NATO Summit to Test Alliance's Resolve

Summary

Amanpour: “NATO Summit to Test Alliance's Resolve” (July 7, 2026)

Host: Bianna Golodryga (in for Christiane Amanpour)
Summary by Segment with Timestamps and Quotes

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Amanpour centers on the high-stakes NATO summit in Turkey, which is set to test the alliance’s cohesion amidst escalating tensions with Russia, shifting U.S. commitment under President Trump, and European fears of both military and political destabilization. In addition, the episode covers the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Sudan, a significant French court ruling impacting Marine Le Pen’s presidential prospects, and the devastating impact of extreme climate events globally.

---

Segment 1: NATO Summit – Transatlantic Tensions and Strategy

(01:34–19:04)

Main Theme

• Exploring whether NATO can remain unified as U.S. involvement becomes less certain, especially with increased demands from President Trump for European allies to do more and contentious topics like Greenland and Turkey’s role in Euro-Asian security.

Key Discussion Points

• President Trump has renewed pressure on European allies for greater defense spending and is revisiting the idea of U.S. control of Greenland.
• The U.S. is threatening to reduce its leadership in NATO conventional forces, shifting more responsibility to Europe, but doubts linger about the reliability of U.S. commitments.
• Turkey's strategic positioning, both militarily and diplomatically, especially under President Erdogan, is deemed pivotal by both U.S. and Turkish interests, with Turkey facilitating (and complicating) outcomes in Ukraine, Gaza, North Africa, and the Caucasus.
• Tensions remain over U.S. F-35 fighter jet sales to Turkey, previously blocked due to Turkey’s acquisition of Russian S-400s, with implications for Israeli security and regional balance.
• The possibility of lifting sanctions on Syria is debated, with suggestions that U.S. designation of Syria as a terrorism sponsor is outdated considering shifting local dynamics.
• With Iran attacking shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the lack of allied support has stoked U.S. frustration, underscoring the need for European investment in self-defense, especially in drone technology.

Notable Quotes

• President Trump (03:16): “...We help them, but I'm not sure they'd be there for us. And Italy turned us down, and Germany turned us down, and France turned us down...why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars and they're not there for us?”
• David Sanger (04:31): “The question is, can the gradually stronger Europe make up for the US withdrawal...the concern is that the United States is pulling back from its traditional role at the center of NATO conventional defense.”
• James Jeffrey (07:17): “Trump is basically supporting NATO...he has to be apologetic about it, so he keeps on raising these themes...I'm going to think about Greenland again. But the point is, he's there.”
• James Jeffrey (08:43): “In Ukraine, [Erdogan] cut off any Russian reinforcements through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea...Turkey probably has done more than any other country other than the United States to help Ukraine.”
• David Sanger (10:55): “He [Erdogan] has also been a strong supporter of the cause in Gaza for the Palestinians, which has angered Prime Minister Netanyahu...What’s really fascinating is Trump in his first term cut off the sales of the F-35 to Turkey...now...he wants to go undo what he did in the first term.”
• David Sanger (16:42): “We are in an era of asymmetric warfare that the Europeans are not ready for and that the United States may not be ready for...It would be good if we saw NATO actually focused on those issues [drones, air defense, rapid production].”

Key Timestamps

• 03:16: Trump’s remarks on allies’ failure to support the U.S.
• 04:31–06:15: Sanger and Jeffrey discuss U.S. and European defense responsibilities.
• 07:17–09:24: Turkey’s regional influence and Erdogan’s aims.
• 10:55–13:20: F-35 controversy, Israeli objections, shifting alliances.
• 14:21–15:41: Syria sanctions debate and U.S. interests.
• 16:42–18:20: The need for investment in new defense technologies and strategy alignment.

---

Segment 2: Humanitarian Crisis in Sudan

(19:53–36:25)

Main Theme

• Sudan faces another humanitarian catastrophe as fighting rages in El Obeid, mass displacement and infrastructure destruction intensify, and international response falters.

Key Discussion Points

• The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) continue siege tactics using suicide drones to devastate civilian infrastructure, creating an ongoing humanitarian emergency.
• The strategic aim is to consolidate control over key territory, opening potential routes to Khartoum or Darfur.
• Testimonies and satellite evidence show systematic atrocities and killings by the RSF, particularly targeting specific ethnic groups during prior massacres.
• Regional and international actors, particularly the UAE, are accused of supplying advanced weapons and drones, with complicity or active support from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others.
• U.S. policy (sanctions, FTO designations) has thus far failed to shift realities on the ground; true impact would require leverage over ally supply chains and diplomatic pressure—especially on arms flows.
• The proliferation of drones is fundamentally changing warfare, making conflicts bloodier by enabling strikes even during seasons when fighting would typically halt.
• Global attention is lacking, with panelists attributing the lack of response to a “hierarchy of suffering” and international apathy toward African crises.

Notable Quotes

• Nathaniel Raymond (21:24): “At this point do not identify signs of an imminent attack…but...they’re using suicide drones to basically destroy what’s left of the civilian infrastructure and starve and steal the water from civilians...”
• Khaloud Khair (25:02): “It's smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand...there is no sort of universe where any guarantees by the RSF can currently be taken seriously.”
• Raymond (27:19): “They [RSF] could not fight this war without the UAE superhighway of advanced weapons support...This is a multinational effort by the UAE from Ethiopia to Chad to Libya...to create basically a network of arms supply routes.”
• Khair (29:26): “The United States needs to ask itself how is it going to really sort of reconcile the differences of its allies in the region in order to make sure that lives are saved...We haven’t really seen the US even start to ask itself that question.”
• Raymond (32:22): “The war in Sudan for both the army and rapid support forces, is now a drone war. And that is changing how fighting traditionally happens...You’re seeing the future of warfare in Africa, which is really reliant on drones at every stage.”
• Khair (34:46): “Cutting off the arms supply...this war is as consequential as it is, it's as destabilizing and destructive as it is precisely because of the scale of the warfare...We struggle to get people to talk about Sudan even as it is the world’s largest hunger crisis, humanitarian crisis, displacement crisis and sexual violence crisis.”

