Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Trump: Positive Call With Putin After Saying Russia Wants To See Ukraine Succeed; Interview With Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA); China Conducts Military Drills Around Taiwan; Exclusive: CIA Carried Out Drone Strike On Port Facility On Venezuelan Coast; Ukraine Denies Drone Targeted Putin Residence: Russia Says Military Has Selected Targets For "Retaliatory Strikes. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 29, 2025 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Very interesting, as we continue to watch this Berit Berger, thank you so much.

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Happy to be here.

KEILAR: And a quick programing note, before we go, CNN is ringing in the New Year with comedy legend, Chevy Chase in a new revealing CNN film. Catch the new CNN film, "I'm Chevy Chase And You're Not" when it premieres New Year's Day at 8:00 P.M. Eastern and you can watch it the next day on the CNN App. Take it with you.

And thank you so much for joining us. "AC360," starts now.

(20:00:28)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, new Russian threats over a claimed attack on one of Vladimir Putin's homes that Ukraine says did not happen and President Trump says he does not like.

Also tonight, China's live fire war games around Taiwan. What the President says about the possibility, this is not just a drill.

Good evening to you.

Anderson is off tonight. I'm Jim Sciutto. First up, new evidence that whatever work the President is doing to end Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, including his Mar-a -Lago meeting over the weekend with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and phone calls with Vladimir Putin, Moscow might be trying to undo as we speak.

As we go to air, the Kremlin is vowing to respond to what it claims was a Ukrainian drone attack allegedly aimed at Vladimir Putin's summer home north of Moscow. Kyiv denies it vehemently and Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Foreign Minister offered no evidence to back up the claim, but he says the military has already selected targets for what he calls retaliatory strikes and given, this is the time of night when Russia often strikes Ukraine deliberately, targeting civilians as they sleep, we are, of course, closely monitoring developments there right now.

The President, meantime, hosted Israel's Prime Minister today and said this about the purported Ukrainian attack.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's another thing to attack his house. It's not the right time to do any of that and can't do it. And I learned about it from President Putin today. I was very angry about it.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SCIUTTO: In fact, he spoke twice with Putin that we know of once before and once after hosting Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago yesterday. The President, as you know, is making headlines for saying this about Putin's intentions.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

TRUMP: Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed. Once it sounds a little strange, but I was explaining to the President, President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity and other things at very low prices.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, for the record, this is why it sounds and looks strange, this is what Russian missiles and drones were doing to Ukraine as the President uttered those words over the weekend, hitting Kyiv, killing at least two people, wounding several dozen. In any event, here is how Ukraine's President responded tonight to President Trump's assessment of Russia's good intentions, nearly four years into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: I don't trust Russians and they don't want -- I mean, I don't trust Putin and he doesn't want success for Ukraine, really, he doesn't want. He can say it, I believe that he can say such words to President Trump. I believe in it, that he can say it. But it's not true, really.

He doesn't want to have from President Trump more pressure with sanctions and et cetera he can say, I want success for Ukraine and I'm ready to give them cheap electricity. Really, between us, we don't need cheap -- I mean, this energy because we paid so, so great. I mean, this price, our lives. It's not about energy. We don't need anything from them.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SCIUTTO: As President Zelensky sees it, Vladimir Putin is telling President Trump what he wants to hear. As Republican Congressman Don Bacon sees it, though, it's worse.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

REP. DON BACON (R-NE) There's a moral blindness here. There's a moral ambiguity. I do not get it. And that's why I'm very vocal, because this will go down in the history books, and I want America to be on the right side of this, and I want to be on the right side of it and I hope the President sees he's going down as a Chamberlain, not as a Churchill when it comes to this particular war.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SCIUTTO: Don Bacon to me earlier today.

Joining me now is CNN chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source," Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan, I wonder when you speak to White House sources, do they tell you there's any real progress here? Because certainly the U.S. and Europe and Ukraine are more on the same page about a peace proposal, but has the President heard anything from Vladimir Putin to indicate he's moving at all?

[20:05:01]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: I mean, when the President was asked that yesterday by CNN, when Zelenskyy was there on the Mar-a-Lago grounds, he himself said he does think that Putin ultimately wants peace. And you saw Zelenskyy's expression when the President was talking about what he thinks Putin actually wants for Ukraine, that he wants Ukraine to succeed. Zelenskyy kind of, you know as he did ever so slightly smirk a bit as the reporters were standing there inside the room.

