Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Crisis in Ukraine; Testy Exchange during Ukraine Hearing; Russia TV Anchor Quits Over Putin "Whitewash"

Aired March 06, 2014 - 10:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome back to the special edition of the NEWSROOM. I'm Anderson Cooper live in Kiev. I want to welcome our viewers in the United States and watching around the world on CNN International.

A lot going on here on the ground obviously in Kiev also in Crimea. The U.S. is beefing up its military presence near Ukraine that is coming from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. And this morning a U.S. destroyer is on the move leaving Greece and heading to the Black Sea. Now lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the State Department are not seeing eye-to-eye on what Russia's actions in the Ukraine are. Listen to the heated exchange from the House Foreign Affairs Committee just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE MCCAUL (R), TEXAS: Does this administration believes that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is an act of war?

ERIC RUBIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN & EURASIAN AFFAIRS: Well Congressman, we've said very clearly that we know what we have seen which is military aggression, intervention in the affairs of the sovereign country a violation of legal commitments, violation of international law. That is what we see, that is what we're calling it. I'm not an international lawyer.

So I wouldn't want to get into the terminology. But I think it's pretty clear what we're seeing. It is clear also that Russia continues to occupy territory of Republic of Georgia. That's something we've been very clear in condemning.

And it is also clear that their commitments that all countries have with each other to settle their disputes peacefully. And that is certainly not what we're seeing here. So I --

MCCAUL: Well I do think we should call it what it is. I think you said it's very clear, it's a violation of international law. I believe it's also very clear this is an act of war against another nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPE: Well, joining us to talk about it is CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr and CNN military analyst, former Army Commanding General James Spider Marks. Barbara let's start with you. Officials are saying that this U.S. destroyer was scheduled to head to the Black Sea before everything in Ukraine unfolded. Is that correct?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: It is Anderson. This was a long standing commitment they had. The is the "USS Truxtun" that is headed out of Souda Bay, Greece today on its way to the Black Sea. But still even though it was scheduled, a bit of message sending perhaps that the Navy is -- the U.S. Navy is not turning around its regular schedule just because things are sensitive in the area.

It will be in international waters, it will make port visits, it will do its regular business whether the Russians are happy about it or not. We also know of course now Secretary Hagel saying just a few moments ago the first U.S. fighter jets have arrived in the Baltics after announcing yesterday more U.S. planes would go to the Baltics to help patrol that air space just to make those small Baltic nations feel a little better perhaps about the Russian aggression.

No direct threat against them from Russia. But countries are getting nervous. And finally there are also now the discussions with Poland about putting more U.S. Air Force presence into Poland. The same thing, these countries on Russia's flanks the U.S. believes are anxious about the aggression. These steps are being taken to reassure them -- Anderson.

COOPER: And so General Marks, in regard to Hagel's comments you said the beefing up of the military presence is not necessarily directed at Russia. What do you mean?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: As Barbara indicated, these deployments are primarily directed at our friends and our allies in the region to make sure they understand that we're with them, we're paying attention, we're watching the activities very vigilantly and we want to do what we can to settle them down.

The key objective here is de-escalation. But you can do that through the use of military force, through the use of presence and partnerships like this so it's not a direct affront to Russia. And clearly Putin doesn't see it this way. He could care less about this. What he -- what we're interesting in doing right now which is the right move is to make sure we're linking arms with our partners.

COOPER: General Marks, what do you make of what's happening now on the ground in Crimea? The idea of they are doing a referendum on March 16th. It seems to complicate the military picture. I mean if -- if Crimea votes in this referendum to join Russia, couldn't then be the new leadership in Crimea argue that Ukrainian military bases in Crimea are no longer legal or no longer valid and that Ukrainian forces must leave?

MARKS: Yes, that's a supposition that got legs to it. But I think there is something that short of that that would occur. And to answer your first part of the question, for Crimea to hold their own referendum clearly flies in the face of the government in Kiev. And Kiev has already indicated look Crimea until this thing is resolved some way, Crimea is a part of Ukraine. So the population in Crimea has no legitimacy on a referendum.

However, what we need to do at this point what the United States and all of its partners needs to do at this point is realize that Putin has stated very clearly that Sevastopol and Crimea is important to him. We understand all the reasons why and that there is probably a half low solution here and that he's not going to roll his forces back, he's not going to give anything back. He wants to assure that he has a firm control, access through Sevastopol through the Black Sea Fleet that's not at risk.

And then the next step is let's see what happens in Kiev. So this referendum is really a movement towards a compromise that I think is going to complicate it quite greatly as you've indicated.

