Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Armed Forces of Ukraine Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi; Interview with Senator Chris Coons (D-DE); Interview with "What Are Children For?" Co-Author Anastasia Berg; Interview with "What Are Children For?" Co-Author Rachel Wiseman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 06, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENERAL OLEKSANDR SYRSKYI, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, ARMED FORCES OF UKRAINE (through translator): Our strategy is working.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A strong message from the head of Ukraine's armed forces. We bring you Christiane's exclusive interview with a man who could help decide
his country's fate.
Then, is America's support for Ukraine enough and will it continue? I asked Senator Chris Coons, a close ally of President Biden.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL WISEMAN, CO-AUTHOR, "WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?": Whether or not you've become a parent is something that you have to choose and justify in a way
that you didn't necessarily before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- amid recent political rhetoric around reproductive rights, a conversation about parenthood and choice.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin in Ukraine, and with Christiane's world exclusive interview with the country's top military commander. In her first television interview
since he was appointed commander-in-chief of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Oleksandr Syrskyi spoke about the strategy behind the Kursk
offensive, the status of the city of Pokrovsk, low morale among Ukrainian troops, and much more.
The interview comes at a crucial time in the war, with the country hit by a wave of enormously heavy attacks, from the east to the western City of
Lviv. Vladimir Putin this week said that his main aim is now to capture the Eastern Donbass area and that his army, quote, "has accelerated its
offensive operations."
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government is undergoing major changes with the biggest cabinet reshuffle this week since February of 2022. Christiane sat
down with General Syrskyi for a wide-ranging interview held at an undisclosed location near the front line.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: General Syrskyi, welcome to the program.
GENERAL OLEKSANDR SYRSKYI, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, ARMED FORCES OF UKRAINE: Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: So, it's great to be able to talk to you. It's the first time you're doing an interview on television. And I want to know why you think
there's such an uptick in the war against this country right now. Russian ballistic missiles, just in one week alone, in Lviv killed, you know,
nearly 10 people. In Poltava, more than 50 people. Strikes all across the country.
SYRSKYI (through translator): I believe that Russia is trying to force us to give up and break our will to resist by hitting our civilian objects and
damaging civilian infrastructure. By targeting our civilians in this way, they are trying to break our will to win.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about Kursk, because I know that you spend time there near the front lines, and I know that you and President
Zelenskyy came up with this operation. Tell me from your words and your view, what was the strategic purpose of the Ukrainian operation into
Russian Kursk?
SYRSKYI (through translator): First, the enemy, Russian troops, had previously intended to use the Kursk direction as a foothold for further
operations against our troops. In addition, they continued to shell our settlements daily, which caused us to suffer losses, primarily among the
civilian population. For us, this direction was always a threat.
Therefore, in assessing our capabilities, we chose the weakest point in the enemy's defense and the enemy's structure, and this direction was chosen.
This reduced the threat of an enemy offensive. We prevented them from acting. We moved the fighting to the enemy's territory so that he could
feel what we feel every day. And we created our own security zone in the Kursk region.
In addition, we took a sufficient number of prisoners. We created an exchange fund in order to release our military personnel who are in
captivity.
AMANPOUR: Some of your -- for instance, your defense minister has said publicly that the reason was to divert Russian forces from other parts of
the Eastern Front. But there are others on the Eastern Front, commanders who say it hasn't diverted enough forces and there are still a lot of
pressure on your forces on the Eastern Front, that important logistical hub of Pokrovsk.
[13:05:00]
So, has it been strategically a success, and even tactically a success, what you've done in Kursk? And do you think you might lose Pokrovsk?
SYRSKYI (through translator): We are doing everything we can not to lose Pokrovsk. We are strengthening our defenses there. Over the past six days,
the enemy has not advanced a single meter in the Pokrovsk direction. So, our strategy is working.
Of course, the enemy has concentrated the most trained of its units in the Pokrovsk sector, but we have deprived him of the ability to maneuver his
units and the ability to redeploy his strengthening units from other areas. So, in fact, it turns out that even though they did not move many troops
from the Pokrovsk area, except for one Marine Brigade, they are now unable to maneuver their reserves as they used to. And this weakening is actually
felt in other areas.
We note that the number of artillery attacks and the intensity of offensive actions have decreased. In fact, the Pokrovsk direction remains the most
problematic for us. In other areas, the situation has become more stable. So, I think this strategy was chosen correctly, and it will bring us the
desired result.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about the obvious imbalance, and that is essentially Ukraine, while you're fighting hard, you are outgunned by the
Russians. They have much more air superiority, for instance, more drones, they have more missile capability, they have more artillery capability. How
do you assess the difference between what you have and what they have, and how do you make up for that difference?
SYRSKYI (through translator): You are absolutely right. Because the enemy does have an advantage in aviation, in missiles, in artillery, in the
amount of ammunition they use, of course, in personnel, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, but this also motivates us.
