Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Biden: Putin "Thought We Would Roll Over, He Was Wrong"; Biden, Putin Give Dueling Speeches As War Nears One-Year Mark; Justices Weigh Limits Of Legal Liability Shield For Big Tech. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired February 21, 2023 - 15:00   ET

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

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: He said Ukraine stands strong in the face of Russian aggression and added that NATO stands united too.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When President Putin ordered his tanks to roll in Ukraine, he thought we would roll over. He was wrong. The Ukrainian people are too brave. America, Europe, a coalition of nations from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we were too unified. Democracy was too strong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: President Biden spoke just hours after his Russian counterpart railed against the West in a blistering and self-justifying address in Moscow. Now much of it echoed Vladimir Putin has passed claims. The Russian President once again accused the west of escalating the conflict and he also announced that Russia is now suspending its participation in the START nuclear arms reduction treaty.

CNN Chief White House Correspondent, Phil Mattingly, is in Warsaw for us. So Phil, tell us about what the US reaction was specifically to the news from Vladimir Putin that he was going to suspend his participation in the new STAR treaty.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Guys, it was quite a split screen moment, not one that was planned. White House officials making clear they plan the President's speech here in Warsaw long before they knew exactly when President Putin was going to be giving his state of the country, state of the nation address. And yet that address frame pretty much everything the President detailed in his lengthy remarks here in Warsaw.

Now when it comes to what the president said - President Putin said about the New START treaty, White House officials were very quick to respond and respond quite negatively in terms of their view that it would be irresponsible, that it would be significantly problematic going forward. But also cautioning that compliance-wise, Russia hasn't necessarily been fully compliant over the course of the last several years and this wasn't necessarily a complete commitment to pull out.

So there's some gray area here, some middle ground here, but it does underscore what has just been the dissolving of U.S. Russia relations over the course of the last really 11 months, certainly even further back than that. And also what U.S. officials have pointed to as the result of that, the result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which was the central point of President Biden's remarks today, which is that perhaps they thought - the Russian president thought that the West was not united that the West was weak, the West wouldn't come together. That has been the opposite of what happened and he just pointed to NATO itself as an example, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: He thought he'd get the Finlization (ph) of NATO, instead he got the NATOzation (ph) of Finland and Sweden. He thought NATO would fracture and divide. Instead, NATO is more united and more unified than ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Guys, the President referenced there to the idea that perhaps the NATO coalition could have been fractured, that certain countries, maybe Eastern bloc countries could have been isolated from that coalition with Russia's use of force. And instead Sweden and Finland who had long been outside that coalition have applied for membership and are in that process.

Just one of the many elements the President pointed to as clear results of the last 11 months to demonstrate the coalition that has stayed together, but also pointing to the fact that the coalition is going to need to stay together in the years ahead.

BLACKWELL: Phil Mattingly for us there in Warsaw, thank you.

CNN Senior National Security Correspondent, Alex Marquardt, is in the Dnipro, Ukraine. How Ukrainians been reacting to not just President Biden's speech, but the speech from President Putin as well?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Victor, as you can imagine, there is - across this country - a full throated rejection of this argument that President Putin has made before that it was not Russia that started this war that it was, in fact, Ukraine and the West that caused it. And Putin said today that he was coming in with force to end it.

That, of course, is not the Ukrainian point of view. There has been a warm reaction to President Biden's speech. We're just hearing from President Zelenskyy. I'm going to read some of his tweet. He thanks President Biden and all of America for their leadership in rallying the world in support of freedom and for their vital assistance to Ukraine.

So Victor and Bianna, today's speech in Warsaw by President Biden was really a continuation of what President Biden said here in Ukraine yesterday when he was in the Capitol. And that was very well-received, reminding the world of the strength and resilience of Ukrainian people of American and Western support for Ukraine and, of course, accusing Putin of crimes against humanity and for starting this war. So that was extremely well received and, of course, he's saying it now with a lot of credibility in the eyes of Ukrainians for having made this historic, unprecedented trip to Ukraine. The first time a U.S. president has visited a warzone where there haven't been U.S. troops on the ground. He spent some 24 hours in Ukraine, crossing the country by train, hours in the capitol before heading back out to Poland.

[15:04:59]

So there's a lot in that speech that resonated both yesterday and today with Ukrainians, perhaps most importantly that Ukraine will prevail in the end, Ukraine must prevail. That is something that we hear from Ukrainians from all walks of life, particularly from the troops, who say that they are fighting for the country's very existence and that's why they will win out.

They constantly cast this battle as a David and Goliath fight, but that the - that they have the edge, because they are fighting for their country's existence.

