Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pentagon News Conference as Tensions Rise over Russia & Ukraine; Ukraine-Russia Crisis: What Does Everyone Want?; "Traffic Stop, Dangerous Encounters," Airs 9:00 P.M. Sunday Night. Aired 1:30- 2p ET

Aired January 28, 2022 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

GEN. AUSTIN LLOYD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: OK. Let me stick with the phone here and I think Nancy Yousuf is out there Nancy?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you, sir.

I have a question for each of you.

Mr. Secretary, this week we heard about military commitments from Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain, among others, to defend the alliance.

I'd like to talk about one decision, in particular, and that's Canada's decision to keep as many as 400 trainers in Ukraine. The U.S. has half that amount now.

Would the U.S. consider sending more trainers or advisers or does it believe there are enough there to deter Russian aggression?

And, Chairman Milley, do you believe that the Ukrainian armed forces have taken all the necessary steps to defend against a large-scale Russian invasion?

Or do you fear in their push to not provoke panic the Ukrainian government has not done enough.

Thank you.

AUSTIN: Thanks, Nancy.

Let me, at the top, thank Canada and our other allies for what they continue to do alongside us to support the Ukraine. I applaud their efforts.

And certainly we have had advisers and trainers there since 2014 as the chairman indicated earlier.

And we remain focused on providing all of the assistance in terms of training and advising that Ukraine feels it needs. And we work that issue with them on a consistent basis.

I would also say that it's all -- it's less about the specific number, but about more about the capability that you bring and what you're focusing on.

In some cases, it may take several more types of trainers to do -- to train on a specific event or skill. In other cases, less so.

So rest assured that we are in constant communication with Canada and the U.K. and everyone that's providing assistance to Ukraine at this point in time.

GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, U.S. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: And for me, I'm not going to comment on the composition and disposition of the readiness of the Ukraine forces in any kind of detail. I don't think that would be appropriate for me to do that given the current situation.

AUSTIN: Barb?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: A question for both of you.

Mr. Secretary, you've talked a bit here today about U.S. troops providing reassurance and deterrence to the eastern flank of Europe.

Can you help people understand a little bit more about what that means in terms of what U.S. troops would be doing to fulfill that mission?

How do you know when you're done? You don't send troops unless you have an exit strategy.

What would it take for you to ever trust Vladimir Putin?

And, General Milley, you laid out some pretty dire scenarios if the Russians decided to make that full move.

Could you explain a little bit more? You mentioned, for example, the capital, Kyiv. How disastrous could it be in your assessment?

Are you looking at massive civilian casualties? Are you looking at massive refugee flows? The impact on the security of Europe that has existed for so many decades if the scenario you're laying out were to come true?

Thank you, both.

AUSTIN: In terms of our reassurance efforts, Barb, as you know, we have had a number of forces in the region, training with the Eastern European countries.

Those forces -- and that's been going on for quite some time. And those forces provide great value. Just their presence reassures our partners there that we are interested in them, interested in helping them.

The types of things we do with them routinely is train with them and enable them and really increase their level of readiness.

And so that's been very helpful to them. And it has strengthened our bonds with our allies and partners in the region. These are temporary deployments. And so, again, we will continue to

sort this out as we go forward.

But again, we are focused on NATO. We're focused on reassuring our allies and that's what this is all about.

In terms of trusting Putin, I don't think this is about trusting Putin. This is about our allies trusting us. And so that's really what we're focused on.

And we, you know, Mr. Putin, at some point in time, will reveal what he's thinking. But again, I'm not sure that he's made final decisions on what he's going to do yet.

[13:35:02]

MILLEY: And, Barbara, let me first say that, as the secretary said up front, right now, we don't think final decisions have been made to conduct any sort of offensive operation into Ukraine by the Russians.

And we firmly believe there's still room for diplomatic outcome here.

Having said that, given the type of forces that are arrayed, the ground maneuver forces, artillery, ballistic missiles, air forces, all of it packaged together, if that was unleashed on Ukraine, it would be significant, very significant.

And it would result in a significant amount of casualties. And you can imagine what that might look like in dense urban areas along roads and so on and so forth.

It would be horrific. It would be terrible. It's not necessary.

And we think a diplomatic outcome is the way to go here.

STARR: If I can very quickly follow up. Can you -- do you have a view? Can you -- either of you.

Can you keep U.S. forces from having to deal with Russian forces directly if you are reinforcing Eastern Europe, for example? Will U.S. forces potentially be in missions against Russian forces? Can you keep them away from Russian forces?

