Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Threats, New Talks over Ukraine Crisis; Putin Vows to Fight Possible Sanctions; NATO, Russian Envoys Hold Special Meeting; Why Didn't U.S. Expect Russia's Actions?

Aired March 05, 2014 - 09:00   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: NEWSROOM starts right now.

Good morning and thanks for joining me for this special edition of CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jake Tapper in for Carol Costello.

As the crisis in the Ukraine simmers millions more people could feel the heat. Russia is warning that if sanctions are imposed against it Moscow could seize U.S. and European asset there. That could be a big hit to investors around the world.

The European Union says if Russia shows no signs of backing down in Ukraine those sanctions will be discussed tomorrow when EU leaders meet.

And this morning glimmers of diplomacy, Secretary of State John Kerry takes part in one of two rounds of talks with Russian officials.

We're keeping an eye on a busy day of events. At the bottom of the hour Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs chairman, General Martin Dempsey, are due to testify on Capitol Hill. Later this morning Secretary Kerry meets with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Paris. Also at 11:00 a.m. Eastern, Russian officials are due to meet with members of the NATO military alliance.

And this afternoon President Obama delivers remarks as comments originally supposed to be focused on minimum wage are now likely to also include some mention of the crisis in Ukraine we're told.

Let's begin with our coverage with Russian lawmakers drafting legislation that would allow Moscow to confiscate assets of American and European companies. The Russian retaliation of sanctions could have a relatively small impact on the U.S. According to the "Wall Street Journal" Russian interests make up just 1 percent of American trade but Europe has far more to lose since trade has ballooned in post-Soviet times.

In just the first nine months of the last year the European Union imported more than $200 billion worth of goods from Russia.

CNN's Phil Black is in Moscow.

Phil, is there really an appetite for sanctions that could end up punishing both sides? PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, recent history shows that when Russia is targeted by sanctions, it lashes out. Officials here talk about responding in an asymmetrical way, coming back bigger and harder often from a completely different angle. The most recent example is when the U.S. Congress passed the Magnitsky Act which is legislation designed to punish accused human rights abusers in this country.

At the time the Russian government was outraged, responded immediately by banning American families from adopting Russian orphans. There were families who began the process, met the children, were never allowed to take them home. Two unrelated issues that from the Russian point of view it made the point. It said, back off, don't get involved in our sovereignty, don't get involved in our affairs.

But you're right. That sort of counter sanction could affect Russia because Russia needs foreign investment. It struggle to get it because of corruption, bureaucracy and dodgy legal system corruption, bureaucracy and this certainly isn't going to suddenly make people around the world believe that Russia is a good place to do business -- Jake.

TAPPER: And we've seen push back from the UK and from the Germans as well. Obviously the preference is for Russia to withdraw from Crimea, so European Union diplomats, American diplomats, everyone is trying to figure out a way to let Putin have what's called an off-ramp, a way to get out while saving face. What have you learned about that?

BLACK: Two words we're hearing a lot from leaders across Europe and the United States, de-escalation and off-ramp. The key to the off- ramp idea is sending in international observers to check out Putin's concerns. He's claimed that ethnic Russians are under threat because of Ukrainian nationalist in the east and the south of the country. The logic being that if those international observers go in they will see that there is no justification for military action.

But so far there is no sign that Russia is looking to take a hard turn on to this off-ramp. We heard from Vladimir Putin yesterday who said he has experts looking at the idea. The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, seemed to pop up another obstacle today saying, this is not an issue or any question that Russia can answer because we're talking about Ukrainian territory, the Ukrainian people must decide.

The relevant authorities in Kiev, in Crimea, or wherever else must decide if they want to invite foreign powers on to their territory to examine these issues. So certainly no sign that Moscow has yet is ready to jump at this as a way of de-escalating the situation -- Jake.

TAPPER: Phil, are Russian leaders still acting as though there are not Russian troops in Crimea who have occupied much of the country?

BLACK: So you heard that from President Putin yesterday. We heard it again today from the Russian Defense minister, Sergei Shoigu. He maintained that no, there are no Russian soldiers occupying Crimea as it stands. They maintain this position that they say it is local self-defense teams, local militias, and we only know on the ground what we see and what our own CNN teams have seen on the ground.

There are some local militias but there are also undoubtedly Russian soldiers. And they're not wearing the insignia but they are heavily armed, they are driving out armored vehicles, some of those vehicles have Russian registration plates. And when you talk to them some of them admit that they are in fact Russian. But looking ahead at any possible negotiations, very difficult to see how those can proceed when the Russian position is just that, that they have not even begun any occupation of occupation of Ukrainian territory -- Jake.

TAPPER: Phil Black in Moscow. Thank you so much.