And I think as this dynamic has played out, you know, ever since Trump returned to office nearly a year ago, Jim, when, you know, he confidently predicted, optimistically, that he would be able to end this war in about 24 hours. Obviously, that's not played out.

And so, yesterday what we were really looking for was whether or not there were going to be any breakthroughs with this. And I think what's so telling about how this has played out time and time again, as you well know, is there's a meeting like there was yesterday that lasted hours at Mar-a-Lago. Both of these leaders emerged with very hopeful assessments of where this can go from here, though, the President did describe some thorny issues in terms of what they still need to decide on to, to actually bring this war to an end.

And then there's that conversation today with President Putin that he has that we learned more about as he was sitting down with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel this afternoon, where the President was describing it as a good conversation, a positive call as his aides were putting it.

But then, you know, citing and taking basically Putin's word for it when it came to this claim that Ukraine launched an attack and was trying to attack one of his residences, which the President said basically he thought was not okay and was disagreeing with today. Ukraine has emphatically denied that.

And so, you kind of see how that plays out and how despite the hours of meeting in person yesterday, its often these phone calls with Putin that happen right before or right after that can also really influence how the President sees this. And so, there weren't any big breakthroughs yesterday. I still think it's a question of whether or not there are going to be any in the immediate future.

SCIUTTO: Kaitlan Collins, thanks so much. We'll of course, see you at the top of the hour for "The Source."

Joining me now is Marine combat veteran and Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss. Congressman, thank you so much for taking the time.

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Jim, good evening, good to be back.

SCIUTTO: I want to know your reaction to hear President Trump say, in the face of all the evidence we've seen over the course of nearly four years of just the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II, Russia's choice to invade Ukraine, that the U.S. President says with a straight face that Russia wants Ukraine to succeed. How do you respond to that?

AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, I don't know who needs to hear this other than the President of the United States, apparently. But no, Russia does not want to see Ukraine succeed. Putin is not serious about peace, and he will only be made serious about peace through the demonstration of strength by the United States.

And instead of sympathizing with the Russian President about his private residence in the Russian forests, Donald Trump should have said on that telephone call, hey, you think that's a problem, Vladimir? When you know some of your living rooms get dinged up? Watch me take out your oil industry, watch long range ballistic missiles destroy the four biggest oil refineries around Moscow. Watch me sanction your oil exports and watch your entire oil economy crater beneath your fingertips and then come back to me and complain. That is strength.

SCIUTTO: I mean, to that point, that is strength that President Trump has been willing to show against Venezuela, a much smaller opponent. He's not willing to show against Russia. I wonder why, what is your best understanding or interpretation of why President Trump, one, not only takes Putin's side, for instance, on Putin's intentions with regard to Ukraine, but also is unwilling to apply pressure, he has shown willingness to apply elsewhere, Venezuela or Iran?

AUCHINCLOSS: Two reasons I think fundamentally, the first is that on a personal basis, Trump fanboys on Putin. He admires the crony capitalism, the braggadocio, the false machismo. He thinks it's cool and he wants to be like it. It's pathetic, it's embarrassing for the United States. But clearly, on a personal level that exists.

Secondarily, there is a resonance between the blood and soil populism of MAGA and the blood and soil revanchism of Vladimir Putin's territorial aims in Ukraine. That's why you saw MAGA provocateurs like Marjorie Taylor Greene be so early in criticizing Volodymyr Zelenskyy and supporting Vladimir Putin is that they saw that there was a resonance there between the two wings of these two countries' political parties. SCIUTTO: Yes, you heard Republican Don Bacon, who, you know, you

worked together on the Hill quite publicly say that Trump is at risk of being a Chamberlain rather than a Churchill here. As you know, there are other Republicans -- a handful of Republicans who will say that publicly, there are many more who say it privately, but fear saying it publicly.

What is the backstop, if President Trump ultimately takes Russia's side to some extent in attempting to make peace here, forces Ukraine, for instance, to concessions it doesn't want, recognizes legally, Russia's acquisition of Ukrainian sovereign territory? Is there anything standing in the way of that from a U.S. Perspective?

