Return to Transcripts main page
The Amanpour Hour
Interview With The President Of The Czech Republic And Former NATO General Petr Pavel; The Legacy Of Gloria Steinem; Rescuers Search For Thousands After Nepal-China Floods; Interview With "An Eye For An Eye" Director Tanaz Eshaghian; Russia On The Rocks. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired September 05, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:00:38]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to THE AMANPOUR HOUR.
Here's where we're headed this week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Russia bombards Europe with so-called gray attacks. What might President Putin do next? I asked the Czech president and former NATO General, Petr Pavel. He's been sounding the alarm bells for months.
Then, remembering the remarkable Gloria Steinem and her relentless fight for women's equality.
GLORIA STEINEM, WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST: The people who say that this fight is over are the same people who used to say to me, it's impossible. You know, it's against nature. And now their current form of obstructionism is it's over. No, no, no, we've just barely begun.
AMANPOUR: And --
Warning from the top of the world. After Nepal's catastrophic glacial meltdown. A special report from where the people are still burying their dead.
Also on the program --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I always say, "We only killed him once. He killed us a thousand times."
AMANPOUR: "An Eye for An Eye": the intriguing new documentary about an Iranian woman who killed her husband after years of abuse and has to pay his family for forgiveness or face execution.
Plus, 35 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, how Russians drown their sorrows in vodka.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I'm having my apartment repaired and no one will do anything for me unless I give them vodka.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
With arson attacks, airspace violations, and assassination squads, Russia is waging a hybrid war against European NATO states. The conclusion just after Germany said Moscow was behind last month's attack at Leipzig airport, where an explosive drone was found near a Ukrainian cargo plane.
CIA director, John Ratcliffe went to Moscow last week to issue a warning. "Do not escalate against NATO." But will they listen?
Our first guest told this program back in April that Putin would likely attempt increasingly bold campaigns against NATO.
The president of the Czech Republic and a former NATO general, Petr Pavel, joined me from Prague.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, welcome back to our program.
And as I mentioned, you warned on this program a few months ago that this is precisely what Putin would do. Is this kind of the "I told you so" moment?
PETR PAVEL, CZECH PRESIDENT: I believe that this is exactly the pattern of Russian behavior in the last couple of months. Russia, aware that they cannot launch an open military action against NATO, is using all the arsenal of indirect actions from subversion through incursions into sovereign airspace, provocation at the maritime space, but also information campaigns against different countries, all motivated by the old rule, "divide and rule".
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, do you think this is because apparently American intelligence has told Russia that they are not winning, that the economic and military situation for Russia is very, very dire?
Do you think this is a desperate sort of Hail Mary pass by Putin, or is he always going to do this?
PAVEL: Well, President Putin always seeks for an external enemy. There is no intention whatsoever from European countries to innovate Russia. No one is so crazy.
But Russia always insists to their own population that they are under threat from the West. And that's why when they do not succeed in aggression against Ukraine, they are looking for external enemies. And the first place, European countries supporting Ukraine are now their direct focus.
[11:04:37] PAVEL: That's why they launch a number of indirect attacks against European countries to disunite European Union, NATO, to discourage these countries from support Ukraine and to create a perception that Russia can act wherever they choose.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you that because this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I don't know whether they are successful in discouraging your countries from supporting Ukraine, but your countries are having a really hard time right now supporting Ukraine.
How do you, particularly as a former military officer, view the state of battle right now?
PAVEL: It's more or less a stalemate. Russia is not succeeding, even though Russian propaganda insists that the war is going well.
For every square kilometer that Russia achieves from Ukraine, they lose more than 1,000 people. The rate of casualties is higher than the rate of recruitment.
And over the last year, they acquired less than 0.4 percent of Ukrainian territory. That cannot be translated as a success. And that's why they are trying to do anything possible to demonstrate that they have the power to win the conflict.
That's why they are focusing on soft targets, creating terror, creating fear, and creating beliefs that Russia cannot be defeated.
AMANPOUR: We read anecdotally that some in the Russian elite are somehow making it known that this war needs to stop, whether it's in the economic sector, some diplomatic sector. We're reading, you know, evidence that at least some people are starting to say things out loud and it's not appreciated by the Kremlin.
