Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant; Ukraine Says, Assessing Exact Type of Missile Launched on Dnipro; Republicans on House Ethics Committee Block Gaetz Report. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired November 21, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our second hour of Connect the World. I'm Becky Anderson in Abu Dhabi, where the time is 7:00 in the

evening.

And breaking just in the last couple of hours, the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

and the former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes in Gaza.

And in Ukraine, Kyiv is assessing just what sort of missile was launched at Dnipro after accusing Moscow of firing an intercontinental ballistic

missile at Ukraine. If it is found to be an ICBM, this would mark the first time Moscow had used such a weapon in more than 1,000 days of war. CNN has

obtained these images of debris from the missiles fired overnight as Ukraine tries to determine the damage.

House Republicans have blocked the release of an Ethics Committee report on Matt Gaetz, Trump's pick to run the Department of Justice. Democrats have

filed a motion calling for the entire House to vote on making the report public.

Well, we start with Russia apparently upping the stakes in its war on Ukraine. Ukraine's military says it is now assessing whether Russia fired

an intercontinental ballistic missile during a morning attack on Dnipro. Well, video obtained by CNN shows the moment of impact. Ukraine says the

weapon had the characteristics of an ICBM. One western official says it was ballistic but not an ICBM. The Kremlin itself is not commenting.

Well, CNN also obtained exclusive pictures that show missile debris from the strike. A source says the fragments pictured do not necessarily all

belong to one missile.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is in Kyiv. Here's what he had to say about the attack last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Zelenskyy has said the speed, the trajectory suggests, the altitude

suggests that this was an intercontinental ballistic missile. And his Air Force have been more explicit, directly suggesting that. A western official

speaking on the sidelines of a summit in Southeast Asia has hinted that this may not have been an intercontinental ballistic missile, just a

ballistic missile. The semantics here, the capability, the range, how long it actually ended up being fired.

Ultimately, though. I think what appears to have happened here is Russia has used a new type of missile in this particular attack. Their bid, as I

say, of showing that there's more in their arsenal than they've used yet.

I should point out this obviously had a conventional payload upon it, but much of the arsenal it might be reaching towards are delivery devices that

may also contain or maybe designed to transport nuclear warheads. No suggestion that's the case, but that's sort of the subtext, potentially, of

them reaching into ballistic missiles of this particular of this nature.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON: On top of all of this, we are also hearing that Russia's foreign ministry is saying Moscow could target a major western military base in

Poland. That was opened on the Baltic coast earlier this month and is part of a larger NATO missile shield.

Well, CNN Contributor Jill Dougherty, a former CNN Moscow bureau chief, joins us now to look at what are the many moving parts of this story. And

we'll talk about what feels like a creeping escalation, certainly, in this war in a moment. Firstly, how do you assess what happened overnight, Jill?

What's the message here?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, depending upon what kind of a missile that is, and if it isn't an ICBM and that would be worrying because

usually ICBM, as Nick pointed out, have a nuclear payload. Those are the big ones that go across the oceans. But whatever it was, it's very obvious

that Russia is furious. And why it's furious is because of President Biden's decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. weapons, namely ATACMS, to

strike Inside Russia that Putin said a long time ago is a red line, and now it's been crossed.

So, the Russians are signaling and they're really furiously signaling that this is not going to stand, that they won't put up with it, and they're

going to retaliate in some fashion. I mean, I think, Becky, you know, there's a lot of, as they say, signaling going on, and the signaling really

now is kinetic, the actions, you know, being taken to send messages.

[10:05:01]

But I think the timing is really important. You have President Biden leaving office in two months and then you have another president, Trump,

coming in who says, I'm going to end the war, you know, as soon as I get into office. And that timing is really important.

So, Biden is pulling out all the stops in trying to help Ukraine. And that, of course, is having a reaction in Moscow, which we can talk about from

President Putin.

ANDERSON: Yes. And this week, of course, starting with the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's call to President Putin at the beginning of the

week, and we are closing out a week with this, book ending a week when the U.S. and Britain, it seems, fired missiles into Russia for the first time.