AUSTIN: Again, our presence there helps to reassure our partners on the -- in the frontline countries there.

And you know, Barb, that we have an Article 5 commitment to our NATO partners. And so if an -- if Putin were to attack one of those countries, then, of course, that commitment -- that's an ironclad commitment.

The president has said a number of times that we will live up to that commitment.

And so -- but again, our focus is not on fighting in Ukraine. It's on reassuring our NATO partners and allies. MILLEY: Sir, we've got time for just one more. One more, sir.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLEY: Time for one more.

AUSTIN: Yes, yes.

So let's go to Louis from ABC.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Hi, sir.

Thank you to both of you for doing this briefing today.

I would like to go back to something that Lita asked at the top and the way you framed the response about provocations and how they are perceived by Russia.

Typically, you do not disclose prepare to deploy orders, particularly when you are talking about large numbers of forces, like the 8,500 that you put out this week.

What was the calculus in doing that? Are you sending a message to Russia?

And is it possible that the way they see that, they may see that themselves as a provocation?

AUSTIN: Again, our focus is on making sure that we're ready to look to live up to our commitment to NATO, should the NATO response force be activated by NATO.

This -- putting our forces on a shorter string enables us to get there in a shorter period of time. And again, I think that provides reassurance to NATO that we're ready to live up to our commitments.

In terms of what Putin thinks and the way he feels about things, again, it's hard to predict. We take those kinds of things into consideration.

But again, if you look at the forces that he has moved into the region that he continues to move into the region, you know, there was no provocation that caused him to move those forces.

So, you know, we'll continue to listen to what he says and watch what he does.

Chairman?

MILLEY: Yes, I would echo all of that with respect to the forces, you know, for 20 years, Iraq, Afghanistan, we've announced when forces are rotating, et cetera.

We attempt to be transparent with you and the American people on the use and deployment of military forces. We alerted, based on the direction from the president and secretary of

defense. We increased the readiness status of these forces so the forces themselves have been told.

And we think it's a better -- from a transparency standpoint, better to inform you, the media, the American people and Congress of the forces that are out there that are being alerted.

In addition to that, the piece about, you know, assuring and deterring with respect to our NATO allies.

We think it's important to be transparent to you and the American people about what we're doing with you and your military.

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Thank you all. We have to get going.

Thank you so much, gentlemen?

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You've been listening to the U.S. top military advisers, the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs chairman there, discussing the growing crisis between Ukraine and Russia.

And the U.S. role in all of this. Still pushing for a diplomatic solution here.

[13:40:05]

I want to bring back our analysts and reporters.

Let's start with former NATO supreme allied commander, General Wesley Clark.

General, your biggest takeaway?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I think the big push is allied unity, reassuring our allies. Not being provocative. Seeking a diplomatic solution.

I thought the -- Secretary Austin and Secretary Milley said it very well. And they reinforced it again and again.

And the point of what Secretary Austin was leading to is this is not provocative. When you put your troops on alert.

Mr. Putin knows exactly what this is about. He knows clearly those troops are not there to go to fight inside Ukraine or go against Russia. They are there for the reassurance and defense of our allies should that be necessary.

I thought it was a very clear press conference.

CABRERA: Clearly, they were talking to the American people but it also seemed like they were talking almost directly to Putin himself.

Director Clapper, we heard the secretary of defense saying Putin can choose to de-escalate.

He can order troops away. He can choose dialogue and diplomacy and whatever he chooses, the U.S. will be right there with its allies and partners.

Do you think this will convince Putin to stand down?

JAMES CLAPPER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, probably not. But I do think that this was very important session.

And I'll just offer a style comment. I thought Secretary Austin was exhibiting the best characteristics of -- in terms of his command presence.

And I think both from a style and substance standpoint, General Clark, I think, hit the main themes.

It was very important messaging here. To Putin, to our European allies and to the American people. And I thought they were successful on all three counts.

As an Intel guy, I have to comment about the range of options available to Putin. And this is the great illustration of the Holy Grail for intelligence, which is determining plans and intentions.

And we really don't know what Putin's intentions are. I am in the school that says I don't think he's made up his mind yet.

And he, from his standpoint, has accomplished a lot in terms of just garnering attention, global attention to what he feels is his plight and characterizing himself and Russia as victims.