[20:10:25]

AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, several things. First is the midterms, successful U.S. foreign policy has always rested on bipartisan consensus in Congress. That's true of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. That's true of Taiwan, for example. And that needs to be true here.

You're right, Jim, that there is actually bipartisan consensus in Congress on support for Ukraine, not on every detail, but on the broad strokes of the fact that Ukraine is fighting on the right side of freedom and self-determination, and Russia is the aggressor.

So, if the midterms play out where the Democrats have the House and maybe even the Senate, that's an important backstop. Number two, is the European Union and in particular, the 300 billion euros of frozen assets.

Now, the E.U. blinked last month, they had an opportunity to fully capitalize those assets into Ukraine for rearmament and reindustrialization. They failed to do so, but they did not take that option off the table. And if the E.U. were to invest that 300 billion fully in Ukraine, I think it could create a pretty strong deterrent on the Eastern Flank of NATO.

SCIUTTO: It just strikes me that part of the strategy. You might even call it a strategy for Zelensky, for Republicans on the Hill, for Europe is just to wait and hope that President Trump doesn't pull the plug entirely on Ukraine. Stop, what little support remains. Of course, the U.S. no longer sends money. It sells weapons to Ukraine. It does provide important intelligence support. But the hope just being that it doesn't get any worse than it is today, is that a reliable strategy, or is that more a hope than a strategy?

AUCHINCLOSS: No, you're absolutely right. But it's just one of many examples of Republicans in Congress failing to do their constitutional duty of exercising a separate and co-equal branch of government. I mean, Venezuela, Ukraine, tariffs. They are abdicating their responsibility over the military and foreign policy everywhere, which, again, is why I say that the midterms are an important backstop for foreign policy that puts American public safety first and foremost.

But it is, you know, it's something that -- true that time is not on Ukraine's side, but it's also true that Ukraine can win this war. And one of the Presidents first responsibilities is to define what that victory is for Americans and for Europeans, as in a secure eastern border, freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and joining the European Union, all of which is achievable.

SCIUTTO: Final question before we go, the President acknowledged that the U.S. carried out some sort of military operation or operation kinetic operation in Venezuela. Is the U.S. marching towards war against Venezuela, in your view?

AUCHINCLOSS: Could be, if Congress doesn't stop it, which is why I co- led legislation that would refuse to provide any funding for operations in Venezuela absent congressional authorization.

Let me be blunt about this. What the President is doing is illegal and extrajudicial. He does not have the authority to be launching these strikes. This is a made-up claim of a non-international armed conflict with narcotraffickers, while at the same time, he's pardoning the region's biggest narco-trafficker. This is not about drugs, it's about oil. And he does not have congressional authority to wage a campaign of blood for oil.

The reason he doesn't have that congressional authorization is that no member of Congress, in their right mind, would vote for that, because the American public remembered what happened in Iraq 20 years ago when the last Republican President did blood for oil. We're not doing it again. And he is marching us closer and closer to land operations in the jungles of South America that will be horrendous for the American service members who have to wage them.

SCIUTTO: Yes, last attempt at regime change through military action as well. Congressman Jake Auchincloss, thanks so much for joining us. Happy Holidays to you and your family.

AUCHINCLOSS: Happy New Year.

SCIUTTO: Coming up next, more breaking news. The President's reaction as Chinese live fire naval exercises ramp up surrounding Taiwan.

Also, to the Congressman's point a moment ago, a new strike against Venezuelan linked targets on the High Seas and apparently one on land as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:18:29]

SCIUTTO: Breaking news tonight: As we reported at the top of the program, China has launched what it is calling major military drills surrounding Taiwan using naval, army, air and rocket units to encircle the island. It is releasing a lot of video for the world to see exactly what it is doing, and that's deliberate.

As part of its exercises, China says it will conduct live fire drills. Taiwan is accusing Beijing of military intimidation. As we know, China has long made claims to the island and appears to be flexing its muscle. After the U.S. announced a multibillion dollar plan to sell weapons to Taiwan.

This afternoon, President Trump, however, downplayed the chances of China taking military action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I have a great relationship with President Xi and he hasn't told me anything about it. I certainly have seen it, but he hasn't told me anything about it. And I don't believe he is going to be doing it.