The thinking then, given your background and your understanding of what goes on at the Kremlin, the threats against a base in Poland and other

threats being made against Europe at this point mean what at this point very specifically?

DOUGHERTY: Well, I think, you know, we have to point out that the United States has not fired on Russia, but Russia considers itself at war with the

west. And that's a -- you know, it sounds like semantics, but it really isn't. I mean, Russia does feel that.

So, I think what Russia is saying is we are going to do everything that we can to signal to the United States that you are involved in the war

directly. And so you have what did you have? President Putin, you know, just on the 1,000th day of the war, there's an announcement that the

nuclear policy, the strategy of Russia, is changing. And that would allow - - it's always allowed Russia to respond to conventional attacks that are very major, you know, a threat to Russia, to respond to nuclear powers that

are using conventional weapons.

But now they're saying, if there's a country, and we can say -- let's say Ukraine, which is not a nuclear country, but it takes an action, it attacks

Russia, and it is supported by a nuclear country, the United States, then that gives Russia the right to respond with nuclear weapons.

So, we're getting into the territory of very, really direct threats here. And I think it's a very dramatic and very dangerous moment, because of not

only the words, but the potential for this to, you know, spin out of control sometimes because it wasn't planned. You know, mistakes can happen

as well.

ANDERSON: So, you rightly pointed out that Joe Biden has two months left in office, President-elect Donald Trump's son reacting to Joe Biden's

decision over the weekend to green light the Ukrainians to use American- made missiles deeper into Russia. I want to quote his son here, quote, the military industrial complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3

going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives, end quote.

Now, experts say it won't make a decisive military difference in what Joe Biden has decided to do but it certainly, as you have rightly pointed out,

escalated action on the part of the Russians, although some will say the U.S. and Ukraine simply reacting to Russian aggression. But, certainly, we

are seeing this creeping escalation. What chance that Trump can settle this war, as he has promised to do, and what damage to any potential for a

solution here? What damage wrought by what we are seeing at present?

DOUGHERTY: Well, I mean, if you listen to what Trump's son is saying that actually sounds like what the Russians are saying, which is we are

creeping, actually running close to World War III. Now, the debate In the Biden administration throughout the war has been, well, maybe it is

dangerous to escalate and maybe we should be careful. And so they've held off on giving certain weapons. You know, eventually, maybe they did, but

there was a lot of temporizing in the beginning.

[10:10:01]

And so the debate is, is Putin bluffing or could he really use nuclear weapons? That's essentially what the debate is. And I think the decision,

at least the Biden administration has been, that, no, he's not going to use nuclear weapons in the sense of intercontinental, you know, nuclear weapons

striking the United States and Russia that World War 3 wouldn't start.

But that said, it's still a lot more fraught than it was, you know, just a few weeks ago. And then you have Trump coming in and saying, I can solve

it, it'll be over, you know, in a day, with very few details. But the biggest details that seem to be there are Ukraine gives up territory in

order to placate Russia and there's some sort of an agreement. And so far, Ukraine is saying that's not going to happen. We do not agree to that.

So, again, we're at a very dramatic moment. And I think what's really odd about it is that you have from the United States, two positions there, the

official position, which is Biden, and then the unofficial, but soon to be official approach by Trump coming in. So, it could be confusing, et cetera.

And that gives a lot of possibility of sending these messages and threats, you know, and even action, like whatever that (INAUDIBLE) he wants, you

know, whatever it was certainly a step up from what they've been -- the Russians have been using. So, there we are, and it is very complex.

ANDERSON: Yes, absolutely. And you've done an extremely good job in your analysis and insight, as ever, at trying to sort of find a way through what

is an incredibly complex and at present worrying escalation. Thank you.

Well, turning to the Middle East and Prime Minister's office condemning new arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister,

Yoav Gallant. The International Criminal Court accuses them of war crimes in Gaza. Israeli officials call the charges absurd and anti-Semitic. The

ICC also issuing a warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Daif, although Israel has claimed he was killed earlier this year. Deif is accused of crimes

against humanity involving Israeli civilians.