And I would just foot stomp something General Clark said, which is a really strong affirmation of Article 5 of the NATO charter, which, an attack against one is an attack against all.

And I thought that was a really important statement for the secretary and the chairman to affirm.

CABRERA: He is getting more attention right now. That is Putin.

But in terms of his calculations, General Clark, so far, Putin's actions have actually sparked a boost in NATO troops and arms in Russia's backyard.

He's basically provided justification for NATO to expand further, should it desire so. Isn't that his worst nightmare? Did Putin overplay his hand?

CLARK: It absolutely is. His worst nightmare is NATO stays united and the countries there continue to seek NATO protection and then NATO has to give them more forces and more support.

All of the NATO enlargement began in the 1990s simply for one reason. It wasn't NATO's idea. NATO's idea was not to enlarge.

These countries came to NATO and begged to be given the protection from Russia.

As the foreign minister of Bulgaria said to me in the 1990s, she said Russia today is weak but some day it will be strong. Before then, Bulgaria must be a member of NATO.

That was the sentiment all the way through Eastern Europe. They knew what the Russians would come back and they want rush -- Russia wants its Eastern European empire back.

That's what this is really about.

CABRERA: General, it was chilling to hear General Milley say the Ukrainian people will suffer immensely if war breaks out. What could war look like?

CLARK: As we all know, there are a number of options. And I think just to make a prediction -- obviously, General Clapper has great insights on this.

But if I were in Putin's position, I'd be looking to sneak in through assassination, subversion, fall of the government, riots in Kyiv, confusion, obfuscation so that there would not be an effective defense.

[13:45:02]

So the first word we might get in the West is there's some big demonstration in Kyiv and they've stormed the parliament and then everybody said, well, who was that?

And then the Russians would be saying, well, we don't need America? And the Ukrainian people, they don't like the idea of joining NATO, so it would get all bollocksed up and confused in the public's mind.

That's the way Putin would prefer to do it. There have been a couple of efforts in that direction so far. Nothing has taken off.

I think the Ukrainian people are dead set against being a part of the Russian empire and they will fight.

And if that's the case, then ultimately, if Putin feels it's -- this is the best time for him to act, he does have the military wherewithal to execute shock and awe.

He could use his long-range rockets, missiles, air campaign, take out a lot of the Ukrainian assets just like that.

Just as we have done. He's watched us. He knows it. He has got about the same technology now. So maybe he wants to do that.

The demands he put forward are demands that he knew NATO would never agree with. So maybe all along he's been looking for pretext to fight.

But it's important that we keep open the opportunity and the effort to reach a diplomatic solution. We do not want conflict in Europe. CABRERA: We heard Secretary Milley, General Milley that is, talk

about, it feels different this time when it comes to what he's seeing in terms of troop movement, the number of troops amassed at the Russian border.

Said you have to go back to the Cold War for something like this.

Director Clapper, when it comes to a potential war of some sort, do you think Putin would move in a traditional war direction or would he perhaps do something different as we just heard General Clark describe?

CLAPPER: Well, I don't know, but I am speculating now that maybe -- wishful thinking, but I really don't think he's going to mount an all- out assault into try to capture Ukraine.

Because I think he'd be in a situation there of the dog catching the car.

And 100,000 troops seems like a lot. But in a -- against a country the size of Ukraine with 44 million people.

My conviction is -- and I think General Clark would agree -- that the Ukrainians will resist. So this could be very brutal for the Ukrainians, no question about it. No question about it.

But it could also be brutal for the Russians. And one thing that Putin can't afford is a steady stream of body bags going back to Mother Russia.

CABRERA: Sam Kiley is --

(CROSSTALK)

CLAPPER: I think General Clark is right. The more likely options are a lesser set of sanctions than an all-out invasion.

So-called gray war, information operations, psychological operations, cyber operations. Not unlike what they've already done. And I would see more of that.

Perhaps to try to solidify their grip on the Donbas region and the two states that are now nominally Russian controlled, although there's been a latent war there that costs 14,000 people since 2014.

CABRERA: Yes.

I do want to ask Sam Kiley, who is there in Ukraine right now, would the Ukrainian military be ready for an invasion?

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, dealing with --

(CROSSTALK)

KILEY: -- they said they are ready. They are conducting operations as we speak.

There's a -- the hot war, it's a low intensity war, but there's a war going on in the Donbas. There's supposedly a cease-fire signed in 2020 but recognized largely in mostly cyber exchanges.

