nothing to protect my brother and his son." — Kusai Reddi [14:51]
• Fear and Resilience:
  • Besieged families vow not to leave despite dwindling supplies; violence and arson by settlers have created an atmosphere of fear (16:28–17:29).
• Lack of Enforcement:
  • Despite declared "military zones," settlers remain undisturbed while Palestinians and journalists are kept away, showing stark disparities in response (16:03–16:16).
    • "For some reason... when it comes to these Israeli settlers, the Israeli military has yet to use those means at its disposal." — Jeremy Diamond [18:00]

---

3. Afghanistan Five Years after the Fall of Kabul

Timestamps: 20:17–36:56

Main Points

• Women’s Rights Vanished:
  • Mahbuba Siraj, women’s rights activist, describes a complete rollback of women’s rights, forced closures of shelters, and an environment where Afghan women are erased from public life.
    • "I cannot continue working this way because I haven’t been any help to any one of the Afghan women... nobody allows me to." — Mahbuba Siraj [21:44]
• Lost Promises and International Apathy:
  • The initial Taliban promises (2021) for women’s rights now seen as a cruel joke; most women rarely able or willing to leave their homes under Taliban pressure (24:58–25:57).
• Failure of Oversight and US Withdrawal:
  • John Sopko (former Inspector General for Afghanistan) laments the lack of effective oversight by Congress and the administration, both in Afghanistan and regarding current issues like Iran.
    • "Here we have a Congress whose job is to oversee the Executive branch... and you’re telling me all of a sudden they discover we’re out of weapons?" — John Sopko [29:20]
• Abandonment of Afghan Allies:
  • Many Afghans who worked for US forces are stuck in Afghanistan or the bureaucratic pipeline, facing danger and a broken promise from the US (35:31).
    • "Do you think anyone is going to believe and trust the United States the next time we need allies to fight... after the way we treated the Afghans?" — John Sopko [35:31]
• Global Security Implications:
  • The way the US abandoned both women and allies has long-term implications for future conflicts, alliances, and America’s credibility.

---

4. Reviving the Democratic Party: Lessons from Wisconsin

Timestamps: 39:11–53:33

Main Points

• Grassroots Rebuilding:
  • Ben Wickler, former Wisconsin Democratic chair, argues that the key to Democratic revival is community presence and face-to-face engagement, not impersonal fundraising (39:41).
    • "Show up as part of the life of every neighborhood and every community..." — Michelle Martin quoting Wickler [39:41]
• Electoral Margins and the Power of Small Numbers:
  • Elections can hinge on a handful of votes in obscure races, making grassroots mobilization crucial (40:55).
    • "Republican control of the House... came down to 7,309 votes across three congressional districts." — Ben Wickler [40:55]
• Primary Dynamics:
  • Case studies from Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota show different outcomes for moderate and progressive Democrats but with common post-primary unity (41:57–45:00).
• Systemic Barriers and the Authoritarian Threat:
  • Wickler identifies structural issues—gerrymandering, the filibuster, Supreme Court politicization—as blocking the will of the majority, enabling anti-democratic outcomes (46:54–49:19).
• Three-Step Plan ("This Is the Plan"):
  • Safeguard state/local power over election administration in 2026 to resist national authoritarian efforts.
  • Win unified federal government in 2028 for robust pro-democracy action.
  • Remain mobilized to push through structural reforms: end filibuster, ban partisan gerrymandering, Supreme Court reform, popular vote for president (50:26–53:33).

---

Notable Quotes

• "I'm asking American partners to sell me 5%, 5% of missiles, what they have in their stocks."
  — Volodymyr Zelenskyy [02:45]
• "We simply aren't replacing them fast enough."
  — Evelyn Farkas [04:05]
• "If you are in a position of Russian leader and you would see weakened Europe, weakened grip of United States... that's a good chance, let's use it."
  — Petr Pavel [09:17]
• "Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch. Where have they been since this war in Iran started?"
  — John Sopko [29:20]
• "If you want to change the system itself, zero in on those all important, super-close, super-obscure elections that can change everything."
  — Ben Wickler [41:57]
• "The world does not want to hear it. And this is it. This is what is happening to the women of Afghanistan."
  — Mahbuba Siraj [33:15]

---

Memorable Moments

• The heartbreak and exhaustion in Mahbuba Siraj's voice as she describes the erasure of Afghan women (21:44–25:57).
• Petr Pavel's stark warning about the window of opportunity for a "humiliating" Russian move against NATO (09:17).
• John Sopko’s analogy about Congress going on vacation while the house—standing for the country’s readiness—has a hole in the roof (29:20).
• The tense on-the-ground reporting from Jeremy Diamond as he confronts Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and tries to reach besieged Palestinian homes (15:38–16:16).
• Ben Wickler’s breakdown of the plan to safeguard democracy from statehouses to the Supreme Court (50:26–53:33).

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Ukraine’s Plea & US Stockpile Analysis: 00:34–13:52
• West Bank Conflict & Settler Violence: 13:52–19:04
• Afghan Women Post-Taliban Takeover: 20:17–36:56
• Democratic Blueprint from Wisconsin: 39:11–53:33

---

Episode Tone

Amanpour combines urgency and gravity with analytical clarity, giving a platform to frontline voices, policy insiders, and political strategists to reflect on crises and propose ways forward.

---

Summary

This tightly packed episode examines the intersection of military policy, humanitarian consequence, and political strategy amidst a landscape of deepening crises. From the desperate need for missile resupply in Ukraine, to the erasure of Afghan women after US withdrawal, the dangers of rising Israeli settler violence, and the challenge—and hope—of reviving American democracy, Amanpour delivers comprehensive, empathetic, and actionable insights for listeners striving to make sense of a rapidly shifting global order.