Well, CNN's Nic Robertson is in Jerusalem. And, Nic, given that the ICC has now officially issued these arrest warrants, what happens next? And what

are the implications here?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, the implications could be very big. Certainly, they should be under parts of international

law, if you will. And it's those laws that the ICC is using in its allegations that it has reason to believe that Prime Minister Benjamin

Netanyahu and the former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, have been involved in war crimes, and specifically they talk about the war crime this way, the

war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. This is very legalistic,

but the ICC believes that it has the evidence to support this.

What it means for the prime minister is the potential here of being arrested in any country that's a signatory to the Rome statutes because a

country that's a signatory to the Rome statutes is legally obliged to detain the person who has the arrest warrants out against them and then

transfer them to the ICC to face charge. That's 124 countries. Many European countries, the U.K., Germany, France, for example, if Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now visited those countries, they would be obliged to arrest him and to send them to the ICC.

So, these are the implications, the political implications at home for the prime minister I think are negligible. It's the international pressure that

is continuing to mount up on him. And the way that he is fighting the war in Gaza that is happening here.

ANDERSON: Nic, Israeli and Palestinian leaders reacting to the news, the Israeli foreign minister calling it a dark moment for the ICC, in which it

lost all legitimacy for its existence and activity, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, a prominent Palestinian leader, saying,

finally a step towards hash tag accountability and justice in Palestine.

[10:15:06]

And I think we might have expected those responses. I'm more interested in the responses in Israel from those who oppose Netanyahu who've been

protesting on the streets, carrying posters, calling him Bibi Escobar, calling him a criminal, drawing images of him dressed in prisoner uniform.

I wonder, you know, what you're hearing here as to how this sort of anti- Netanyahu coalition, as it were, may or are reacting to this news.

ROBERTSON: Yes. It's really interesting because, obviously, there are a large number of people here that absolutely disagree with the way that the

prime minister is fighting the war in Gaza against Hamas, that so many thousands, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, and, of

course, the fact that he hasn't prioritized getting the hostages out. That's why he faces so much criticism here.

What the ICC is doing here is putting specific blame on him for specific breaches of war crimes, crimes against humanity. What the defense that you

hear coming from officials is that this is anti-Semitic, against the state of Israel. And I think there is a broad swath of people here now, and there

certainly was back in May, who, when the ICC back then said that they might issue or was seeking to issue arrest warrants, really felt that this was

the ICC, U.N. and other international institutions, don't get and understand what Israel is facing, that doesn't understand the predicament

the country is in, and feeling that these international, particularly these organizations that have the backing and influence of the U.N., that they're

against Israel. And that led, I think, to a sense of people, some didn't care, but a sense of rallying around the country, not the prime minister.

These are important, internal differences. Absolutely, though, people here will use this to criticize the prime minister, but I don't think they're

going to be in the majority at the moment, Becky.

ANDERSON: Well, more on this as we move through the next hour.

The arrest warrants -- thank you, Nic -- come at a critical moment for Palestinians in Gaza. Local health authorities there say at least 87

Palestinians were killed there over the past 24 hours. And a warning, we are about to show you some video that you may find distressing.

Well, this shows shrouded bodies laid out after an Israeli strike in Sheikh Radwan, in Gaza's north. Dozens there killed in the area overnight,

according to medics on the ground. CNN has reached out to the IDF for comment.

The total death toll in Gaza since the war began is now more than 44,000, according to Gaza's Ministry of Health.

Well, over in Lebanon, an Israeli airstrike hit the suburbs of Beirut overnight. It happened as the U.S. envoy traveled to Israel from the

Lebanese capital, having reported progress on ceasefire talks there, at least, well, it's promised.

Ahead on Connect the World, we will discuss the significance of the ICC's move and what it could mean for the subjects of those arrest warrants going

forward.