But as President Zelensky said, earlier today in his press conference, when there are visitors and when international dignitaries come here, he likes to take them down there because you can often hear the gunshots, hear the hot war going on.

In terms of the hybrid warfare, the two generals were referring to, who were speaking ahead of me, that's exactly what's going on.

As they rightly pointed out, this is something that is already affecting the Ukrainians. Particularly in terms of the economy.

They've been complaining about the United States talking in the sort of terms we've just heard again from Secretary Austin and General Milley about the imminence, the scale, the potential loss of life if there was a conflict here.

Because that is already having an economic effect on Ukraine. And that plays into the gray, the hybrid warfare type of operation Russians would want to conduct.

Relatively low investment. They already have a pretty profound effect on the Ukrainian economy.

[13:50:03]

I have to say, here on the streets, though, people are pretty sanguine about it.

That is because, as they readily point out, if you ask them on the streets, they already have a bit of a war on. And if there's more coming, they are prepared to fight.

CABRERA: Oren, the energy factor, a lot of European nations we know rely on Russian gas. How is that impacting the dynamic here?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well it is certainly one of the considerations in what happens to Nord Stream II is part of the consideration here.

But I want to focus on two aspects in particular. One, we've touched on and that is how horrible, in his words, horrific and terrible an all-out invasion or all-out attack by Russian forces on Ukraine would be if that chooses to happen, or if Putin chooses to make that happen.

Not only in the perspective of civilian casualties, but then that leads to a wave of refugees coming out of Ukraine and heading west into the E.U.

That causes its own problems for Europe. That, too, could be a consideration for Putin as a weapon. But one of the key questions going in here, and we heard both Austin

and Milley address this quickly, that was the question of would there be a imminent deployment or has there been a call up or an activation of either 8,500 troops in the U.S. or troop movement in Europe in response to Russia.

That question was answered fairly quickly. That hasn't happened yet.

But both made it clear that option, that consideration remains something that is being discussed, whether to do that as -- in response to the activation of the NATO response force, or whether to do it unilaterally.

It comes with its own delicate balance here. You have to put if troops that would not be considered a provocation by Putin, an excuse, if you will, for him to invade Ukraine.

At the same time, those troops have to do what Austin made it very clear the U.S. intends to do, and that is support NATO allies and let them know the U.S. is there and ready to bolster the eastern -- allies on the eastern flank of NATO.

CABRERA: OK, Oren, Sam, General Clark, Director James Clapper, thank you all so much for being with us.

I want to bring in CNN's Tom Foreman. He's at the Magic Wall because there are several countries involved here.

Tom, help us understand all of the different players and what everyone wants?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If you take everything that we've heard since the press conference began, Ana, you come down to a situation where it is complicated.

Because Ukraine is caught between a lot of competing forces and everybody wants something different.

What is does Ukraine want. They want to maintain their independence. They would like to maintain U.S. and European support.

And as we just heard pointed out there, they're not sure Russia will actually attack.

So they would like everyone to tamp down the language a little bit because, if they are on a knife edge, they don't want to tip toward the direction that would make this even tougher.

What does Russia want out of this? This is a different equation entirely.

Because when you look at Vladimir Putin, what he wants to do is keep Ukraine out of NATO. And he wants to restore Soviet territory, Soviet territory.

Look at the map from back in that time. Remember, 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up, at that time, the Soviet Union had a lot of territory, including Ukraine.

Part of what was important about all of that was that it helped keep a lot of the territory, the different satellites. It was a buffer between the West and Russia.

As the buffer has crumbled, and those nations have been independent, Russia hasn't liked it. It has allowed them to feel or claim that the U.S. and allies are right sitting on the border of Russia.

They don't like that. They think that an invasion is imminent of Russia. At least that's what they say to their own people. And they say we have to mass on the border because look at what the West is doing to us.

Plus, Putin will always say, look, there's a long historic tie, and these are our people, we really are their people, even though many Ukrainians say that is not the case.

So we look at some of the other players in here. Germany, one of the big players that could be involved. They're -- excuse me -- I skipped past the U.S.

What does the U.S. want? To keep Russia out of Ukraine.

They have no promise -- their making no promise to Russia that they will keep Ukraine from joining NATO.

And remember, if that happens, that further bolsters a notion that the NATO nations will defend Ukraine at all times.

And here is that warning that an attack is imminent, for all of the reasons that we heard from the general there and the former director, from Sam and from Oren as well.

So you already see all of the different factors come into play here.