We cannot fight in the same way as they do. So, we must use, first of all, the most effective approach, use our forces and means with maximum use of
terrain features, engineering structures, and also, to use technical superiority.
First of all, by focusing on high-tech weapons. These are primarily unmanned aerial systems for various purposes. You know that we have created
the world's first such kind of troops as the Unmanned Systems Forces. We have created a command, we have created units, we have created regiments,
we have created battalions, which are now proving their effectiveness in various parts of the front line. Our best unmanned systems units are
concentrated in the Pokrovsk sector.
In addition, of course, we use maneuvers with force, reserves, and fire. Thanks to the actions of our government, the president of Ukraine, the
minister of defense, we managed to reduce the difference between the ammunition used by us and the enemy. The proportion is actually one to two,
one to 2.5. A year ago, this figure was one to 10, one to six. We compensate for this difference with unmanned systems. We are constantly
working on improving them. Increasing their efficiency, improving the control system, ways and methods of usage. We are trying to maximize our
technical superiority over the enemy to offset their superiority in terms of numbers.
AMANPOUR: You obviously have much, much less manpower than they do. The Russians have such a huge advantage of manpower over you. I think now they
have something like more than half a million people under arms. At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, they had a thousand -- a hundred
thousand. It's thought that they may have 700,000 by the end of this year.
And you said when you took this job that one of the issues that you have to do is make sure you can replenish your ranks, draft, whatever it is, get
more, more, more Ukrainians to fight. How is that going? Are you satisfied or not?
SYRSKYI (through translator): In general, we managed to maintain our mobilization capabilities at the appropriate level and ensure both
replenishment of losses and training of new units.
AMANPOUR: Yes, but what quality? There appears to be -- and certain, you know, commanders and frontline soldiers have told CNN, that there's a bit
of a morale problem in some parts of the frontline, that a lot of young conscripts, young trainees are being sent out there. The battle is very
difficult for them. Some of them just, you know, leave the trenches and go home.
[13:10:00]
And I just wondered, you know, again, you said boosting morale is a very important part of your job, and I think there's something like 19,000 cases
that have been brought before the military authorities of desertion and the failure to turn up for duty. Talk about that. How can somebody like you
boost morale and make people still want to fight because that -- we feel, we hear that that moment of patriotic fervor that was so obvious at the
beginning of the invasion seems to be cooling down.
SYRSKYI (through translator): You are right on this point. The issue of morale is a very important area of our work. And of course, we are talking
about the Kursk operation again. This was a factor that significantly improved the morale of not only the military, but the entire Ukrainian
population. That is, it was and still is an incentive that has boosted the morale of our servicemen, their desire to win. This is first of all.
Secondly, regarding training, of course, everyone wants the level of training to be the best. So, we train highly qualified professional
military personnel. At the same time, the dynamics at the front require us to put conscripted servicemen into service as soon as possible. That is why
we usually conduct basic military training for at least a month, and qualified training from half a month to a month.
Thus, our soldiers are trained for a month and more, up to two months. In the long-term, we are considering increasing this period, and this will
give us certain advantages. And now, we focus primarily on the professionalism of our instructors, on building up our training and
materiel base, our training centers, and using training schools where servicemen acquire advanced skills in mastering weapons and related
equipment.
This is also probably the main activity of the ground forces, airborne assault forces and other types of troops, which are aimed at training
qualified specialists who take part in combat operations.
AMANPOUR: I want to know what -- I mean, you as commander, do you go to the frontlines? Do you go to the trenches? Do you talk to soldiers there
and commanders? What do they say to you? Because I know some of them have been there for, you know, more than two years. They barely get rotation.
They don't get to see their family. They're these glide bombs, these terrifying things, and the drones. And there's just so much. I mean, it's
almost World War I kind of, you know, attacks on them in the trenches. And they're there for a long time with no real hope of rotation. What do they
say to you when you go to see them and talk to them?
SYRSKYI (through translator): We speak the same language. We understand each other no matter who I am talking to, whether it is an ordinary
soldier, a rifleman for example or a brigade commander or a battalion commander.
You know that I have been in this war since 2014. Since the beginning of the full-scale aggression, I have been participating in combat operations
as the commander of the operational and strategic group. Now, I am the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That is, the front line
is my life. We understand each other. I know all the problems that our servicemen, soldiers, and officers experience.
Despite the difficult situation, we continue to carry out rotations. We didn't stop this process even when Avdiivka was happening, when there were
perhaps more difficult times. The issue of rotations remains a priority for us. Of course, people get exhausted and need rest. That is why the units
are either withdrawn to the rear for rest or sent to training centers, where they spend a month or a month and a half recuperating. In this way,
people restore their combat capabilities, their moral and mental state, and get the opportunity to visit their families and friends.
AMANPOUR: You became the overall commander at about the time that the U.S. Congress finally approved, you know, the tranche of weapons and help that
they had promised you. It was a delay of six to seven months. What material difference did that make to your fight, the fact that these weapons were
delayed for so long?