Do you think -- what do you know? What does your intelligence tell you about what's being said now?
PAVEL: I believe that the Russian population is generally tired by the war as Ukrainian population. They don't want it in general. But at the same time, they are being convinced by their leadership that Russia cannot lose this conflict, that they eventually will prevail.
And in a Russian spirit, losing means almost disaster. That's why they need at least perception of a victory.
I believe that we all have to insist that ending the war is actually the victory for everyone, including Russian population, which will again get access to oil and gas, to all the goods they are used to, because continuation of that conflict is not in their interest as it is not in our interest.
AMANPOUR: You gave an interview to a British newspaper a couple of months ago. You said that there was essentially a two-month window, that's what you said back then, to push Russia towards talks because there's going to be an election and that might, you said, close off room for negotiations. Can you explain and sort of expand on that?
PAVEL: Well, up to now, President Putin didn't come to calling for mobilization because he understands that it's highly unpopular among Russian male population. When they declared mobilization last time, there were about 1.5 million young Russians fleeing the country to neighboring countries and to Europe.
I think they are very aware that the war is highly unpopular and young people -- young men are not willing to go to die.
Because as the CIA director pointed when visiting Russia, life expectancy of young recruits who come to battlefield is between 20 and 30 minutes.
So, President Putin will be more willing to call for mobilization after the elections because then he can afford to ignore public perceptions and opinion.
AMANPOUR: Finally, I just want to ask you then, is it better to try to engage the Russians or to keep trying to isolate them? For instance, as you well know, at the G-20, the United States administration invited the Russian finance minister, you know, to North Carolina. E.U. countries were furious, allies were furious and refused to take part in a photo op. What was your view of that?
PAVEL: Frankly, I don't consider such a move a right one because it sounds like an effort to normalize relationship with Russia.
We shouldn't isolate completely Russia. We should be very firm in our position that we are open to negotiation without preconditions and after they stop fighting at the line of contact as it is now.
[11:09:51]
PAVEL: That's the foundational condition for any negotiation.
I think we cannot normalize because any such a move would only encourage Russia that things are coming to normal, even with continuation of war in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: That's really an interesting observation. And we appreciate you being with us tonight. President of the Czech Republic Petr Pavel, thanks for joining us.
PAVEL: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: A really difficult dilemma.
And next, a tribute to an extraordinary and full life as Gloria Steinem dies at 92. My conversation with the great feminist activist who fought for women everywhere.
And later, life under Sharia law in Iran, the documentary that reveals what it's like to be a woman in Iran today. I speak to director Tanaz Eshaghian.
[11:10:39]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.
This week, the world lost another great. The inimitable Gloria Steinem has died at the grand old age of 92. She passed away at her home in New York, we're told, surrounded by people who loved her.
Undoubtedly one of the most important activists of all time, she became the face and voice of the women's liberation movement in the 1970s, which fought for equality and a fundamental right to control a woman's own body. This was for all women, and it was a cause she dedicated her entire life to.
So I'd like to revisit a couple of our conversations over the course of a decade to hear Gloria, in her own words.
First, in 2015, when she told me about her life growing up on the road, including numerous trips abroad. And she turned that experience into her memoir.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: We've been through several waves of feminism. Where are we now? Because some people think the fight is over. Is it?
STEINEM: The people who say that the fight is over are the same people who used to say to me, it was impossible, you know, it was against nature. And now their current form of obstructionism is it's over. No, no, no. We've just barely begun.
AMANPOUR: And obstructionism, you choose that word, obviously, with consideration. I mean, you still feel that the women we are being obstructed.
STEINEM: Well, you know, we're all born into this very patriarchal culture. It takes different forms around the world. But the basis of it is that reproduction must be controlled by men and that means controlling women's bodies.
It may take different forms, religious forms, political forms, but that is the basic impulse.
And so, you know, it's quite radical to say we are seizing control of reproduction, which we are. And it makes perfect sense because these are our bodies. And this was also the form of governance for millennia before patriarchy came along.
And we have made progress in a lot of ways, but we still discuss a foreign policy and terrorism and all the disasters that you report, as if it was separate from the women's movement.
The women's movement is a silo over here. Foreign policy is a silo over there, and never the twain shall meet.
AMANPOUR: How do you think the twain meet?