Key Timestamps

• 21:24–22:58: RSF tactics and strategic objectives for El Obeid.
• 23:34–25:02: Atrocities in Al Fasher and RSF’s intentions elsewhere.
• 27:19–28:23: UAE’s role and wider international networks fueling the war.
• 29:26–31:14: The failures of U.S. and Western pressure; the need for real policy change.
• 32:22–34:02: The evolution to drone warfare and implications for civilians.
• 34:46–36:25: The call to prioritize Sudan's crisis amid global indifference.

---

Segment 3: France & Marine Le Pen’s Political Future

(37:19–42:39)

Main Theme

• A French appeals court decision shortens far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s political ban, allowing her to run for president, but she must wear an ankle monitor—an issue that could shift campaign dynamics and populist politics.

Key Discussion Points

• The court confirmed her conviction for embezzling EU funds but reduced her ineligibility to 15 months, with an added requirement to wear an electronic ankle monitor.
• Le Pen is poised to used her legal woes as political capital, mirroring strategies seen in U.S. populist politics, particularly that of former President Trump.
• Whether she or her protégé Jordan Bardella leads the National Rally into the election, the party remains a formidable force based on current polls.

Notable Quotes

• Melissa Bell (38:22): “It does seem complicated when you consider the logistics of running a presidential bid with an ankle bracelet that essentially confines you to your home...She has 10 days to appeal the appeals decision. Then there will be negotiations to be had about the modalities of how she wears it.”
• Melissa Bell (41:28): “It was precisely the thought that occurred to me—how much of a badge of honor an electronic bracelet would be...she had certainly suggested that these were illegitimate courts...using that terminology of lawfare that President Trump has used in his case about herself.”

Key Timestamps

• 37:19–39:00: Ruling explained and immediate political impact.
• 39:00–41:28: Context, National Rally’s strategy, possible comparisons to Trump.
• 41:28–42:39: Le Pen’s embrace of grievance politics and likely next moves.

---

Segment 4: Extreme Heat and Climate Adaptation

(42:39–53:06)

Main Theme

• The world faces unprecedented heat waves, a direct effect of climate change, which is accelerating faster than many experts predicted; the conversation pivots from mitigation alone to urgent adaptation.

Key Discussion Points

• Europe and parts of the U.S. are facing record-breaking, deadly heat with hundreds of thousands at risk.
• Air conditioning is emerging as an urgent adaptation for Europe, though it symbolizes a cultural and infrastructural shift.
• The “new normal” is misleading: things will get much worse, much faster, with rapid changes in temperature extremes.
• Despite political backsliding—especially under Trump policies—private sector renewable energy is accelerating and now composes the bulk of new energy development in the U.S. and worldwide.
• Reliance on fossil fuels is exposed as a strategic vulnerability, exacerbated by political and military shocks, such as the war in Iran.
• Some parts of the planet may soon become seasonably unlivable; adaptation will be essential for survival.

Notable Quotes

• David Wallace Wells (44:09): “If Europe doesn’t air condition at mass scale, we’re going to see many more heat mortality events like we’re seeing this summer...what’s most scary to me is...heat waves like the one we saw a few weeks ago have grown about 100 times more likely...”
• David Wallace Wells (47:18): “The bigger risk is that we forget things will get considerably worse from here. We tell ourselves a story and, you know, repeat phrases like the new normal and think that things are therefore stable—but they're not.”
• David Wallace Wells (49:47): “Led by the US, most countries of the world are walking away from their policy commitments on global warming...but even in the U.S., more than 90% of all new energy infrastructure built last year was green.”
• David Wallace Wells (52:13): “Before we get to a place where people will literally not be able to walk around comfortably without risking heatstroke, you’re going to be dealing with parts of the planet...dealing with them for weeks...Now, the same could be said for Europe.”

Key Timestamps

• 44:09–46:39: European adaptation debate and scientific warnings.
• 47:18–48:57: The risk of complacency and normalization.
• 49:47–51:51: Global climate policy regression, but renewable acceleration.
• 52:13–52:58: Prospects for unlivable regions and the urgency of adaptation.

---

Overall Takeaways & Final Thoughts

• The NATO alliance is experiencing significant internal strain, with U.S. disengagement creating uncertainty about Europe’s security future.
• Turkey is now a critical regional broker, both helpful and problematic, underscoring complex new geopolitics.
• Sudan's civil war is a prototype of future conflicts shaped by drone warfare and sustained by international arms networks—its tragedy compounded by global apathy.
• Populism is remaking Western politics, from Trump’s U.S. to Le Pen’s France, with legal and political challenges fueling, not hindering, far-right momentum.
• The climate crisis is no longer a distant threat—its impacts are now, worldwide, and adaptation, not just mitigation, must take center stage.

---

For those who want to understand today’s shifting geopolitical, humanitarian, and climatic realities, this episode of Amanpour is a vital, revealing listen.

Transcript

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[Bianna Golodryga]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan. Required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes.

[ZipRecruiter Narrator]

Me slow when network is busy.

[David Wallace Wells]

See terms the following ZipRecruiter radio spot you are about to hear is going to be filled with F words when you're hiring.

[ZipRecruiter Narrator]

We at ZipRecruiter know you can feel frustrated, forlorn, even, like your efforts are futile. And you can spend a fortune trying to find fabulous people, only to get flooded with candidates who are just fine. Fortunately, ZipRecruiter figured out how to fix all that and right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip with ZipRecruiter you can forget your frustrations because we find the right people for your roles fast, which is our absolute favorite F word. In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

[David Wallace Wells]

Fantastic.

[ZipRecruiter Narrator]

So whether you need to hire four, 40 or 400 people, get ready to meet first rate talent. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com Zip to try ZipRecruiter for free. Don't forget, that's ZipRecruiter.com Zip and finally, that's ZipRecruiter dot com Zip.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Hello everyone and welcome to halt mark 4. Here's what's coming up. Trump joins NATO leaders in Turkey for a high stakes summit. Can Europe keep the alliance together and the President on side? I asked former diplomat James Jeffrey and the New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger. Then, grave fears for half a million people in Sudan. As the UN Warns another humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding. Holding While the world looks away, I speak to analyst Khalid Hair and human rights investigator Nathaniel Raymond. Plus a court ruling with major implications for France's political future. What it means for Marine Le Pen's presidential ambitions. We'll have the very latest. And later in the show, extreme heat waves shatter records across the globe. Climate writer David Wallace Wells joins me to discuss how the world must adapt to this dangerous new normal. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodriga. New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. An alliance under threat. NATO leaders are gathered in Turkey for a summit that will test whether unity can hold after a year of deepening tensions between the US and its allies. President Trump already renewing his push to take control of Greenland again, doubling down on demands for allies to step up their defense spending and voicing his disappointment over Europe's lack of support for his war in Iran.