SYRSKYI (through translator): Of course, this has had a negative impact when there's nothing to shoot with, no one and nothing to hold back the
enemy. First of all, it leads to an increase in the level of losses, an increase in our losses, not only in material resources, but also in human
resources, because the highest value in the Ukrainian army is the life of a soldier.
It is very painful for us. And of course, it is painful to see that the losses of soldiers are increasing. Well, the effectiveness of the use of
troops is also extremely reduced. Because when you have nothing to shoot with, you cannot hit the enemy efficiently and effectively. And this leads
to the loss of territory. So, how can this affect us? Of course, negatively.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: And has it made a significant difference that the weapons have started to come now?
SYRSKYI (through translator): Of course, this has led to significant changes. But we would like to see these weapons arrive sooner, because,
unfortunately, this process is happening, but it is happening with a delay. This is also negative for us. Especially when it comes to the formation of
new units, or when a unit is formed and there is no equipment, no weapons, how should we perceive it?
You plan to use a mechanized brigade, but, in fact, you use it as an infantry brigade. As a result, its combat capabilities and effectiveness
are much lower.
AMANPOUR: And obviously, your ministers, your president are really appealing to the United States, especially, to stop the restrictions on how
you can use the weapons that do get here. What would you do with these weapons if there were no restrictions on them? How would you use them?
SYRSKYI (through translator): We have repeatedly declared how we are going to use them. Of course, we will use weapons only against military targets,
primarily against missile systems that strike populated areas almost daily. This leads to the loss of civilian lives. You know how many schools and
hospitals have been destroyed in Ukraine.
Of course, these are the airfields from which the strike aircraft of the Russian army, their aerospace forces, use missile weapons, use their guided
aircraft bombs with gliding modules, which they drop to 70 kilometers or even more. And again, they hit schools and populated areas. These are the
targets. Of course, we will use long-range weapons against these targets. We are not fighting against civilians, we are fighting against the Russian
army.
AMANPOUR: General Syrskyi, you were head of land forces during the initial part of the invasion in 2022, and you were created hero of Ukraine by the
president for successfully repelling the Russian attempt to take Kyiv, and you lifted the siege.
After successfully pushing the Russians back from Kyiv, and then there was, you know, the success in Kharkiv and success in Kherson, since then, it's
been much more difficult and you haven't done as much as you perhaps were expected to do. What do you expect? How do you expect the war to go for
Ukraine over the next six months, for instance?
SYRSKYI (through translator): It is difficult to predict for such a long period of time, but of course, we plan combat operations, we plan
campaigns, we make appropriate calculations of our capabilities, the capabilities of the armed forces, our needs. And of course, we are
committed to victory. And the help of our partners, our allies, would help us a lot.
It would help us a lot if all restrictions on the use of weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation against military targets, I repeat, not
against the civilian population, against military targets were lifted. The planned deliveries of weapons and equipment would allow us to bring our new
brigades, which have already been formed and are in the process of being formed into service as soon as possible.
Of course, this would have an impact on the overall level of our capabilities. That's how I see it. That is, only in the fight can we win.
And we are all determined to win. And again, the Kursk operations show that victory is the incentive that boosts the morale of our military and our
entire population. That's the only way to do it and no other way.
AMANPOUR: General Oleksandr Syrskyi, thank you so much for joining us.
SYRSKYI (through translator): I thank you as well. It was a very interesting conversation. Now, if we're about to finish, then, of course, I
would like to extend words of gratitude to all of our partners for the assistance, for the support, the political, the logistical, the material
support that's provided to us on a daily basis.
We clearly understand that we're not left alone, that only together we can be victorious. And I'm grateful to everyone because together we're
stronger.
SYRSKYI: Together we can win.
AMANPOUR: Together we can win.
SYRSKYI: We have to win.
AMANPOUR: You have to win.
SYRSKYI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Thank you, General Syrskyi.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: We have to win, he says in English. Well, here in the United States, there is breaking news in Donald Trump's New York criminal case.
The judge, Juan Merchan, announcing that he'll delay sentencing in the case until after the November election.
[13:20:00]
Let's get more on this breaking news and on the war in Ukraine. Delaware Senator Chris Coons serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and is one of
President Biden's closest allies on the Hill. He joins us now from the Harris-Walz campaign headquarters in Delaware.
Senator, welcome to the program. We'll get into that wide-ranging conversation with General Syrskyi and its implications in just a second,
but I would like you to react to this news that CNN is just reporting that Judge Juan Merchan has delayed Trump's sentencing until after Election Day.
This is the one case that the president -- the former president had been found guilty in.
The sentencing had been expected for September 18th. The former president had asked for a delay, and that seems to have been his tactic for many of
these cases. And once again, he seems to come out the victor on that end. What is your response?
