Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Crisis in Ukraine; Kerry Addresses Reporters After Meetings; Was Invasion a U.S. Intelligence Failure? Suggestion to Ostracize Russia From World Organizations

Aired March 05, 2014 - 15:30   ET

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

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: I will also continue the discussion with Foreign Minster Lavrov tomorrow. Foreign Minster Lavrov will then return to have discussions with President Putin, which he also did today. He will continue to have that discussion.

And I will obviously have an opportunity to have a discussion with President Obama and with the team in the White House in order to discuss the road forward.

But we had very thorough discussions today, very extensive, exchanged ideas. We both had thoughts to take that back to the capitals and to our respective bosses.

And I intend to do that with hopes that the ideas that have been put on the table today can lead us to that place of de-escalation that I talked about.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Inaudible)?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible)?

KERRY: Well, the decisions for the Europeans are decisions for the Europeans. And they are meeting tomorrow, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to weigh in publicly on their deliberations.

With respect to the premise, again, of your question, don't assume that we did not make -- have serious conversations which produced creative and appropriate ideas and possibilities for how we can resolve this.

I think that we have a number of ideas on the table. I personally feel as if I have something concrete to take back and talk to President Obama about so that I can get his input and thinking, advice on what he is prepared to do.

And I believe that Foreign Minster Lavrov is in exactly the same position with respect to President Putin.

I don't think any of us had any anticipation that we were coming here at this moment in this atmosphere of heightened tension and confrontation, that we were suddenly going to resolve that here this afternoon. But I believe we are doing what is appropriate and what offers the best chance of finding a way forward that the world would welcome that is without conflict. As we said, we agreed today, both sides, and the Ukrainians, also, that we are all better served if this is resolved through dialogue.

That's important. I think it was a strong indication in the conversations that took place, not just between us, but between us and our capitals, that everybody is taking seriously the effort to try and find a way forward, but a way forward that satisfies the needs, that protects the integrity and the sovereignty of the state of Ukraine and one that obviously charts a path forward that has respect for the people of Ukraine and the direction that they have chosen to move in.

So, I look forward to the conversations over the course of the next days and we will see where we are, but I think today was very constructive, without promising something that is not defined yet, without raising hopes that are inappropriate to raise.

I want to be realistic. This is hard, tough stuff and a very serious moment. But I'd rather be where we are today than where we were yesterday.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Was there anything in your direct conversation with Sergei Lavrov today that makes you believe that Russia is no longer creating a pretext for further invasion?

And did you hear anything that would assure you, make you rethink the U.S. the threat to put sanctions on Russia? That threat seems to have been weakened by European reluctance.

KERRY: I don't think it's been weakened at all by what you call European reluctance.

The conversation I had today with the foreign minister of Germany, the foreign minister of France, the foreign minister of Great Britain, with the E.U. representative and with a number of other foreign ministers indicated to me that people are very serious about that.

There's been no movement away from the possibility, and everything I said yesterday and the day before and through the week stands. That that is where we are.

But we are pursuing, as President Obama indicated he would like to in his comments yesterday and the day before, as I indicated on Sunday in my comments on television shows, we would prefer to find an appropriate diplomatic solution to this, and I think everybody is better served through that.

But we've also made it clear our determination to stand up for the integrity and the sovereignty of this nation, our disagreement with the choice that Russia has made and our hope that we can find a way forward that respects the rights and aspirations of the people of Ukraine, writ large, east, west, south, all of Ukraine. That's our goal. Nothing has changed with respect to that. And what the Europeans choose to do is obviously their choice.

We've made it clear that the decision into go to Crimea is not without cost, and now we need to go forward and see if we avoid everybody being put in a corner where it's more and more difficult to find a path that presents you with the solution of dialogue.

I was encouraged today that Russia indicated that they would prefer to see us be able to find that path. That's the beginning of a negotiation, and as I said, this will go on, this discussion, for whatever period of time to come. But our position has not changed one bit.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thanks.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in Paris after a busy day of diplomacy with foreign ministers from European nations, as well as Russia, as well as Ukraine.

Let's -- I'm told he is still talking. Let's listen.

We are going to continue our discussion. Really the headline coming perhaps towards the end, Secretary Kerry saying this is the beginning of negotiations, though nothing concrete to show for efforts.

He did say he has something to bring back to President Obama that he -- though he did not specify exactly what that might be.

He also said he felt there was nothing concrete to point to as a sign of success. He doesn't believe today was a failure. He talked about all sides, including Russia, agreeing that dialogue is the best way to resolve the situation.

That is certainly something that from the diplomatic front that they hope to be able to do in the coming days.

