Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Biden Approves Ukraine To Use Long-Range Missiles. Trump Picks Tulsi Gabbard For National Intelligence; Trump Wants Matt Gaetz As Attorney General; Israel Strike Kills Hezbollah Media Chief Amid Ceasefire Efforts; Trump Allies Push For Loyalist Kash Patel To Lead FBI; American Pilots Shoot Down About 70 Missiles And Drones. Aired 5- 6p ET

Aired November 17, 2024 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

ELISA RAFFA, CNN METEOROLOGIST: So, you can see, that puts the Arctic circle in darkness and again, there it is for the next 66 days.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Oh my gosh. It's so fascinating. All right, Elisa Raffa, thank you so much. And thank you so much for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. The "CNN Newsroom" continues with Jessica Dean right now.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: You're in the "CNN Newsroom." I'm Jessica Dean in New York. And we begin this hour with breaking news. President Biden making a major policy shift in the use of U.S. weapons in Russia's war on Ukraine. After many months of discussions, Biden now giving the green light for Ukraine to use long range U.S. weapons inside Russia. It's not yet clear exactly the impact this will have on the battlefield.

A U.S. official telling CNN the weapons are intended to be used primarily to strike targets in Russia's Kursk region for now. Of course, that's where Ukraine made those surprise gains on Russian territory over the summer. Now, we're following all angles of this tonight. Let's go first to CNN Senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak, who is joining us from Rio where the G7 summit is being held. And Kevin, what more can you tell us about how Biden finally arrived at this decision?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and this decision was a long time coming for President Biden. He had been under pressure from the Ukrainian president, Zelenskyy, in addition to a number of NATO allies who essentially said that without this capability, Ukraine had its hands tied behind its back as it works to battle against Russian aggression.

American officials say this does come at an inflection point in the war, as Russia masses tens of thousands of troops in that northern Kursk region, as it works to claw back some territory, it has been supplemented by thousands of North Korean soldiers and that has led to a great deal of alarm in Washington. Of course, you can also separate this from the fact that Donald Trump is coming into the White House in two months' time. He has obviously taken a very different approach to the war in Ukraine than President Biden.

He says that he could resolve the conflict in a day. He hasn't said how, but certainly the implication is that would require some territorial concessions on the part of Ukraine, which is something that Zelenskyy up until this point has been unwilling to do. Now we did just hear from the Ukrainian president responding to this decision. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (through translation): The plan to strengthen Ukraine is the victory plan I had presented to partners. Long-range possibilities for our army is one of its major points. Today there is a lot of talk in the media about us receiving a permit for respective actions. Hits are not made with words. Such things don't need announcements. Missiles will speak for themselves, for sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So essentially saying there that Ukraine's actions with these ATACMS missiles will speak for themselves. Now this decision had been subject to an internal debate inside the Biden administration. There were some who thought that this could be an escalatory move, could provoke the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

There were also some current concerns from the Pentagon that the stockpiles of these ATACMS missiles just aren't very big and these resources at the end of the day are not unlimited. I think when you talk to officials, they did see the North Korean deployments into Ukraine as something of a tipping point. And President Biden certainly wants to send a signal to the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, that he sends his troops into Ukraine at their own peril, Jessica.

DEAN: All right, Kevin Liptak reporting from Rio de Janeiro tonight. Thank you so much for that. President Biden's decision coming, as Kevin just mentioned. Russia deploys nearly 50,000 troops, including North Korean troops, to Russia's Kursk region, where Kyiv launched its surprise counteroffensive this summer. Our Fred Pleitgen is joining us now from Moscow. And Fred, any response yet from the Kremlin on this?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jessica. Well, I've actually been in touch with a spokeswoman from the Russian Foreign Ministry and she told me, look, Vladimir Putin already responded to all of this three weeks ago, where Vladimir Putin did indeed lay out what Russia's change in strategy would be if exactly what was to happen, what happened now with the U.S. giving the go ahead for the Ukrainians to be allowed to use those longer distance weapons to strike deep into Russian territory.