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Well, my response is that this isn't the only case in which he's been found liable. He was also found liable for
commercial fraud and for sexual assault in two other cases in New York. And it's my hope that when voters go to the voting booth, to the polling place
for the election this fall, that they will consider that.
I haven't had a chance to look into the judge's rationale in this case. So, I can't comment on it in any detail. But it is striking that we've got a
former president running for election to be the most important elected official in the United States, arguably in the free world, who continues to
face charges in several other cases and who has been found guilty or liable in several cases for commercial fraud, for sexual assault, for paying off a
porn star to try and mislead the American public. I think it's really striking and something that I hope voters will consider.
We've heard from a number of different high ranking Republican former elected officials, folks like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who have
announced recently that they are supporting Kamala Harris because of their concerns about Donald Trump's conduct when he was president. I hope there's
other Republicans and independents who will weigh this news seriously.
GOLODRYGA: Do you think not knowing how the former president will be sentencing -- will be sentenced now is a disservice to voters before they
head to the polls?
COONS: Look, I think what they most need to know is that he's been found guilty. That matters. That should matter to a lot of folks. How severe or
how long the sentence may matter less than the fact that he's been held accountable. He's been found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his
peers.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Let's turn overseas now into that exclusive interview that Christiane just had with the top general there in Ukraine,
General Syrskyi. It is rare, I think, that we haven't heard from him on camera since this war began. And it is it is notable that he chose now to
sit down with Christiane, and a big focus of this interview is something you know very well, and that is Ukraine's consistent request for the use of
long-range weapons inside of Russia.
Today, we heard from President Zelenskyy as he was meeting in Germany with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, saying, quote, "We see your long-range
policy has not changed," to which Secretary Austin replied that the donated U.S. weapons for long-range strikes into Russia would not turn the tide of
the war in Ukraine.
Is that the official policy now of the Biden administration, that Ukraine cannot continue to use long-range weapons inside Russia?
COONS: Well, I'm not in a position to make a statement on behalf of the Biden administration. I will say this. I think it's urgent that we send as
much, as we can as quickly as we can to Ukraine as they continue to face devastating missile attacks, glide bomb attacks across all of Ukraine.
Putin is determined to try and break the will of the Ukrainian people. And I think while there is still a significant risk that our presidential
election might put in the White House, the pair of Trump and Vance, who have actively questioned whether we should support Ukraine in their fight
for freedom, I have urged President Biden, Vice President Harris, and their national security leadership to give Ukraine everything they need in order
to defend themselves against ongoing Russian aggression.
GOLODRYGA: What do you say to those, including many generals here in the United States, but obviously, the Ukrainians themselves, who say this gives
Russia the advantage in not lifting this restriction for the use of U.S. provided long-range weapons inside of Russia, which we heard General
Syrskyi say is a use of self-defense more than anything for the Ukrainians?
COONS: I do think that we should be giving the Ukrainians the ability to defend themselves. And where this has become difficult recently, for
example, is in the attacks on Kharkiv which is a major Ukrainian city very close to the Russian border.
[13:25:00]
The Russians are using air bases and glide bombs and launch platforms that get into the air and launch their attacks from within Russian territory.
President Biden did authorize the use of American munitions to strike back against those assaults. And I know there's an active discussion ongoing
about how far into Russia and with what munitions to allow the Ukrainians to strike.
I respect our president's concerns about escalation. I understand that he's got much more detailed intelligence about what's going on in the Kremlin,
in Putin's thinking, and in the Russian military than I do. But over the course of the last two years, I think time and again, we've been shown that
when we take the initiative and when we provide Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons and with more robust support, they put it to good
use.
And this is a difficult fight. And I want to make sure that we put the Ukrainians in the strongest possible position for them to push back on
Russia's brutal aggression in Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Have you --
COONS: Let me close with this. On this point, if I can, Bianna. Bianna, forgive me. President Biden has assembled more than 50 countries from
around the world in support of Ukraine. I just came back from a bipartisan delegation that visited Japan and Korea. Both South Korea and Japan have
been sending support to the Ukrainian people. And that's just a reminder that this is the free world's fight in Ukraine against Russian aggression.
GOLODRYGA: Have U.S. weapons, in your view, specifically with regards to Ukraine's surprise incursion into Kursk, which all reporting suggests that
the U.S. was not given a heads up about, has that been put to good use in your view? You heard General Syrskyi say that strategy right now is
working. Many analysts question that assessment.
COONS: Well, I'm not sure what analysts would question. It's certainly working in that Ukrainian troops surprised Russian defenders. Captured a
good number of them, got farther and deeper into Russian territory than was initially expected.
It may be that analysts question what the ultimate cost will be in terms of lives and munitions --
GOLODRYGA: Yes. That's exactly what it is.
COONS: -- and the supply line.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
COONS: I do expect that analysts are questioning how sustainable it is. But in terms of the Ukrainians demonstration of their willingness to take
strategic risk to surprise their opponents, that's one of several things that they've done in recent months that have shown the boldness and
ultimately, the success of their tactics.