They have been doing naval exercises for 20 years in that area. Now, people take it a little bit differently, but in fact larger than they are doing right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Let's get perspective from the region.

Now, I am joined by CNN senior international correspondent, Will Ripley, who is reporting extensively from Taiwan, where he is based. He is now on assignment in Thailand.

First question, Will, you've been following these exercises for years, and the fact is, they are getting bigger and more frequent. How does Taiwan view these exercises?

[20:20:16]

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, obviously they are concerned and trying to sound the alarm globally that exercises today could be real military action tomorrow. These are as of the latest count from the Taiwan Defense Ministry, the second largest that we've seen that they have reported to date. The largest was back in October 2024, when there were 153 aircraft that were spotted near Taiwan in a 24-hour period.

We've got 130 military planes spotted along with 22 ships as of the latest update a few hours ago from Taiwan's Defense Ministry, so it wouldn't shock me if these do become the largest. You've already seen the video.

The really disruptive thing is going to be these live fire exercises today, where they are actually going to be using live ammunition out in the open sea, but they've actually had to shut down some airspace and shipping routes.

In fact, some of the flights, about a thousand flights could be affected, so if we had tried to fly in here today from Taiwan, there is a chance, Jim, we wouldn't have made it in. So certainly disruptive, not believed to be leading to an actual military conflict at this stage. But of course, the big fear is, is that these drills keep pushing the line closer and closer to that red line.

SCIUTTO: This is not the first time we've seen China ratchet up military drills in response to actions by the U.S. Of course, Nancy Pelosi's visit to the island, you remember you saw a big spike in activity after that. Now you have this weapons sale. From China's point of view, how significant do they see those U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan?

RIPLEY: Well, obviously, this is the reason that they're giving, maybe not publicly, but a lot of people are speculating this is the reason why they are doing these drills now. But as you correctly point out, they've held military drills six times since Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan in 2022 and they have been getting larger, they have been getting closer to Taiwan. They've been considered more aggressive.

But this is the kind of thing that requires months of planning and organization, and then essentially, they decide when the weather conditions are right and there are conditions happening geopolitically that they deem suitable to send a strong message, that's when they decide to do it.

So obviously, they had these plans in place for a while. They are now choosing to do it just days after a record $11.1 billion arms sale between the U.S. and Taiwan, a massive weapons sale that Beijing has condemned. But also, let's not forget, there have been a lot of simmering tensions, not even simmering, really boiling over tensions between Japan and China.

And so the fact that they are deliberately trying to show that they can block foreign forces, foreign military assets from getting close to Taiwan, the fact that they are trying to demonstrate that so clearly this time, it is a signal not just to the U.S., but likely to regional allies like Japan as well -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes, no question.

Will Ripley, thank you so much for joining.

Well, joining me now is Beth Sanner, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence and CNN national security analyst.

Beth, good to have you.

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Great being here.

SCIUTTO: I wonder if China is testing Trump a little bit with these exercises, knowing that Trump's priority is keeping this trade truce with China in place as best he can, and that perhaps Beijing feels it could push the limits a little bit more with military action around Taiwan.

SANNER: Well, definitely, I think that Beijing is always looking for pushing the limits and seeing how far they can go and as Will was talking about, you know, why we've seen this ratcheting up of the size and scope of these types of military operations. But really the daily flights that are coming across and halfway across the strait that separates Taiwan from China.

And so all of this is part of, you know, creating this new normal. And now is a great time, one, because the President is busy and, you know, he is the focal point of so many things. And secondly, because they know that President Trump right now is trying to keep the peace with China and they want to keep very much this administration, this trade truce that was agreed in Seoul or in in South Korea and they want to have this summit in April in Beijing and they don't want anything to mess that up.

And so of course, he is going to downplay this.

SCIUTTO: This issue, when he was asked about the exercises, Trump, he downplayed the chances that Xi will take military action against Taiwan. I mean, he even incorrectly said that these exercises were no bigger than those in the past. It strikes me that the pattern is quite similar to how he approaches Vladimir Putin, where he downplays, for instance, Russian military activity in Ukraine, but often scolds Zelenskyy.

How does Beijing view this? Do they see that as Trump suddenly giving them a pass?