Transcript

[Grainger Narrator]

When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place. So nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. I'm asking American partners to sell me

[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]

5%, 5% of missiles, what they have in their stocks.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Ukraine pleads for more American Patriot missiles as Russia intensifies its deadly attacks. But has Trump's war of choice on Iran left America's own arsenals dangerously depleted? I speak to former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas, then in the occupied West Bank. Israel deploys its army against its own citizens, settlers laying siege to Palestinian homes. Jeremy diamond reports from the scene. Plus, five years since Kabul fell to the Taliban, Afghan women and girls have been all but erased from public life. Activist Mahbuba Siraj in Karwal and former US Watchdog for Afghanistan John Sopko, join me to reflect on what the United States pullout has ushered in.

[Michelle Martin]

Also ahead, what the Democratic Party can do to change is to show up as part of the life of every neighborhood and every community where people interact face to face with human beings whose trust they can earn.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Can Wisconsin offer Democrats a winning blueprint? Michelle Martin speaks to former state party chair Ben Wickler. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. A ripple effect from Washington to Tehran is killing civilians in Ukraine. Yes, the US Faces a dwindling stockpile of critical weapons systems, having massively depleted them in its war on Iran, burning through nearly 80% of its THAAD missile inventory and roughly half of its Patriot interceptors. The weapons shortage was a factor in President Trump's recent decision to cancel new strikes on Iran. And it cost Ukraine almost, or rather most acutely, leaving its cities virtually defenseless against Moscow's relentless attacks. Now President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is making an urgent plea for just a small percentage of what US Weapons remain. In an interview with correspondent Nick Payton Walsh.

[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]

I'm asking American partners to sell me 5%, 5% of missiles, what they have in their stocks.

[Christiane Amanpour]

If they sell us 5%, we will go through the winter and save people's lives.

[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]

If they can sell us 10%,

[Joe Biden]

we

[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]

will destroy all the Russians ballistic missiles.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Dramatic. Russia is exploiting Ukraine's vulnerability using ballistic missiles to kill civilians in Kyiv, Lviv and elsewhere. Analyst says it could take the US Military years to fully replenish the stockpile of high end weapons. But President Trump insists there is no shortage. Posting, quote, the U.S. has massive amounts of munitions, especially of certain types. For more on what this all means, let's bring in Evelyn Farkas, former deputy assistant secretary of defense and now executive director of the McCain Institute. Evelyn Farkas, welcome back to the program. What should we believe are these, you know, obviously deeply reported stats about dwindling supplies accurate or what? You know, the Pentagon and the president are saying that no, there is no shortage.

[Evelyn Farkas]

Well, Christiane, there obviously has to be a shortage. You know, the United States has been expending an incredible amount of munitions and that has been actually revealed to a large extent by the Pentagon. They haven't told us how many they have, but we know that they have been expending a lot. And of course, Ukraine is expending a lot of munitions that we provide them against Russia because Russia has increased their attacks on the civilian population in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine. So we know that the number of munitions being used has gone up. So that probably means that the stockpiles are down because we have a problem in our defense industrial base. We simply aren't replacing them fast enough.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let's just nail that down too, because I read alarmingly that even if orders are put in post haste, they can't make these things or put them on the supply line until like 2030.

[Evelyn Farkas]

Right. I mean, that has to be rectified. There are probably ways to do this, but the government has to make guarantees to our companies that they will have a steady stream of customers. I don't think we should worry about that because, I mean, I think they should do that. They shouldn't worry about doing it. And then the other thing I think Christiane to remember is prioritization. If we can help Ukraine stop Russia, defeat Russia's aggressive foreign policy, protect civilians, then we're doing something that's in our interest, that is consistent with our values. And also if we weaken Russia, then we will help ourselves in the Middle east and vis a vis China because Russia is, of course, working with Iran and China in the Middle east and elsewhere. And so a weak Russia will also help us counter those other bad actors.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So, Evelyn Farkas, let me just ask you, because you probably heard we played that sound by part of an interview with CNN's Nick Payton Walsh where President Zelensky was quite categorically laying down the percentage of US Missiles that he wanted to buy. I mean, is that dream O vision right now? 5% is not nothing. 10% is not nothing.

[Evelyn Farkas]

No, though it doesn't sound like a lot, Christian. And again, based on what I just said, prioritization, I think it's a pretty good deal because, of course, it reduces the threat posed by Russia to NATO allies and to the United States. It makes Russia a weaker actor, so they can't support Iran. And so I think prioritizing helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia is a pretty good deal if it's only 5% or 10% of our inventory.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So that seems to mean that it would require the United States not to go whole hog against Iran. I mean, the New York Times is reporting that the munitions shortage is what played a role in President Trump's decision not to make another, as he would call it, massive strike on Iran. Have you, given the fact that you've been in the Pentagon in these big positions, have you ever seen this kind of crisis before?

[Evelyn Farkas]

Well, so first, I have worked on Middle east policy before. So I know obviously we have to make trade offs among the various areas of operation. And just to add to what you said about the New York Times reporting, the generals reportedly, you know, the military commanders went to President Trump and said, we're running out of munitions. But more to the point, they said it isn't working. So, so even if we expended more munitions, we aren't going to force the Iranians to do what we want them to do. So it's better to wait to keep the blockade up and to work through negotiations. Now with regard to these trade offs, look, the US Government always has to make these trade offs. We may be at a worse place than we've been in a long time in terms of the number of munitions, because it does sound like it's quite low. And we heard under the Biden administration also concerns of this nature. So we're talking more than a year ago, there was already concern that our support was depleting munitions. We have to have enough to make sure that China doesn't decide to do anything risky. Essentially, that's called deterrence, making sure the bad guys don't take advantage of your depleted munitions. But I don't think we're there yet. I think if we were there, you know, there would be a lot more agitation among the members of Congress, frankly, and inside the Pentagon that would leak out to the public.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, but you know, the president of the Czech Republic. A former NATO official, Petr Pavel, told me just this spring that we are in a pretty bad state when it comes to Putin looking for weaknesses in Europe and the United States, weaknesses in NATO and perhaps trying to provoke. And we can see, because we've been reporting this for the last several weeks at least, that there's been a lot of incursions by Russian drones and bits and parts of Russian equipment going into certain NATO countries. Just take a listen to what Petr Pavel told me about a Putin on a totally war footing and not backing down.