As we mentioned at the top of the hour, Russia is due to take part in NATO's discussion of the cries in Ukraine. That's less than two hours from now at the same time the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is due to meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. On the same topic a short time ago, Kerry lamented Russian's absence at a meeting of his counterparts from Great Britain and Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We have our friends from Ukraine and Great Britain, partners in the Budapest Agreement of 1994. We're missing one member. Hopefully meet this afternoon with that individual member.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: CNN foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott is traveling with Secretary Kerry. She joins us now from Paris.

Elise, good to see you. How good are relations between Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Well, on the surface they are very good, Jake. Secretary Kerry looks to Foreign Minister Lavrov for help with Iran, for help with Syria. But every time it really comes down to crunch time, Sergey Lavrov seems to get the better hand against Senator Kerry. The Russians really despite all the talk they really haven't been that supportive on Syria, remains to see on Iran, and now on Ukraine, Secretary Kerry once again is going to try to use that personal relationship with the foreign minister to get him to so- called de-escalate the situation.

But the situation now is that the French and the Germans are really going to take -- try to take the lead on diplomacy. Secretary Kerry will be meeting with the foreign minister later today but before that the French and the Germans are trying to get Foreign Minister Lavrov in the same room with the Ukraine foreign minister, trying to talk about a diplomatic plan in which Russia could get some of the things it wants, that February 21st agreement that ended the standoff in Ukraine but also that the Russian troops would have to come back.

So Secretary Kerry very much wanting to use his personal diplomacy but also looking to the Europeans who have even more of an interest here -- Jake. TAPPER: And of course, Elise, we've heard a lot about European Union partners who have much deeper ties to Russia economically, we should note. Pushing back against tough sanctions campaign that the United States has proposed, although not tough enough for some in Congress if you ask them, we've heard that the Germans are very weary of this. Obviously they have very close ties between the Russians and the Germans. We heard that the Brits are also pushing back.

What else have you learned about the appetite among the members of the EU for any sort of tough sanctions that could cause Russia or undoubtedly will cause Russia to retaliate in kind against the EU nations?

LABOTT: Well, sanctions, Jake, kind of ramped them up, so the sanctions that the EU is talking about right now would really kind of be symbolic against Russian individuals, you know, in terms of visa bans and freezes of asset, things like that. So really kind of tough biting sanctions that we've seen, for instance, on Iran would take a long time. You have to do that in several times. And there is absolutely no appetite from the Europeans for anything like that.

They have very close ties commercially and economically, trade ties as you note, and that's why the Germans and the French and the British are really pushing the diplomatic track here as they always do. Foreign Secretary Hague of Britain today saying whether foreign minister will come to this meeting with the Ukrainian foreign minister later today and sit down with him will be the real test for Russia and will determine whether the Europeans will go ahead with those sanctions -- Jake.

TAPPER: And Elise, what do your State Department sources tell you they think the end game is here for Russia? Do they think that ultimately they'll be content with Crimea which is obviously very strategically significant but they won't go into eastern Ukraine and the U.S. will be able to accept that in some way, or is that just untenable the Russians need to go back completely. Where are -- where is Secretary Kerry behind the scenes on this? What's his thinking?

LABOTT: Well, you have a lot of mixed messages, Jake. Publicly Secretary Kerry and others are saying, you know, we're not going to write off Crimea, we're not going to give Crimea to the Russians, at the same President Obama is saying, well, you know, President Putin maybe is reflecting and stopping from going any further. Secretary Kerry saying Russia is setting a pretext to go further, but then they say well maybe that they would be satisfied with just Crimea.

I think what's going to end up happening here is they hope to get this diplomatic off-ramp where they sit down, Russia's concerns in Crimea are addressed and also that they have some kind of hand. I don't know if we're talking about Russian troops on the ground there but certainly if those troops return back to their barrack you get back to a kind of situation that you had where Russia does have an interest in Ukraine, an interest in Crimea, and -- but you go back to the status quo if you will.

Very similar to what you had in Georgia. Even though they won't say this publicly I don't think the U.S. or the European officials I'm talking to really want this to go any further -- Jake.

TAPPER: Elise Labott, thank you so much.

Now for more on Russia's threats to seize U.S. and European assets if the United States and the European Union go ahead and impose sanctions on Russia, CNN's chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto is live in Washington.

Jim, could this threat of seizing assets from American Europeans countries -- companies, rather, could that deter the U.S. or EU from levying sanctions?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it shows how quickly this could spiral into a tit-for-tat or even one upmanship, right? Because, as Elise mentioned so far, the U.S. and European sanctions target just individuals, Russian military, government officials who would have been involved in the decision to send troops in or directing troops into sovereign Ukrainian territory.