[President Donald Trump]

In a way, I was testing people. I was testing to see whether or not they'd be there, because I've long said that we help them, but I'm not sure that they'd be there for us. And Italy turned us down, and Germany turned us down, and France turned us down, and it's okay, but, you know, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars and they're not there for us?

[Bianna Golodryga]

But beyond the summit lies a bigger question. Is NATO prepared for a future with less support from Washington? The stakes are high for Ukraine's President Zelenskyy, who was urgently seeking increased military assistance after Russia launched one of its largest attacks on Kyiv in recent months. And it's not just Ukraine. There are real fears of a Russian incursion into the Baltics, with Putin possibly looking to test NATO's borders at a moment of disunity. For more on this, let's bring in New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger and former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, James Jeffrey. Welcome, both of you. David, let me start with you. As this summit was just getting started, European leaders were telling you that the reality for the next several years is, quote, a gradually stronger Europe in a weaker naito. How do you interpret that?

[David Sanger]

Well, I think that's essentially accurate. The question is, can the gradually stronger Europe make up for the US Withdrawal, either physical withdrawal of troops? There hasn't been much of that yet, but there's much of it hinted. And the concern that the United States States is pulling back from its traditional role at the center of NATO conventional defense. In other words, the Washington concept at this point is Europe takes more and more control of conventional defense. The US Remains at the center of nuclear defense. The problem is that every time the president settles on a strategy for this, he ends up undercutting their confidence of the Europeans that he is actually willing to do this in a orderly, rational manner. So last year, you'll remember, they agreed to spend 3.5%, the Europeans, European members of NATO, 3.5% of their GNP on defense and an additional one and a half percent on infrastructure that would be related to that, highways, so forth. The president said he was satisfied today. He made it clear he wants that done even faster. In other words, it can't be, can't unroll over the next 10 years.

[James Jeffrey]

It must be done faster.

[David Sanger]

And as you suggested, he raised again American control of Greenland. And after they thought that they had tamped this down back in January.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah. So that is once again raising questions about how committed President Trump is not only to the NATO alliance, but to seizing Greenland. This was something that many European leaders, that many NATO allies, had been hoping the president has gotten over and was in the past. And he's once again just raised this as something he continues to want to pursue. Ambassador, let me turn to you because obviously the venue here is notable. President Trump saying the only reason he really came was because he was invited by the host, the host country. He has a warm relationship with President Erdogan. First of all, it's hard to square that with his own Secretary of State saying two weeks ago that this particular summit was going to be the most consequential in NATO's history. But that aside from the Erdogan perspective, what is it that he is seeking out of this relationship with President Trump? Is it merely transactional and wanting those F35 fighter jets?

[James Jeffrey]

Thanks for having me. First of all, Trump would have gone to the summit no matter where it was. But Trump is basically supporting Naito. He reversed a Secretary Hexa's decision to pull 5,000 troops out of Poland a few weeks ago, but he has to be apologetic about it. So he keeps on raising these themes. I wouldn't have gone if it wasn't for my pal Erdogan. I'm going to think about Greenland again. But the point is, he's there. That's not enough, as David said correctly, to build up trust, but he is there now. In terms of Erdogan, he wants recognition of his key role in Euro Asian security, ranging from Iran to Gaza and North Africa, where Turkey plays a big military and diplomatic role, all the way up to Ukraine, where Turkey probably has done more than any other country other than the United States under Joe Biden, to help Ukraine, while at the same time keeping channels open to Russia and pushing for a negotiated settlement, which is something I think he'll find a welcome audience. And Trump. So Erdogan sees himself at the center of this thing. It's the first time NATO has ever met in Asia, that is Ankara before. When they met in Turkey, it was in Istanbul and Europe so that has significance, too.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So, Mr. Ambassador, do you think that he's played a positive role, been a positive factor, whether it's in the war in Gaza, whether the war in Iran? And it does seem that you think that for the war in Ukraine,

[James Jeffrey]

most certainly the war in Ukraine, one single simple thing, he cut off any Russian reinforcements through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea. It's otherwise a closed sea. And so the Russian has basically lost the Black Sea to Ukraine. And he has played a huge role lately, supported by the United States in the Caucasus, bringing together Armenia and Azerbaijan after a bit of fighting that with his help, his ally Azerbaijan won in Libya, pushing back against the Russians in 2018. And all around the region, he's a member of the Board of Peace for Gaza and he's been helpful in the negotiations with Iran. So, yeah, he's a big player.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So, David, let me get you to respond to that particular angle, because there are a number of members of the president's own party that would have issue with the ambassador's interpretation here. And obviously Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu has been very vocal about the role that Erdogan has played, played both in Gaza in the war there and obviously the war in Iran. As it relates to these F35 fighter jets, that is something that requires congressional approval because there had been sanctions put on Turkey for the purchase of those S400s, the Missile Defense system from Russia. And that is what the president today announced. He was lifting those sanctions. Prime Minister Netanyahu was just on our air a few moments ago with my colleague Dana Bash, saying that he had mentioned and spoken with President Trump a number of times trying to push him against the sale of those F35s. President Trump hasn't committed to doing that yet. But in Prime Minister Netanyahu's view, he says that this really would upset the regional balance that sort of is underpinned right now with Israeli air superiority. That has always been sort of a policy of the United States. He says that Turkey is a threat to Israel, Greece, to Cyprus and to the state of Israel. Is he right? Is Prime Minister Netanyahu right? Should the, or do you think the president should lift the sanctions and perhaps there's a workaround to the sale of those F35s.