I'll point to one other. In the Black Sea, the Ukrainians have made a devastating use of naval drones to effectively drive the Russian Black Sea
fleet out of Sevastopol and to reopen the sea lanes of black of the Black Sea for Ukrainian grain exports. If you'd asked me two years ago or a year
ago whether the Ukrainians would be able to defeat the Russians in the control of the Black Sea and restore their ability to export ship after
ship after ship of Ukrainian food products to the world, I would have said it was very unlikely.
And their boldness and their use of new technology and their creativity scored a significant strategic win that I don't think is appreciated as
broadly as it should be in this country.
GOLODRYGA: Let me expand beyond Russia's illegal war in Ukraine to Russia's continued election interference here in the United States. The
Justice Department this week just accused Russia of paying millions of dollars to right-wing American influencers to spread its propaganda, sort
of saying similar to the playbook we saw in 2016 with troll farms back in Russia.
This is now impacting Americans here who are being paid, whether or not they're useful idiots or know what they're actually being paid for is a
separate question. But I do want to play sound from one particular podcaster, Tim Pool, which has raised a lot of concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM POOL, HOST, "TIMCAST": This is psychotic. Ukraine is the enemy of this country. Ukraine is our enemy being funded by the Democrats. I will stress
again, one of the greatest enemies of our nation right now is Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It comes as there's reporting today from U.S. intelligence officials saying that Russia is the most active foreign adversary trying to
influence the U.S. election, but Russia is not alone. China is also focused on influencing down ballot races. And now, Iran, and we've been reporting
on this the past few weeks, is more active than in past cycles, stepping up its effort, this all from a U.S. intelligence official.
Does that suggest that the U.S. is not doing enough to deter some of our adversaries from trying to interfere in our elections now over the last 10
years or so?
[13:30:00]
COONS: Well, they're certainly taking advantage of the fact that we're a free and open society, and that penetrating social media, putting up
disinformation, taking advantage of and further exacerbating the divisions that exist within our body politic, within our society is something that's
appealing to authoritarian adversaries of the United States.
As you referenced, we saw it in the 2016 election cycle at scale. We did not see it in 2018 because there was some significant investment and
activity by our Intelligence Community at pushing back on exactly the Russian actors who've been so engaged in 2016. We did deter some of that
activity in 2020.
But we have to be vigilant. We have to be constantly engaged cycle after cycle. And there's a number of bills in Congress that I hope we will move
to try and prevent the use of artificial intelligence to generate what are called deep fakes, profoundly misleading audio and video messages that
we've seen influence elections in other countries, in other democracies, in Taiwan, for example, in Slovakia.
Earlier in this season, there was a deep fake of Joe Biden calling primary voters in New Hampshire, and that should have been enough of an alarm to
get us to move off the dime. My friend and colleague, Senator Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee, has been trying to move forward a bill that
would empower our restrictions against the use of deepfakes in campaigns this fall, and I surely hope that we'll take it up and pass it in the
remaining days of this congressional session when we get back into session next week.
GOLODRYGA: What's the likelihood you think that will be passed?
COONS: Look, I continue to be hopeful. It has bipartisan support. There is a recognition at least in the Senate of the urgency of this issue, but we
have difficulty passing bipartisan legislation between the Senate and the House. There's quite different views of election interference, quite
different views of Russia and Ukraine.
As that previous long interview with the senior Ukrainian general pointed out, the months long delay in the House by the Republican majority of the
funding to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia provided a critical opening for the Russians this summer. Ultimately, Speaker Johnson put the
bill on the floor and ultimately, it passed with a strong bipartisan vote. But the six-month delay in funding Ukrainian defenses Really was a critical
advantage for the Russians.
GOLODRYGA: I don't have to tell you, you hear it from Ukrainians, you hear it from a lot of U.S. allies as well, a lot of concern coming from Kyiv,
specifically with regards to the U.S. election and its outcome and what that means for continued support for Ukraine in its fight to defend itself
from Russia.
You just mentioned that you're back from a bipartisan trip with American allies there in Japan and South Korea to bolster economic and security
cooperation. I do want to ask you about what is being reported. The president expected to block Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel using
presidential authorities provided through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, also known as CFIUS. Some are calling this
an abuse of the CFIUS power for -- a very powerful tool, which is rarely used.
How is this acquisition a threat to U.S. national security in your view?
COONS: Well, I don't have detailed information on the decision that led to that. It was just announced as I was on the flight home. But I will say
that CFIUS is a strong tool. And in our conversations with both Korean and Japanese partners, they are also looking to develop a similar approach that
would allow them to assess the potential threats to their security, in particular of Chinese investments in strategic sectors.
We met with a number of CEOs of major semiconductor and technology companies that are working in partnership with the Biden-Harris
administration to impose restrictions on the export to China of the most sophisticated semiconductor manufacturing equipment and some of the most
sophisticated technology and quantum computing and artificial intelligence in precision biology.
