Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk; Interview with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Michael Kofman; Interview with Journalist Injured in Ukraine Juan Arredondo; Interview with "Armed Only With a Camera" Director Craig Renaud; Interview with "The Other Side of Change" Author and Cognitive Scientist Maya Shankar. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 24, 2026 - 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)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Today, we must be just as determined and strong as we were when the invasion began.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Four years of full-scale war in Ukraine. At this grim milestone, I asked journalist Natalia Gumenyuk how ordinary Ukrainians are
faring. Plus, the state of the battlefield with military analyst Michael Kofman.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He filmed on the front line of conflicts all around the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- armed only with a camera. The story of journalist and filmmaker Brent Renaud, the first American killed while reporting in
Ukraine. I speak to fellow journalist Juan Arredondo and Brent's brother, Craig, who directed the Oscar-nominated documentary.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYA SHANKAR, AUTHOR, "THE OTHER SIDE OF CHANGE" AND COGNITIVE SCIENTIST: Yes, change can offend us. But it can also reveal things to us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- cognitive scientist Maya Shankar talks to Hari Sreenivasan about her new book, "The Other Side of Change," exploring how we navigate
the upheaval of life.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
A moment of silence in Kyiv today as Ukrainians mark a grim milestone, four years of war. Four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of
Ukraine. Four years of endurance and loss with hundreds of thousands killed and many more wounded. Now, President Zelenskyy is doing everything in his
power to convince his allies to stick with his country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Russians must learn that Europe is a union of independent nations and millions of people who do not
tolerate humiliation and will not accept violence. Thank you. Please continue to defend the European way of life. Please support Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Today, European leaders were in Kyiv showing support, but the U.S. sent no senior official. Meantime, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said in an address on state TV today that Ukraine and the West will regret their efforts to defeat Russia.
As this war enters its fifth year, we'll look at the state of the battlefield. But first, how are ordinary Ukrainians faring? Journalist
Natalia Gumenyuk joins the show from Kyiv, where she's been asking people how they feel about the war four years on.
Natalia, welcome to the program. I'm sorry that it happens to occur as we are marking such a heartbreaking anniversary and milestone here. President
Zelenskyy is saying that Ukrainians are not broken, and it's understandable and admirable that that is what he's saying. But you've spoken with so many
of these broken parts of the country. You've seen so many broken parts of the country firsthand.
In fact, you noted that Viktor Frankl's Man Searching for Meaning, which was actually written in the 1940s in a concentration camp, is now a
bestseller within Ukrainian trenches. Just what does that say about the psyche of Ukrainians today, especially Ukrainian soldiers?
NATALIA GUMENYUK, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST: I think it's different when you think about we need to stop this war or we need to stop the invasion,
because if you just do nothing instead of stopping the invasion, we would end up in the occupation. And I've reported about the occupied territories
and the horrific situation which is there, where people are abducted, where they are under the huge repressions, where people actually mobilize to the
Russian army after the four years of the full-scale invasion. And I remind, there are 12 years since the invasion, so the Crimean, the people in the
eastern Ukraine are also kind of forced even to fight in the Russian army, which is obviously tragic.
Here we take the war as a hard labor, so obviously people are tired. But what I believe the soldiers, I talked to a lot of military, I spent a lot
of time where I could be with them in the trenches, they are learning how to fight cost-efficient war. Cost-efficient war, it's meaning we need to
have a cheaper technology to defend ourselves. It's still there are losses, but learning how to fight cost-efficient war. Cost-efficient war, it's
meaning we need to have a cheaper technology to defend ourselves.
[13:05:00]
Still there are losses, but it requires labor, it requires a lot of people being mobilized and the whole society being still helping each other. Of
course, there are refugees, of course there are different people, but there are still too many, and that's what I'm saying, there are too many of us
who are still pretty resilient, hardened. And I also say that Ukraine is in the strongest position, if you speak about the military capacity at this
moment.
GUMENYUK: Yes, and that's what we'll hear more of from our next guest, Michael Kofman, who agrees with you on that point about Ukraine actually
having a stronger year on the battlefield in 2025 than they did the year prior to that.
But for Ukrainians, we've long said this is an existential war. Perhaps for Russia, only one man views it as existential, and that's Vladimir Putin. It
is not a war of necessity for ordinary Russians, but it is for Ukrainians. And just given that, do you think that that has helped keep the country,
keep Ukrainians going forward and continuing the fight as poll after poll shows, the majority of the country is still not ready for President
Zelenskyy to give in to most of President Putin's demands?
GUMENYUK: So, first of all, with the negotiations which are happening, there is obviously also the problem that the Russians are tempted by any
type of weakness. So, as long as the Ukrainians are pushed into any concession, the Russians want more. They're always looking for weakness.
And therefore, I think that there are problems with the current negotiation strategy.
It was also the hardest winter, and I think it's a bit paradoxical, and a lot of people should understand that it was the year of the negotiations,
but it was the hardest for the people with the highest civilian casualties because of the growing intensified attacks on the civilians, on the cities
like Kyiv, with destroying Ukrainian power grid.