STEINEM: The twain meets because the single, biggest predictor of violence in a culture has always been the polarization of roles, hyper-masculinity on one side, hyper-femininity on, you know, women and reproduction controlled on the other side.
And if we simply looked at that as an indicator, we would not, for instance, have supported, say, the mujahidin in Afghanistan, who turned into the Taliban because they were way more hostile and way more violent towards females than the regime we helped them overthrow.
AMANPOUR: Here you are. I said you're 81. Nobody would believe it if they looked at you.
STEINEM: I don't believe it either.
AMANPOUR: Once somebody asked you, you know, oh, my God, you're 40, and you said, this is what 40 looks like --
STEINEM: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- which is a very empowering thing to say. And you've been saying that every decade, which is great. People -- we should own, you know, the road we've traveled.
But -- what is it, do you think, despite all the progress that you and we have made, that has not yet reached a tipping point, final momentum point, so that there is parity and there is gender justice, which is global justice, despite the fact that it would make, if all other arguments fell, economic sense?
STEINEM: It wouldn't make economic sense to the people who are profiting from women being underpaid.
AMANPOUR: But to GDP, it does.
STEINEM: Yes, but that --
AMANPOUR: To the global health.
STEINEM: -- that doesn't count caregiving. It doesn't, you know. But the fundamental problem is that the gendered nature of violence is continuing and accelerating.
And right now, there are fewer female human beings on earth than there are male human beings because of all of these forms of violence, including domestic violence in this country, combined.
And we are not paying attention to that. And we are not using it as an indicator in our foreign policy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[11:19:41] AMANPOUR: Next, to part of an interview we had in May 2022 when we spoke for the last time just as just as news was leaked, that the Supreme Court would overturn the Roe versus Wade ruling, no longer guaranteeing American women the right to a safe abortion. All of these had been Gloria's life work trying to guarantee that right.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEINEM: We have a right to make decisions over our own physical selves, and no one has the right to tell us what to do. And that is the majority everywhere that is going to prevail in the end.
I'm old enough to remember, you know, before there were any real abortion rights. Nonetheless, about one in three American women had had an abortion at some time in her life, even when it was maybe not legal.
So, you know, there just is such a thing as natural law. Natural law says we get the right to make decisions over our own physical beings.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you because it goes to the heart of -- of what you've been struggling for in your -- in your life as an activist? And in -- in the dedication of your own book, "My Life on the Road", you started by talking to a Dr. John Sharpe.
Can you read a little bit about that from that dedication?
STEINEM: Yes, thank you for that, because I think, you know, he embodies the gratitude that so many of us feel.
"This book is dedicated to Dr. John Sharpe of London, who in 1957, a decade before physicians in England could legally perform an abortion for any reason, other than the health of the woman, took the considerable risk of referring for an abortion a 22-year-old American on her way to India, knowing only that she had broken an engagement at home to seek an unknown fate.
She said, you must promise me two things. He said, you must promise me two things. First, you will not tell anyone my name. Second, you will do what you want to do with your life," unquote.
Dear, Dr. Sharpe, I believe you, who knew the law was unjust, would not mind if I say this so long after your death. I've done the best I could with my life. This book is for you.
And I think there are women and men across this country saying thank you to physicians who recognize individual rights.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And fittingly, Gloria Steinem will have the last word on her own legacy. Her final memoir, "An Unexpected Life", will be released later this month.
Next up, warning from the roof of the world. Days after Nepal's devastating glacier meltdown, thousands are still missing. CNN's Hanako Montgomery brings us a special report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm still hoping that they come back. We're looking for them and contacting all possible places, but we haven't found any leads.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[11:22:50]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back.
The scale of the disaster in Nepal and Tibet is becoming clearer, with more than a thousand people now confirmed dead after last week's devastating floods. Thousands more are still thought to be missing but as long as the search continues, it does keep hope alive as CNNs Hanako Montgomery now reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Down in Nepal's plains, the river gives up its dead, floodwaters carried them far from where they were last seen scattering them along the riverbanks.
Right now, we're on a search and recovery mission with the Nepali police. They found hundreds of bodies that have washed downstream from the Himalayas in this river. So we're just going to go and see if we can find any more human remains that might need recovering.