Plus, Donald Trump's picks to fill out his second term cabinet getting bipartisan pushback. More on this is straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

ANDERSON: Well, two of President-elect Donald Trump's picks to fill prominent posts in his second term cabinet are being dogged by allegations

of serious sexual misconduct. Republicans on the House Ethics panel moved to block the release of a report on Donald Trump's pick for attorney

general. Matt Gaetz, the former Congressman, made the rounds on the Hill with the vice president-elect, J.D. Vance, on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT GAETZ, TRUMP'S PICK FOR U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's been going great. The senators have been giving me a lot of good advice. I'm looking forward

to a hearing. Folks have been very supportive, they've been saying we're going to get a fair process,

REPORTER: The Ethics Committee said they're not going to release the report after their meeting today, at least at this point. Any response?

GAETZ: I'll be honest with you. I've been focused on what we got to do, reform the Department of Justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: As for Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, CNN got hold of a police report that details a 2017 accusation that he committed

sexual assault. A woman told police he forced himself onto her despite her repeated protests. Hegseth contends the encounter was consensual and that

the police didn't charge him.

Well, covering all of this, the CNN's Annie Greyer and Alayna Treene.

Now, Alayna, let me start with you and Pete Hegseth. We are getting conflicting accounts of what happened in that California hotel seven years

ago. So, is it clear at this point what sort of impact these reports might have on his actually succeeding in becoming the secretary of defense? And

what happens at this point next?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, I think there's no question, Becky, that this definitely complicates the process. I mean, whenever you have

some sort of nominee like this, it's very difficult when they have controversies such as these types of allegations, particularly for a role

as big and important and serious as running the Department of Defense. It doesn't do well to assuage concerns and uneasiness with people in Congress

who are going to have to be confirming him.

That's why you're seeing such a big push and really attention being given from the Trump team as, you know, J.D. Vance goes around with both Matt

Gaetz, but then today, Pete Hegseth, to sit in on these meetings with these key Republicans who are going to be deeply involved in that confirmation

process.

Now, I can tell you as well, as it relates to these allegations, I would keep in mind that Donald Trump was the main person gunning for Pete Hegseth

to run the Pentagon. And that process moved very quickly. They had called him up to -- or down, I should say, Mar-a-Lago to have some meetings with

him. And then very quickly after, Donald Trump announced that he was going to be his pick for the Department of Defense. Very little vetting was able

to be done in between that process and during that process.

And we know that they were initially caught off guard by a lot of these allegations. They now have this police report, and we've seen just as

recently as today, Donald Trump's team is still sticking by Hegseth. They're saying that the police report shows that no files were charged --

or no charges were filed against him. And I've heard the same in my conversations with Trump people as well that since there weren't any

charges, they're going to press forward and continue to support him.

ANDERSON: The traditional way of deciding on a pick would be days, if not weeks, months possibly, of vetting. Donald Trump very intentionally not

interested in the way that things have been done in the past. And we know that, and we were promised that. The American people were promised that.

Let me bring you in, Annie, then to Matt Gaetz. Again, it's not a new story that there were these allegations against him. What is new is that

Republicans are pushing to stop the publication of an Ethics Committee report. Are they likely to be successful at this point?

[10:25:01]

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: Well, they were successful in blocking its release yesterday. The committee met behind closed doors for nearly two

hours, and all Republicans, sources tell me, voted to block the release of the information at this point. But the committee is going to meet again on

December 5th, where the report is expected to be finished by then. And at that point, the committee will take a formal vote on whether or not to

release it.

But Democrats across the board just see this as continuing to delay and potentially bury the findings. The committee had already delayed this

meeting once. House Speaker Mike Johnson, is saying that this report should not see the light of day.

So, there is a lot of public pressure from Donald Trump and his allies to not have this report come out. And we're going to have to see, if it really

ever does see the light of day, Democrats are trying their own maneuvers to try and get this report out. Some Democrats are trying to force a vote on

the House floor to release this report. We don't know if that's going to be successful, but given the very narrow margins in the House, it would only

take a couple of Republicans to vote with Democrats to get this to be released.

So, there are a lot of factors at play here. There's also the Senate Judiciary Committee is requesting this report as part of its vetting

process of Matt Gaetz. So, that's another avenue where this report could come out. So, again, a lot of balls in the air here, but right now, the

report is still under seal.