And the positive outcome of the trip was that we addressed the importance of strengthening and deepening the U.S. ties to both Japan and Korea. I
think that of all the accomplishments of President Biden as a world leader getting Korea and Japan to move much closer together after his Camp David
summit with President Yoon of South Korea and Prime Minister Kishida of Japan last year. That was one of the biggest accomplishments he's had.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
COONS: And I was encouraged to hear a group of both Republican and Democratic senators repeatedly saying in Tokyo and Seoul that we intend to
sustain that movement, no matter who wins the presidential election.
GOLODRYGA: Though, I'm sure -- and we're out of time, though. I'm sure you heard a lot of disappointment and concern from Japanese officials too on
this news that the president has reportedly prepared to block this deal. Japan is the largest source. As you know, a foreign direct investment in
the United States.
[13:35:00]
So, we'll continue to follow this story. Senator Chris Coons, thank you as always for your time. We appreciate it.
COONS: Thank you.
Well, next, as reproductive rights play a central role in the upcoming election, former President Trump failed to offer specifics on how he would
make childcare more affordable. When asked at an Economic Forum in New York, this comes at a time when people around the world are increasingly
considering whether to have children at all.
Rachel Wiseman and Anastasia Berg explore the reasons for this global trend in their new book, "What Are Children For?: On Ambivalence and Choice."
They join Michel Martin to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Anastasia Berg, Rachel Wiseman, thank you so much for joining us.
ANASTASIA BERG, CO-AUTHOR, "WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?": Thanks for having us.
RACHEL WISEMAN, CO-AUTHOR, "WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?": It's great to be here.
MARTIN: One of the things that intrigued me about your book is that it seems that, you know, in this country for lots of reasons, some of those
sort of political, declining birth rate, people having fewer kids, has become a big thing, a political issue. But you're telling us that this is
actually a worldwide phenomenon. Anastasia, how do we know this and why do we think that is?
BERG: For Rachel and myself, we wanted to take our starting point of our investigation into why people aren't having kids the real living
deliberations, concerns, and experiences that they're having. And what we found was that, especially for liberals and progressives around the world,
we have forces that are encouraging them to delay thinking about the question of children and, in fact, that are alienating them from the
prospect of having children.
And these include narratives of personal, romantic, and professional success that all demand that we reach certain kinds of levels of readiness.
So, stability in our careers, certainty in our romantic relationships before we even ask the question of children.
And at the same time, we have ethical pressures, especially those that are coming out of climate change debates that are making us question whether or
not we can so much as justify having children given the present realities.
MARTIN: I think that a lot of people, particularly in the United States, we sort of have a common conception that if there was more social support,
perhaps through the government, through perhaps more subsidized childcare, perhaps more extensive and more supportive maternity leave or family leave,
that people would have kids. So, basically, the idea that it's basically an economic issue at the heart of it.
But, Rachel, your research indicates that even in countries that have those things, birth rates are declining, can you dig into that a little bit more?
WISEMAN: Absolutely. In countries like the Nordic states, where they have extensive support for families, maternity leave and paternity leave, that
is over a year and even child tax credits as there is in places like South Korea, people are still not having children at the rates that one might
expect, which does put pressure on the narrative in the U.S. that it is just economics that is to blame for people not having kids today.
MARTIN: So, can I just ask a little bit about your, you know, methods, like how did you figure out the why, especially in countries that are so
different?
BERG: There's more and more empirical research into the kind of reasons that people will give for why they didn't have kids or why they're thinking
about not having children. What we have found is that many people don't necessarily know why they're not having kids. The question is so fraught
and so difficult to determine, even for oneself.
So, it was very important for us to conduct both qualitative, which means open-ended question surveys that we've done with hundreds of millennials
and Gen Z-ers years, and then we followed up with several dozen interviews where we engaged in conversations where we could explore the narratives,
the explanations and the stories that people were giving that are related to this question.
MARTIN: You know, as we are speaking now, we are in the middle of a presidential election in the United States. You know, Vice Presidential
Nominee J. D. Vance has been on the record of saying that people who have kids should have more of a stake in the future and that they should
probably have more say over the policies, you know, of the country.
Well, he used this phrase, childless cat ladies to say that, you know, the Democratic Party is run by childless cat ladies. The implication being that
they're selfish and weird, right? Can you engage with that? I mean, is there any kernel of truth to that?
WISEMAN: I think there is a very pervasive narrative that young people today are not having children because they're selfish or because they're
immature. But what we found is actually the standards for readiness, for having a family are so high and so indeterminate today that actually it's
almost that the bar for maturity is set too high.
[13:40:00]
People feel like they have to check off a very long list of to-dos before they will feel ready to settle down and have a family. They feel like they
need to have very extensive savings, that they need to be very established in their career, that they need to have found a maximally compatible
partner, and that they have achieved a certain level of self-discovery and self-fulfillment before they can even contemplate the question of whether
or not they would like to have children.