[David Sanger]

Well, you know, both things can be correct here. Ambassador Jeffries has got just right, as he always does, the analysis of what Erdogan has done in a helpful way in everything from Syria to the the war in Ukraine and so forth. And yet he has also been a strong supporter of the cause in Gaza for the Palestinians, which has angered Prime Minister Netanyahu. He has had things to say about the state of Israel that I think make the Israelis very nervous and have long led the Israelis to oppose giving them the giving the Turks the most sophisticated fighter jet the US has now, the F35. What's really fascinating about what's happened here with the F35 and my colleague Tyler Pager and I wrote about this yesterday in the Times, is that it was President Trump in his first term who cut off the sales of the F35 to Turkey. And he did so because The Turks bought S400s, as you suggested, Biana from Russia. So imagine this, you have a NATO member buying anti aircraft and anti missile systems from the avowed adversary of NATO, Russia. And the concern was that these S4 hundreds would be trained on the F35s and would give the Russians a really deep insight in how to defeat the stealth mechanisms of the F35. Now, President Trump in his second term has basically wanted to go undo what he did in the first term and sell them the F35s. And he's instructed his staff to do everything they can. And as you suggest, there are all kinds of congressional complications here. But the first thing is that the law would require that the president and Secretary Hegseth certify that Turkey has given up those S4 hundreds. And so far they have not. They haven't deployed them, but they're still there.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, I think they've test fired them once, but now they are reportedly still in shipping containers. There's talks about transporting them to a third party country. Mr. Ambassador, we did hear President Trump say he was going to lift sanctions on Turkey, another country that he has spoken highly, highly about in terms of their new leadership and lifting sanctions. There is Syria. And just Today in Damascus, two IEDs went off at a hotel or near a hotel where President Macron of France was staying. A number of people were wounded. It is a notable visit because he is the first Western leader to visit since Assad's fall. You were the US Envoy to Syria. President Trump really seems to have invested a lot in Al Shiraz as he's the man for the job. At one point even said that he should be sending in troops to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon and not Israel. Is the president right to be investing so much and to view Al Sharah as really a game changer for that country?

[James Jeffrey]

Absolutely. I was also the envoy for the coalition to defeat isis and I've been monitoring the ISIS attacks in Syria and a few in Iraq, including what was probably the attacks. Today, they are down dramatically, just like the Kurds. And I'll come to them. Al Shara, when he was up in Idlib in the northwest with his organization Hayat Tur al Sham, which, although it's an Al Qaeda offshoot, spent all of its time fighting Daesh or ISIS in the Assad regime very successfully. But right now he is integrating the Syrian Kurdish forces that we worked with that also have a PKK Turkish terrorist background into his army. They're very good. And this all is being done in a coordinated three way with Erdogan on his larger effort to bring in the Turkish Kurds. It's a quite significant geopolitical step, but it's also an important security step. Ashara is a good partner. We need a route to get the oil out of the Gulf. Other than the Straits of Hormuz, Syria is the obvious place. And I think that if the President can lift what is called the state sponsor of terrorism sanctions on Syria, which no longer have a real sense, we will be in a much better shape to work with that country.

[Bianna Golodryga]

David, so much really on the table here in terms of this NATO Summit, Iran, this MOU. We're about halfway through the 60 days that this MOU had been enforced for. Overnight Iran, Iranian missiles hit two ships and the Strait of Hormuz. Again, there's a real question as to how long the cease fire can hold. And the President has expressed his animosity as recently as a few hours ago at NATO allies who he said did not step up to help or even offer to help the United States. Given that, given everything we've discussed thus far, how much time and focus do you think will be devoted to what so many tell me is really the most important thing NATO needs to focus on is that its own self defense and not only investing more in that, but investing correctly, specifically in drone technology and being capable to defend itself if in fact Russia is able to reconstitute as many analysts say they can within five to six years once this war in Ukraine ends.

[David Sanger]

I think you've raised a couple of key issues that NATO has got to go deal with at this. First, on Iran. I think it's pretty clear at this point that we are paying the price for how hastily the 14 point plan that was approved last month was put together. Clearly, the Iranians did not have the same view about the opening of the Strait as the Americans did. And you've now seen, just in the past 24 hours, three attacks on shipping going through the strait. That wasn't supposed to be happening. A month into this cease fire with the new agreement, the follow on negotiations so far for the bigger agreement focusing on the nuclear program have essentially gone nowhere in the first month. On the second point you raised, you know, it's really critical that the Europeans think not only on how much they spend, but how they spend it. And I think both the war in Ukraine and the war in Iran have made it clear that we are in an era of asymmetric warfare that the Europeans are not ready for and that the United States may not be ready for. And it focuses on the use of drones. You saw that. And how the Iranians struck American bases in, in the Gulf. You've seen that in how the Russians and the Ukrainians have made use of drone technology, the Ukrainians recently, to do huge damage. So it would be good if we saw NATO actually focused on those issues.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah. And not to mention whether or not NATO will step up and provide those crucial air defense systems and interceptors that Ukraine says they desperately need. David Sanger, Ambassador. Yes. And produce them quickly enough. Thank you so much. Really appreciate the conversation. And still to come, for us, horror in Sudan. We look at one of the worst humanitarian crises on earth and what can be done to stop it. And later in the program, extreme weather is becoming more frequent, more destructive, and more expensive. We examine the growing cost of the climate crisis.

[Adi Cornish]

I'm Adi Cornish.

[Ari Shapiro]

I'm Ari Shapiro. And it's Engagement Party. And we get to talk about what we're obsessed with, what we're engaged with, what we need to process with a friend. We're going to be talking about two of the most famous women in the world, Taylor Swift and Serena Williams. Also, if in your feed you have seen people tapping their face and their chest, we'll explain what that's all about. If you haven't, we will still explain

[Ryan Reynolds]

what that's all about.

[Ari Shapiro]

And of course, we're starting with Serena Williams because she's back.

[Adi Cornish]

She is back. As we are recording this, she is playing in Wimbledon where she is a wild card. This is a huge deal because she's been retired for a couple of years. It was a big splash when she retired, but it's also coming on the heels of her announcement that she was on a GLP1. And just so we're clear, Peptides, all this stuff, none of it is banned from sports.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Follow Engagement Party wherever you get your podcasts. This is not a drill. It is a red alert. That is the warning from a United nations official urging the world to act before another atrocity unfolds in Sudan. Half a million people are trapped in the city of El Abeid, which is endured, which has endured weeks of intense fighting between the Sudanese rapid support forces and the national army. It's the latest flashpoint in a civil war that has devastated the country for three years, triggering the world's largest displacement crisis. And there's a reason it's become known as the forgotten war. Previous warnings have done little to quell the bloodshed. Just last year, thousands of people were killed during the capture of the city of Al Fashr. Massacres, the UN says bore the hallmarks of genocide. Joining me now are Sudanese political analyst Khaloud Khair and Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research at the Yale School of Public Health. Welcome back to the show, both of you. Nathaniel, let me start with you. The U.S. state Department just last week warned that mass atrocities could be imminent in El Obeid. And I know that your lab has documented at least 11 fuel stations bombed in four months, plus the electrical substation, water pumps now without fuel, hospitals without power, and civilians unable to flee. From your evidence, is that assault already underway?