ANDERSON: Just finally and very briefly, I mean, clearly, Matt Gaetz, alongside J.D. Vance, working very hard to ensure sufficient support for

his nomination. I mean, ultimately, this could be pushed through in what is known as a recess nomination, correct? Can you just explain to our viewers

who may not be as imbued in the machinations of, you know, the way that things work on the Hill, what that means?

GRAYER: So, there is a possibility that Donald Trump could appoint his cabinet picks without going through the normal confirmation process, going

through the Senate where Gaetz would need to be confirmed and hold hearings and have a vote on. There's a way for Trump to work with the speaker and

actually recess Congress so Trump can just unilaterally make those appointments. But at this point, no one is saying that's the path they want

to go down.

Gaetz, in fact, in his meeting with senators yesterday was really just pledging for them to give him a chance. He was denying the allegations that

have been made about him publicly and is really just asking senators to keep an open mind. He's really working senators one by one as he tries to

build support, which is going to be a very uphill climb for him.

ANDERSON: Good to have you both. Thank you very much, indeed.

Right, you're watching Connect the World. I'm Becky Anderson.

Next up, we're going to break down what the International Criminal Court has decided today. Arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister and former

defense minister, what that means, and what happens next, is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]

ANDERSON: Well, I'm Becky Anderson. Let's get you back to our breaking news this hour, and Israel denouncing the International Criminal Court's

move to issue arrest warrants against its prime minister and its former defense minister, calling the decision absurd and anti-Semitic.

Well, a judge has issued warrants for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The court said it found, quote, reasonable grounds to believe

Mr. Netanyahu bears responsibility for war crimes, including starvation as a method of warfare.

Well, the ICC also issued a warrant for Hamas Commander Mohammed Deif, although Israel says he was killed earlier this year. The E.U. and, for

example, Jordan, say the rulings are not political and must be respected.

Let's get you more significance on the ICC's move and what it means in practical terms. Luis Moreno Ocampo is a lawyer who served as the first

prosecutor of the ICC from 2003 to 2012. Rosa Freedman is professor of law, conflict and global development at the University of Reading. Good to have

you both.

Before we get into the mechanics, sir, let's start with you. Can you just take us through what has been going on in the months since we got the news

that the chief prosecutor was seeking these arrest warrants? I mean, these are controversial. There is an enormous amount of pressure on the ICC at

present. The Israelis calling this decision absurd and anti-Semitic, others who support this decision by the ICC suggesting it is not at all political

and should be adhered to. Luis Ocampo, your sense, if you will, just walk us through how we got to this point and the sort of pressure the ICC is

under at this stage.

LUIS MORENO OCAMPO, CHIEF PROSECUTOR, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, 2003- 2012: We'll start with the crimes, because it's very limited to the starvation part of the campaign. The ICC is not making findings for bombing

or genocide. It's just a very limited charge, starvation. And everyone knows starvation happens because Mr. Gallant openly said from the beginning

they will do it and President Biden spent one year begging to Israel to let food and water to go.

So, the facts are non-controversial. And the legal characterization was, okay, it's a world crime of starvation and the judges said you cannot use

starvation to attack civilians to combat Hamas. And that's very clear. Israel can stop this tomorrow, Becky. Israel can stop this tomorrow. How?

If Israel starts today a real investigation against Prime Minister Netanyahu, the case will be stopped in the ICC because the ICC acts when

the national country does not act.

So, now go to political consideration. Israel want to stop this. Well, do the cases yourself. That's it.

ANDERSON: Well, the U.S., and I quote here, just crossing the wires now, fundamentally rejects the ICC arrest warrant decision and is discussing the

next steps. We know that in discussion over the past months, these next steps could include sanctions against the ICC.

Rosa, before I come to you, Luis Ocampo, your response.

OCAMPO: Well, President Biden was begging Prime Minister Netanyahu not to commit crimes. And now he says, okay, but I don't care what he says. I

think it was a mistake. But I think President Trump is very smart person, so he will find (INAUDIBLE). Because it's ridiculous that U.S. go against

the world, expose itself, protecting crimes, when Israel can stop this tomorrow, Prime Minister Netanyahu knows very well that he can stop this

tomorrow, just allowing a national investigation in Israel.