Using sticks to probe the tall grass, they search for what the floods left behind. They find nothing. So the search continues downstream.
They say they found something. I'm just going to put on my mask here in case it's a body. We found an animal carcass, and you can tell that it's been here for a few days. It's pretty badly decomposed.
The police tell us the same is happening to human remains.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE, NEPALI POLICE (through translator): These scenes are very heart wrenching. But we're keeping strong and working.
MONTGOMERY: The places to search seem endless. And what they do recover, they bring here, a center where photographs of the found dead flicker across screens.
Families stare at image after image, looking for a brother, a son, or for this man, his sisters.
KUMAR POKHAREL, BROTHER OF MISSING SISTERS, (through translator): I'm still hoping that they come back. We're looking for them and contacting all possible places, but we haven't found any leads. MONTGOMERY: The police tell me over 800 people were reported missing
at this center alone. Just 12 were returned families. Some, he says, are so badly decomposed, they're unrecognizable.
HARI SHARAN DHAKAL, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (through translator): The situation is very challenging. We're getting dead bodies, body parts, and we don't have enough people who are able to do this work.
[11:29:50]
MONTGOMERY: Reunited holds a different meaning here. Finding remains confirms an unbearable truth, but an end to the search for some families, allowing them to lay their loved ones to rest.
But they're considered the lucky ones, the hundreds who can't be identified are brought deep into the forest to a freshly dug mass grave. Numbers are assigned for the unnamed, with the bleak hope that using collected DNA samples, one day someone will come looking for them.
Back at the river, the police find what they're looking for.
When we were with the Nepali police, we didn't find any remains, but the same team, they called us and they told us they found two bodies in the river. And now begins the really painful process of identifying these people and then reuniting them with their families.
Behind every missing person is a family still waiting. And behind every recovered body, the enormous task of learning who they were.
Hanako Montgomery, CNN -- Nepal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: It is an ongoing tragedy and an ominous environmental warning.
After the break, "An Eye for An Eye", the true story of an Iranian woman who admits to murdering her husband, now out of prison but still facing the harsh reality of Sharia law. I speak to director Tanaz Eshaghian.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TANAZ ESHAGHIAN, DIRECTOR, "AN EYE FOR AN EYE": What would drive a woman to think it actually is a good idea to murder her husband?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[11:31:25]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.
Now, it's been more than six months of war between the United States and Iran. And tensions have escalated again this week with a new round of tit-for-tat military strikes. And life for Iranians is more difficult than ever as President Trump reverts to telling them to rise up and fight, unable himself to bend the regime.
The hardliners continue to consolidate power, further tightening their oppressive grip on the country. And, as so often happens, Iranian women are among those who suffer the most.
Now, a new documentary offers a rare glimpse into life under Sharia law there. "An Eye for An Eye" tells the true story of a wife and mother who killed her husband in self-defense after years of suffering abuse.
Then, after years in prison, she faces an impossible choice: pay her husband's family the so-called blood money, or face execution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm here because of my mother's situation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How long was she in prison?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 14 years.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What exactly happened?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is where we found the body.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I always say we only killed him once. He killed us a thousand times.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Quran states that the punishment for the crime is "an eye for an eye".
But the victim's family can forgive them.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So there is a way out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If they want to seek the death penalty it's over. I'll be executed.
If they demand blood money, I have no choice but to pay them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I spoke with the film director, Tanaz Eshaghian about her project.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Tanaz Eshaghian, welcome to the program.
ESHAGHIAN: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Ok, let's start from the beginning. It's really a murder, blood money, you know, human rights, if you like, women's rights story. That's how I sort of see it.
Give me just the precis of what exactly happened, because the characters are very complex and there's not -- I mean, there's a lot of gray matter involved.
So what drove the woman, Tahereh, to commit murder and kill her husband?
ESHAGHIAN: Well, about 15 years ago, Tahereh one evening thought it was a good idea to murder her husband, strangle him with a scarf with the help of her two daughters.
And this was after years of abuse. He was an opium addict. And she had been living basically in hell.
And one of the things actually that interested me in making this film was what would drive a woman to think it actually is a good idea to murder her husband. What is the backstory?