And then you look at countries like Germany. Germany is saying, look, we don't want to give lethal aid to Ukraine. We don't think Ukraine should be ready to go to war.

Why? Big reliance on Russian gas. And Germany has a lot of long history going back to World War II and beyond in dealings with Russia. So it is hesitant, hesitant to move toward a war standing.

[13:55:04]

And then you go pass them to France, another big player out there. They're seeking diplomacy with Russia, kind of straddling the fence. But warning a retaliation for an invasion as well.

The bottom line is, this is the kind of thing that people worry about, Ana, when you have military forces sitting on the knife edge and a whole lot of different players with a whole lot of different interests.

It may not take much for any one of them to push it beyond the edge. And then you have much more serious problem.

CABRERA: Tom Foreman, thank you.

FOREMAN: Thank you.

CABRERA: So helpful to lay it all out and see it on the map as well.

Back here in the U.S., now you've probably the term, driving while black. Well, a study by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, found that black drivers are twice as likely as white drivers to be pulled over.

And our senior national correspondent, Sara Sidner, examines how African-American drivers, stopped for even minor offenses, can end up in jail and in debt.

It's part of a CNN special report, "TRAFFIC STOP, DANGEROUS ENCOUNTERS."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How many times have you been stopped?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm in St. Louis. I don't keep count of that.

SIDNER: Five? 10?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Keep going. Ten was the minimum number of times I've been locked up. So take that and double it. I've been stopped no less than 20 times.

SIDNER (voice-over): Locked up for failing to pay traffic tickets. For things like not having her car registered, not having insurance or driving with a revoked license.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I had two kids in private school, single parent making, $32,000 a year so if you have to pay tuition and couldn't pay my traffic tickets, I paid tuition. And if I had to pay the rent, I paid the rent.

SIDNER (on camera): So let me make sure I have this straight. So you get a ticket for not having your registration done. Then what happens.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you don't have the money to pay. You go to court, they tell you court cost and tickets plus fees. You now owe $300.

Do you have $20 to pay today? No. All right. Put you on a payment plan. Everyone comes see us and pay this by of the 21st. If not, we issue a warrant by the 22nd. Make your payments on time.

SIDNER: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So say you don't make that payment. You get a warrant. So what do you do? If you have the resources, you could pay. But most people don't have the resources so you just run. And catch me if you can.

SIDNER: How many warrants did you rack up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At one point, I was wanted in 11 different municipalities.

SIDNER: Eleven different municipalities. How did you live with that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Carefully. With humor. Or on a prayer.

SIDNER (voice-over): And if you were on the roads, it seems nearly impossible not to get caught.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So if you got picked up by my municipality in St. Louis, once they picked you up, they also ran your name through the some of them.

If you were wanted somewhere else, you did not go home. You went to those places first for arrangements before you could go home.

I had parental support. I had someone to go and check on how much I owed in each municipality. I had someone that I could borrow money from to pay to help me get out of jail.

Other people sitting right next to me and got their list of folks and places to go and have to wait it out because they have no other options of how they could get home.

SIDNER (on camera): How much money you have paid in fines and fees?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Over $10,000.

SIDNER: Ten thousand dollars?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Over.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: So Sara Sidner is joining us, live.

This is so eye-opening. Sara, you focused on personal stories that shed light on the deeper broader issue.

What is the biggest eye opener for you to put this documentary together?

SIDNER: I think it is the fact that, looking at what the research shows and talking to the researchers who looked 20 million traffic stops in places like North Carolina, that black drivers are four times as likely to be searched.

But when they look at whether or not they are getting contraband from the drivers that they search, they're finding that actually in many, many cases, it is far less contraband that the get from the black drivers who they search far more than white driver and more contraband from white drivers. So that one really surprised me. I thought, something probably needs

to change here.

And there are police chiefs, who we talked to in this documentary, who say, yes, there's reform that is needed and they are already doing some reforms.

So we were able to talk to police chiefs and some police officers about what it is like on the streets and what they think works very well that they've been using for a while.

A lot more. We talked to a lot more people in this documentary and it is eye-opening. Ana, thanks.

CABRERA: Obviously, so complex.

[13:59:55]

Sara Sidner, you are always amazing in your reporting and the work you do. Thank you for giving us a glimpse of your special report.

I hope everybody tunes in. It is called "TRAFFIC STOP, DANGEROUS ENCOUNTERS." It airs this Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, here on CNN.