So, why the U.S. will go ballistic against the world when an easy solution for this, open investigation in Israel. So, I think it's something to

consider.

[10:35:00]

The U.S. leadership will be seriously compromising here if U.S. try to attack the ICC, because the world is with the ICC in this case. And --

ANDERSON: Well, this administration, of course, has only got two months left to run, but it's very likely that these threats of sanctions against

the ICC to completely sort of discredit the ICC are likely to come from a Donald Trump administration in spades.

Rosa, let me bring you in. Luis, I'll bring you back in a moment. Let's just talk about what these arrest warrants practically mean. What are the

next steps here?

ROSA FREEDMAN, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF READING: So, the arrest warrants have been issued. But, remember, Israel is not party to the

International Criminal Court. So, Israel is not under any duty internationally to send Gallant or Netanyahu to the court.

What it does mean is that if they were to travel to any of the 124 states that are party to the ICC, they could be arrested, those states should

arrest them, and send them to the Hague. We have seen in the past that arrest warrants have been issued, and people have traveled with those

arrest warrants into ICC state parties and not been arrested. So, it's a political as well as it's a legal decision.

But the next stage will really be what the court decides to do. Now, it can't try an absentia. It needs to have Gallant and Netanyahu in front of

it in order for any trial to take place. And let's be clear, these are arrest warrants that have been issued. They've not decided that there's

enough evidence to prosecute and to find them guilty. We have to have due process. We have to have a fair trial. They're simply saying that they

think there is sufficient evidence to arrest them or, as my colleague was saying, for a national investigation to take place.

ANDERSON: Could and should were two words that you used there. Could and should, if Benjamin Netanyahu and/or Yoav Gallant traveled to a country

that is signatory to the Rome Statute. That is the statute that set up the ICC. If they traveled there, they could and should be arrested. But as you

rightly point out in the past, there have been those with arrest warrants who have not been arrested in these countries.

There is no mechanism, is there, to actually arrest anybody who is under warrant from the ICC, correct?

FREEDMAN: Well, the mechanism would be that they would be arrested if they were -- they could be arrested if they were in a country that was

(INAUDIBLE), kidnapped and taken to the Hague from Israel, which is not a state party. And, really, what's been said by the Americans, just to chime

in on the question you asked my colleague, what's been said by the Americans is this issuing of an arrest warrant for a democratically-elected

leader, as compared with all the other democratically-elected leaders that, for example, went into Raqqa and Mosul, recently to fight ISIS, or Tony

Blair and George Bush for the Iraq war and things like that, looks like a politicized decision.

So, it actually probably will be a political decision of each country that's party to the ICC whether they uphold these arrest warrants or not,

given how contentious they are.

ANDERSON: Right. These arrest warrants are against Netanyahu and Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the 8th

of October 2023 until at least May 2023. That is the day that the prosecution filed the application for warrants of arrest.

Luis Ocampo, you said all that needs to happen is that Israel stops what are described, you know, in these arrest warrants as crimes against

humanity at present. Are you suggesting that if the war stopped tomorrow, if there were a ceasefire tomorrow, that the I.C. would not pursue this

case any further? I just want to be quite clear about where you stand.

OCAMPO: Stopping the crimes is necessary but not enough to stop the investigation. To stop the investigation, to stop the (INAUDIBLE) is needed

to start an investigation in Israel. So, a criminal prosecutor in Israel or the commission of inquiry in Israel investigating Netanyahu for crimes

against humanity and war crimes, that is the measure to stop that.

And another one from me, I don't think this is politically because the court also indicted President Putin, the court could indict Maduro. So, the

court is in the U.S. (ph), you see as friends or enemies, the court see as criminal, not criminals. That is a different standard.

And so that's why I think it's very important for President Trump to understand, okay, if you want to do something with Maduro, the court could

help you.

[10:40:05]

So, don't kill -- don't try to attack the court. And also when you say about legitimacy, I think who is losing legitimacy here will be the U.S.

attacking the court. Because when you see there is discussions in the world, the world is incredibly sad what happened in Palestine. So, the idea

to stop this is important. And until today, President Biden did not have zero influence.