And we explore it in the film. Essentially, she tried at some point to get a divorce and went to the court. And it's as you probably know, it's very difficult for women to get a divorce, whereas a man can just simply divorce a woman.
And she went and she explained how horrible he was, like he'd beat her and in the head. And it's just been -- he's abusive.
And apparently the judge said to her, lady, it sounds like child's play. Go home. And so she had absolutely no backing. And she just took matters into her own hands.
[11:39:46]
AMANPOUR: Yes. And then the story goes that she and her family, her two daughters, and maybe some help from another character essentially buried the body in their own house.
And then it continues because basically she then they -- they got found out. So she spent 14 years in jail. Then when she came out, that wasn't enough.
And your film is called "An Eye for An Eye". Other words, she had to either pay blood money to the family of her husband, or they would have the decision to forgive or send her to execution. And that turned out to be really a difficult process.
Can I first ask you why you call it "An Eye for An Eye"?
ESHAGHIAN: Well, because this is actually the Sharia law that we are watching play itself out. This is retaliation in kind. "An Eye for An Eye" Qisas Farsi. And that is, since the Islamic Revolution, that is the law of Iran.
And so that's what you're -- that's what you're watching play out. If it's a situation which is in this case, essentially a private murder, it's between families. It doesn't affect the larger population. You can -- you can have a negotiation, which is what you see in the film, where instead of this woman being executed, she -- if she can manage to raise the blood money that the victim's family demands -- she has a way out. She will not end up hanged.
AMANPOUR: The other thing is, which I thought was really remarkable. It's not like you were trying to sympathize necessarily with her. She refused to be a sympathetic character. She didn't ever apologize for having killed him.
Was it difficult for you profiling a woman with children who refused to apologize?
ESHAGHIAN: It's a great question. I actually thought this is a fascinating human being because she breaks so many stereotypes that the West has of women in the Middle East and she just refuses to be the "woe is me" victim. And it actually attracted me to her story.
I knew it would be difficult in terms of the fact that when people watch a film, they really do want to sympathize with someone. But the challenge that she's so not sympathetic and she actually breaks the stereotypes you might have was appealing to me.
Like she's sitting there saying, you know what, he killed us a thousand times. I only killed him once and I have no regret. I mean, it was -- it was incredible. I was like, I have found a character that is remarkable.
And people should see that this could happen in Iran. She can be this tough.
AMANPOUR: I do want to ask you this. You know, I'm not -- I don't know whether you were trying to make a judgment on the sort of barbaric Iranian justice system or what you're trying to say.
But I found it very interesting that "The Wall Street Journal" review of all -- of all -- of all papers made a point of noting that the system was not so different than systems in other parts of the world.
For instance, 52 percent of Americans, they point out, favor the death penalty, according to the Gallup poll in October last year.
Did that ever play into your mind when you were telling this story?
ESHAGHIAN: You know, I don't think of systems as barbaric or not barbaric. I think of systems as it's -- there's a system and people are trying to get their needs met in it. And there's always a complexity.
And in this case, I actually thought, you know, there is unlike in the West, there is a way out. Like if you get an execution sentence in the West, there's no way out of it. Whereas here, because it's again, a private crime, it's between two families and you can negotiate your way out of it. And the negotiations are complex.
And frankly, it's in a way, there's a humane answer. So I don't really think of it as barbaric. I actually think the instinct, the desire to have revenge in the form of an eye for an eye is human instinct.
AMANPOUR: Well, on that note, that is quite provocative. And it's an incredibly absorbing film because of all that we've discussed about it.
So congratulations, "An Eye for An Eye". Tanaz Eshaghian, thanks for being with us.
ESHAGHIAN: Thank you. Christiane. It was a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: It is incredible. "An Eye for An Eye" is available to watch on jolt.fm and it'll have a theatrical release as well.
11:44:42]
AMANPOUR: Coming up, with Putin also thwarted in Ukraine -- remember, he once called the dissolution of the Soviet Union the greatest geostrategic catastrophe of the 20th century?
Well, from my archives, 35 years ago, I saw the bitter collapse from the perspective of a Moscow vodka factory.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We sell a lot of vodka, but we pay almost 96 percent of our total income to the government. So now we are desperate for money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:49:50]
AMANPOUR: Welcome back.