Ukraine found some of the solutions, but of course it's devastating, it's difficult, but I'll give another quote of the soldier also I met. It was
also, you know, during one of the talks somewhere, and I didn't feel honestly so open to speak about the U.S., but he said like, you know, it's
a bit we're in the situation when your friend is sick, you know, ill, and you have a drug, but you don't give it, you don't give the spiel.
So, of course it's disappointing, but it's still like we're fighting this illness, we're fighting this war as illness, and I do think that the people
who still have reserve, the biggest discussion in the society, how we share this burden, so it would be fair that there would be the rotation among the
soldiers, that, you know, like people who maybe did a lot during the first years of war, there would be the new ones to come to work in the mil tech,
also serve in the front.
So, unfortunately, we do not see, you know, like the ending very, very much close. Therefore, you need to develop the competences, develop the
qualities, and share the burden of the suffering more or less in the fair way.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and as President Trump is continuing to push and put more pressure specifically on Ukraine for a fast settlement, we know that
Hungary and Slovakia are blocking the E.U. from billions of dollars in additional aid, though the majority of the bloc does support providing that
aid. And you write something that's very striking. You say, the clearer it has become that Ukrainians can truly rely only on ourselves, the less
anxious the national mood has seemed. I found that quite striking, especially when we go back to some of the other statistics that you have
mentioned, which are quite grim.
The United Nations reports that 2025 was the deadliest year for civilians, the birth rates have collapsed, a recent CNN report characterizes Ukraine
as a nation of widows and orphans. This has now gone from an emergency to a reality in Ukraine. How has that changed the country?
GUMENYUK: I do still think we need to give the -- you know, the credit for the Ukrainian society to more or less keeping the life normal. Because, you
know, CNN working a lot in Ukraine, and you also see that part of the life is normal, and the people live in Kharkiv, in Sumy, in the towns very close
to the front line, because we understand that it's still a better life than under the occupation. So, the whole point is about how to make this, you
know, effect of the war less devastating.
So, indeed, it's extremely sad how many people died, but also those casualties, I definitely don't want to diminish them. But if you're
speaking about, for instance, 16,000 civilians, we knew without the defense there would be hundreds of thousands, there might be possibly millions. So,
the Ukrainian reality is really to make the life livable.
[13:10:00]
I should give a credit for the European partners. We have a number of the, you know, European leaders visiting Kyiv today to show their solidarity,
because part of the Russian plan was, you know, to cut Ukraine fully, you know, to force Europe, for instance, to abandon Ukraine, and it didn't
happen.
So, I should say today, the day when we are remembering, you know, what has happened four years ago, it's definitely not a celebration, but it's in
some way recognition of the resilience, recognition of own resilience, because everybody reminds us and remember how we were given three days, you
know, and that the capital would be ruined, and also that, for instance, Ukraine didn't receive a proper weapon, because a lot of Western experts
thought and governments that, oh, it would be overtaken by the Russians because Ukrainians won't stand more than three weeks, and that didn't
happen. So, this mark of four years, it's grim, but it also tells a lot of the other story as well.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the story of the Ukrainian will to continue to fight for the country's independence. Natalia Gumenyuk, thank you so much for your
time and for your reporting.
And later in the program, four years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the way this war is being fought has evolved. Military analyst Michael Kofman tells
me where things stand now on the battlefield.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, as we enter the fifth year of war, what's the state of play on the battlefield? The Kremlin spokesperson conceded today that
Vladimir Putin's special military operation has not achieved its goals and will therefore continue. But at what cost? Since the start of the full-
scale invasion, nearly 1.2 million Russians are dead or injured. This is according to the U.S. Base Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Military analyst Michael Kofman was born in Kyiv and has spent years studying the realities of this war. He joined me a little earlier to
discuss his latest foreign affairs piece, "Ukraine's War of Endurance." I started by asking him about his assessment that in 2025, Ukraine actually
did better on the battlefield than most people think.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL KOFMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: So, my view is that 2025 went better for Ukraine than expected. Although
Russia continued to have advantages in manpower and in material, they were not able to convert those advantages to big gains on the battlefield. The
way they're fighting simply hasn't been conducive to achieving operationally significant breakthroughs. And Ukrainian military, while
facing shortages of manpower, having a lot of difficulties in terms of material supply, still was able to hold them to incremental gains.
If we look at the territory that the Russian military gained last year, a lot of it were along the axis or places where they didn't actually really
prioritize them. And Ukraine was ultimately able to hold on to still a piece of the nets that the Russian military very much wants to capture.
So, if we look at how 2025 closes out, Ukraine faces a host of difficulties, but the Russian military simply hasn't done well. And that's
been the case for two years now. The winter is particularly grim, given the Russian strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure. But nonetheless,
the situation along the front line isn't dire at this moment.