[Petr Pavel]

If you are in a position of Russian leader and you would see weakened Europe, weakened grip of United States over European security, and they would say, well, that's a good chance, let's use it. So I would say let's look at it also from the point of view of opportunity for Russia not necessarily to launch a massive operation in Europe, but to humiliate NATO by starting, let's say, limited military action, for example, in the Baltics.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So you study, obviously Russia a lot. What would you rate as the odds of Putin doing that?

[Evelyn Farkas]

I think that Peter Pavel is correct, that the odds are pretty high. He could try to do something like this to distract from the fact that he's losing in Ukraine, to try to create the impression among his Russian population that he's already trying to create, which is that this is a war not against Ukraine, but a war that the west started against Russia. And so therefore, you know, some kind of provocation that results in a counter reaction from NATO might, in Putin's mind be the right pretext to try to get his people behind the war. I frankly don't think it will work. But we know that Putin's a risk taker. So it is a danger. That doesn't mean we should change anything. If anything, we should just do more. Build up the defenses in Russia, deter Putin, and help Ukraine bring this war to an end as fast as possible. Because one thing is clear. The longer the war goes on, the longer this period of risk where Putin doesn't know how to get out of a losing proposition, and that period of risk is a risk to our allies.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Just a note here, a Russian military blogger, seeing all these reports that we're talking about, you know, low weapons supplies in the U.S. wrote, quote, the situation is very favorable. And you've no doubt been watching Russia really on the offensive. I mean, the other week, Ukraine could not take out a single one of the, I think it was 28 missiles launched, ballistic missiles launched at cities by Russia could not intercept any of Them people are dying. And now Putin is, you know, hitting tankers with grain, with other things. He seems to be really sensing a moment of advantage.

[Evelyn Farkas]

Christian, I don't think there is advantage here. I actually think that the Ukrainians still hold the advantage and the momentum because the Ukrainians are still hitting the oil depots, the oil refineries deep inside of Russia. They're taking out the logistics chain that leads from Russia proper to Crimea. And they're doing things to weaken the Russian economy. And frankly, the right wing bloggers have been complaining that Putin's war is being lost by Putin. They've started criticizing President Putin, which is why you saw him suddenly go out and travel across Russia, including to disputed islands, so Japanese islands. But never mind that. What he's trying to do is send a signal that he has popular support, which he doesn't.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And the Japanese reported they were mighty peeved by that visit, as you can imagine. But I want to ask you on the bigger picture, isn't the US Doctrine, military doctrine to be able to fight two wars at the same time? And if that is the case, still, can the US do that right now?

[Evelyn Farkas]

Well, that is a good question, Christiane, because that's been traditionally the perspective coming from the Pentagon, which then the National Security Council would endorse that the United States should be able to fight two major wars and then a smaller one perhaps. We don't know what the Trump administration has said that they are aiming towards and what we are capable of doing. But I would argue that we should not aim to, you know, fight more than one war. Although, of course, let's not kid ourselves. These wars are linked. Russia and Iran are working together in the Middle East. Russia's providing intelligence. Russia's providing their upgraded drones. And then, of course, Iran provided the original drones to Russia continues to support Russia, not to mention, of course, what China's been doing behind the scenes and then also what North Korea is doing. So all of these countries are working together in all theaters.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's really important to keep our focus on this. Evelyn Farkas of the McCain Institute, thank you very much indeed for joining us. And next we turn to the occupied west bank, where for days Israeli settlers have surrounded three Palestinian homes. The settlers have cut off access to the area and are besieging the families, trying to get them to leave. The Israeli army has been called in to disperse them. As Jeremy diamond reports,

[Jeremy Diamond]

the view from

this Palestinian home is the same from every angle. Israeli settlers everywhere you look. For days now, they've set up camp and surrounded three homes on this hilltop in the occupied West Bank. In a bid to force the residents out and take over. They've cut water and power lines and have tried to stop anyone from approaching. All of this is illegal, and yet this is what happened when Palestinian residents first called the Israeli military soldiers joined the settlers in prayer.

[Kusai Reddi]

They start hugging the settlers, and they start praying with the settlers, and absolutely

[Michael Ian Black]

did nothing to protect my brother and his son.

[Jeremy Diamond]

Luay Reddi owns one of those houses. A Palestinian American, he's watched all of this unfold from Ohio, and this is what he saw on Wednesday. The Israeli military trying and ultimately failing to remove the settlers from the area. Hours later, we drive up the hill to see if anything has changed.

So these are actually the three homes that have been besieged by these settlers for four days now. We're going to try and climb up this hill, see if we can get past the settlers who are blocking the area.

The settlers are still there, and so are two Israeli soldiers who order us to stop and turn off our vehicle. The soldier tells me this is now a closed military area and that we're interfering with military activity. An IDF spokesperson said the order does apply to the settlers, but it's clearly not being enforced.

They're telling us that it's a closed military zone, that we're not allowed to be here. But at the same time, we're seeing multiple Israeli settlers who are here, who are not being made to leave and who are continuing to block the access to these homes down the hill.

We call Luai's brother Kusai, who's been staying in his home, Kusai.

This is the closest we're able to get to your home, unfortunately. How are you doing? Do you still have supplies?