Elise Labott is our foreign affairs correspondent. She is joining us from Paris. She's traveling with Secretary Kerry.

Chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto also joins us, and CNN senior political analyst and a former presidential adviser, a man who knows much about the world of diplomacy, David Gergen joins us as well.

Elise, let me start with you. In terms of what you heard from Secretary Kerry, clearly no headlines about direct progress, though he is stressing, repeatedly, that all sides have agreed to -- that dialogue is the best way to move forward.

Is that just diplomatic talk or is that actually a sign of progress?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I don't think it was a wash. I think today was an important day of diplomacy, although Secretary Kerry, I think, was a bit disingenuous, saying he didn't bring the Ukrainian foreign minster to meet with the Russian foreign minster. In fact, he did.

He flew on our plane to -- from Kiev to Paris and the foreign minster told us he really hoped that he would meet with the Russian foreign minster, sat around all day really trying to get that meeting together.

Yes, he met with the other foreign ministers, but the single, sales objectives today was to get that meeting going.

Now, it didn't get going today, but that doesn't mean they won't meet. There is a lot of diplomacy in play. You saw German Chancellor Angela talking with President Putin today.

There's a German-French proposal on the table that would have some elements of this February 21st agreement that ended this standoff with President Yanukovych, things that Russians liked in there, namely, having a national unity government, having elections coming up.

All that would have some element of Russian interest because there a lot of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine that bend towards Russia, as we said.

Secretary Kerry is going to meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow again. They will both go back. President Putin will speak with his foreign minster and it does seem, though, they didn't get going today with that important meeting that we were all looking for.

I do think there is diplomacy in play that will shakeout over the coming days.

COOPER: Jim Sciutto, your reading of what you heard from Secretary Kerry.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I think what we're seeing here is the opening of a diplomatic path, but just the beginning.

As Kerry said there, there is nothing concrete yet. It's constructive, but nothing defined yet. And, in fact, he noted the things that have to happen still to resolve this crisis, one being returning those Russian forces that have left their bases in Crimea back to their bases. That hasn't happened.

And Kerry also cited direct contact between the Russian government and the Ukrainian government. That very simple step, as Elise noted, has not happened yet either. and there were multiple opportunities today for that to happen.

But still significant, you have the top U.S. and Russian diplomats meeting face-to-face for the first time since this crisis started.

And I also draw your attention to comments by Sergei Lavrov before Kerry spoke. He spoke about how there is now U.S. and Russian support for this February 21st agreement, remember, the agreement negotiated in Ukraine which was to stop those violent protests in the square where you are standing right now, Anderson. Both sides agree that the elements of that agreement are necessary to moving forward, among those elements, new elections, returning to the older constitution that didn't have this power grab that Viktor Yanukovych had put in.

So, that's a starting point. So, they -- it seems that they have some agreement on the starting point, but really, we're at the starting point of that diplomatic process. And as it's happening, you still have a volatile mix on the ground.

You have those ad hoc militias that attacked the U.N. envoy today. You had that standoff between Russian and Ukrainian forces yesterday when shots were fired in the air.

And that's -- you know, as long as that continues, there is still a danger of these things spiraling out of control.

COOPER: And, David Gergen, Secretary Kerry also talked about the threat of sanctions by the U.S. toward Russia.

He did not seem to agree with the reporters who said that Europe, European Union countries, didn't seem as eager or willing to go along with some form of sanctions. Clearly, in the past, that has been an issue for the European Union nations

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely, Anderson.

I do think that, if you remember only two or three days ago, there was concern we might have military conflict, that the Russians might move into eastern Ukraine and that the Ukrainians might send their own forces.

So to have an understanding today that people on all sides would rather talk than fight, that is progress.

But there's also a danger when you begin these negotiations, and that is the focus goes to diplomacy as opposed to sanctions and to toughening -- tough measures.

We've seen in the Syrian resolution, what would -- what did all that diplomacy lead to? The way the Russians euchred us, it wasn't -- we now have a side with more territory than he had when we went into the negotiations, and more powerful than he was.

And the chances of getting Putin to loosen his grip on the Crimea, to give up access to a warm-water port, an object of Russian foreign policy for hundreds of years, seems very remote.

And if we get into a long, prolonged negotiation, the truth is the world may get a little more complacent about doing anything about it and just accept the status quo of the Russians in the Crimea, and, yes, they don't get eastern Ukraine, but they get the Crimea in violation of all international laws.

That is not a good outcome. COOPER: But David, if Russia was really just mainly interested in the safety, the rights of Russian-speaking people in Crimea, which is what they -- their pretext, really, for going in has been.

And I'm not saying they are not actually concerned, but there is no evidence on the ground of actual attacks against Russian-speaking people.