And essentially what Vladimir Putin there said at the time is that that, as far as the Russians are concerned, would be a major escalation. They feel that if the Ukrainians use these U.S.-made weapons or U.S.-provided weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, that that essentially would be an attack from NATO or the United States directly against Russia. [17:04:58]

Vladimir Putin back then told a reporter that he believes that these weapons cannot be used, cannot be utilized without the help of NATO specialists or U.S. specialists to help make sure that those weapons get in on target. And so therefore, the Russians are saying that this would be direct involvement by the U.S. or other NATO countries, because of course there are others who are also providing long distance weapons to the Ukrainians as well, that this would be a direct attack by them against Russia and would be considered as such.

And just to give you an indication, Jessica, to what extent the Russians have been trying to dissuade the Biden administration from making exactly the decision that it has now made, Russia even changed its fundamental nuclear doctrine, apparently, very much apparently, exactly for a scenario like this where the new thing in that doctrine is that if Russia gets attacked by a non-nuclear country, like for instance, Ukraine, with long-distance weapons, with the help of a nuclear country, like for instance, the United States, that this could trigger the Russians to use nuclear weapons on their part. So clearly the Russians have tried to dissuade the Biden administration from this and consider this a big escalation, Jessica.

DEAN: Yeah. And Fred, just before I let you go, how likely is this development will accelerate Russia's expected operation to attempt to retake the Kursk region?

PLEITGEN: Well, you know, I think that's something that is actually very much in full swing already. And one of the things that we're sort of hearing here and there here in Russia is that they believe that an operation to really retake that Kursk region could happen very quickly. The Russians, of course, have not given indications, like for instance, the U.S. has, how many Russian troops are actually on the ground there in the Kursk region. But of course, the U.S. believes its upward of 50,000, also with thousands of North Korean forces there as well.

There is the belief here that operation will start very quickly. It's unclear whether or not it's days or weeks away. But of course, the Russians for their part have also said that while the Kursk region is extremely important to them, they still believe that the main area for them where they really want to gain territory is in the east of Ukraine around in the Pokrovsk region, and Vladimir Putin has said that that's his main priority.

Nevertheless, of course, with the U.S. now allowing the Ukrainians to use those weapons, it could indeed accelerate the Russian plans to what extent is unclear as the Russians really already seem almost in a position to launch that campaign to try and reach Kursk today -- retake the Kursk region imminently. Jessica.

DEAN: All right. Fred Pleitgen in Moscow for us tonight. Thank you very much for that reporting. And joining us now former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and President Trump's longest-serving national security adviser John Bolton. Mr. Ambassador, thanks so much for being here with us. I just first want to ask you about the breaking news that we've been reporting on. President Biden approving Ukraine's use of these long-range U.S. weapons inside of Russia. What do you think about that move?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, it's the right decision. I'm just worried it's too little too late. This should have happened two years ago, and it's emblematic of the sad reality that although the United States wasn't able to deter the Russian invasion for this two and a half years, Russia has largely deterred the United States and NATO from providing adequate assistance to Ukraine on a strategic basis.

It's been one long public debate after another going back to shall we supply ATACMS to the Ukrainians at all. First, it's no then there's a debate then there's yes. Should we supply the Ukrainians Abrams tanks? First, it's no then there's a long debate then it's yes. Should we supply the Ukrainians with F-16s? First, it's no then there's a long debate and it's yes. Now, can we allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS inside Russia? After a long debate, now it's yes.

But it's two months until Donald Trump is inaugurated and I think there's little doubt what's going to happen here. Aid to Ukraine is most likely to diminish significantly and it's I think the failure of the past two and a half years to supply weapons systems on a strategic basis, it's a major contributing factor to the military gridlock we see now.

DEAN: Yeah, the timing of all of this is pretty specific. And as our Kevin Liptak was reporting it, really, he says in the eyes of U.S. officials comes at what they're thinking of as an inflection point.

BOLTON: Well, the inflection point was the American election. There could have been an inflection point two years ago if the Biden administration, after completely bumbling the initial Russian attack. Remember, the intelligence assessment or the political conclusion about the intelligence was -- and brief to Congress, brief to Congress days after the Russian attack that Kyiv would fall in a matter of days and the whole country would fall in a matter of weeks.

That was one argument that persuaded the Biden administration not to put more weapons assistance into Ukraine even before the Russian invasion in February of 2022.

DEAN: And I want to ask your opinion. Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously warned that allowing Ukraine to use these long-range weapons inside Russia would mean the NATO allies are directly at war with Russia and that, quote, "appropriate decisions would be made to those threats."

[17:10:07]

We just heard Fred Pleitgen's reporting there about how they've changed the wording around their nuclear rules. Are you concerned about that piece of it?