SANNER: Well, you know, we don't know. I do think that right now, when you look at the behavior of China toward Japan and the call that President Xi had with President Trump, which reportedly was to tell -- ask President Trump to call Prime Minister Takaichi to tell her to back down and to apologize, which she has not.

[20:25:20]

So I think that they do see an open door here in terms of pushing President Trump to allow them to have this sphere of influence, right? And they see that both Putin and Xi and President Trump very much kind of think in these terms and so they have greater range for action, I think.

SCIUTTO: I mean, that falls under what has been a theory about the Trump foreign policy, right, is that he does see spheres of influence globe where let China have its patch to some degree, Russia its patch, and we, the U.S. are going to take maximum action against Venezuela or even say, Greenland.

I mean, do you see the roots of that?

SANNER: There certainly are parts of this administration that feel that way, who feel that way, but then you look at the National Security strategy and a lot of the language on the Pacific is very similar to the last two National Security strategies, Biden and the first Trump administration, where its talking about making sure that another power, not mentioned, not named, China, but that another power cannot dominate this area because it is so important to the United States in terms of global commerce, and of course, Taiwan, 90 percent of our high-end semiconductors.

SCIUTTO: It is a big factor in all this. Beth Sanner, please do stay with us because I want to get your take on both the latest boat strike against Venezuela and what appears to have been a U.S. attack against a target on land in Venezuela. We have some breaking news in fact, on that, coming up. And later, what a Ukrainian member of Parliament makes of the ongoing

attempts at peace and President Trump's claim that Putin wants Ukraine to succeed.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:31:33]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. As U.S. Southern Command announces the latest attack on an alleged jugboat, that's the video we're looking at right there, we have exclusive new reporting tonight on the first known ground strike on Venezuelan territory. The President let word of it out on Friday on a New York radio talk show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we just knocked out -- I don't know if you read or you saw they have a big plant or a big facility where they send the -- you know, where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, the President elaborated on that today, and tonight we have some exclusive new details, which he left out.

CNN National Security Correspondent Natasha Bertrand joins us now by phone. Natasha, tell us what we're learning about this operation?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, this is actually an operation that was carried out, we're told by sources, by the CIA. And it was done via a drone strike earlier this month on a port facility on the coast of Venezuela. Now, as you said, this would mark the first known U.S. attack on a target inside that country. So it is definitely a significant escalation that the President, you know, has been alluding to over the last several days, but has refused to elaborate on and refused to say who actually carried out the strike.

Well, now we're learning that this drone strike by the CIA, which we're told was supported by intel support by special operations forces, targeted a remote dock on the Venezuelan coast that the U.S. government believed was being used by that Venezuelan gang, Tren De Aragua, which the U.S. government has designated as a foreign terrorist organization, to store drugs and move them onto boats for onward shipping. So that's consistent with what the President had said.

Now, we're told that no one was actually present at that Venezuelan facility at the time it was struck, so there were no casualties. But one of our sources did say the strike was successful in that it destroyed the facility and its boats, Jim.

SCIUTTO: It's notable that, at least to date, we haven't seen public comment on a reaction to this from the Venezuelan government. Do we know if there was reaction to the strike on the ground there? BERTRAND: It's so interesting because this, according to our sources, took place not last week, but actually the week prior to that. So this has been known inside the U.S. government amongst a very small circle of people for the better part of 10 days now, and it appears to, throughout that time, not have attracted any attention inside Venezuela itself, or at least not that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has let on.

So while this was a very significant, I think, escalation by the U.S. to actually do this first strike on land, our sources also emphasize that, you know, this was a very symbolic strike as well because it is just one of many port facilities that is used by those drug traffickers who are leaving Venezuela and carrying drugs onward to other countries.

SCIUTTO: Finally, has the White House reacted to our reporting tonight?

BERTRAND: The CIA declined to comment. The White House has not responded, and neither has U.S. Special Operations Command, but of course we'll keep asking.

SCIUTTO: Natasha Bertrand, thanks so much.

I do want to bring back CNN National Security Analyst Beth Sanner here. And Beth, this is interesting, right, because it's certainly an escalation, but an incremental escalation, right, because it would be, to a large degree, a standoff weapon, a drone. How do you see this as building up, and do you see this building up to more significant military action against Venezuela?