GOLODRYGA: But you do note the difficult reality that Ukraine is facing in these early months of 2026. You've described a shift from speed and
maneuver to a positional slog. Is this specific to the unique geography in where -- in which this fighting is taking place?
[13:15:00]
KOFMAN: So, I think there's two big factors. The first is this is a prolonged conventional war. And wars often go along this fashion. Once both
forces have a tendency to get exhausted and you have prepared defenses, you have minefields, you have artillery in place along a strewn battlefield.
And so, one of the things that you tend to see is that after a period of time, both sides tend to struggle to establish any kind of decisive
advantage in the fight.
But the second factor, of course, is also drones. They brought mass precision to the battlefield, and they've been a big multiplier,
particularly for the defending side in this war, which is the Ukrainian military. And so, the Russian forces have really struggled to find a way to
achieve any kind of significant breakthroughs on a battlefield characterized by both traditional prepared defenses, but also the advent of
drones and the presence of mass precision on this battlefield.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you note that Ukraine no longer can claim drone superiority and say that Russia's specialized drone units like Rubicon have
effectively neutralized Ukraine's early 2025 advantage. What can Ukraine do now to regain that superiority technologically?
KOFMAN: So, Ukraine did enjoy a considerable advantage, and that advantage has been reduced over the course of 2025. The Russian military also
deployed elite units. They also got after being much better organized in how they employed drones on the battlefield. That said, they haven't been
able to translate that still into significant gains, and their ground forces continue to take very significant casualties in their advances.
The big challenge for Ukraine is how to stay ahead technologically. Ukraine's invested heavily in uncrewed ground vehicles, for example, to do
logistics and do casualty evacuation, because many casualties now are no longer to frontline infantry. They're to those fighting and supporting
roles.
The Ukrainian military is trying to maintain a qualitative edge and is trying to stay ahead of the Russian armed forces. But the challenge is that
on this battlefield, you see both sides adapting and innovating in about three to four months intervals, and the Russian military does have a
tendency to try to copy whatever they see working for the Ukrainian military and then trying to scale that into production.
GOLODRYGA: And Russia, though they've seen significant losses, maybe some 25,000 soldiers a month, does have a manpower advantage. And what's
interesting is following this war over the last year or so, is you've noted that these drone operations, they still require a lot of manpower. So,
where does that put Ukraine on this front?
KOFMAN: Yes, drone operations remain fairly manpower intensive. Despite everything you hear about autonomy and artificial intelligence in this war,
the reality is that most capabilities are remotely operated by people. It takes quite a few people to maintain them. It takes quite a few people to
operate, to repair them. And with that, you know, being the key factor, yes, Russia retains an advantage in manpower.
But that advantage, too, has not proven decisive. Russian recruitment is increasingly coming up against their monthly unrecoverable losses, and
there's an active debate whether or not they'll be able to sustain the numbers that they had in 2025 heading into 2026
Ukraine is prioritizing its manpower challenges. It does have a big problem with people who are absent without leave. It does have a problem with
insufficient personnel being mobilized, and with drone units ultimately having to recruit not just outside the force, but a lot of times from
within the force. That being said, they're also trying to find ways to reduce the number of personnel they have on the front line and to create
better opportunities for rotations, to create additional forces.
So, for Ukraine, manpower remains an important challenge, but it is one they've been prioritizing as best that they can, given the constraints that
they are operating under.
GOLODRYGA: And Russia's economy is facing some of its most severe constraints thus far in this war, and your colleague at Carnegie, economist
Alexandra Prokopenko, describes Russia's economy as being, quote, "in the death zone, consuming itself in order to survive." And this is what she
wrote in The Economist. Westerners keep waiting for the Russian economy to collapse, it won't. but nor will it recover. The Russian economy is stuck
in what might be described as negative equilibrium, holding itself together while steadily destroying its own future capacity.
She's essentially noting that Russia's growth is completely defense sector driven at this point. So, what incentive, in your view, does Vladimir Putin
have in ending this war if there will be severe repercussions in having to realign economic investments once the war ends?
KOFMAN: So, while the Russian economy and Russian lead have adapted to this war now, since we're marking this grim four-year anniversary, or for
many Ukrainians, a 12-year anniversary, the reality is that after the war, the Russian military is likely to continue to benefit from substantial
defense spending. Russia may pass a very large state armament program later this summer, and the Russian government is going to keep spending on its
military, maybe not the same share of GDP in government spending that they do right now.
Currently, Russia spends almost 40 percent of the government budget on the military and maybe 8 percent of the GDP.
[13:20:00]
I do agree with Sasha Prokopenko. The Russian economy is currently facing economic stagnation, a whole host of budget deficits across the regions, a
growing deficit in the government, and low oil prices. And it has to offer substantial discounts for the sale of its oil due to pressure from
sanctions. And so, most of the indicators for the Russian economy are negative.
That said, it's not clear that any of these effects are taking place fast enough for Ukraine. That is to say, it is likely true that the Russian
economy isn't going to collapse this year. However, it is doubtful that Vladimir Putin is completely immune to the costs. And if Ukraine's strategy
of making the war futile for Russia shows progress, then it is a good question to what extent will Russia be forced to negotiate and
substantially reduce their current demands at the negotiating table.