[Nathaniel Raymond]

No, it is not. We at this point do not identify signs of an imminent attack by rapid support forces and think they could wait until as late as the end of the rainy season, which is underway now. But in the meantime, they're doing their classic business model, which is using suicide drones to basically destroy what's left of the civilian infrastructure and starve and steal the water from civilians, forcing them into humanitarian crisis, which is already underway.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And Khouloud, you've said that the battle for El Abeid is about power, land and money. If this city falls, does the RSF effectively successfully partition Sudan?

[Khaloud Khair]

Well, there are certainly signs that it would be easier for them to claim sort of a greater chunk of the country, thereby sort of delineating the area of control. But what is really important about the way, militarily speaking for the RSF, is that it's actually not very far by road from the capital, Khartoum. And ever since the RSF was pushed out of the capital in March of last year, they have vowed to return there. So taking Alobayd, holding it, allows them to open up that main road that goes from Al Ubaid straight back to Khartoum for the south. The same reason that they want to keep Alobayd is because for them, they're trying to stop the RSF from going into the capital, but they also want to ensure that by keeping Al Abayed, they have a way into the western part of Sudan, Darfur, that the RSF has held since the start of the war.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Nate, the health Minister of the RSF's self declared government, says capturing El Obeid is, quote, just a military operation, the normal cascade of war. He goes on to promise no atrocities and dismisses reports of attacks on civilians in Al Fasher as propaganda. As you've been on this program before, your satellite images have documented mass systemic killings. The body disposal in El Fashure for everyone to see by satellite. So what is your response to these statements from that minister?

[Nathaniel Raymond]

Everywhere RSF goes, every city they take, there are atrocities. But I want to be clear here that what happened in Al Fasher was specific to the fact that there were four in Zagawa who had survived the last genocide by the Janjaweed and the RSF was coming to intentionally kill the remaining black African people of Darfur. In the case of El Obeid, those ethnic groups are not there. That doesn't mean if RSF does capture the city, there won't be atrocities. But it will look less like Al Fasher most likely and more like the capture of Nyala and Zelenji in 2023 in which they killed perceived collaborators with Sudan armed forces. So there is always risk with RSF of mass atrocities. But Al Fasher was a unique intentional effort to create a genocidal massacre of specific ethnic groups.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So Khouloud, that same RSF official was speaking as a minister of the Sudan founding alliance. That is a parallel government the RSF declared a year ago. So when officials like that give interviews and promise an orderly capture of El Obeid, is that in your view, a governing body trying to project a sense of orderly warfare, if that can even be described that way, or at least legitimacy.

[Khaloud Khair]

It's smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. There is no sort of universe where any guarantees by the RSF can currently be taken seriously, precisely because of what Nathaniel just mentioned, the fact that you have had a series of atrocities committed after the RSF has taken not just areas in Darfur, but also in the center, in places like Jazira. And so we know that this is part of the RSF playbook in large part because the RSF was created precisely to do this. When the government in Khartoum and the Sunnis Armed Forces 20 years ago, your viewers will remember that the first Darfur genocide, when they wanted to really enact a lot of violence against the people of Darfur, they got the Genjaweed, the Predecessors of the rsf. Together, they gave them money, they gave them weapons, and they let them do what they've been doing effectively for over 20 years. So we know what the RSF is. They have shown their true colors. And I think no amount of sort of papering over that with governmental positions should disabuse us of the potential they have to enact a great deal of violence. Now, Nati is right. Al Ubaid is a cosmopolitan city, and there are mostly commercial interests as well as, of course, the tactical and the strategic interest around controlling that particular part of the country. But there are still some signs that atrocities could take place precisely because of local dynamics, similar in a way to unfashion, that sometimes override the military objective of the rsf.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So smoke and mirrors, perhaps more of a PR operation. But it's clear that the world is watching. Whether the world will respond is entirely different. And nate us, European and African officials say that the UAE has run a covert operation backing the RSF with powerful weapons and drones. The Emiratis, we should note, have always denied that. But you testified to a UK Parliamentary committee that the Foreign Office failed to prevent the Al Fasher massacre because of pressure from the uae. And your lab documented continued support for RSF forces at a base in Ethiopia as recently as June. So how much further does this sort of chain of support go? How many countries here are either willfully participating or at least turning a blind eye?

[Nathaniel Raymond]

Well, this is the critical question on the RSF side. They could not fight this war without the UAE superhighway of advanced weapons support, which has been documented not only by us at Yale, but also by US Intelligence, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. US Defense Intelligence Agency and the Intelligence Research bureau of the U.S. state Department have concluded last year that in covert findings that UAE is behind the weapons pipeline, as we saw in Ethiopia. This is a multinational effort by the UAE from Ethiopia to Chad to Libya, as recently reported in the past week, to create basically a network of arms supply routes. But on the SAF side, Sudan Armed Forces, they're supported by Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and also by Turkey and Khouloud.

[Bianna Golodryga]

There's then the question of US pressure alone, which has always been and continues to be, I think, the most effective form in addressing these types of atrocities. The State Department has acknowledged this, has warned of imminent mass atrocities. But you said the policies has failed thus far. The policy of sanctions, foreign terror organization designations. So what would real pressure, what would real US policy look like that could change conditions on the ground

[Khaloud Khair]

well, there's a sort of more immediate acts that the US could enact. And then there's the longer term questions that the US Needs to ask itself. The short term acts are, for example, when we see that the RSF is putting a lot.

[Bianna Golodryga]

I think we may have a connection issue with Khouloud. Oh, can you hear. I think we can hear you now. Do you want to. Khaloud, can you hear me?