The idea of some sort of international monitors would certainly seem to put that to rest.

But there's a lot more at stake for Russia here in Crimea.

BERGEN: That's true, but the Russians haven't shown any interest so far in putting international observers on the ground in Crimea.

If it happens, that will be terrific, but right now, I don't think many international observers will give that a high probability.

It might be more interesting to put international observers into the eastern Ukraine, and it would prevent, perhaps, or discourage the Russians from sending troops there, as they may try quietly to do.

Eastern Ukraine is still in play here. The Crimea, we may never get that back. It may remain just in Russian control. That's where this has all been tending for the last several days.

And I don't see any evidence and I would welcome -- it would be wonderful, but the idea of putting international observers and having the Russians stand down, that would have to require a change of stripes for Mr. Putin.

COOPER: Elise, what do you make of Secretary Kerry saying that European Union nations, that there is not pushback on the idea of sanctions against Russia.

LABOTT: Again, we know that's not true because Russian -- because German and French officials said that they think diplomacy should go forward first before there any sanctions.

And, of course, they say that they're considering it, but they're really loathe because they have all of these economic interests.

You also -- we've also been reporting over the last couple of days about this British documents that one of the officials was taking out of 10 Downing Street that said that we -- they shouldn't impose any sanctions.

So I think that, again, officials want to say that they're not in lockstep with the -- that they're in lockstep with the Europeans. They're not in lockstep with the Europeans.

And Europeans always want to go first for diplomacy, don't ever think that sanctions is the first way to go.

They are saying eventually that they could impose some sanctions, but the kind of sanctions that are really going to hurt Russia, that takes time, Anderson. You need to ramp it up.

First, it's going to start with some kind of asset freezes and visa bans on individual Russian officials. Then you move to companies. Then you move to banks. That kind of real, biting economic sanctions would take time and would also hurt the Europeans.

So, that's not really in the offing, and I think U.S. officials privately acknowledge that.

COOPER: And, Jim Sciutto, that is something the United States has done in the past for Russian individuals, based on human rights violations. That's something that they certainly could try to extend if they wanted to.

SCIUTTO: No question. You are referring to Magnitsky rule, which was a response to the killing of a Russian whistleblower, in effect, and that, of course, led to a Russian response which was cancelling U.S. adoptions.

But it's a powerful tactic. It worked with Iran, as well. And, of course, with Iran, those sanctions expanded then to go on to Iranian companies, Iranian banks, that sort of thing.

And the resolution, a non-binding resolution, but the resolution that's going to come before the Senate foreign affairs committee tomorrow includes going not just after individuals, but Russian institutions, state-owned banks, companies, that sort of thing, which would be -- which would require the option of our European partners.

It doesn't appear that we have that yet, but if you were able to get to that stage, you're talking about real money at that point, and that can be influential.

I also just wanted to highlight a point that David Gergen said, which I think is right. As these stretch out, there's been a lot of talk about facts on the ground, and the Russians have created facts on the ground in Crimea.

And we've talked a lot about what is Putin's endgame here. There is an argument that he's already achieved that endgame. He's established Russian interests in and Russian access to and Russian control over that key area of Crimea that includes all those key bases and the naval port that we've talked about.

You can see the European allies possibly getting in a position where they might be able to live with that, you know? And that's a precedent. That's a precedent.

And the longer these talks drag out and if those Russian troops don't return to their bases, those facts become more ingrained, and you might have seen President Putin have pulled off a fairly cagey move here.

COOPER: Jim Sciutto, David Gergen, Elise Labott, thanks very much.

We're going to continue our coverage on the crisis here in Ukraine in just a moment. We're going to take a short break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Since Russia moved into Ukraine -- into Crimea, there's been a lot of questions if the U.S. didn't see this coming.

How is it possible in an age of satellites and cyber warfare that troops could invade another country, could enter another country, even leave their bases and the U.S. be caught flat footed?

While we seem to misjudge Russia's president again and again saying he won't do that and when he does the United States seems surprised, shocked.

Mike Baker's a former CIA covert operations officer. He joins me now from Washington.

Mike, what do you make of this? Was this a failure of intelligence? And if so, what do you think caused it?

MIKE BAKER, FORMER CIA COVERT OPERATIONS OFFICER: I mean, first of all, I'm surprised that it took as long as it did in Washington for the old chestnut of intel failure to surface.

Usually it pops up quicker than this, and it's a standard default here, particularly in Washington to go, Oh, the CIA dropped the ball, so now it's an intelligence failure.

What I would argue is that what the CIA has been reporting and providing analysis on the increasing escalation in Ukraine, along with Russian activity and troop movements, ship movements involving the Black Sea fleet for weeks now, going back before the Sochi Olympics.