GOLODRYGA: You also write that Putin has bet on a Ukrainian collapse and a Western abandonment. Both bets proved to be wrong. How significant is that
for him?
KOFMAN: Well, I think that that's been the bet Russia's been making for the last two years almost. And there's a good chance he's going to try to
make this bet again going into 2026. However, the way the Russian military has been fighting hasn't been conducive to leading to any kind of collapse
on the Ukrainian side. The despite the hardships that they face, they are still the beneficiaries of substantial material support and intelligence
support from Western countries.
It is true that the United States is no longer providing most of its support as assistance or aid, but they've online a mechanism for European
countries to essentially fund the continued provision of this assistance. And as you saw most recently, European countries in December ultimately
agreed to issue a large Eurobonds package in order to sustain Ukraine financially. And so, the Russian bet that they can simply outlast the West
simply hasn't proven true.
Now, Vladimir Putin is likely to keep making it. And what you saw about the Russian economy and his assumptions, those are the kind of things that are
true until they are not. That is to say, at some point, transitions can give and you can have gradually than suddenly effects. And so, from my
point of view, yes, Putin may keep making this bet, but it is increasingly not in smart depth because everything we've seen in 2025 begins to tell us
that time is not really on Russia's side in this war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And also, important to note that while the United States may not be directly providing Ukraine with military equipment and weapons
there, as you pointed out, selling them to Europe and still providing Ukraine with intelligence as well.
Final question to you, Michael, four years ago, you were among the minority who actually predicted that this larger scale invasion would take place
while so many others were skeptical. Looking back at your calculus, what was the one thing about either Russia's side or Ukraine's perhaps that has
surprised you in how this war has unfolded?
KOFMAN: So, to be honest, I mean, I wish I wasn't right back then, but certainly the way the Russian military invaded looked very different than
folks like I predicted. And what particularly surprised both the character of the invasion, the assumptions they made, they essentially weren't
prepared for a major conventional war, but also Ukrainian resistance proved a very significant factor. I think we knew far less about the Ukrainian
military at the time and substantially underrated it.
And also, about ourselves, our own policies in Western countries. Most of the expectations back then were based on the proposition that Ukraine was
going to have to face Russia alone, which was seemingly a grim proposition at the time.
However, very quickly, Western countries, especially the United States, changed course on policies, began to share intelligence and ultimately
provided military assistance. And I think that, too, on top of Ukrainian bullfight has made a significant difference in this war.
GOLODRYGA: Michael Kofman, quickly, the last time I spoke with you, you predicted that this war would go into 2026. At this point, do you see this
war coming to an end in 2026?
KOFMAN: That's hard to say. I do think that we are perhaps near the beginning of the end, but there's a good chance this war is going to go
into 2027.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Michael Kofman, really appreciate your analysis. Thank you so much for the time.
KOFMAN: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, it's not just soldiers and civilians caught up in this deadly war. More than 20 journalists and media workers have been killed in
Ukraine, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. One of them was Brent Renaud, an award-winning documentary maker who was shot by Russian
soldiers less than a month into the war.
Now, a new documentary short called "Armed Only With a Camera" tells his story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He filmed on the front line of conflicts all around the world. But what he cared about the most were the people caught in the
middle.
Describe what you're seeing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The Oscar-nominated film is produced by Juan Arredondo, who was shot in that ambush that killed Brent, and it's directed by Brent's
brother, Craig, who worked alongside him for 20 years. They both join me now live.
[13:25:00]
Craig, Juan, thank you so much for taking the time. Craig, I am so sorry for your loss. Juan, my condolences for the loss of your colleague and
friend as well. And let me begin there, Juan, as you've been listening to our interviews this past hour, marking the grim milestone of the fourth
year of this war. We've now entered five years. You were beside Brent when he was killed in the early days of this war in March of 2022. You were
severely injured. I'm just wondering how you're reflecting back on these last four years.
JUAN ARREDONDO, JOURNALIST INJURED IN UKRAINE: Well, thank you for having me. It's hard. It's hard to look back, and it's a reminder of how cruel war
can be and how lasting sometimes it can be. Unfortunately, this conflict has been dragging on for way too long and has claimed the lives, as we have
heard in the interviews of not only civilians but also journalists. Twenty- three journalists have been killed, according to the CPJ, the Community to Protect Journalists.
And so, these -- you know, every year, it's hard to always think back of that day that we were -- that my friend, my dear friend, and our colleague
died. So, it's sad to look back at these four years and see that there's no progress.
GOLODRYGA: And, Juan, how did surviving that moment and now spending three years working on this film, how did it change you as a journalist, as a
person?
ARREDONDO: Well, I have to say, as a journalist, I think I'm more convinced that what we do matters. You know, we have to be present. I think
Brent understood that. And journalists doesn't -- we know that we won't stop violence, but we'll make denial much harder, and it will create a
record. And what we hope to accomplish with our work is to create a record so it won't be easily erased. So, I think these three years have been a
process of healing, of remembering our friend and colleague.