[20:35:06]

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Not necessarily. I mean, we have to see what happens next, but I -- you know, my sense is that President Trump wants to avoid extensive military action and entanglement. He knows that his base does not support that and, you know, but he knows also that going against the drugs is something that is supported.

And so, to me, if this reporting ends up to be true about how this was carried out, it's a very quintessential CIA-type operation that, you know, I saw and certainly has been well-publicized in the public domain about how drone strikes were carried out in Afghanistan during the war, which is being very careful to not hurt civilians, to not, you know, kill civilians, and they just took out the facility.

And that's, you know, there's still going to be questions, of course, international law about whether this is justified or not. But to Natasha's point, it's a -- it is a prick. It is not a strategic plan yet, but I think we'll see more of this.

SCIUTTO: So let me ask you this, though. Covert operations are covert for a reason, right? One, to hide sources and methods, but also to protect any personnel involved. How problematic is it then for the President to casually mention it on a radio talk show? SANNER: Well, it's also about deniability, right? I mean, if you have some dock that blows up, you know, in the middle of nowhere and no one's there and no one mentions it and Maduro doesn't know, well, you know, to me, that's kind of an effective operation and that's what covert operations are supposed to be. They're not supposed to be about hand-waving and drama because you're trying to keep that deniability in place.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANNER: And, you know, when you talk about it, it is the opposite of covert. It is called an overt operation --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANNER: -- when it's publicized. And so then it kind of loses its whole meaning. Why not just have the military do it then? Why ask the CIA to do it?

SCIUTTO: Is it surprising to you that Venezuela, at least to our knowledge, and we certainly haven't seen public comment, did not acknowledge this? In other words, I mean, might it be embarrassing to them, right, if the U.S. were to be able to carry out such a strike?

SANNER: I kind of think that if Maduro knew, he would make a big deal out of it. And he, in the past, has already gone to the U.N. and talked about piracy of these tanker ships, I think he would. I think it's that it is so minor that he didn't know.

I kind of bet on that. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean, I'm wrong a lot, so who knows? But, you know, it doesn't really feel that way. And I think that this point about why are we doing this and how effective is this? Is this just, you know, a lot of drama?

You know, look over here, this is what we're doing, but it actually doesn't have an effect. That is of great concern because we are destroying a lot of norms and challenging international law --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANNER: -- for what purpose.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANNER: And those are the questions, I think, that are quite legitimate.

SCIUTTO: And, you know, ultimately, if it's a game of chicken, you could lose a game of chicken, right?

Beth Sanner, thanks so much for joining.

SANNER: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Coming up next, I'm going to ask a member of Ukraine's parliament about Russia's threat to launch retaliatory strikes after accusing Ukraine of a drone attack on one of Vladimir Putin's houses. Well, we should note, Ukraine calls that a complete fabrication. More coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:43:03]

SCIUTTO: As we reported at the top, tensions are flaring between Russia and Ukraine, even after the President's talks over the weekend with the leaders of both countries. Namely, Russia now threatening retaliatory strikes for what it claims was a Ukrainian drone attack targeting one of Vladimir Putin's residences. We should note that's something Kyiv vehemently denies.

Also tonight, President Zelenskyy weighed in about the continued importance of U.S. help in defending itself against Russia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Can we win without American support? No. Because we can't first. We will think about all the soldiers, we'll think only about their families. And without American support, we can't defend the sky. Even now, it's very difficult. But American support with missiles for air defense really helpful and strong in any case.

Russia uses hundreds, you see hundreds and thousands of drones and missiles, so it's difficult. You know, it's not enough air defense. And on the battlefield, we use some weapon which we buy from America, some rounds, artillery, and et cetera from Americans. Without it, of course we can't win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining us now is Oleksandr Merezhko. He's a member of Ukraine's parliament, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and joins us from Ukraine tonight. Thanks so much for taking the time to join us.

OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT: Thank you for having me.

SCIUTTO: First, I want to begin with the threats coming in the last several hours from the Russian foreign minister saying that Russia is now preparing retaliatory strikes based on this alleged claim that Ukraine targeted one of Putin's residences. How much concern is there in Ukraine tonight that the waves of attacks will only grow?

MEREZHKO: Well, yes, it was predictable because it's absolutely clear that Russia is trying right now to find an excuse to disrupt peace negotiations. It's trying to find a pretext in order to continue to reject peace plan proposed by both delegations -- Ukrainian and American delegation.