[Khaloud Khair]

Yes.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Okay, great. Sorry, just pause it for a few seconds.

[Khaloud Khair]

The more immediate. No problem. There's the more immediate things that the United States government should do. And then there's the longer term question that the US Needs to ask itself. In the short term, it's about how do you leverage a relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates when it comes to very acute issues like the siege that the RSF is currently enacting on the people of Al Fash, of Al Ubaid? We do not need to wait for the RSF to enter the city. The RSF is already making life atrocious for people. There are trustees really being carried out in real time. There needs to be, there needs to be regular phone calls between Washington and Abu Dhabi to get the UAE to, to put pressure on the RSF to scale back their attacks on civilians. But in the long term, the US really needs to ask itself what is the nature of its relationship with countries like the UAE, but also countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? It was very clear that these countries do not see eye to eye any longer. So the outsourcing policy that the United States has had for over a decade now of simply outsourcing places like the Horn of Africa, in many cases like the Levant, to its Arab allies, it no longer holds because they are no longer on the same page. And the enmity between these countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and increasingly also Turkey against Israel, and more likely Israel against Turkey, those are playing out in places like Sudan. Those are playing out in places like Somalia. And so the United States needs to ask itself how is it going to really sort of reconcile the differences of its allies in the region in order to make sure that lives are saved, in order to make sure that countries like Sudan do not bear the brunt of that enmity and to ensure that the US really stands for what it says that it stands for in the region. Stability, democracy, sovereignty of peoples. We haven't really seen the US even start to ask itself that question.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, you're right. You bring up those other countries, including Turkey, which is hosting the NATO summit today. The president just met with their president. President Trump just met with President Erdogan. Turkey, Russia, Iran reported to have sold weapons to the army, to the rsf, sometimes even paid. Nate, I want to turn to the issue of drone warfare and drone use, because there's not a conflict in the world that doesn't involve drones. You mentioned this at the top of this interview, but I'd like to play UN Rights chief Kurt Volker his description of the impact of drones on this conflict.

[David Sanger]

My office documented 15 drone strikes on aloe bait and surrounding areas between 6 and 28 June, which killed at least 45 civilians and injured 41.

[Bianna Golodryga]

The actual number of civilian casualties is likely higher. Nate, can you talk about the role of drones in this war, where they're coming from? They are much cheaper, as we know, to purchase than many other weapons, but they are quite effective.

[Nathaniel Raymond]

You're asking the essential question. The war in Sudan for both the army and rapid support forces, is now a drone war. And that is changing how fighting traditionally happens. In Sudan Right now, in the rainy season, fighting would be slowing down because planes can't fly and trucks can't drive on the road in the mud. But with drones, we are now seeing actually an escalation in civilian casualties, where the plurality, if not the majority of all civilian casualties since the start of this year have really been related to drones. We're talking about really two families of drones, loitering munitions, suicide drones, similar to the Iranian style, what's called the Shahed, which is a V wing drone that blows up like a flying, basically car bomb. And then the other strategic drones, which are used by both sides, both for intelligence and reconnaissance, but also to fire missiles and to block telecommunications, including civilians calling for help on cell phones. And so we've seen both sides, with SAP, Sudan armed forces getting drones from Turkey and Iran. But then for the uae, supplied drones for RSF are mostly from corporations in China and joint UAE and Chinese enterprises. And so right now, what's happening in Sudan, watch it, because you're seeing the future of warfare in Africa, which is really reliant on drones at every stage, particularly for attacking civilians.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, we're seeing it in a number of theaters now, whether it's in Europe and Ukraine, in Africa, and obviously in the Middle east as well. Let me end by asking you, Khouloud, a question that has become sort of an evergreen closer for our show, But I think it is probably the most important and the question of why isn't the world doing enough? Why do so many innocent people have to suffer and die. 14 million displaced death estimates as high as 400,000. Abuse against women, obviously children. And that impact alone. What is the one thing, in your view that changes this war's trajectory in the next month or two? I mean, what can be done right now to change the course of this war?

[Khaloud Khair]

Cutting off the arms supply? As Nati said, you know, this war is as consequential as it is. It's as large as it is, it's as destabilizing and destructive as it is precisely because of the scale of the warfare. Now, Sudan has had war for most of its history since independence in 1956. What makes the difference now is just how destructive these new age weapons are that are being employed by the south. As soon as, unfortunately, forces in the RSF on a daily basis take that away and the fighting becomes much more localized and it becomes much more of a lower scale warfare. Now, of course, we would still need to enact various different ways and mediations to make sure that that war ends, but the point is that we wouldn't be seeing the civilian casualties to the extent that we are today. You know, people are right now in places like Alaboye fearing, going for water fear and going for fuel where they can find it because congregating draws in the RSF's drones. You know, that is a daily level of fear that people have to live with at a time, as you say, where the world could not care less. And I think, you know, I've said this before in the show, there is a level of sort of internationalized racism that we're seeing here, where there's a taxonomy or a sort of hierarchy of suffering, where the Sudanese people, you know, and others in Africa do not feature, where Sudan as a sort of an area, a region, a policy agenda does not feature in the conversations between heads of state, whether it's at the NATO Summit or the G7 or any of the recent international fora that we have seen. We struggle to get people to talk about Sudan even as it is the world's largest hunger crisis, humanitarian crisis, displacement crisis and sexual violence crisis that needs to end.

[Bianna Golodryga]

We will not view it as an afterthought. We'll continue to cover this story and are so grateful for the work that both of you are doing to raise attention as you have been for so many years now. Khaloud Hair, Nathaniel Raymond, appreciate the time. And coming up for us, a French appeals court has opened the door for far right leader Marine Le Pen to stand in next year's presidential election. But There is a catch. We'll explain after the break.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Craig Ferguson is going coast to coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today.

[Bianna Golodryga]

What could possibly go wrong?