So, I think what we need now is stop the crimes, stop the bombing, and to solve the issue of Netanyahu, please organize an investigation in Israel.

That legally will make the ICC stop the case. That had to be very clear. So, stopping the crime is necessary, but stopping the investigation is

required.

ANDERSON: Yes. Well, let's see where this goes. But the news breaking, as we say, in the past couple of hours that these arrest warrants will be

issued for both Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant and indeed Mohammed Deif, who Israel says was killed earlier on this year.

To both of you, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

All right, well, when we come back, I'm going to speak to a military expert about what the latest escalation in the war between -- Russia's war on

Ukraine means for what is this ongoing conflict.

Stay with us.

ANDERSON: Well, Ukraine says it is still trying to determine what the exact type of missile Russia fired at Ukraine was this morning. Earlier,

Kyiv had stated with certainty that it was an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, fired at the city of Dnipro in Eastern Ukraine. Well,

this video obtained by CNN shows the moment of impact earlier today.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyyy addressed the attack over Telegram.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Today, our crazy neighbor has once again shown who he really is, and how he despises dignity, freedom,

and human life, in general, and how afraid he is. He is also so afraid that he is already using new missiles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, the accusation comes amid a week of escalation in the war between Ukraine, excuse me, and Russia, with the Biden administration

reversing on key policies, like allowing Ukraine to fire longer range American missiles at targets inside Russia.

To get a better understanding on the weaponry being used and what this means for war, I'm joined by Sidharth Kaushal, who is senior research

fellow at RUSI, which is the Royal United Services Institute.

[10:45:00]

Let's start with the images CNN has obtained of the debris. Anything from these pictures that strikes you, that you can -- helps you determine what

the missiles might have been, and what it is that Ukrainians are looking for at this point to ascertain exactly whether or not this was an ICBM?

SIDHARTH KAUSHAL, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, RUSI: Sure. So often what you find the evidence one can derive from debris can be somewhat inconclusive,

and there's several reasons for that. Firstly, as it's often the case, as indeed it was in this instance, that multiple missiles are used in a single

salvo. By all accounts, the Russians use, you know, several Kh-101 cruise missiles, a Kinzhal aero-ballistic missile and the unidentified, you know,

potential ICBM or IRBM in the salvo. So, that's a factor.

The second thing is that when it comes to longer-range missiles, something like an intermediate-range ballistic missile, for example parts of the

missile, like it's boosters, which might be used to identify separate earlier in flight. And, of course, a warhead upon detonation leaves, you

know, very fragmentary debris.

So, in terms of what evidence the -- oh, sorry, go on.

ANDERSON: What's the difference between the ICBM and more conventional ballistic missiles? What's -- you know, I just want to underscore the

significance of what we are discussing here.

KAUSHAL: Yes. So, I mean, ICBMs are predominantly distinguished from any other category of ballistic missile by their range. But, of course, range

imposes certain -- so over 5,500 kilometers. But the longer the range of a missile and the faster its reentry vehicle enters the atmosphere, generally

speaking, (INAUDIBLE) power is, the lower its accuracy. And what that means is ICBMs predominantly only useful as nuclear delivery mechanisms as

opposed to short-range or medium-range ballistic missiles, which can be used with conventional warheads. So there's a certain symbolism to that

too.

ANDERSON: And that, of course, is very, very significant. No suggestion that even if this was an ICBM, which is, you know, in dispute at the

moment, no suggestion that it was carrying a nuclear warhead. But some suggestion, certainly, that there is some signaling here by the Kremlin

about its capacity to strike longer-range and across continents, correct?

KAUSHAL: Yes. So, this comes on the back of Russia's release of a new nuclear doctrine, which, in the view of many, lowers its thresholds for

nuclear use. And given the very limited utility in military terms of using an ICBM, if indeed this was an ICBM with a conventional warhead, the

employment of a system, be it an ICBM or an intermediate-range ballistic missile with a conventional payload, as we've seen, was probably done for

signaling purposes.