So, with Craig, it's also been this journey of brotherhood, of looking back and reflecting on their work, on the legacy of Brent, but also propelling.
I continue, I just, I'm on my way back home from reporting. So, I continue to do work. I think more than ever, journalism matters, and it's important
to what's happening around the world.
GOLODRYGA: And, Craig, you as a brother, you and Brent, you had a pact that if one of you were killed or kidnapped, quote, "we keep filming." And
you did just that, even filming his casket, where we see your brother. It's very difficult to watch. I know you had the intent of having the audience
go through that discomfort to see the realities of war and the risk that journalists like your brother take in covering wars around the world. Let's
play a clip from the film that showcases that moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRAIG RENAUD, DIRECTOR, "ARMED ONLY WITH A CAMERA": So, he just kept repeating it, you know, we've been shot, we've been shot, we've been shot.
And he -- you know, and I said, where's Brent? And he said, he's been shot too. I've been pulled away into a separate vehicle. He's still there. And I
said, where was he shot? And I said, did he have his vest on? And he said, yes. And then I said, was he shot in the vest or the face? And one paused,
he didn't answer me. And I knew right then Brent was gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And it was right after this moment that you then traveled to Ukraine, filmed your brother's body in that casket and brought him back
home. When did you know that this had to become a film? And how did you carry the weight of telling his story as you were grieving yourself?
RENAUD: Yes, as you mentioned, you know, Brent and I talked about this a lot. You know, we covered conflicts for 20 years and we had a lot of
conversations and moments where we felt like we might not make it home. And we did make a promise to each other that if something was to happen, we
would keep filming. And, you know, the last message I got from my brother was as he and Juan were arriving to the front lines, you know, and not long
after that, I got a call from Juan saying they had been shot.
[13:30:00]
And so, pretty much instantly after I was able to confirm that my brother was killed, I knew I had to pick up a camera and go retrieve my brother's
body and bring it home to my family. You know, and journalists -- it was journalists that helped me get Brent home and helped us get Juan home.
You know, Juan was badly injured at a hospital that was being actively bombed. You know, there was going to be no way to get my brother's body
home if we didn't go into Ukraine and bring him out. And so, I felt it was important to have my camera and document this journey of a journalist being
killed, you know, and I felt that we had covered conflicts for 20 years and filmed the horrors of war. And I felt like why should it be any different
when my brother was killed? So, I started filming immediately and then it took us about three and a half years to edit the film and finish it.
GOLODRYGA: Well, you're a journalist and a great one at that, but you're also a human being and you are also someone who is extremely close with
your brother. I know that you hope to follow in his footsteps as a documentarian and you chronicle that in the film as well in your childhood.
Let's show a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RENAUD: My brother Brent was two years older than me. When we were little, I can remember following Brent around everywhere. I always looked up to
him. When Brent told me that he wanted to be a documentary filmmaker, I had to be there alongside him. For the next 20 years, I followed my older
brother to the most dangerous places in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: We know that Brent was intensely private as well, and that's showcased in the film. It includes intimate moments where he reveals that
he actually had a diagnosis of autism and says that he somehow was calm in war zones, but extremely uncomfortable when he was at social events and at
cocktail parties. Did you hesitate at all ever to share that side of him?
RENAUD: Well, we were careful when we were editing the film. I felt like if it was something that Brent had shared himself, then I was comfortable
sharing it. You know, Brent had given a speech to his classmates. He was a Harvard Nieman Fellow in 2018 and made a decision to talk about his
diagnosis to his classmates, and we were fortunate to have that talk that he gave. Ron was actually there that day. That's how they met at Harvard.
So, we just -- you know, we tried to ask ourselves if we felt like this is things that Brent wanted revealed, but we also felt it was important for
people to understand all sides of Brent and what drove him. You know, he was a very intense and quiet person, but also a very empathetic and
compassionate person, and that's ultimately what drove his work. We covered conflicts. Brent covered pretty much every front line since 9/11, but it
was always motivated by the innocent civilians that were caught in the middle, and that's what motivated him, and that's ultimately what led to
his death.
Him and Juan that day were trying to push deeper into the conflict, not to cover bullets flying. They were trying to get to refugees who were fleeing
their homes and to tell that story so that people could understand what war and violence does to people.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's talk about that extraordinary empathy, Juan. In Somalia in the film, we see a wounded man telling Brent, quote, "The way
you hold that camera, you're doing it from your heart." This is moments after a terror attack, and you see how wounded this man was, but he calls
Brent over to tell him that very thing, and there's also a moment of the film in Ukraine where he's trying to comfort a Ukrainian woman after a
Russian attack. Let's play that clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRENT RENAUD: This doesn't look good. Were you here when the bomb hit?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I tear up every time I hear that woman say that it's so scary, and Brent was standing there just inches away from her to capture it. Juan,
having worked with Brent, what did he understand about humans, about what civilians went through during times of crises, especially a war?