COOPER: Yes. General Marks, it's good to have you on, Barbara Star as well. A lot to come still in the program ahead; still to come an American based Russian news anchor takes a stand against her Kremlin backed network. We'll tell you what she did on live TV. We'll tell you ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Hey welcome back to our continuing coverage of the crisis in Ukraine. For the second time in three days a Russian television anchor has spoken out against Russia's occupation in Crimea. This time the anchor Liz Wahl resigned on the air in protest. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ WAHL, FORMER RT REPORTER: Personally I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I'm proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth. And that is why after this newscast, I'm resigning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: She is an American. She was working for RT America, this Russian controlled network. That -- and she was working out of the Washington bureau. I spoke with Liz Wahl after her announcement. I asked her why she chose to step down yesterday and also about the network's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAHL: What's clear is what's happening right now amid this crisis is that RT is not about the truth. It's about promoting Putin and his agenda. And I can tell you first hand it's also about bashing America. And I kind of cited some of my background where I came from and why I am proud to be an American.

In recent days I've been suffering from a lot of cognitive dissonance and felt that I could no longer work here and -- and -- and go on television and tell the American people that this is what's happening. And have it posed as news. I haven't seen the official response. I kind of saw on Twitter before I went on today that they said that I'm doing this as -- for personal gain which is -- couldn't be farther from the truth. I actually hesitated to speak on this for a while for fear of repercussion.

So I don't know if how they intend to retaliate against me or what actions are going to be taken against me. I can say that it's comforting that on social media I've gotten an explosive response really, really encouraging people appreciating me coming forward with this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I want to talk about this deeper. I want -- I'm joined by our senior media correspondent and host of "Reliable Sources" Brian Stelter. Brian it's interesting when I -- I did that interview with her last night. And I couldn't actually see her, because I don't have returns, I'm told though it looked she was reading at times kind of from notes that she had.

What do you make of this resignation? Because she had worked at RT America for I think two and a half years. So it's certainly not new to her that this is a Russian controlled network that certainly has a very clear and obvious agenda.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right. This is a channel that produces this kind of news and content every single day. Of course it's getting a lot more attention now because of the current crisis. People are noticing. People in the United States are noticing the channel more. They're scrutinizing the channel more.

And I think it's fair to ask whether if she decided to resign now and resign on air to get out of the way before too much damage was done to her reputation.

You know if you are -- if you are on a channel that is obscure and you are bringing up things that are strange and uncomfortable and controversial but no one is watching that's one thing. But if you do that on a channel that's suddenly getting a lot of attention that's another thing and in this case she got out of the way.

COOPER: She was also, as we said the second anchor to criticize the coverage. The first anchor didn't quit but criticized Russia's actions in Crimea, got a huge amount of attention for it. You know, I guess a cynic could also say or an observer could also say that Liz Wahl -- and I saw a lot of the comments on Twitter -- saw all the attention the other anchor was getting and maybe wanted to get some attention as well.

STELTER: And that's a fair question to ask about Russia today in general. Does the channel allow a little bit of dissent, in that case Abby Martin coming on and criticizing the Russian government in order to present itself as a channel that has independence and does not just toe the Russian government line?

For what it's worth the Russia Today editor-in-chief published a very interesting op-ed today on their Web site where she said that this is a media war. That what we're seeing is media war between Russia and United States, between media companies owned by both sides. And she says, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today says in this case both of these anchors are caught up in that war.

The editor-in-chief also said she thinks others could resign also, that others may feel the same kind of pressure that Liz Wahl did and may decide to leave for other employment opportunities. I for one am going to be watching Russia Today to see what happens in the days to come because clearly it's a place under a lot of pressure right now.

COOPER: It's interesting because one of the things that Liz Wahl was saying was that a lot of the kind of lower level employees and even mid-level employees are young Americans, sort of, you know, trying to get into the business or just young Americans but management is actually Russians -- Russian emigres and obviously it's supported by the Russian government.

So there's this conflict sort of between upper management and upper management which is kind of controlling the message that actually makes it out on the air.

STELTER: And I think these conflicts will happen more in the future. We're moving into an age where many countries around the world have their own cable news channels that they subsidize. You can think of channels in China, in France, China's -- there are channels subsidized by Tatar as we know, al Jazeera and many, many others. And there will be more in the future.

News anchors for those channels will sometimes be in uncomfortable positions because they're working for a channel backed by a certain government.

This is a very dramatic example of that because of on an on-air resignation. And, you know, I've got to give her credit for actually doing it on the air for explaining herself. You mentioned that she looked like she was reading from notes when she talked to you last night. It looked like she was also reading from notes when she resigned.

Maybe she had scrawled out what she wanted to say ahead of time to maker sure she got it right. I guess you have to give here some amount of credit for actually coming on and explaining herself. And it will be interesting to see now, if she gets hired by some network in the United States or somewhere else around the world.