Now, earlier in the program, we discussed how a thwarted Putin might start lashing out to test NATO in Europe. We know he's still smarting from the breakup of the Soviet empire, which began in earnest 35 years ago.
First, President Mikhail Gorbachev allowed the Baltic states to go free. Today, they are thriving NATO democracies. By Christmas Day 1991, the USSR became the CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States. We were there as Gorbachev resigned and his successor, Boris Yeltsin, became president.
The West had a new ally, sort of, instead of a Cold War foe. But the Soviet people suffered greatly from the collapsing economy and what was called shock therapy to try to get it back on track. Even the most famous export, vodka, was hurting.
And I went to a factory in Moscow to try to make sense of the economic lessons through Stolichnaya on ice. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: At the crystal distillery in downtown Moscow, one of Russia's best known and bestselling products rolls off the bottling line.
Over a million cases of Stolichnaya vodka were shipped to the United States last year under a barter deal with Pepsi Cola. Another million cases were sold abroad for hard currency.
It is big business, but now the vodka industry is on the rocks because of the chaos and the inefficient and broken-down Soviet economy. The distillery is reeling from a huge tax the former Soviet government slapped on revenue from export sales.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We sell a lot of vodka, but we pay almost 96 percent of our total income to the government. So now we are desperate for money.
AMANPOUR: Crystal is desperate for supplies, too. There's a bottle shortage, so they have to put vodka in Pepsi bottles on one of the lines. Worse, because of the recent massive price rises, the factory can't pay for the grain, which it needs for the raw alcohol.
So Crystal's marketing director spends most of his time on the phone trying to work out barter deals. Here, he offers his vodka for 25,000 tons of Polish grain.
Domestic sales are hurting as well because of Gorbachev's old anti- alcoholism laws that restrict the amount people can buy. And because of Yeltsin's new price rises. This, in a country where vodka is a vital part of daily life. It's even called liquid currency.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm having my apartment repaired and no one will do anything for me unless I give them vodka. But it's five times more expensive now.
AMANPOUR: The situation is so bad that police are stationed at liquor stores to prevent fights breaking out among angry customers.
Back at the factory, they're fighting just to stay alive.
For 90 years, Crystal was an example of a Russian industry that works. But unless it can fight the bureaucracy and beat the odds, its manager says his once thriving factory could go bankrupt.
Christiane Amanpour, CNN -- Moscow.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Well, quite apart from the indignity of pouring vodka into Coke bottles today, it is Putin endangering the Russian economy thanks to his invasion of Ukraine.
A Putin envoy quoted this week said that state finances risk going, quote, "berserk" if it focuses entirely on the military industrial complex.
When we come back, remembering a restaurant at the top of the world. 25 years since the September 11th attacks, CNN films takes an intimate look at windows on the world and how the famous Twin Towers eatery reflected the brilliance of New York before the tragedy of 9/11.
[11:53:43]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And finally, next week, events across the United States will mark the 25th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, which saw 2,977 people killed. After planes were flown into the Twin Towers of New York City, the Pentagon and when the United 93 flight crashed in Pennsylvania after its passengers bravely revolted against their captors.
The attacks, orchestrated by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, shook the world and changed it forever.
As part of our coverage of this anniversary, a new CNN film is focusing on the restaurant that sat atop the North Tower, the iconic windows on the world. At one point, it was one of the most successful restaurants in all of America. It became a symbol for the thriving diversity of the city beneath. And tragically, also a microcosm of the wide array of lives ruined by those horrific attacks.
Here's a clip from that documentary called "TOP OF THE WORLD".
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 2001 was the 25th anniversary of "Windows on the World". We were planning a series of parties. We had it planned for October.
Veuve Clicquot champagne printed a special label for us that was a 25th anniversary label.
[11:59:50]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 25 years for any restaurant is a celebration. And for us, it was momentous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And the CNN film "TOP OF THE WORLD" premieres Monday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.
It is extraordinary to think that the entire 25 years of this 21st century has been imprinted with that dark, dark memory and that dark legacy of what 9/11 did and how the world reacted.
That is all we have time for. Don't forget, you can find all of our shows online as podcasts at CNN.com/audio and on all other major platforms.
I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Thank you for watching, and I'll see you again next week.
[12:00:30]