BOLTON: Now there are two aspects to this. Number one, this threat of a wider war, that's the phrase we've heard day after day after day in the last two and a half years from the Biden administration, could be conventional, could be nuclear. If it's a conventional threat, where's the Russian army that's going to provoke this wider war? And by the way, if it's so good and so extensive, why isn't it fighting in Ukraine in the first place given the miserable performance of Russian combat arms so far?

And as to the nuclear threat, look, that change in Russian doctrine it was insignificant. We have never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons if we need to and basically that's all they're saying. We have testimony from the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies in public sessions that despite multiple rattlings of the nuclear saber by Putin and others, there's never been a redeployment of Russian nuclear forces. I'm not saying you don't take it seriously, but if Putin can out bluff us, he gets what he wants for free.

DEAN: I want to move on and talk a little bit more broadly about the incoming Trump administration. You note that that's happening very soon and then that will change not only the positioning likely in Ukraine but more broadly a lot of foreign policy. I want to talk first about who the president-elect has selected for his director of national intelligence, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

You have described her as a national security threat. What do you think just letting -- having now had that information kind of set in and seeing that he is confident in pushing her forward, what do you think generally about that pick if we can just get a little more thought on that? And then also too, what might that mean for the war in Ukraine where she has been known to spout some Russian propaganda?

BOLTON: Well I think in the transition period there's always a lot of blue smoke and mirrors from the incoming administration. This is a very serious mistake if Tulsi Gabbard is allowed to take over as Director of National Intelligence. To begin with, she has zero experience dealing with the intelligence community and that position was set up by Congress, mistakenly in my view, but they set it up to coordinate all intelligence agencies within the government.

She doesn't have the slightest idea what the job involves. As a member of Congress, she got intelligence briefings that she often said she didn't believe. I don't think she has any basis on which to manage this huge and critically important function of the federal government. And number two, she has over the years spouted delusional beliefs about events in Syria, about events in Iran, about Russian policy, that her own fellow members of Congress have set them out to repeating Russian propaganda.

She's not capable of doing it. Her judgment is nonexistent. And the idea that somehow, she would be put in charge of this critical function should be giving our adversaries in Moscow and Beijing a lot of relief.

DEAN: Do you expect the Senate Republicans to push back on this?

BOLTON: Well, I certainly hope they should. Gabbard and Gaetz are the two worst appointments. There are others that are in controversy, but those are the two worst. Just because Donald Trump won a fairly narrow majority, maybe less than two percentage points, and an Electoral College victory, all of six Electoral College votes bigger than his 2016 win, is no excuse for the Senate to abandon its constitutional function.

And I think there will be enough Republicans, maybe not a majority. but enough to block these nominations. And if they're not, we're in deep trouble.

DEAN: Yeah, and you bring up Matt Gaetz. I did want to ask you about that. You've called him the worst nomination in American history. Elon Musk responded to you on X, calling you a, quote, "warmonger," saying your opposition to this pick is a good sign. I want to let you respond to that. I also want to get your thoughts on the role that Elon Musk is playing in this incoming administration.

BOLTON: Well, I don't particularly care about Elon Musk's opinion. He has no notion what the qualifications for attorney general are, and I think somebody with Matt Gaetz's characters is a person that I'm surprised anybody wants to associate with. Look, Musk may have a big role here. It's not entirely clear what Trump is going to do with this Department of Government Efficiency. If we can save a couple hundred billion dollars, I'd be delighted. We can spend it on the defense budget, which desperately needs an increase.

[17:14:55]

In the meantime, I do believe that a sufficient number of Republican senators would say they will not abandon the separation of powers. They will see Gaetz as the threat that he is to the kind of professional Justice Department we want.

If the complaint from Trump is the Department of Justice has been politicized by the Biden administration, then the remedy is depoliticize it. Matt Gaetz is exactly the opposite of that. He will make it worse. and I think it caused problems in the department that could take decades to repair.

DEAN: And I know you've called for the FBI to investigate both Gabbard and Gaetz before any Senate confirmation hearings. We know that the Trump administration is looking to not to do these FBI background investigations and checks before putting them up formally for their nominations. How do you think, again, just getting back at this, just what Senate Republicans might say about this and do you think it's worth them really pushing back on this if they're not getting all of the information, they need to properly vet these individuals?