[20:45:14] And I would like to remind that exactly one year ago, on the 1st of January, this part of Kyiv where the parliament, the Verkhovna Rada is located and office of the president, Russians had bombarded this area and the whole family was killed by Russians at that time. So they have been targeting also buildings which are part of our government and parliament long ago. As a result of this attack in one of the buildings where committees of the Verkhovna Rada are located was damaged and windows were shattered by this attack.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MEREZHKO: So it's nothing new.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this because President Trump effectively took Vladimir Putin's word regarding those Ukrainian drone attacks. It's not the first time he's spoken to Putin and repeated a Russian claim. Do you trust President Trump when he does that sort of thing to take Ukraine's side?

MEREZHKO: Well, I still believe that President Trump will be on the right side of history that he understands who is the victim of the aggression and who is the perpetrator, who's the aggressor. And it's morally important, morally right to be on the side of the victim and to support the victim not to align himself with the aggressor and not to put pressure on the victim of the aggression in an attempt to make it surrender.

SCIUTTO: So what did you think then to hear President Trump say yesterday that Russia has good intentions for Ukraine? It wants Ukraine to succeed. I mean, even as he was uttering those words as you know better than me, given where you're sitting, Russia was launching further strikes on Ukraine. What was your reaction to hear those words from the President?

MEREZHKO: Well, first of all, I honestly believe that president of the United States, our true ally and our true friend, I mean, as a country, he wants Ukraine to succeed. I believe in that. But as for these phrase, you know, I was watching very closely the press conference given by the President Trump and our President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and I was shocked by these words because to me, as for many Ukrainians, for all Ukrainians, it sounded absurd.

It's like, you know, during the Second World War saying something like Hitler wants Poland to succeed. And, you know, Russians have already killed more than at least 660 Ukrainian children and how they are supposed to succeed. That's why to me, these words, I don't understand them.

And the point is that I understand that President Trump is considering an opportunity to come to Ukraine and he will be very welcome. And he needs to come to Ukraine to see for himself what's going on and who really wants Ukraine to succeed and who's killing Ukraine.

SCIUTTO: Well, Oleksandr Merezhko, I know given the time of the evening it is there in Kyiv, I wish you a safe night and we appreciate you joining. Well, joining me now is CNN Global Affairs Analyst and former Middle East and North Africa Coordinator for the National Security Council, Brett McGurk. Brett, good to have you on tonight. Thanks so much for joining.

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: As you know, with few exceptions, President Trump has consistently said he believes Vladimir Putin wants to find a path to peace in Ukraine. As you also know, he's loath to hold Vladimir Putin responsible for the war. He often both sides the war and he even went even further yesterday by saying Putin wants Ukraine to succeed.

How do you interpret that from the U.S. President? Is he just negotiating or does he actually not see the facts of this war?

MCGURK: A little of both, Jim. I think Oleksandr just said for that phrase that Putin wants Ukraine to succeed is an absurd statement. I think that's true because you look in the background of what's happening, you know, I squared off against the Russians in diplomacy, in Syria, other contexts. Sometimes you just got to like, they're -- it's somewhat predictable.

And I'm watching very closely what Putin is doing over just the last week, Jim. And if you look at what he's doing in the backdrop of these talks going on in Florida, massive aerial attacks over the Christmas season --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MCGURK: -- all across Ukraine. Some of the largest of the war, 500 drones. Remember these are Iranian drones and Iran has provided the technology for Russia to produce them and ballistic missiles. Massive attacks, they're ongoing, they're going to continue.

[20:50:00]

And you also had -- Putin has had meetings in the last two days, Jim, wearing full military uniform with his military commanders, basically saying we're continuing the military offensive. And if I see what he is doing, you know, Putin says he's a student of World War II. He has long dissertations of his interpretation of history of the great patriotic war as the Russians see it.

And in year five of World War II in Europe is when Russia had the breakthrough against the German lines in what is now Ukraine and Belarus. And I think Putin sees 2026 as his 1944. So I think you're going to see massive aerial attacks continue and then he's preparing for a ground offensive in the -- when the fighting season begins again in late spring, early summer.