I think that the only thing that President Biden could have done more would have made - would be to make more of a material offer. He did that yesterday in Kyiv with a $500 million military aid package. But we saw in his conversations with President Zelenskyy that there are still things that Ukraine wants and needs for their fight in - against Russia that the U.S. has not yet been willing to give, namely, longer range missiles and fighter jets.

Ukrainians saying thank you so much for all of your support. We need your continued support, but we need more. So they would have wanted a little bit more, I think from Biden in terms of the commitment of those more sophisticated systems for this second year of this war against Russia, Bianna, Victor?

GOLODRYGA: Yes, there's - there seems to be a cyclical response that we keep hearing and seeing play out, that United States and West offers aid, the Ukrainians say thank you, we want more.

BLACKWELL: The level, yes.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Ultimately, we do deliver more, but they need it right now.

Alex Marquardt, thank you.

BLACKWELL: Let's bring in now William Cohen. He served as Defense Secretary under President Clinton.

Mr. Secretary, good to see you again.

Let's start with Putin's announcement of the suspension of Russia's participation in the New START treaty. These inspections have not happened since the start of the pandemic. In August, Putin announced that he would not allow U.S. inspectors in. Gauge for us the severity of the impact of this announcement then. WILLIAM COHEN, DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it sends a signal to the rest of the world that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is something that the Russians prefer and Chinese prefer. The Iranians are trying to get that capability and North Korea apparently has it.

So that sends a signal to other countries that the way to move forward is build your own nuclear weapons and that's a danger to all of us.

BLACKWELL: You mentioned China, let's talk about China. And the top foreign policy adviser to President Xi is in Moscow meeting with his Russian counterpart, the foreign minister there, Sergey Lavrov. The U.S. State Department believes that China is considering escalating, elevating its support of Russia, including now lethal aid and we heard from the U.N. ambassador, that that would be a red line for the US. If China crosses that red line, then what?

COHEN: Well, I don't like drawing red lines in public while - that we tell our adversaries or potential adversaries behind closed doors, this is something that is very serious to us, there'll be serious consequences. Once you draw the red line in public and then, let's say, the Russians start to come closer and closer to the red line, there'll be pressure on the United States to then enforce it.

I think it's already been done as far as the administration apparently is concerned, but nonetheless, I think this kind of thing should be done on a negotiating table or a person to person meeting between President Biden and President Xi, these kinds of things, I think, we work out.

BLACKWELL: Of course, China has an interest in seeing what the U.S. response will be as they look toward potentially invading Taiwan and President Biden's commitment that the U.S. will stand with and defend Taiwan at a level that it is not defending Ukraine right now. But if the threat is consequences if that red line is - is crossed and that's as specific as the administration is, those are likely sanctions. Is that enough to convince China not to cross it? I mean, can China even be convinced not to cross it?

COHEN: We have to work out a relationship with China. China is a big power economically and growing militarily. And I think that we need to sit down with the Chinese and say, what are the two or three things that we can agree upon in order to lower the tensions, because if it continues to simply go lower and lower, the risk to life on this planet goes higher and higher.

For example, it's not something in the Japanese mindset at this particular point. But if the North Koreans continue to fire ICBMs over their territory, they might be tempted to have the capability of taking them down on their own or they might at some future time considered going nuclear on their own. What would that pose to China or to Russia at that point that certainly would upset the geopolitical calculation. So I think we're at a dangerous point in our in our world history today, we need to find ways to lower the temperature and lower the rhetoric as far as what we're going to do and how we're going to do it. [15:10:11]

That's going to take diplomacy and I'm hoping that President Biden and President Xi meet this year, if at all possible, to try and lower the tension between our two countries.

BLACKWELL: On the last point that Alex made from Dnipro in - the gratitude from the Ukrainians of this additional half billion dollars in assistance, including military hardware, that they, of course, want the F-16s. They want these fighter jets. They want longer range weapons as well.

Do you believe that the Ukrainians have what they need? I'm talking in quantity, quality, style to win, not just to hold off losing or to put up a good fight in what will be a surge in the spring, but to win this war with Russia?

COHEN: Not at this point. They don't have the quantity to be sure. They're getting higher and higher quality capabilities, but they need more. And I believe that they will ultimately get the F-16, they will get the long range missiles that they're looking for.

The notion that the Russians can fire from long distances, whether in the Black Sea or even from Russian territory and then have that as a sanctuary, that is fundamentally unfair where they're shooting and you're on your heels defending but you're not allowed to attack the sources where they're firing from, that's giving sanctuary to the Russians that they don't deserve and shouldn't have.