The food I have is going to run out in two to three days. Beyond that, I have no food, nothing, he says. But at the same time, even if I run out of food, I will not leave the house.

So do you have any hope that these settlers are actually going to be kicked out of this area?

Honestly, from what I saw today, the settlers were monstrous. He explains. They even attacked the Israeli army, forcing them to fire sound grenades and tear gas. They have their eyes set on the house and this hilltop. They want to take it.

The Israeli military says it is stepping

up its efforts to rout the settlers,

deploying an infantry battalion to the area

to, quote, protect the residents and maintain security. But Qusay's fears aren't abstract. In recent weeks, settlers in this area have set fire to a mosque and besieged this home.

This right here is why Those families are afraid to leave their homes. You can see Israeli settlers on the rooftop of this house here. Three weeks ago, Palestinians were living in that house, but it's been taken over

by Israeli settlers with a messianic flag now flying above it. These settlers want their presence known from one hilltop to the next.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And Jeremy's joining us now. Jeremy, it's wild. I mean, I can't. It's incredible what you've just been showing us. And we know and you know that if the IDF wants to get people out of their way, they can do it. And there's not like a huge number of those settlers.

[Mahbuba Siraj]

We.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What more can you tell us?

[Jeremy Diamond]

Yeah, no, you're exactly right, Christiane. I mean, we've certainly seen today that the Israeli military deployed a lot more soldiers to this area. The question is, what are they actually going to do there? We saw initially they actually entered Palestinians homes. They kicked people out to establish these outposts where they said they would fight the settlers. Essentially, that decision was ultimately reversed. The soldiers left their houses. And so far, we haven't actually seen these soldiers remove or detain the settlers who are in the area. I spoke with the owner of that home that we were just showing in our report, and as of a couple hours ago, there were settlers in front of his home that he could see on his security cameras. And as you said, Christian, we have seen the Israeli military, we've seen the Israeli border police in action when they want to remove people from a certain area. They have a variety of riot dispersal methods at their disposition. They have the ability to detain people in large numbers when they want to. But for some reason or another, when it comes to these Israeli settlers, the Israeli military has yet to use those means at its disposal. Christian.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, well, Jeremy, thank you. Keep an eye on it. We know that the policy is to move Palestinians out and to. I mean, I'm saying this and others have to ethnically cleanse and to grab as much territory as they can. And this isI mean it's a great reporting. Thank you so much. Indeed. Coming up, five years on from the fall of Kabul, how the lives of women and girls there have been transformed by Taliban rule since the disastrous American withdrawal. That's after the break.

[Jeremy Diamond]

Tev, I've got news for your ears. The podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. We're talking about Dr. Donald Trump debuting his new vaccine, how Iran changed Trump's travel plans and his new chill approach to the war. The two things on everyone's minds, the ballroom and the reflecting pool. Have I got news for your ears. Check us out on Apple, Amazon Music, wherever you get your podcasts. Even better, you can watch the Vodcast on Spotify.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This weekend marks five years since the fall of Kabul to the Taliban and America's subsequent, subsequent chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The images are hard to forget. Desperate people running on the tarmac, trying to flee. Crowds piling up outside the airport gates and the gun toting Taliban hoisting their flags, parading through the streets. Five years later, Afghanistan is isolated. It's warring with neighboring Pakistan. Its people are desperately poor and girls are banned from secondary school. And women, the UN Says, have been erased from public life. Mahbuba Siraj is a longtime women's rights activist who has defied pressure from the Taliban and has stayed in Kabul for the past five years. But now she says the pressure may have become too much. She joins us from Kabul. Also with us is John Sopko, who served for years as the independent special Inspector General for the US For Afghanistan, the official watchdog of the US Government. Both of you, welcome to the program. Let me start with you, Mahub Siraj. Mahuba Siraj. In Kabul I said that you're facing the pressure and you may not any longer be able to, you know, open your shelters and keep your help and support for Afghan women. Tell me where that stands.

[Mahbuba Siraj]

Hello, Christina. Thank you, Mr. Manpur, very much for inviting me. Well, I mean it took, it took a long time from the time my shelters were actually were established. That was in 2003 in Kabul and it lived for, until 2025, December when it was closed like force. And from then on I don't have a shelter. And so life for me in Kabul, for the reason I was here, which was the protection of the abused women of Afghanistan, is I believe is terminated. I cannot continue working this way because I haven't been any help to any one of the Afghan women that they needed me. I haven't been able to do it because nobody allows me to. And the women, you know, all of their rights have been taken away from them. And if anybody says anything about it, we are wrong. We are not supposed to say it. But this is exactly what has happened. And I really, for the last time, because this is the time of the year when everybody else coming and they want to know about what's on, going, going on with the Taliban in the fifth year. That's why, you know, I'm really grateful

[Christiane Amanpour]

to, I hear the distress obviously in your voice. Let me ask you, John Sopko, after All these years and all that you've done to take account and keep account of what's going on on behalf of the US Government, how are you feeling five years later after all this money, all this effort by the US and all the progress that was made there, especially for women and girls?

[Kusai Reddi]

Well, thank you for inviting me, Cristiana. I'm depressed and saddened. I know a lot of Afghans who haven't made it out. I know a lot of women who haven't made it out who are still hiding or they're stuck in the pipeline. So it is a sad, depressing time. And it's tragic. It's basically tragic. I mean, it is. To be very blunt, it's hell if you're a woman in Afghanistan. And I don't see the international community, I definitely don't see this government, the Trump administration doing anything, anything at all about it. If anything, they're creating a bigger mess for the poor people of Afghanistan.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, you might mean because of the, you know, cutback of USAID and even those humanitarian projects being cut back. So, Mahmuba, can you tell us what it's like for women? Some can work. I know some are on the television. They have to be masked, but by and large, they are erased. I mean, I read somewhere today that some women don't even leave their house more than twice a month.