ARREDONDO: Yes, I think that was a gift that Brent, and that I was lucky to see in action and see it live, how he was just very empathetic to the
situation, wanted to understand, not come to the scene or, as you see in that scene, not come with any prejudgment. It's honestly just with
curiosity, with open heart, and wanted to understand what people are going through, respecting, obviously, as you see in the clip that the woman at
one point says she just doesn't want to speak anymore, and we always respected that.
But I think people can see that and saw in him this humility, but also this kindness of just wanting to be there. And when you're in these situations,
people want to talk, they want to be heard, and I think they perceived that in Brent, that he just genuinely wanted to tell their stories. Oftentimes,
we came across people thanking us for being there, for caring for their conflict, and for being in their country in the midst of the start of the
invasion, as we were in that week of this clip. So, I think that's what comes across in many of the scenes that we have in the documentary.
I always go back to that clip in Somalia because it was hard to find that. Craig had a, he probably can tell you that story better, but he had a dream
where Brent told him there's a footage of that. But that's what I think people perceived in him, the way he held the camera, the way his composure,
and we were just listening. We never intervene, we never pepper people with many questions. We just honestly wanted to have a conversation with them.
GOLODRYGA: Listening, you know, as we always tell other journalists, is the best form of journalism, when you're really trying to get to the truth.
And as you are nurturing, as you are investing in supporting other journalists, I know you're doing that, Craig, through the Brent Renaud
Foundation. You're mentoring young journalists and creating healing spaces. In these final few seconds, just give us a bit of what you are encouraging
them by, when we see the number of journalists that are killed around the world only go up. How are you keeping them hopeful and reminding them of
how important this field is?
RENAUD: Yes, and we want to remind them how to do this job as safely as possible. I think journalism has really changed in the 20 years that I have
been doing this. When we would enter conflict zones, we were always concerned about the danger, and we knew the risk. But this is a whole
different ballgame now, where journalists have a target on their backs and are being targeted.
You know, there's been over 400 journalists killed since my brother died. Every single year since he's died, it's been a record-breaking year,
according to CPJ. And it doesn't show any signs of getting better. So, we want young people to understand the risk, but also understand why this is
so important to keep going, you know.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
RENAUD: I mean, Brent talked about this, without journalism, there is no democracy.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Well, Craig Renaud and Juan Arredondo, you capture his commitment to this field, to truth-telling, so brilliantly in this film.
Thank you so much.
RENAUD: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: "Armed Only With a Camera" is out on HBO Max. And full disclosure, HBO shares a parent company with CNN. We'll be right back with
more after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, from global conflicts to the climate crisis and the growing threat of artificial intelligence, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by
the uncertain times we're living in. But how can we best navigate it all? Maya Shankar is a cognitive scientist and former senior adviser in the
Obama administration. Her new book, The Other Side of Change, offers some guidance on ways to deal with the unexpected, as she discusses with Hari
Sreenivasan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Maya Shankar, thanks so much for joining us. You have a book out called "The
Other Side of Change: Who We Become When Life Makes Other Plans." You've also had a very successful podcast for a number of years called "The Slight
Change of Plans." What made you want to talk about these things to write this book about change?
MAYA SHANKAR, AUTHOR, "THE OTHER SIDE OF CHANGE" AND COGNITIVE SCIENTIST: I think it's because I feel like I'm really terrible at navigating the
unexpected changes in life, and I find it really scary and really destabilizing. For one, I don't love uncertainty, and it turns out that
most of U.S., our brains are not wired to enjoy uncertainty. One of my favorite studies shows that we are actually more stressed when we're told
we have a 50 percent chance of receiving an electric shock than when we're told we have a 100 percent chance.
So, we would rather be certain, Hari, that a negative thing is going to happen than to have to grapple with any uncertainty. And of course, a big
unexpected change in our lives is accompanied by so much uncertainty. And then there's also the loss of identity and many other very discomfiting
elements to the change process.
And so, I was so eager to figure out, how can we all do change better? It's going to come for all of U.S., whether we like it or not. And so, as a
cognitive scientist, I wanted to put on that hat and explore this space further.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. So, tell me, is this the full gamut of changes, whether it's a new job, a new city, a divorce? I mean, what kinds of changes?
SHANKAR: The kind of change I'm most interested in is the one that is wildly unexpected. The moments in life in which the anvil falls from the
clear blue sky and we feel so unprepared and uncertain about how to move forward. It's so interesting because I think in these tough moments in my
life, I've heard this mantra that while we can't control what happens to U.S., we can control our reaction to what happens. And it's meant to be an
empowering mantra. It's rooted in ancient wisdom.
But in those moments, honestly, it is really felt hollow. It is rung hollow. And that's because I haven't actually known how to change the way
that I respond. It's not like there's a switch in my brain that I can just flip on that will suddenly make me feel more peaceful or more hopeful or
more certain about the future.