[Ryan Reynolds]

CRAIG Ferguson, American on purpose. New episodes now streaming on the CNN app. Go to CNN.com watch to subscribe or log in with your TV provider.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Now. A ruling that could pave the way for Marine Le Pen's political comeback. A French appeals court has shortened the far right leader's five year ban on running for elected office. That's after Le Pen appealed her conviction for embezzling millions of euros worth of EU funds. While the court upheld that conviction, it slashed the amount of time she is barred from running for office to 15 months, meaning she could still enter the 2027 presidential race. But an order to wear an ankle monitor for the next year could dampen her campaign ambitions. For more on where this the fate of the far right in France, I'm joined by Melissa Bell from Paris. So, campaigning Melissa with an ankle around with, you know, being strapped by an ankle confining you, confining you to stay home or to at least limit your travel plans, is this something that would endure, endear her to more voters? And do you think that she will capitalize on at least this opportunity to launch a campaign?

[Melissa Bell]

Well, it does seem complicated when you consider the logistics of running a presidential bid with an ankle bracelet that essentially confines you to your home or that you can then negotiate with your probation officers when you can go out, what you need to do in order to be reinserted into society, as the lawyers put it, and earn a living. Now, she had in the past said that she would not mount that fourth presidential bid if she had an ankle br. That's exactly what this ruling today confirms. First of all, that the ineligibility ban is shortened. She can technically, legally stand. That is no longer a question. But it does also confirm that she will have this bracelet. Now, she has 10 days to appeal the appeals decision. Then there will be negotiations to be had about the modalities of how she wears it. But really, the ruling that we hear today was sufficiently complex. Beyond that, we had imagined the, this unofficial start of the 27 race to come from the courtroom. It will actually come from a French television studio in about 20 minutes. We understand she and Jordan Bardela have now left the national rallies headquarters in the 16th hour in this month of Paris to head to the studios, presumably to take to the air together. I think it would be very surprising if she did not confirm Iran. She has, after all, fought all her life, first of all, to take control of the party that her father had founded, then to detoxify it sufficiently that it should be electable. She stood three times, including last time against emmanuel Macron getting 41% of the vote. I think one of the most controversial things that had come out from that ruling last year, when she'd been found guilty of this embezzlement scheme that were essentially, the party had been paying party political workers with European parliamentary funds. The most surprising part about it had been the. This ban on her standing for public office for five years. Over the course of the last 16 months, that question had been frozen by this appeals process. In the meantime, her heir apparent, Jordan Bardela, had been a lot of candidates, potential candidates, had been positioning themselves against him. What the polls suggest is that whether it is her or him, the National Rally still is leading those polls. Still, it will make a big difference to how the candidates position themselves in terms of who actually leads the party into the election. And that's why this verdict was being so closely watched. We had expected an unambiguous answer from the courtroom itself, but in the end, it will be about her telling the nation of her plans. Given that, it is likely she will now be wearing that monitor, that electronic tag, over the course at least of the next few months and possibly into the next year.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Bianna and perhaps it could be worn as a badge of honor. Electronic monitor, electronic bracelet, however you want it, describe it. If you were to compare how President Trump came back for a second term, many view the trials that he went through, the accusations, even the convictions, helped boost his standing with his supporters. Do you see that there's a path, perhaps, for Marine Le Pen and her party if she uses the same grievances?

[Melissa Bell]

It was precisely the thought that occurred to me how much of a badge of honor an electronic bracelet would be. Very much in the wake and during the trial last March, when she was found guilty of this embezzlement scheme, she had certainly suggested that these were illegitimate courts, that the judiciary in France was not independent, that these were judges that were partisan and determined to stop her from standing. In fact, she'd gone onto French television that night to say, there are millions of French people who understand this and who are outraged, really using that question or that, that terminology of lawfare that President Trump has used in his case about herself. And in fact, at that time, when her verdict came down last March, we'd had the truth social from President Trump calling free Marine Le Pen and explaining that these were similar things that were happening to him. I think it is entirely possible that this far right populace here in France uses it as a way of explaining that she is trying to get to the people, that the system is against her. But for now, we await her announcement, whether or not when she arrives on that TV set with Jordan Bardelas, they're announcing a joint ticket, her as president, him as prime minister. And that would be a formidable challenge for all of the other parties. Bianna?

[James Jeffrey]

Yeah.

[Bianna Golodryga]

You said that that announcement could come as soon as a few minutes from now. You'll be following it all for us. Melissa Bell in Paris, thank you. Well, next we turn to the extreme heat that is gripping the world, including Paris. Europe is experiencing its its third wave of scorching weather since May, While in the U.S. july 4th celebrations were canceled over the weekend with more than 20 states facing temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to scientists, this heat wouldn't be possible without human caused climate change. But as the crisis intensifies, fossil fuel production is set to rise. The Trump administration is rolling back clean energy projects and major international institutions are pulling back from climate commitments. Our next guest says the question now is not just how we slow climate change, but how we adapt to this new reality. David Wallace Wells is author of the Uninhabitable Earth, and he joins me now from New York. Welcome to the program, David. So the fact that your question of how we adapt is now front and center and has really sparked a debate in Europe in particular about whether or not more work institutions, schools, homes, public places should be facilitated with air conditions and refurbished at this point. This has long been sort of a source of pride for many Europeans. Do you think now this should just be something that's accepted in most countries?

[David Wallace Wells]

I think unfortunately, if Europe doesn't air condition at mass scale, we're going to see many more heat mortality events like we're seeing this summer, like we saw in 2022 when 60,000 Europeans died, like we saw in 2010 or 2003. And what's most scary to me is that since that heat wave, the heat wave of 2003, which at the time seemed like a major wake up call about the threat facing Europe since that time, heat waves like the one that we saw a few weeks ago on the continent have grown about 100 times more more likely, which tells us something about just how fast this threat is growing, particularly in the parts of the world that haven't yet done much to their infrastructure to adapt or respond.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So did the speed and intensity, specifically this summer of now we have Europe entering its third heat wave. We experienced one through a large portion of the United States over the last few days as well. Did this surprise you, the timing? Because we typically have these conversations mid August, late August, this was starting in June.