[Mahbuba Siraj]

Yeah, that's true. Why should they go on the streets? What for? I mean, they really, they really. They don't have to go. They don't need to go. They don't, because they're not welcome. They're treated badly if they ever get their hands on them, you know, by the vice and virtue people. And then, you know. And to do what? They don't have money to buy anything. They don't have any place to go to. They're not allowed to. So why should they walk on the streets? They don't want to get out, so they're staying home. But this is all done by force. This is the thing that is going on and nobody wants to admit it. It's by force, Ms. Amanpur. It's not because they are willing to do that is by force. And it's been happening by force from day one. It's been happening by force. The education has been taken away. When you say the right to.

[Kusai Reddi]

Yeah,

[Mahbuba Siraj]

everything.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The statement, force. Yeah, yeah. You've clarified what I was going to ask you. Yeah. By force of the Taliban making these edicts and refusing to allow women and girls, despite the promises they made. Can we all Please remember that in 2021, when they came into Kabul and had their first press conference, they said that they were different and they were going to allow a different kind of Taliban rule than I witnessed back in, you know, 96, when they first took over. But let me ask you, John, we're going to go back a few years now to 2021 and what President Biden said about the August 31st date, which he pushed up to August 15th, and let's just take a listen and I'll ask you about it.

[Joe Biden]

In April, I made a decision to end this war. As part of that decision, we set the date of August 31st for American troops to withdraw. The assumption was that more than 300,000 Afghan national security Forces that we had trained over the past two decades and equipped would be a strong adversary in their civil wars with the Taliban. That assumption that the Afghan government would be able to hold on for a period of time beyond military drawdown turned out not to be accurate.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Really? Yeah, it turned out not to be. Right. You were trying to sound the alarm, John, back then. Did it fall on deaf ears?

[Kusai Reddi]

Yes, it did. And it's interesting about that 300,000 figure. That was a figure put out by every administration, particularly the Biden administration. It was totally false. We told them it was totally false years before, we did not have a good accounting. So to hear that, I think. I think within hours of the collapse of Afghanistan, I remember, I think it was the PR person for the Defense Department was claiming. I have evidence. He didn't have any evidence. I mean, if he had read any of our reports going back to almost when I started, 12 years before,

[Joe Biden]

he

[Kusai Reddi]

would not have made that. It was happy talk. And that's the unfortunate thing. And you see the same thing right now with Iran. It's happy talk. You know, we're blasting them out. Everything's going well and all that well, there's nobody actually doing oversight in Iraq, in Iran. Excuse me. Nobody really doing effective oversight anymore. So the American people and Congress, and shame on them, are not doing the oversight to find out what's going on there and what's going on in Afghanistan. That is still. We still have responsibility.

[Christiane Amanpour]

John, let me just ask you, because I was just talking about Iran and other issues with former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas and about the US Munitions running low, partly because of the war in Iran, et cetera. But what is not being held accountable? What accounting is not being done that you're concerned about over the Iran war?

[Kusai Reddi]

Well, I'm shocked, and I think everyone is And Cristiana, you must be too, is. Here we have a Congress whose job is to oversee the Executive branch. Here we have a Congress, particularly the appropriators, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations, the Chairman of the House Appropriations, who control the money bag. They control the money. And you're telling me all of a sudden they discover we're out of weapons. I mean, what is going on? I have not seen any effective oversight from Congress. I have not seen any effective oversight from the IGs after they fired 16 of us back in 2025. Those are simple things. I mean, this is common sense. And then in the midst of this war, Congress goes on a recess for a number of months. I mean, this is like, Christina, if you. If you had a house and it's raining and you've got a hole in the roof and you call somebody to come in to fix it, and he says, oh, okay, I gotta leave now. I gotta go on vacation for two months. What. What are the Americans supposed to think about their Congress? Remember, Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch. Where have they been since this war in Iran started?

[Joe Biden]

Yeah.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And I mean, going back to your role on Afghanistan, you were there all the time briefing Congress, telling them, you know, dollars and cents about what's going where and what they should be alert for. And you were very diligent about it, along with all the other IGs who had other responsibilities. But I want to. I want to go back quickly to Mahuba Siraj, because back in 2022, that is one year after the Taliban took over, I went over and tried to, you know, do a status report. And I sat down with Surajuddin Haqqani, who was ostensibly the main leader outside of the Kandahar, you know, theocracy. And this is what he told me. He told me that women and girls. Don't worry. Don't worry. Women and girls will get their rights. They will be able to go to school. Just take a listen. Many tell us that they feel that the Taliban wants them to stay at home and they're afraid of some of the edicts. That has a very chilling effect.

[Mahbuba Siraj]

We keep naughty women at home.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, you need to explain that joke, because people will think that's official policy, and maybe it is. What does that mean, naughty?

[Mahbuba Siraj]

What I am saying is that the international community is raising the issue of women's rights a lot here in Afghanistan. There are Islamic, national, cultural and traditional principles within the limit of those principles. We are working to provide them with opportunities to work. And that is our goal by Saying naughty women, it was a joke, referring to those naughty women who are controlled by some other sides to bring the current government into question.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You know, Mahmoud Siraj, it's obviously turned out to be a cruel joke on the Afghan women. The promises, as I said at the early press conferences, what he said to me, and he actually allegedly is one of the more willing to let girls go to school and have women work they do in his interior Ministry. Are you surprised that those promises that the Taliban made, that 2.0 would be different from 1.0 just simply collapsed?