And so, my goal in writing "The Other Side of Change" was actually to give people a manual to pair powerful stories of change with the science of
human behavior to help us understand how we can actually think and feel differently about these moments of disruption in life.
SREENIVASAN: One of the quotes you have is, what if we saw the hardest moments in our lives as a chance to reimagine ourselves rather than as
something to just endure? What potential could change unlock within us? So, how do we take that thing that feels like this heavy anvil and turn it into
a potential for revelation?
SHANKAR: So, when a negative thing happens in our lives, it can feel like a personal apocalypse, like the world that we knew and grew so comfortable
with is no longer available to us. And one of the fascinating things that I discovered when doing research for the book is that apocalypse comes from
the Greek word apocalypsis, and this actually means revelation.
And so, that etymology is quite instructive. Basically, what it's saying is, yes, change can offend U.S., but it can also reveal things to us. In
these moments where we are thrust into a new reality, the demands and stresses of our new situation can reveal things to us about who we are that
were previously hidden from view. So, things like our attitudes and beliefs about the world and ourselves, new capabilities, new ways of seeing the
world.
And I felt very heartened that we can at least have this to look forward to. You know, I would say, by and large, out of the people that I
interviewed for the book, they're not necessarily happy that they had to go through the change they went through, which makes a lot of sense, right?
Who would welcome illness or heartbreak into their lives?
But what they were really grateful for was who they became as a result of the change they went through. They were grateful for the newfound
confidence or freedom they tapped into, the renewed relationship they had with their family, the new possibilities that they envisioned for their
future. All of that was an unexpected gift that came from the hardest moments of their lives.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: You write about a woman who suffers a stroke and has a very rare outcome, which is that she's really locked into her body, and all she
can control is the ability for her to blink. And in that chapter, you write, our attachment to a specific identity can stand in the way of
accepting our new reality. Tell us a little bit about this woman and how she managed to deal with the most significant change we could ever imagine.
SHANKAR: Yes, it was such a harrowing change. And one thing that I've learned over the years is a primary reason change can feel so scary and so
intimidating and so grief-filled is that it can challenge our fundamental sense of self, our self-identity. And for Olivia, the woman in the book who
has a massive brainstem stroke in her early 20s, she is left with what's called locked-in syndrome.
So, as you mentioned, when you have locked-in syndrome, you cannot voluntarily move any of the muscles in your body except for the muscles
controlling your eyes. So, blinking is your only portal for communicating with the world around you. And one thing that I was so intent on doing with
this book is to capture extraordinary stories, but ones that also had universal lessons, very relatable lessons that lay within them.
And so, it turns out that one of Olivia's biggest barriers is that she was by nature a people pleaser. She really wanted to win the approval of others
in her life. And what becoming locked-in did is it limited her ability to curate an image of herself, to be the kind of person that she thought would
be palatable to those around her.
And so, it's an extraordinary story of someone having to reckon with really confronting their true self because she had no other option, and learning
to actually embrace that self and to learn how to love and accept herself fully. And what I found so wonderful about Olivia's story is that it shows
that our sense of self-identity truly is malleable.
I had a personal experience that changed when I was a teenager in which I had been an aspiring concert violinist. I was studying at Juilliard under
the renowned violinist Itzhak Perlman, and an injury ended those dreams overnight. And I also felt this profound loss of identity. I didn't realize
until I lost the violin how much it had come to define me.
And learning about Olivia's unbelievable experiences of change, which, of course, is so much more significant than anything I went through, was so
instructive for me. I learned that it can be precarious to anchor our identities too much to these precarious sources, in my case, to what I did.
And that's because life can take away your what in a moment.
And so, I learned that, actually, one lesson for all of us is to instead anchor our identity to why we do the things we do. And when you identify
what your why is, whether it's a commitment to service or having a creative outlet or improving at a skill, that why will be a stable force that serves
as a compass to guide you towards your next step.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the things that you also mention is sort of the power of awe. And I know we can't all sort of go and stand on the edge
of the Grand Canyon every day, but what are ways where we can inject kind of awe into our lives that might help break these negative doom loop
cycles?
SHANKAR: Awe is one of my favorite anti-rumination strategies, and that's because it really is available to all of us. Now, naturally, when we think
about awe, we think about things like music and art, but there are other kinds of awe that I think is underrecognized, is called moral beauty.
And this is when we actually just witness other people's extraordinary actions or behaviors. That might be their kindness or self-sacrifice or
courage or resilience or ability to forgive another person. And that truly is everywhere. It might be at the supermarket when you watch someone be
extra kind to an elderly shopper or at the playground when you witness the little kids stand up to the bully.
And what's really important to understand about awe is that when we are in the presence of something vast that transcends our understanding of the
world, this is the definition of awe, it really does change our brains, and that's because it will dampen the activity in the default mode network, in
the parts of our brains that are associated with self-immersion.
And so, by doing that, it allows us to step outside of our individual wants and needs and anxieties and to see ourselves as part of a larger whole, and
again, to be able to see our problems with a bit more distance and a greater sense of wonder and possibility.