If the Russians were to follow through on next step of seizing assets, you know, you have another option for the U.S. which has been discussed and brought up by Republican senators, Bob Corker and others, of sanctioning Russian entities, entities meaning state banks, oil companies, energy companies, like Gazprom, and that's when you start talking about real money.

I mean, the fact is though that Russia has more to lose here economically. Certainly U.S. companies have significant assets in Russia, but Russia's trade, Russian's very economy is dependent on access to the international financial system, its trade with Europe. But again of course Europe loses a lot in that as well, and that's why you're seeing opposition from the Germans and the British and others to more significant sanctions that have already been put on the table by the U.S.

TAPPER: Jim, educate our viewers. How common is it for a country that has in sanctions imposed upon it to take the retaliatory step of seizing the assets, confiscating the assets of private companies?

SCIUTTO: Well, listen. It's happened. You know the expert in seizing assets I suppose you would say would be the U.S. You know this is a tactic that the U.S. has used in a number of instances. Iran being the most recent one. And you know unfreezing those Iranian assets is part of this nuclear deal or unfreezing a portion of the frozen assets is part of the nuclear deal that brought them to the table

So, you know, if you get down that path, it certainly happened before. But, you know, I think that it does show that, you know, it's a hard thing to control just like on the ground it's hard to control when you put soldiers into a position like that and can you keep them from firing their weapons?

You know, we had a situation yesterday where Ukrainian troops faced off with Russian troops and even if their commanders back home are saying don't take this step, you know, when emotions are involved things can go -- things can turn bad. And that's the thing, you have a volatile mix on the ground, lots of men with guns and you have a volatile mix even in the diplomatic sphere where one step by the U.S. and the West can easily be responded to by one step by the Russians, and we're talking about real money here. It's billions, billions of dollars of trade going between Russia and Europe.

TAPPER: And, Jim, lastly, President Obama yesterday expressed -- I guess you could say the hope more than an observation, perhaps, that Putin was pausing and reflecting on what he had done and perhaps would take a step back. How much do you think that is real and accurate?

SCIUTTO: Well, I pressed the White House on this yesterday. I said so what is the substance of this? What led the president to believe and White House officials to believe that the president was pausing? And, you know, the White House directed me to particular comments from Putin yesterday where he said that the use of military force in the Ukraine would be a very last resort. The fact is he's already used military force there.

TAPPER: Right.

SCIUTTO: But speaking to other officials, the idea is that well, he hasn't carried that military intervention any further in the last 24, 48 hours than he already had. In other words you took some of those troops out of their bases in Crimea. They started surrounding some of the Ukrainian bases. That sort of thing. They didn't pull them back. They haven't sent them back to their bases, but I haven't sent them further out of their bases and they haven't taken the step of going into Eastern Ukraine, you know, outside of the Crimea region.

So, you know, I suppose it shows how tense the situation is that that's called progress, right? That it hasn't gotten worse. And perhaps it was, you know, something of an olive branch or a trial balloon floated by the president to say hey we noticed you haven't moved any further and we're willing to talk to you about how we can diffuse this.

TAPPER: All right, Jim Sciutto, thank you so much.

Still to come, an anchor on state funded Russian TV slams the country's actions in Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TV ANCHOR: I can't stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation's affairs. What Russia did is wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: We'll have the rest of her comments and the surprising offer the network just made to her, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: The crisis in Ukraine is sparking a special meeting today between NATO and the Russian alliance, and it is reportedly the first public contact between the two groups since Russian forces moved into the Crimean peninsula last week.

CNN's Erin McLaughlin joins us live from Brussels, Belgium, the site of today's meeting.

Erin, who called for this meeting, specifically?

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Jake.

Well, the meeting was called for by NATO secretary-general. But it's a good sign that Russia has agreed to sit down with all 28 NATO ambassadors, meeting happening in a couple of hours from now.

It's very much a part of NATO's three track approach towards dealing with this crisis. The first being declaring solidarity -- reaffirming rather solidarity of E.U. member states. Second being supporting the government in Kiev. Third maintaining dialogue with Russia.

Now, the NATO/Russia council meets on a regular basis they talk to everything from situation in Afghanistan to counterterrorism. And while we don't have exact agenda for today's meeting, the topic will be Ukraine.

Now, on Sunday, NATO issued a sharply worded statement condemning Russia's military aggression in the Crimea. That was followed by another emergency meeting on Tuesday. That time called for by Poland which was feeling threatened by this ongoing situation out of that meeting, NATO saying that it was amping up its efforts to assess the situation.

So, that sort of lays the scene or sets the scene for the meeting again happening in the next couple of hours. We are expecting a statement from the NATO secretary-general at its conclusion -- Jake.