[Mahbuba Siraj]

Yeah, I am. And I am not, to tell you the honest truth, because if they, if the world knew the Taliban or 2.0 and 1.0 and all of that, that doesn't really mean anything. I mean, these people are not, they are not a political group. They're a group of. They're religious group. And religion is not going to change because, you know, people are coming and they're younger and they're older or whatever, and they can't. Or one or can't do that. No, that doesn't happen because they have an ideology. They work according to that ideology. And that ideology is not going to let them to give women any kind of a freedom. That's very simple. But the thing that I want you to. I want you to please tell the world we know that the world did not want to hear anything about the Afghan woman negatively from the government of the. They didn't. They were ready to say everything is fine, so we are going to give the women Afghanistan and all of its problems to the Taliban and we want to forget it. That's where the world was and that's where the world is today also. And that's why whatever is happening in Afghanistan, nobody really can talk about it because nobody can really know exactly what is going on. And this is it. This is it. This is what is happening to the women of Afghanistan. As Mr. Sopko, he knows that. He knows that. And this is exactly what's happening in Afghanistan. Whatever the world, as he said, is a nightmare, is a little bit of reality. That's it. Not the whole of it. No. And the world does not want to hear it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

John Sopko, really. John Sopko, if the world doesn't want to hear about the women and the girls of Afghanistan and there are millions of girls who are denied secondary education, what about at least the Afghans who worked for and with the American government, you're trying to help protect them. A lot of them are losing their status in the United States, the US Is apparently trying to farm them out elsewhere, knowing how bad it would be to send them back to Afghanistan under these circumstances. What is the status of these Afghans who so bravely did help the United States for decades?

[Kusai Reddi]

Well, the status is almost as bad as for the women. There's hundreds of thousands who are still in Afghanistan who have tried to come here. We had almost 200,000, 175,000 who were actually in the pipeline, who had actually done all the paperwork, who had been vetting. And the thing to remember when you hear somebody say, oh, these people are dangerous, the vetting system that we were using is the best vetting system ever. It was invented by Trump administration the first time around. And if anything was enhanced. So the pipeline is shut down. All assistance is shut down. We have people dying in Afghanistan right now. We have people who support it. And it's not just police, it's not just troops, journalists. It's everybody who believed in us. And you know something? This is a national security issue because our promise to these people was similar to the promise that President Ford made. And we brought in a million people after Vietnam. We have about 150, 160,000 we brought in, and there's a couple hundred thousand still waiting. Do you think anyone is going to believe and trust the United States the next time we need allies to fight, whether it's Ukraine, Iran or whatever, after the way we treated the Afghans?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, well. Yeah, well, I can hear the desperation in your voice after all that you've done to make this, you know, work out. And also for Mahbub Asiraj, after all she's done and now contemplating leaving Afghanistan. It is a tragic and unhappy fifth anniversary, and we thank you both for talking to us about it. We're going to keep the focus on. Thank you. Still to come, how to end America's meltdown and save democracy. That's the title of Ben Winkler, former Wisconsin Democratic chair, about his book. He shares his plan after the break.

[Dr. Sanjay Gupta]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. For a lot of people, it's obvious the appeal of medical tourism is all about the cost. It's about the price tag. But cost isn't the only driver, as you're about to hear. My guest today is Harvard Law School Professor Glenn Cohen. He's an expert in bioethics and the law, and he has written a book about medical tourism.

[Michael Ian Black]

So it varies a little bit by country, but I'll give you some examples of things that are sometimes discussed in the literature so sex reassignment surgery is an interesting example. Thailand has long been, I think, ahead of us sex reassignment surgery, and many people think that that's a great place to go for that. India has often been a leading center for cardiac, but the US Is very good at cardiac, too. But when someone's thinking about cardiac, that's a possibility.

[Dr. Sanjay Gupta]

Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This week, Americans in six states voted in primaries to choose their party's candidates for the upcoming fall election. Soap what did the results reveal? Trump endorsed candidates were successful despite his low approval ratings. And the Democratic contests highlight a divide between progressives and moderates. Well, our next guest says Wisconsin offers a blueprint for rebuilding Democratic power from the ground up. Ben Wickler is the state's former Democratic chair and he's joining Michelle Martin now.

[Ben Wickler]

Thanks, Christiane. Ben Wickler, thank you so much for talking with us.

[Michelle Martin]

Michelle, great to be with you.

[Ben Wickler]

Lots of news to talk about, but I wanna start with your book titled this Is the How to End America's Meltdown and Save Democracy. You ran the Democratic Party in Wisconsin for six years, and out of that experience you have the notion that, you know, as Wisconsin goes, so goes the country, and that Wisconsin has lessons to offer the country. So the first question I wanted to ask you is what is the Democratic Party doing wrong?

[Michelle Martin]

Well, at a very basic level, as a country, we've all been pulled apart from each other. We've been pulled into our phones. Community has collapsed around the nation. People are less involved with their neighbors. They spend less time face to face with each other. And the Democratic Party has had the exact same thing over the last century. It's eroded and eroded to the point where most people's experience of the Democratic Party is fundraising, text messages and urgent emails and never actually conversations with human beings. So the central kind of argument in my book about what the Democratic Party can do to change is to show up as part of the life of every neighborhood and every community where people interact face to face with human beings whose trust they can earn. If you do that, then you're able to pull people together in the face of attacks by a would be authoritarian or any other political crisis that might come up. That's what we've been doing in Wisconsin and it has had a huge effect year over year. And that's something that everyone can get involved in changing for the whole.

[Ben Wickler]

One of the arguments you make in the book is that actually elections, even in a country as big as the United States, are Actually decided by very few people. How did you come to that realization?