So I believe that over this period of time, I think the Ukrainians are going to have an opportunity to train on the F-16s and other types of equipment that will require that kind of advanced training and they should.

BLACKWELL: All right. We have not heard that announcement from the Pentagon yet, we'll see if it comes. Secretary Cohen, always good to have you. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: In Kyiv, a day after meeting with President Biden Volodymyr Zelenskyy shook hands with more Americans politicians today. Ukraine's president met with a delegation from the House of Representatives, including Mike McCaul, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. Zelenskyy told the Americans their visit is more important evidence that the United States supports Ukraine.

Well, joining me now is Serhiy Kiral, the Deputy Mayor for Lviv and Western Ukraine.

Deputy Mayor, thank you so much for joining us.

First of all, your reaction to the words that we heard from President Biden today in Poland saying the United States will not tire in its support for Ukraine and the significance of this speech coming one day after he made that surprise visit to Kyiv.

SERHIY KIRAL, DEPUTY MAYOR, LVIV, UKRAINE: Well, it was indeed very inspiring speech, historic. It's a huge impetus and support for all the Ukrainian defenders and all of the Ukrainians, whether in Ukraine or outside Ukraine, but most importantly, also, for the rest of the world, for our allies, as well, that the United States is with Ukraine. It will stand with Ukraine until the end.

And also, one important comment that he made is the war crimes. The acknowledgment of the war crimes that Russia is committing. We heard that also from Vice President Kamala Harris during the Munich Security Conference.

And why this is significant is that probably that gives a very - a clear message to Kremlin, that there is no way for any ceasefire or peace talks, except for the whole victory and the accountability that will follow after that.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, we also heard a less than inspiring speech today from Russian President Vladimir Putin who seem to repeat some of his common phrases that he's been using and descriptions over the past few years and that Russia is the one that's being on the defense here and oppressed and that the West instigated this and all that he's saying is Russia is trying to liberate Ukraine.

I want to get your response to how he described the current Ukrainian government and he called your government a Western hostage, and that you were working in the interests of Western governments, in particular the United States, as opposed to the interests of Ukrainians. Can you address that and respond?

KIRAL: Well, in Ukraine for many months, if not years, what has - what is being said out of Putin's mouth or out of Moscow is not really taken seriously. Russia has never followed their promises. And if you follow the social media and responses, the discussions we have here in Ukraine, it's mainly ridiculed. There was nothing interesting, it was very boring, nothing new, no new senses that we haven't heard before.

[15:15:07]

All that is very known. Some even call it a KKK speech for the number of cartoons that Putin is known to be making. And honestly speaking, what else - what's new he could have said in that speech, Russia is losing. I mean, they are definitely knowing that and we shouldn't focus on - even on discussing this.

What we should focus on is what Secretary Cohen was saying before that - is that all the world has to be - continue united in solidarity with Ukraine, and provide Ukraine with the weapons and all the support we need to win this war and win it sooner than later to save more lives and save - and have less damages and casualties.

GOLODRYGA: National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan described the meeting yesterday between President Biden and President Zelenskyy as a quote, seeking common understanding of what the objectives are for Ukraine going forward. What are the objectives of the Ukrainian government at this point in the war? Is it to go back to the borders of February 24th of last year or is it to go back to the 1991 borders for Ukraine?

KIRAL: It has been made clear by Ukrainian president on many occasions and there is a consensus now and we're happy to see that consensus, also among - over 50 members of the solidarity group and allies behind the Ukraine. And this is - these are the countries that control two thirds of the global GDP that only the return to the 1991 borders will signify the victory and also the road to peace.

This is a well known and well publicized so called peace formula presented by the Ukrainian president a few months ago, which has now supported the majority by the world leaders.

GOLODRYGA: Finally, let me ask you, as we're hearing reports that U.S. intelligence has picked up that China is contemplating providing Russia with lethal weapons. China was a trading partner with Ukraine as well. It claims that it has a neutral stance with this war. What is your message to Beijing as they are potentially contemplating providing weapons to Russia?

KIRAL: Well, my message to the Beijing would be to continue to be Beijing, to be China as it has been for thousands of years. China should stay and mind their own business and national interests and continue to promote peace and security throughout the world, at least the narrative they've been speaking out for many years.

They should be staying out of this potential support to Russia. I think the American side and many other countries have already made clear to China - which let's be clear, I mean, it's very dependent on trade and relationships with the European Union countries and the United States in terms of business and economic development. That any escalation like supplying lethal weapons to Russia will lead to crossing the red lines and really unpredictable consequences for the Chinese economy and the Chinese future.