And all that information gets provided to the White House as part of the process to deliver the presidential daily brief.

So, I think the question here isn't so much was this an intel failure, but, you know, how much information eventually made it in to the PDB and was this more a failure of the White House to take the reporting and analysis that they were being provided with, make no mistake about that, did they fail to act on it or to take it seriously?

COOPER: The other question, though, is -- I mean, it's one thing to note -- to see troop movements, to see a ship moving. It's another to understand intentions, which is often -- can boil down to human intelligence.

There are those who say that the CIA's capabilities and other intelligence communities capabilities have atrophied due to the focus on terrorism, that focusing on Russia, those capabilities have atrophied.

Do you think that's true?

BAKER: I think you raise a very important point in that there is no doubt that the focus over the past 10 years-plus on terrorism has -- not that we can't multi-task, because we do, but it has put a focus elsewhere other than what you would consider to be the traditional CIA role.

So, you can't argue that it's had some impact, but quite frankly, our human intelligence is very good in this area and reporting was provided.

There was -- it's not as if we just woke up and said, Oh, my god, the Russians are in Crimea. That's not the case.

The reporting was provided, but I think you raised a very important point as well, just a moment ago, when you said that we've been misunderstanding and underestimating Putin for quite some time, not just this current administration, certainly the previous administration, as well.

COOPER: We certainly saw that in 2008 in Russian actions in Georgia.

Mike Baker, I wish we had more time. I'm sorry we got cut short due to the secretary's remarks. We'll have you back on. Appreciate you being with us.

What is the best way to deal with Vladimir Putin? Our next guest says one idea is just ignore him. We'll talk about the possibilities on that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Secretary Kerry talked about Russia's willingness and belief that dialogue is the best way out of this, and he says that that is progress on the diplomatic front, but so far, Vladimir Putin certainly has refused to blink.

Putin has refused to even acknowledge sending pro-Russian forces into Crimea. He claims they're local, self-defense militias.

Our next guest says the best way to punish Putin is to ignore him. I want to bring in Slate's national security columnist Fred Kaplan in New York.

So, Fred, you wrote, and I quote, "Here are the real lessons of the crisis in Ukraine. Russia is not a great power, and Vladimir Putin is hardly the master grand strategist that many American Cold Warriors have been weirdly eager to believe."

What do you mean that? Do you see this as a sign of weakness by Vladimir Putin?

FRED KAPLAN, NATIONAL SECURITY COLUMNIST, SLATE: I think he played this all wrong.

The Crimea has basically been a Russian possession for a long, long time. It's formerly Ukraine, and I think, invading it as they have, is a serious violation of international law.

But they have the Black Sea Fleet there. Many people in Crimea regard themselves as Russians.

Had Putin just hung on, waited for the elections, which might elect a pro-Russia candidate, and in any event, whoever wins would have to deal with Russia, you know, I think he could have come off looking pretty -- like, you know, a rational figure.

Instead, he's acting like a bully. He's come in strong. He's alienated not only the West, which wants to deal with him, but also a lot of pro-Russia Ukrainians, as well.

I think it's been a serious strategic miscalculation.

COOPER: So, Fred, we only have about a minute left, but you talked about the idea of ignoring Vladimir Putin. What do you mean by that?

KAPLAN: Initially, to solve this crisis, he has to be involved. This has to be a joint Russian solution. As Secretary Kerry has said, Ukraine/Russia relations go back, you know, a thousand years or so. They have to be involved in it.

If he doesn't want to be involved in it, if he doesn't recognize a new government elected by the people coming in May, then I think the solution, not sanctions, which aren't going to work anyway, which are going to be just theatrical, but just close him out of the international organizations to which he belongs and to which he's not really contributing much.

We're already going to cancel this G-8 conference in Sochi that was going to happen. Let's have a G-7 conference someplace else. OECD meetings, you're not a member anymore.

Tell -- don't put direct sanctions, but sort of, you know, have briefings for heads of American corporations which are doing business there from some State Department, CIA people, telling them about the risks of continuing to do business there.

Already, you know, the ruble is going down. Investors are coming out. That I think is the best way to deal with him in a way that will actually have some consequence.

COOPER: And, Fred, I wish we also had more time, again, because of the secretary's comments it did get truncated.

Check out Fred's article on Slate.com. Fred Kaplan, thanks so much for joining me.

I'll be back live from Kiev for "AC360" at 8:00 Eastern time tonight, 3:00 a.m. here in Kiev.

For our international viewers, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is next. For our domestic viewers in the United States, our coverage of the crisis in Ukraine continues right now on "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper.

Jake?