[Michelle Martin]

That's the paradox of this moment. It's a country of 340 million people, and yet Republican control of the House of Representatives came down to 7,309 votes across three congressional districts. And it's even narrower than that because the rules for how congressional maps are drawn, those come down to state Supreme Court races and state legislative races. I write in the book about the North Carolina state Supreme court race in 2020 that came down to 401 votes. Almost no one was paying attention. But that set in motion a chain of events that led to the gerrymandering of that state that gave Republicans three additional congressional seats that made Mike Johnson the speaker of the U.S. house. Right now, there are elections like that all the time that are obscure, where a tiny shift in the number of votes, the number of people who turn out, who they vote for, can topple the outcome one way or the other that wind up having huge ripple effects on the entire American political system. And my argument is, if you want to change the system itself, zero in on those all important, super close, super obscure elections that can change everything.

[Ben Wickler]

All right, well, let's talk about Wisconsin. As you and I are speaking now. Big races just decided, well, the primaries anyway. In Wisconsin, a candidate who is described as the more moderate, David Crowley, he narrowly defeated a candidate who is identified, self identified as being with a Democratic socialist movement, Francesca Hong. The polls showed that the Democratic socialist candidate was way ahead. That isn't how things turned out. So what happened here is just the polling just way off or were there other things that affected the dynamics of the race?

[Michelle Martin]

So polls in primaries are notoriously inaccurate and very often miss the mark. That said, the polls that suggested Francesca Hong had about 40% in the Wisconsin governor's primary were accurate. There were a bunch of undecided voters, and it looks like they overwhelmingly went for David Crowley in the final stretch. He won by less than 4,000 votes. The most striking thing about the result to me is that both Francesca Hong and David Crowley, who is now going to be the Democratic nominee for governor in Wisconsin, they both got more votes than any Democratic candidate for governor governor in a primary in recent memory. The level of overall engagement by Democrats, people, you know, with every candidate fighting for change to try to make life more affordable. David Crowley and Francesca Hong talking about childcare and healthcare and housing, things that everyone needs, they, they generated a way higher level of turnout than the Republicans in their primary. They generated a higher level of Turnout than in 2018, which was a Democratic wavier Republican turnout in Wisconsin, went down from 2018 to 2026 in the Republican primary. And that tells me that there's an engaged electorate. There are a ton of people who are, you know, thinking about the policies they want and thinking about how to win. They, you know, they might have disagreed in that moment, but the day after the primary, Francesca Hong and David Crowley had brunch together with Attorney General Josh Call and a whole bunch of other Democrats and candidates. And there's going to be unity going forward. And that's what we saw in Wisconsin. That's what we saw in Michigan. I really do think that there's a movement that has its fights in the primaries. And then we'll come together to say what is happening to this whole country. What is happening in states like Wisconsin right now, where the economy is being rigged for the people at the top and democracy is being smashed so the public can't do anything about it? That is not okay. We need something better and different.

[Ben Wickler]

One of the reasons it stands out is that this is a different result than in Michigan, where the more progressive candidate, Abdul Al Sayed doctor Prevailed over the candidate who is described as sort of more moderate, the establishment candidate who's a member of Congress, and then he won the Democratic primary for the governor's race. In Minnesota, the current lieutenant governor won the primary for the Senate seat over the candidate who is a sitting member of Congress, who's also described as the more moderate. So you have this kind of mixed result. And so two questions I have for you. Are these lanes that we're describing overstated? Are these candidates really that different?

[Michelle Martin]

The differences in a primary always seem the very, very biggest the day after and the day before and the day of the election itself. Within a month, people are gonna recognize that in Wisconsin and Michigan and Minnesota, all these candidates are running to try to unrig the economy to make this country work for working people, and that they're trying to fight back against this cabal of very wealthy and powerful people trying to rig the system for their own corrupt benefit. And that is the message that will reach voters that are on the fence about whether to vote or which party to vote for. And that's a unifying Democratic message that you see in the reddest and purplest and bluest places across the country. That is the central question in this election. Right now, Trump is building arches to himself in ballrooms and handing out billions of dollars to his friends and saying that he loves inflation. And he laughs at the little man with the $4 gas that he talks about. And he gets every Republican in Congress to rubber stamp the war in Iran that has sent the cost of gas and groceries spiraling. He is just very clearly on the side of himself and his friends at everybody's expense. And in the states, in the states, sometimes like Wisconsin and Michigan, that voted for Trump twice, there's a real sense that, you know, people have given Trump a shot. It is not working. The problems that they are crying out to be addressed in their own lives, how incredibly hard it is to be able to afford childcare. If you're a parent, they want someone who's actually gonna do something about that. And wherever you land within the Democratic spectrum, even some independent candidates, there's a laser focus on delivering for working folks that I think is gonna carry Democrats in 2026. And then all of that helps inform what's gonna happen nationwide in 2028.

[Ben Wickler]

Okay, so I started by asking, what have Democrats been doing wrong? What have Republicans been doing right? At least, what is the Trump administration? What is President Trump as a candidate? What has he been doing right to persuade this many people that he's on their side?

[Michelle Martin]

First, it's very clear that Trump as president right now is not following through on his campaign promises. He's not delivering for people, and he is wildly unpopular. People are furious about what he and his kind of whole MAGA team are doing. But he did win this election, and you have to ask yourself why that is. Essentially, the people who didn't hear from either candidate, they just knew in their gut that what was happening to them and their families wasn't working. They were the people who voted to change the channel, and they're already ready to change the channel again because Trump is not delivering what people were asking for. I think there's a deeper dysfunction, though, and I think the Republican strategy has fed into this dysfunction. The dysfunction is that our government is rigged to not deliver change that benefits regular folks economically. There are all these ways to be able to block it. You have the U.S. supreme Court that is essentially carrying out a far right and corporate agenda day by day. You have a U.S. senate that has a filibuster that allows a handful of senators to block anything that they. They think might help them gain power in the next election. You have a US House that is ultra gerrymandered. You have Citizens United that allows unlimited corporate spending. And the effect of all of that is that when Republicans come in, they can give tax cuts to the rich. Those can't be filibustered. They can appoint right wing judges. Those are their top two agenda items. So the right gets what it wants. Eventually things go haywire. The end of the Bush administration, the financial crisis at the end of Trump, it was Covid. People vote Democrats into office, and then Democrats can't deliver on big parts of their agenda. So voters who are asking for change, they can't get it from Democrats because the system is built to block the change. And when Republicans come in, the change that comes, they don't like. And that's why we have change election after change, election after change election without the kind of change that people are actually crying out for. That, to me, is a fundamental problem in our system. And a lot of the focus of my book is how we unrig the system to allow democracy to actually happen so people can get what they're voting for.