I think the Ukrainian lines will hold, that's what most experts say, but Putin thinks, I believe, he will secure a breakthrough. And it seems that President Trump shares that view. And so, I don't know what the intelligence community is telling the President, but this is a critical assumption. Can the Russians break through the lines or not? That's -- but that is what I see. I'm just looking at this as an analyst --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MCGURK: -- and as someone who's dealt with the Russians, that is what Putin is going for in 2026. And if he fails and if the lines hold as they have in the last four years, you then have actually a pretty good chance for a diplomatic resolution along the lines of the framework that's now developing. But that's kind of where this is heading. This is just not ripe for a diplomatic agreement right now.

SCIUTTO: Could Donald Trump be inadvertently increasing the chances of that more hardline position and attempt at expanding rather than reducing the war by doing what he's doing, right, which is -- seems to be applying pressure to Ukraine to give in now, parroting some of Putin's talking points. I mean, might Putin interpret all that as, well, listen, it's my opportunity. I'm going to take a shot.

MCGURK: You got to put yourself in the shoes of Putin as best you can and try to think through how an adversary sees things. Goal number one, a breakthrough next year along the line, military breakthrough. Number two, a breakthrough, what he would see it, a break between Washington and Ukraine.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MCGURK: I mean, he has been working for that. He thinks he can achieve it. You know, President Trump did say one thing yesterday in that press conference. He said, there's no deadline on the diplomacy. I actually thought that was important.

He floated the possibility of going to Kyiv. I think the President should go to Kyiv. I see if he does, as Oleksandr just said in the last segment.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MCGURK: So look, Jim, bottom line, 2026 is a hinge year of history here. And how Ukraine plays out will also impact what you've talked about earlier in the show and Xi Jinping's calculations in Taiwan. So it's really is connected. And Iran is also a part of this.

We've talked before on the show about CRINK, the alliance between China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. They're all working together on Ukraine. And --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MCGURK: -- if Russia achieves its goals in Ukraine, that is going to change the course of history, I think in a very dangerous way in terms of our interests around the world and potentially for the cataclysmic conflict in Taiwan, which nobody wants to see. But we know Xi Jinping has told his military be ready by 2027.

So, I mean, this could not be more serious. I -- look, I think we got to support the Ukrainians, help them defend those lines for what's coming over the next six months, and then, you know, keep working the diplomacy. But I think the window for a deal won't be open really until later next year.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, to carry on your World War II analogy, if next year is 1944, I mean, you can also argue parallels to 1939, right, that, you know, either he gets stopped now or the world gives in and attempts the next attempt.

MCGURK: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Brett McGurk, thanks so much.

MCGURK: I have one more analogy, but I'll do it on another show with you.

SCIUTTO: OK, sounds good.

Coming up --

MCGURK: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: -- thankfully, some lighter news. One of music's biggest stars has now joined an exclusive club. We're going to tell you which singer is now a billionaire. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:58:38]

SCIUTTO: The end of 2025 is bringing with it big dollar signs for one pop star. Beyonce is now a billionaire. That is according to Forbes. She is just the fifth musical artist to make that list, joining, of course, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Bruce Springsteen, and her husband, Jay-Z.

Beyonce's Cowboy Carter tour, which showcased her first country album, was the world's highest-grossing concert tour of 2025, bringing in more than $400 million in ticket sales. According to Forbes, most of her personal wealth comes from those massive global tours, as well as controlling the rights to her music catalog.

A big note for the end of the year, it's a big tradition here, of course, at CNN. New Year's Eve live with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen, starts at 8:00 p.m. on CNN. You can also watch on the CNN app.

And one more reminder, premiering New Year's Day, the new CNN documentary, "I'm Chevy Chase And You're Not." A legendary comedian who can famously be a little prickly. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just trying to figure you out.

CHEVY CHASE, LEGENDARY COMEDIAN: No, (INAUDIBLE). It's not going to be easy for you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is it not going to be easy?

CHASE: You're not bright enough. How's that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whoa.

CHASE: Well, you asked. I know you're not going to put that on the air, and I hope not. But my answer is, I'm complex, and I'm deep, and I can be hurt easily. And I react spontaneously to people who want to figure me out as it were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: There you go. Again, you can catch "I'm Chevy Chase And You're Not " New Year's Day, 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time right here.

The news continues, of course. I'm Jim Sciutto. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.