MARTIN: Anastasia, why do people think that?
BERG: I think that as a response to both the reality and the representations of the millennial generation as particularly economically
precarious, we have a kind of bunkering mentality where it's precisely that generation that is, as we're saying, holding itself up to an almost too
high standard of maturity as opposed to, as Rachel was saying, this narrative of them as carefree, immature, and simply selfish.
And it's also worth adding that when people survey today are asked, what are the kind of conditions for a fulfilling life? They name many things as
high priorities that are not consistent with what we think of as selfishness. People rate political activism and, quote/unquote, making the
world a better place as one of the things that are necessary to lead a fulfilling life. It's children in particular that we're finding now
squarely at the bottom of that list.
MARTIN: So, what is really the dominant reason? And you say, is it really the money? It's not really that it's expensive and exhausting, said a
person with two kids in college. But is the real reason that, like you said, people feel that the bar for being a parent is really high and also
that it interferes with your personal development? Is that really the core of it?
WISEMAN: I think both of those things point to something really fundamental, which is that whether or not you become a parent is something
that you have to choose and justify in a way that you didn't necessarily before.
For my mother's generation, it was almost considered a given that, you know, she would want to become a parent. It was kind of an opt out
situation versus an opt in situation. Whereas for young people today, they really feel like they need to be able to give a reason for why they want to
have children, to have all of that figured out. And that, you know, only gets exacerbated by these scripts and narratives that are so pervasive
today that encourage people to delay and postpone the decision.
MARTIN: Is this a function of people who are educated liberal elites?
WISEMAN: In fact, this is something that's becoming more pervasive across sectors of society. So, we see in lower socioeconomic status groups people
are delaying having children longer than before. I think there is a tendency to assume that this is just a problem of the elite. But in fact,
it's a global phenomenon, and it's seen across sectors of society.
MARTIN: But among religiously conservative people, is that also the case?
BERG: This is definitely a phenomenon of secular society. And what's interesting is that specifically in the U.S. context, not only has this
become issue that's divided across secular and religious lives, but we see it also becoming increasingly politicized.
So, if there was a point in the not-so-distant past where Republicans and Democrats argued about who is the party of family values, today, no such
argument exists. And in fact, we see that people feel think increasingly that to be on the left means eschewing a kind of distance and even
antipathy to the question of children.
And that's -- and we see that because for every kind of policy failure, we see a willingness to put a -- threaten the absence of reproduction in its
phase. So, whether it's climate change, the repeal of Roe v. Wade, or the lack of social welfare provisions in the U.S. And because we also see an
increased willingness to be quite negative on children, say, in our public spaces.
So, I was recently asked, because we are engaged in this topic, to comment on the fact that in public spaces, we see more and more people asking for
child free zones, whether in restaurants or when they're celebrating their weddings.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: This is a question which is mostly relevant to the United States, but obviously, there was a seismic, you know, event when the Supreme Court,
you know, overturned nationwide access to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. Do you think that has had an effect on the way people think about
having children?
WISEMAN: Yes. I think that the Dobbs decision has had a couple of different effects. One important one is that it seeded a kind of wariness,
especially among liberals and progressives, even about discussing the question of whether or not to have children.
It has made this conversation overall conservatively coded, such that it has made it even harder for liberals and progressives to embrace the choice
to have children. But we think that's actually quite a negative development because it only allows the right to set the agenda for women's reproductive
rights and their choices in yet another way.
MARTIN: You know, one of the other interesting political developments in the United States is that the Republican nominee for president, the former
president, Donald Trump, he has bragged previously about appointing the justices -- nominating the justices who then overturned Roe v. Wade. But in
recent days, he has come out strongly in favor of sort of a maximalist view of in vitro fertilization, which has also been in legal jeopardy in some
places because of the Dobbs decision. He said that the government's going to pay for it. He's going to make private insurers pay for it and he's kind
of waffle on his previous stance about abortion restrictions. What do you make of that?
WISEMAN: Yes. Well, I do think that he's panicking a little bit about the -- about having the Dobbs decision pinned on him and he understands that's
a real threat to his electoral prospects in November. But also, I think with IVF in particular he is trying to stake out a position that is pro
family, but also, you know, progressive.
MARTIN: Which is a difficult needle to thread. So, is there some middle ground between this sort of maximalist pronatalist position and one that
says kids are an expensive hobby? Is there some middle ground between those two?
BERG: Well, there certainly is. And the way I tend to hear that question is whether or not there's a possibility for liberals and progressives,
i.e., those who are staunchly in support of reproductive rights for women to embrace having children as an unconditional good or something that's
inherently good, not just one project among many that we should tolerate like we tolerate people's hobbies.