[Ben Wickler]

But there are people who would say actually the real issue is twofold. One is that Democrats are afraid of race, that they treat African Americans in particular, and perhaps Latinos as well, are people of color, the same way that Republicans have traditionally treated Christian evangelicals, which is, we're happy to see you at election time, but please don't bother us with your agenda during the rest of the year. So, one, it's race, and two, it's that Democrats are beholden to some of the same corporate interests that they criticize Republicans for being. Being beholden to. And what would you say to that?

[Michelle Martin]

I would say that Democrats have come so agonizingly close to actually getting this done. And in 2021, there were two US senators who were not ready to change the filibuster, which, by the way, for the first 80 years of filibusters was only ever used to defeat civil rights legislation. That this is a coalition party where the vast majority of Democrats do understand the central role that, that racism and racist attacks have played in the rights divide and conquer strategy to enrich the rich. It means that in primary elections that are happening across the country and will happen again in 2028, if you're an engaged Democratic voter, you've gotta ask the candidates whether they're willing to take action to change the system itself to ensure that no matter your race, that everyone actually has a vote, that everyone's vote actually counts, you have to ask whether they're willing to change a system that benefits the biggest donors instead of the general public. But most Democrats already are. We are very close to being able to get where we need to make major structural reforms.

[Ben Wickler]

Well, I'm gonna ask you to tell us the plan, because that's the title of your book. This is the plan. So what's the plan?

[Michelle Martin]

First step in the plan, recognize countries on fire, Have a fire extinguisher on the COVID of the book. The first fire in this moment is a government that is testing out ways to subvert democracy itself to stop the public from being able to choose who wields power, who holds office. And the most critical thing, safeguard against an authoritarian all the way. Breakthrough in this country is actually state and local governments in 2026. And the reason for that is the Constitution puts the control of the election system into the hands of state governments, regulated by federal law. But it's states that administer elections. This has been, throughout our history, the kind of readout of segregationists and white supremacists. People tried to block, you know, anyone who didn't look like Donald Trump, for me, able to cast a ballot. But right now, it means that if Donald Trump tries to seize the voting machines in Fulton County, Georgia, that it's actually state officials and can be state courts that can block those kinds of efforts. It's very clear that Trump is fantasizing about doing this. He's talking about invoking a national state of emergency, the Insurrection Act. But state governments can be the line of defense. So in 2026, step one of the plan is to ensure that the people who will run the elections in 2028 are people who believe in democracy itself. And that can mean Keisha Lance Bottoms as governor of Georgia. It can mean David Crowley as governor of Wisconsin. It means Secretaries of State, it means state Supreme Court justices. Those are the key decision makers that will determine whether democracy gets through this moment of extreme peril. That's step one. Step two is in 2028, for people who believe in expanding democracy to win a federal tr, the presidency, the US House, the US Senate, states still matter enormously as well in that moment. But that is the one chance that we have coming up to win a unified federal government that takes this crisis seriously. And then step three, in 2029, everyone who volunteered, who donated, who got involved, who voted to elect that government that wants to actually end America's meltdown. All those people need to stay mobilized to press the government to actually take action. And that means ending the filibuster, banning partisan gerrymandering. I argue for proportional representation in the US House, US Supreme Court reform, I think term limits on the US Supreme Court. So it's not kind of a locked in partisan body in the way it is right now. And then there's also a plan to turn the Electoral College into a kind of sideshow by getting states to enact laws that make the winner of the national popular vote the president of the United States. And while we're at it at D.C. statehood and a referendum for statehood in Puerto Rico, all those policies, if you take them together, they dismantle the system of control that the right has imposed on the country over a period of decades and make every voter in this country actually have a voice in who is the US House majority, who has the US Senate majority, who becomes the president of the United States. And it allows Congress and the president to pass laws without having a U.S. supreme Court that only strikes down laws and executive actions when they're done by Democrats.

[Ben Wickler]

Congrats, Ben Wichler. Thank you so much for talking with us.

[Michelle Martin]

Thank you so much, Michelle.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally, a box seat at the proms with one of the world's greatest conductors. Gustavo Dudamel is in London for this year's annual classical music festival at the Royal Albert Hall. And when I sat down with him this week, he told me about the importance of finding joy and harmony in

[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]

life for myself in this noisy world. What is my exercise every day? Day, you know, to balance my harmony every day, you know, I take my time to be in silence, but not in silence completely like a silence that we understand. It's a lot of sounds, it's a lot of voices there. And how I can balance that, how I can say something that maybe can heal and not destroy.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You can watch his incredible conducting and our full interview on tomorrow's program. That's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

[Anderson Cooper]

Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. My guests are David Frum and Danielle Crittenden. They're both journalists and writers who've been married for 38 years. They've had three children together, Miranda, Nathaniel and Beatrice. Miranda, their eldest, worked as a journalist and model before she died unexpectedly.

[Evelyn Farkas]

Parental death feels in the natural order of things. You lose a child, it not only upends the universe and your universe, but

[Christiane Amanpour]

it was a grief with a capital

[Michelle Martin]

G. There are those who are in grief and the rest of humanity I now call pre grief because it's coming.

[Anderson Cooper]

Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.