COOPER: We'll see. Brian Stelter, I appreciate you being on. Thanks very much Brian.

Still to come, the U.S. is moving to sanctioned individuals as we talked about at the top of the program involved in the crisis in Ukraine. But if Vladimir Putin is not on the list of targets, does that undermine the punishment. We'll talk to (AUDIO GAP) to Russia next. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Welcome back.

Today President Obama as we mentioned signed an executive order laying the foundation for sanctions related to the crisis in Ukraine -- sanctions on individuals. The White House saying it was in response to quote "Russia's on going violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

James Collins is a former U.S. ambassador, a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, I appreciate you joining us. What do you make of the executive order? It targets specific people and entities that according to Reuters, Vladimir Putin though is not named. How exactly could this work? This is something the United States has done before; targeting Russians who have had are human rights violations.

JAMES COLLINS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: Well, we've seen the Magnitsky Act that was passed at end of 2012 that created the opening to provide individual sanctions against specific individuals for actions that were found by the Americans to be in violation of human rights.

The question about sanctions though it seems to me is a simple one. Do they work? Do they have an effect? Do they bring us closer tot strategic objective of getting Ukraine back in the conditions of control over its total territory? And Russia back out Crimea and out of business of interfering militarily in Ukraine? I'm not sure that I see the link as being effective.

COOPER: You don't see the linkage -- are you talking individual sanctions against individuals or sanctions against Russia as a nation?

COLLINS: Well, we're talking about individual sanctions. I'm not sure it's going to produce an effective outcome.

COOPER: I guess the idea behind it is that by curtailing the visits of wealthy Russians or Russians who are in some way linked to the regime, that put pressure -- they would then put pressure on Vladimir Putin. You don't think that actually ends up working?

COLLINS: Well, you know, I have to say I look at evidence and I'm not persuaded that there's much of an evidentiary base to make that case. If you look at the actual results of the Magnitsky Act I suppose certain people can't come to the United States. But it produced a nasty reaction by the Russian side or the counter actions, that simply led to for instance the suspension of adoptions of American children.

I'm not arguing this is justified or sensible but when you get to diplomacy like this, two play the game. It usually doesn't lead to a better environment to resolve differences.

COOPER: How much more complex now does the diplomatic situation become because of the decision by Crimea's new leaders to have this referendum on March 16th about whether or not Crimea should join Russia?

COLLINS: I think this is a very provocative action and it is certainly going to complicate matters greatly. I find it extremely interesting that the Russian government seems to be taking a position that it now supports separatism. Separatism by minorities or separatism by groups that don't like what essential government is doing. That has not been the Russian position on most issues in the past. So that's one thing that's very strange.

I also agree that if we get some kind of vote in Crimea, however it's arranged or whatever terms it takes place, it's going to complicate the efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this and restore Ukrainian control over its total territory. That's going to have to be the objective that the United States and Europe support.

COOPER: It's certainly the objective to people here in Kiev -- support. Ambassador James Collins, I appreciate it. Ambassador Collins -- former ambassador to Russia.

We're going to be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Hey welcome back. As we close out the hour, I want to share an image that's just coming to us. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just moments ago, showing a rifle at a gathering of conservative leaders in Maryland.

Our chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash is at the CPAC event. She joins us now live. So Dana, what's going on? Tell us the back story here.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The back story it turns out Anderson is that Mitch McConnell was giving out an award -- an NRA ward to Tom Coburn. The award is the Courage under Fire lifetime achievement award. But he just kind of came out with a rifle and handed it to Tom Coburn. It wasn't entirely clear to those of us who are here what was going on.

I had to call McConnell's office to get that clarification. He didn't just randomly walk out with a gun. There was a purpose for it. And again he was giving it to Tom Coburn who is a very well respected conservative senator among the conservative activists certainly here. He's retiring early before the end of his term -- he's retiring at the end of this year for lots of reasons. But one of the reasons is that he has had cancer that he's been battling with. This was a way to honor him in a way to do so by a very specific organization, the NRA which makes sense to hand him a gun.

But again, we had to get some clarification to understand, why, in fact happened -- Anderson.

COOPER: And how long is CPAC going on for?

BASH: CPAC is going on for three days. This is just beginning this morning. We've already had a couple of -- several high profile speakers -- Ted Cruz spoke, Paul Ryan -- got very well-received by the very, very large group of conservative activists.

The big speaker that we're waiting for that is going to be the one to watch, is in 45 minute, it's going to be Chris Christie because we want to see how he is perceived by conservative activists here.

COOPER: Right. BASH: And especially since he often times rubs them the wrong way.

COOPER: Dana bash, I appreciate it. Thanks very much. Thanks very much everyone for joining me. I'm Anderson Cooper.

"@THIS HOUR" with Berman and Michaela starts now.