ANDERSON: Right, okay. I'm looking at a week which started with Olaf Scholz or a decision by Joe Biden to allow Ukraine to use longer range

missiles, a call by the German chancellor, Olaf Schultz, to Putin for the first time in two years and then, you know, ended with the use potentially

of an ICBM.

The decision by the U.S. to allow these longer-range weapons to be used has caused some to become really very concerned about how this conflict is

escalating. Does the introduction of these new weapon systems, both from the Ukrainian side, and indeed from the Russian side, tip the balance in

the war in any way?

KAUSHAL: Not necessarily. So, the employment of deep strike capabilities by the Ukrainians will provide them with some operational advantages, you

know, the ability to disrupt Russian logistics in their rear areas, as well as to strike targets like command posts.

However, as we saw during the 2023 Ukrainian offensive, the impact of deep strike capabilities is often relatively transient. The opponent usually

repairs or finds ways around the damage imposed and is very rarely decisive as compared to what's happening closer to the frontline.

In terms of Russia introducing a capability such as potentially the RS-26 IRBM or indeed an ICBM on a shorter-range trajectory into the theater with

a conventional payload, you know, given the accuracy of these systems in a conventional role, they change very little militarily.

[10:50:17]

Certainly they reflect Russia trying to underscore the changes to its own nuclear doctrine and in particular the changes which implied that a non-

nuclear state acting with the support of a nuclear partner would be treated as acting in the context of a joint attack. But deterrent signaling and

brinkmanship, yes, this is not critical.

ANDERSON: Yes, fascinating. All right, good to have you. Thank you very much indeed.

You're watching Connect the World. Ahead on the show, governments take on two public health crises in the U.S. Positive news in the fight against

opioid deaths. Could it be because there is less fentanyl in the drug supply? More on that after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON: Well, some cautious optimism in the United States in the fight against opioid overdoses. Now, the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC and

Prevention say overdose deaths from fentanyl have dropped. At the same time, the Drug Enforcement Administration finding less fentanyl in the drug

supply.

Well, joining me now from Atlanta, the home for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CNN Medical Reporter Jacqueline Howard.

This is really important stuff. So, can you just explain a little further what is behind the decline in numbers, which, of course, is very good news?

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Absolutely, Becky. It does look like there are several different factors behind this decline. We know that

there has been expanded access to fentanyl test strips, and those are the strips that you can use to test for the fentanyl substance.

We know that there's been expanded access to Naloxone. That's the medicine used to reverse an overdose. But we also know, based on numbers from the

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, we have seen fewer pills containing fentanyl out in the U.S. drug supply. So far this year, as you see right

there, five out of ten pills tested showed that they contain potentially deadly doses of fentanyl. That's compared with last year. Last year, the

number was seven out of ten pills tested contained potentially deadly amounts of fentanyl.

So, we are seeing less fentanyl out in the drug supply, but there are two things to keep in mind here, Becky. We know that number one, these numbers

are just looking at pills, so not powder, for instance. Number two, there's still a large amount of fentanyl out there, even though the share of pills

containing fentanyl has declined.

We do know so far this year, according to the DEA, they have seized more than 334 million deadly doses of fentanyl so far this year. So, while we

are seeing this decline, we can't ignore that there's still a large amount of fentanyl out there that the DEA is addressing at this moment.

ANDERSON: Wow. That's one dose nearly per person in the United States, just that the DEA has taken off the streets.

[10:55:00]

Just explain to us, again, just how deadly fentanyl is.

HOWARD: Absolutely. I mean, this is still concerning because we know fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, about 100 times more potent

than morphine. So, this is a very, very potentially deadly substance that we know is out there. And, again, even though we have seen progress in the

United States' fight against this and against the overdose epidemic, there still seems to be more work that needs to be done.

ANDERSON: It's good to have you. Thank you very much indeed.

And that is it for this show from the team working with me here in Abu Dhabi. It is a very good evening, just a few minutes before 8:00 in the

evening. And those working with us around the world, we bid you a very good evening.

Stay with CNN. Newsroom is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]

END