GOLODRYGA: All right, Deputy Mayor Serhiy Kiral, thank you for your time.

BLACKWELL: Big tech and national security details on the case between Google and the family of an ISIS victim that's made its way to the Supreme Court.

GOLODRYGA: And in the double murder trial in South Carolina, the defense called Alex Murdaugh's only surviving son to the stand. His testimony just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:03]

BLACKWELL: Right now the Supreme Court is hearing a case that could have a major impact on the future of the internet. The family of the only American killed in the Paris terror attack in 2015 is suing Google. They're arguing the company promotes and profits from extremist content posted on YouTube, a decision against Google would have sweeping implications on the liability shields that have so far protected big tech platforms from lawsuits. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT: These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. And I don't have to accept all Ms. Black's, the sky is falling stuff, to accept something about, boy there is a lot of uncertainty about going the way, you would have us go. In part just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area. And just because of the fact that once we go with you, all of a sudden we are finding that Google isn't protected. And maybe Congress shouldn't want that system. But isn't that something for Congress to do, not the court?"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: I think that's a question we hear consistently now out of this core.

BLACKWELL: Mm-hm.

GOLODRYGA: Joan Biskupic is a CNN Supreme Court Analyst and Brian Fung is a CNN Reporter.

Joan, to you first. You sat in on today's oral arguments, what is your sense of how justices are approaching this case?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, good afternoon, Bianna and Victor. I have to say you plucked out one of the rare moments of levity during the nearly three hour session. The frustration in the room was actually palpable.

The justices have taken this case to figure out if there should be new legal liability for places like Google and YouTube and other social media companies for essentially third party content. But things that are like ranked and recommended by those sites.

[15:25:00]

And they ran up against a wall of - just a lot of confusion. They said they were seeking more clarity on where to draw lines and a fundamental question, just as you said Bianna is, shouldn't this be something for Congress, for policymakers, rather than for the justices. And if they rule broadly here, could it open the door for more lawsuits.

The case involves section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that says that no provider of interactive computer services should be considered a publisher. And the question is, if they start to have new liability, how far will that go.

I should say, there's a part two coming, a sequel tomorrow, where Twitter will be before the justices and that case will test an anti- terrorism act and the question will be whether some terrorism videos would be - that we're on Twitter and other sites, whether those terrorism videos would give liability under this anti-terrorism act.

Now, one thing I should say if the justices find that, that anti terrorism law doesn't apply, and that covers sites that would - they have knowingly aided and abetted terrorist groups, it could affect today's case and the justices might not go toward looking at any kind of change in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

BLACKWELL: Joan, it's interesting. You highlight the soundbite that we picked. It was bookended ...

BISKUPIC: Yes.

BLACKWELL: ... with something - I think is pretty interesting. She - Justice Kagan started with saying that the justices aren't the experts in the internet and said isn't this something Congress should do on the back end of it. But we've seen several times over the years, that members of Congress aren't the greatest experts either on the internet asking how do you make money or (inaudible), so there's a bit of a discrepancy and a deficit, I should say, there as well.

Let me come to you, Brian. The concerns that the big tech companies have about this lawsuit, if the justices agree with the plaintiffs, what are they?

BRIAN FUNG, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes. Well, Victor and Brianna, there are really two issues here at play. One is, as Joan mentioned, the potential increase in lawsuits targeting the tech industry, the tech industry has said even if many of these lawsuits are thrown out, just the expense of having to fight them constantly, and many of them could be brought in bad faith could potentially sink many in the tech industry.

The second issue here is how does - how do these lawsuits change the way that tech companies evade liability or avoid liability by changing the way that they moderate their platforms. And that could mean if things as simple as up votes or down votes or comments or likes and retweets are considered recommendations, that could mean real changes to the way that users experience these websites.

And by the way, it's not just big tech that stands to be affected by this. You had Justice Amy Klobuchar asking really good questions about repeatedly throughout this three-hour long oral argument about how these changes if they go into effect or if the court decides to make these changes, how they could change the liability for individual internet users.

Could I, as an internet user, be open to lawsuits if I hit like or retweet on a tweet? And the attorney for the Gonzalez family acknowledged that, yes, in his view, in his interpretation of section 230, that is what could happen, that internet users, individuals could face liability for sharing other people's content, Victor and Bianna.

BLACKWELL: Yes. So there could be a lot on the line, not just for the companies, but for the people who use these sites. Brian Fung, Joan Biskupic, thank you.

BISKUPIC: Thanks.

GOLODRYGA: Well, an elderly woman in Florida was killed by an 11 foot gator. So how did this happen? We'll tell you ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)