[David Wallace Wells]

David, there's a lot about the climate system that remains quite surprising even to the people who know it best. And I'm not a climate scientist, I'm a journalist who writes about this. But we do know that over the last few years a growing number of experts have come to the consensus view that global warming is not just continuing, but accelerating. There have been a few quite surprising years when we measure the impact of just in terms of global average temperature. And we're heading up into an El Nino event that's growing now in the Pacific and will probably peak towards the end of this calendar year into next year's winter in the Northern Hemisphere, which could push global average temperatures close to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre industrial average. And that may seem a little abstract, but what it means is that at least for one year we might be brushing up against, against the higher goal that we set for ourselves in the Paris Agreement a decade ago, which is to say we said as a planet we were going to do everything we could to limit warming below 2 degrees and try to keep it as close to 1.5 degrees as possible. We're now functionally at 1.5 degrees of warming and at least next year we may get a preview of a two degree world, which means all of the things that freaked us out about how scary and disruptive climate change would be six or eight or 10 years ago, we're now heading into that future much more quickly than we anticipated when we told ourselves it was an unacceptable set of outcomes. And now here we are dealing with them.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, so much of what you warned about in your book, I mean quite presciently has come true. And scientists at the World Weather Attribution say heat at this level is now 10 to 100 times more likely than in 2003 and that today's extremes are preview of what an ordinary summer will look like mid century. And we've had people on this show say that this summer will likely be the coolest summer that we'll have experienced each year. We are saying this. So when the public hears new normal though, do you think that that in a way normalizes what should be an alarming story?

[David Wallace Wells]

Yeah, I mean, as I said a few minutes ago, it was these are temperature events and heat events that we were warned about not that long ago. And when we were warned, the public freaked out. We had the climate awakening of the 2018-2020 period. All of that activism in response to warnings about exactly these climate futures, which we're now dealing with much faster than we thought was possible even then. But I think the bigger risk is that we forget that things will get considerably worse from here. We tell ourselves a story and, you know, repeat phrases like the new normal and think that things are therefore stable, but they're not. Things are going to keep getting hotter. In fact, as I said a minute ago, they're getting hotter at a faster rate than ever before in the history of global warming, which is to say faster than ever in the planet's history, including heating events that killed off 50 to 90% of all life on Earth. That's not to say that humans can't adapt and human civilization won't endure. Of course it will. But it requires a mass retrofitting of all of the things that we've ever built to allow human life to thrive. If London is going to be more like Seville, then London needs to look like Seville. If New York is going to be more like Atlanta, then New York is going to have to be built more like Atlanta. Air conditioning can do a lot in the US it has done a lot. But in the parts of the world where we've done less to AC the population, and in fact, half of all air conditioning units in the world are in the United States. So elsewhere in the world, we do need to do much, much more, perhaps starting with acs, but thinking much more broadly about how we live in the world, how we build the world, and what we can do to make what used to look like an uninhabitable future much more comfortable for future generations.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah. And it is striking that you talk about retrofitting and not sort of focused on what we can do to at least roll back or slow down climate change through our own actions. And the Trump administration seems to be moving in the opposite direction here, despite all of these warnings from experts. I know many who you speak with regularly. The Trump administration is pressuring the World bank, we should note, to drop its climate lending target, paying companies to abandon offshore wind projects and doubling down on oil and gas. What are you hearing from experts about these policies that the Trump administration has been rolling out, you know, leaving the Paris Climate Accords in its first term, but now effectively even doubling down in its second?

[David Wallace Wells]

Well, there's one way of thinking about what's happening on the global stage with climate, which is to Say that led by the US Most countries of the world are walking away from their policy commitments on global warming. And to some extent that is true. There was a kind of a spate of really aggressive climate targets and pledges that countries around the world passed through legislation in the 2020, 20, 21 years. And then there was a sort of subsiding of that action of that activism. And we had for a few years a sort of a period, a fallow period for climate policy. But even through that period, the private sector, powered by the incredible falling price of renewables, continued to deploy green energy at a much faster pace than most experts believed was possible just a few years ago. And so today, even in the United States, where Donald Trump is sort of, you know, unmistakably going to war with green energy, he's literally paying developers of wind farms not to continue their projects, even ones that are half built, doing everything he can to strip the IRA Biden's climate bill of the subsidies for solar and EVs. Even in that environment. Last year, more than 90% of all new energy infrastructure built in the US was green. That means that for every unit of bad fossil fuel infrastructure we built, we built 10 times as much green energy stuff. And that's true around the world as well, where the retreat from climate action hasn't been quite as pronounced as it was was in the U.S. nevertheless, many countries are sort ofhave been soft pedaling this activity. Even so, they are rolling out renewables at a sort of breakneck pace. And that's only accelerated in the wake of the war in Iran, when anyone looking at the state of the world thought to themselves, well, we can't be dependent on this fossil fuel supply chain any longer. This is the third fossil fuel shock in the last six years. It's something like the 16th in the last 60. Why don't we install, install new infrastructure that will allow us to draw energy directly from the sun and not depend on any foreign actors, whether those are malign actors in the Middle east or potentially malign actors in Washington.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Right. And as important as private sector investment is, I mean, the public sector part of it, especially from a government as large and powerful and rich as the United States is crucial and other countries then, as you noted, would follow, and that's not happening now. Quickly, are we moving closer, closer to seeing parts of the world that become seasonably unlivable in your view?

[David Wallace Wells]

Well, you know, it all depends on your standards. I think that before we get to a place where, you know, people won't, will literally not be able to walk around comfortably without risking heatstroke. You're going to be dealing with parts of the planet that have dealt with that kind of heat for periods of days now, dealing with them for weeks. And we've seen that already in some South Asia where the kinds of heat waves and mortality events that used to come very infrequently now come every single year. And the same could be said for Europe in 2022. The heat wave that I mentioned a few minutes ago that killed 60,000 people, it wasn't even processed by the public as a especially alarming event because they had already gotten used to that kind of a mass heat death in 2010 and 2003. I think we're going to see that pattern playing out more around the world.

[James Jeffrey]

Yeah.

[Bianna Golodryga]

We need to come up with a term other than new normal. David Wallace Wells, this is all alarming, but so important for our viewers to hear. Thank you.

[David Wallace Wells]

Thank you for having me.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye.

[David Wallace Wells]

From New York, This is CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam, thrilled to introduce the

[Nathaniel Raymond]

new CNN weather app.

[David Wallace Wells]

Be prepared for anything with comprehensive coverage

[Bianna Golodryga]

from real experts like me.

[Nathaniel Raymond]

Download the CNN weather app on iOS today.

[ZipRecruiter Narrator]

From the descendants of history makers involved in the Louisiana Purchase to the Lewis and Clark expedition, discover the untold stories of American expansion in the CNN Original series, this Land, now streaming on the CNN app.