SREENIVASAN: You write about an individual named Reginald Dwayne Betts, and his story at the age of 16, he was sentenced to nine years in prison
for an armed carjacking, and he said that with one guilty plea, quote, "the list of possibilities has been reduced to no possibilities."
[13:50:00]
And since leaving prison, he has won several awards for his poetry, he's gone to law school, he's a prison reform advocate. From his story, how did
he create kind of these alternate possibilities for who he could be?
SHANKAR: I think we're all familiar with that feeling we have when life makes other plans for U.S., and we see all of these doors closing around
us. What research shows is that when we try to pick up the pieces and reimagine who we can be in our new circumstances, our imaginations can
really restrict us. And that's because we can carry unfounded assumptions about the kinds of futures that are available to someone who's facing our
new situation.
So, for example, someone who has just lost their job, or is now a full-time caregiver, or is navigating an illness, or like Duane, is incarcerated. And
one of my favorite strategies for cracking open our imagination, for seeing that there are actually more expansive possibilities for U.S., is moral
elevation. So, we talked a little bit about moral beauty, right, as a form of awe. Well, what is moral elevation? It's that warm, fuzzy feeling that
we get in our chest when we witness someone else's extraordinary behaviors.
And what happens is when we experience someone else defying our understanding of what humans are capable of, in this case, in the best way
possible, because they've shown us the best of humanity, it can actually crack open our own imagination about what we are capable of. And what Duane
shares is that it was actually an encounter with a fellow prisoner, a guy who showed such deep care and kindness to the younger men in prison. He
helped teach them how to box, to protect them from the threat of violence.
That inspired Duane to realize, oh, he could use his voice to actually protect the young men in prison. And he ended up deciding to become a poet,
to use words to dignify the experience of men of color within the prison system. And as you mentioned, he's just had an incredible path and so much
success. And I just love that it was a moment of moral elevation that led him to this point.
SREENIVASAN: You share very vulnerably, first on your podcast and now on the book, your own journey with miscarriage and surrogacy and, you know,
you write, I was going to be a violinist and then I was going to be a mother, and now I find myself conceiving of a future in which I am neither.
Unexpectedly, I'm more hopeful than I've ever been. How did you get to this place of hopefulness?
SHANKAR: So, long story short, my husband and I had been trying to start a family for, at this point, about six or seven years. And I still remember
the night we found out that our surrogate had miscarried for a second time and that we had lost identical twin girls. And I was just devastated, Hari,
because the day had been a total emotional roller coaster. We had seen healthy beating hearts in the afternoon and then we get greeted with this
really tragic news that the pregnancy was not going to work.
And I remember just being under the covers, just, you know, feeling really, really miserable and very despondent. And like all the color from my future
had been drained, that it had been turned to grayscale because one of the earliest dreams I ever had was to become a mom.
And I remember my husband, Jimmy, came into the room and he said, Maya, let's do a quick gratitude exercise. And let me tell you, in that moment, I
was not having it. I was like, Jimmy, you go do your toxic positivity thing in the corner. I'm not doing this. I'm staying under the covers.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
SHANKAR: But there was something so earnest about his request. And so, I thought, OK, let me just try this. And by the way, what he was having me
engage in unknowingly was called by psychologists a self-affirmation exercise. And this is when you list all the things that bring you meaning
in your life, that give your life purpose, that are not threatened by the change you're going through.
And so, I engaged in this self-affirmation exercise and I just started to rattle off some items. I said, well, you know, first and foremost, I'm
grateful for you, Jimmy. I'm also grateful to be an aunt to my six nieces and nephews. I'm grateful that I get to go into the little closet in my
apartment and record my podcast, The Slight Change of Plans, where I get to hear extraordinary stories of people from all over the world.
And it was so incredible because as I was doing this exercise, I feel like something magical happened, which was that for the first time in years, I
zoomed out on my life. I let go of the tunnel vision that I developed when I was so intently focused on achieving this goal of mine, of trying to be a
mom. And I saw that my life was still so rich and multidimensional. There were so many other identities that I still found so much meaning and value
in.
[13:55:00]
And so, I would encourage people, whether they're in the throes of change or not, to do this quick exercise. Take five minutes to write down all of
the things that bring your life meaning, and it will just help you to see your life as a whole and to not feel that every fiber of your being is
being threaten when something, you know, doesn't go according to plan.
SREENIVASAN: The book is called "The Other Side of Change." The podcast is called "A Slight Change of Plans." Maya Shankar, thanks so much for joining
us.
SHANKAR: Thank you so much for having me, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, as the brutal war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, we leave you with displays of solidarity from around the world. From
French lawmakers applauding Ukraine in assembly to buildings in Brussels lit up overnight in yellow and blue, plus the opening of a new museum in
Berlin featuring items from the front lines to commemorate resilience and the suffering of those affected.
All right. That is it for now. With the sombering anniversary today for us that we've covered, thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