TAPPER: And, Erin, we know Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday a billion dollars in loan guarantees for Ukraine from the United States. Now comes word that the European Union is also offering a package of aid for Ukraine specifically what are the specifics. How much money are we talking about?

MCLAUGHLIN: That's right. Earlier this morning, the European Commission said it's ready to offer a package of $15 billion over a period of two years to Ukraine. That as you mentioned on top of John Kerry's offer of $1 billion in loan guarantees that he made yesterday in Kiev.

Now, that package very much needed -- aid is very much needed in Ukraine at the moment, financial experts saying that the country is at risk of defaulting on billions of dollars of loans as early as this month.

Now, the European aid package will be put forward here in Brussels to the meeting of heads of state and government scheduled for tomorrow. The other topic on their agenda, of course, will be the prospect of sanctions if Russia does not de-escalate. TAPPER: All right. Erin McLaughlin, we know a lot of European Union and European commission members are balking at some of those sanctions. Thank you so much from Brussels.

So, what did the U.S. think was going to happen in the Ukraine? Today, some experts are asking that very question as they watch this crisis unfold. Ukrainian protesters, many of whom said toed with Western values, forced out the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and now, Russia is acting aggressively to protect its interests in Ukraine.

So, why did the U.S. not see any of this coming apparently?

Joining us to talk about it is Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University. He wrote about this for "Foreign Policy Magazine".

Professor Wall, good to see you.

Are you arguing that the U.S. and other Western nations should not have supported the uprising against Yanukovych? Explain exactly your position here.

PROF. STEPHEN M. WALT, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: I think the United States and also the European Union failed to realize that there were significant geopolitical issues involved when we began to let's say lean in favor of the protesters that ousted Yanukovych. That's not to defend Yanukovych who was both corrupt and incompetent.

But I think what we failed to realize was that although we were a lot more powerful and democracy might be the long term wave of the future there, this was an area where Russia had far more significant interests and we had to anticipate that Russia was likely to react more or less as it did.

TAPPER: So, in other words, you think that the U.S. should have anticipated that, not just the removal of Yanukovych as has happened before in the history of the Ukraine but also what comes next and the fact that Russia might step in and fill that vacuum that is less palatable -- our government finds less palatable than Viktor Yanukovych?

WALT: Exactly. I mean, Russia sees Ukraine as part of its vital interest in ways that it's not a vital interest to the United States.

And from the Russian perspective, they watched the West essentially expand eastward ever since the Soviet Union broke up doing a variety of things that, again, the Russian government has steadfastly opposed. It was going to be a point where Russia was going to try to draw a hard and fast line and say no more.

And if we were going to push this, we had to anticipate that reaction and then ask ourselves what options do we have if they decide to take an action we don't like? I don't think that was ever seriously considered either in Brussels or in Washington before this whole matter began to play itself out. TAPPER: Do you see the United States concern about what's going on in Ukraine as being entirely theoretical, just about stability, about security, potential of ally, Ukraine, or are there vital U.S. interests and assets at stake?

WALT: I don't think there are truly via tell American interests and you see that in the way we're approaching it. When vital interests are at stake, you really are willing to consider all options and we're not willing to consider all options there.

There are reasons why Ukraine has not been part of NATO in the past and why people have always understood that trying to bring it into NATO was potentially very dangerous.

We don't have substantial economic interests there. American security is not vitally engaged there. So, we're concerned about the matter but our interest is dwarfed by Russia's interest which is why they are willing to run more risks and pay a larger price to have those interests defended.

We don't have to like that, but foreign policy 101 tells you, you always look at what the other side's interests might be and try to anticipate what their actions are going to be before you take a move.

TAPPER: Speaking of foreign policy 101, as an international relations professor, your view of what Hillary Clinton said earlier this week, comparing Putin's actions in Ukraine, the pretext that he invoked to what Hitler did when he set a pretext for invading neighboring countries in the 1930s. This reported by "BuzzFeed" initially.

Is that a fair assessment? She wasn't specifically drawing a comparison between Putin and Hitler, but she was talking about the pretext of going in to save Russian speaking peoples. Is that fair?

WALT: I think that's not a particularly useful analogy and comparisons to Hitler should be used very carefully. It's the sort of typical of the foreign policy hyperbole we often get.

The fact is great powers have various interests for intervening in other countries. They do that sometimes, the United States has done that. We're always pretty good at coming up with various rationales for doing it.

Again, we don't have to like what Russia did and, in fact, our diplomacy should be organized around stabilizing the situation and hopefully reversing it.

But we have to recognize that they were doing this to defend what they regard as vital to national security interests.

TAPPER: Harvard University professor of international relations, Stephen Walt -- thank you so much. We appreciate your time. And we'll take a quick break and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)