I think that is possible. And I think one key to that is to notice that all the kind of goals that are identified with the left, if it's mitigating
climate change, if it's introducing lasting social change, if it's healing our political system, if it's creating welfare in the nation, all these
projects and pursuits, which are the definition of the liberal and progressive robust human future, they presuppose a human future, i.e., they
presuppose that people will do their share in bringing about future generations.
Now, that means that some people will have biological children. It also means that other people will be contributing to that human future in other
ways, they will be political activists, they will be teachers, they will be journalists, they'll be mentors, they'll be godparents. Rachel's the
godparent to my children, for example.
So, there are many ways of doing that. But I think once we notice that having children is the bedrock of a robust human future, no matter how
exactly we envision it, that is the key to that middle ground that you ask about. That's the key to realizing that embracing -- not just tolerating,
but fully embracing the choice to have children and to raise them is not inconsistent with defending women's rights to choose their own reproductive
agendas and fates for themselves.
MARTIN: Is this a problem that you do have an increasingly large cohort of people who aren't interested in having kids?
BERG: From our perspective, what is a problem is not the fact that birth rates are declining per se, but it is the fact that we think that people in
our cohort are having difficulties navigating the choice whether to have children because of the dominance of kinds of narratives of what it means
to be a successful adult, what it means to be ethically, morally, and politically responsible today, what they cause is a kind of procrastinating
attitude with a view to children with the result that the decision whether or not to have children ends up being made for increasingly many people as
opposed to being made by them.
[13:50:00]
And that we think is a problem. We think that young women today who are not feeling comfortable discussing their fertility is a problem. We think that
people assuming that you have to have all your -- parts of your life lined up and secure before having children, that could be a problem. And we think
that there is a preponderance of ethical arguments kind of up in the air that make us feel like perhaps having children is a kind of luxury consumer
choice, but not something that as a morally responsible adult, that is somewhere left of center, you can happily and proudly embrace, we think
that's a problem. And that's what we're offering in our intervention.
WISEMAN: The fact that liberals and progressives are so hesitant to embrace a positive justification for family only makes establishing those
kinds of social programs that they take so seriously and think are so important, it makes it even harder to implement them. If you cannot say,
why having families is valuable, it's then hard to defend, for instance, a child tax credit.
MARTIN: Do you have a solution?
BERG: I think we need two things. The first is to normalize having conversations about children. And by that, I mean, having conversations
with oneself, in one's peer group, and very importantly, within romantic relationships early and confidently so that that kind of thinking can
actually make a difference and enable people to plan their lives.
And the second thing I'd like to see is in our educational environment, giving us an opportunity to raise what we haven't discussed so far, which
is the question of the worth of human life in the present and in the future. We see increased doubt, novels, and film representations today give
us an image of ourselves as listless, as selfish, as incredibly self- absorbed, a kind of image that really does raise the question of do we deserve a human future? And that I'd like to see young people today given
the opportunity to think through these challenges.
MARTIN: Anastasia Berg, Rachel Wiseman, thank you both so much for speaking with us.
BERG: Thank you for having us.
WISEMAN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, amidst the backdrop of war, creativity still flourishes. Fashion Week has returned to Kyiv for the first time since
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Well, now it's back, and veterans are the ones taking to the runway. Designers are adapting their fashion to highlight the perseverance of the
Ukrainian people by featuring models with prosthetic limbs. One designer says he hopes to show, quote, "people are unbreakable."
And it's not just the fashion world showing us what resilience looks like. At the Paralympics, Team USA's Oksana Masters is celebrating the 19th medal
of her career. The Ukrainian-born athlete defended her gold in the women's cycling H5 road race on Thursday. Earlier, I asked her how sports has
helped her heal from so many setbacks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OKSANA MASTERS, U.S. PARALYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST: Yes. I mean, sports has been a huge instrumental -- like, it's just huge in my life and it's helped
me not only get stronger and healthier but help me emotionally heal the wounds that people do not see and the scars that do not see. And then,
also, start regaining power and strength within my body after the amputations.
I definitely did not think -- I never saw anyone like me being an athlete at all. So, I didn't think it was possible. And I just -- I don't -- like
I'm just so lucky that my mom was -- when we moved from Buffalo to Louisville, Kentucky, she introduced me to the world of sports. And in so
many ways, she saved my life by adopting me and saving my life there.
And then, she also saved my life by opening the door of sports. And then sports was that -- I feel like that third thing that really saved my life
and gave me that purpose and belonging of an identity of who I am and that I belong in this world. And then, that kind of transformed to helping that
next generation of that young little girl who also feels lost and doesn't know where her place is in this world based on the things that are
disabilities visible or not visible.
[13:55:00]
And for me, like, I just can't imagine life without sports for me and my mom opening up that door and rowing was that first one where I started
processing everything for me. And started growing as an athlete and growing as a person. And next thing you know, it transformed into seven Paralympic
Games.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Oksana wearing her two gold medals that she won in Paris. And you can watch the rest of my conversation with her next week.
Well, that is it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you so much for watching, and
goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
