Return to Transcripts main page

First Move with Julia Chatterley

Russian Tycoon Slams Putin's "Insane War"; IMF says Russian Economy Set to fall 8.5 Percent in 2022; Browder: Target Oligarch-enablers like Lawyers, Accountants; War Crime VS Crime of Aggression; Ukraine Using Crypto to Raise, Distribute Funds; Netflix Says It Is Willing To Look Into An Ad-Supported Plan. Aired 09-10a ET

Aired April 20, 2022 - 09:00   ET



JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN HOST, FIRST MOVE: You're watching CNN. I'm Julia Chatterley in New York. And we begin with an appeal to the world for help.

The last Ukrainian soldiers in Mariupol sheltering in a steel plant surrounded by Russian forces, so they may only have hours left, adamant

that they will not give in and allowing another deadline for surrender to expire two hours ago.

Hundreds of civilians are taking refuge in the basement of a plant which lies in ruins. A police official says food and water supplies are dwindling

and they're under heavy bombardment. The commander of Ukrainian forces there sent this message.


MAJ. SERHII VOLYNA, COMMANDER, UKRAINE'S 36TH SEPARATE MARINE BRIGADE: This is our statement to the world. It may be our last statement; we might have

only a few days or even hours left. The enemy's units are 10 times larger than ours. They have supremacy in the air artillery and units that are

dislocated on the ground equipment and tanks. We appeal to the world leaders to help us.


CHATTERLEY: Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister says an agreement has been reached with Russia on a humanitarian corridor to evacuate women, children

and the elderly from Mariupol. We are closely watching to see whether this agreement holds.

Now from the south over to the east and a surge of fighting in the Donbas region, British intelligence claims Ukrainian forces there have managed to

repel the Russian advanced numerous times despite intense shelling.

While in Zaporizhzhia, the Regional Council says it's fighting a Russian attack and again seeing more shells. Meanwhile, in the capital Kyiv,

Charles Michel the President of the European Council has arrived for talks with President Zelenskyy.

He said history will not forget the war crimes committed in Ukraine. And we are expecting to hear from them both and we will bring that to you live the

moment it happens. For now Matt Rivers has the latest.

MATT RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Julia, we are watching with earnest what is happening in the southern city of Mariupol where the big news today

as that city remains besieged by Russian forces that it does appear that Russia and Ukraine have agreed upon a humanitarian corridor.

Now that corridor would be used for citizens of Mariupol to evacuate. That corridor was supposed to open up around 2 p.m. local time. Now, it's very

difficult to get verifiable independent information out of Mariupol, because of how difficult it is to talk to people given the lack of internet

service lack of communications infrastructure.

But according to the latest information that humanitarian corridor is open, according to the city's mayor, he is saying that he is urging citizens of

Mariupol to meet at a certain location in that city.

And then leave eventually they would make their way to the city of Zaporizhzhia, which he says citizens will be safe if they go through this


There is a lot of apprehension, though given accusations that we have heard against the Russians in the past. They do not respect the sanctity of

humanitarian corridors. Many people have been fearful of leaving that city, because they're not totally convinced that the Russians would treat them

with the kind of humanitarian care that they say they will.

So we're going to be monitoring that situation throughout the day. But what we do know is that the center of resistance in that city remains the

Azovstal steel plants. That is the area where we know that the remaining Ukrainian resistance fighters in and around that steel plants have hunkered

down continue to fight with Russian forces.

There are also citizens, hundreds of people were told, according to officials in Ukraine that are also inside that steel plant basically

alongside those fighters. Yesterday, we heard CNN spoke directly to the marine commander in Ukraine.

In that steel plant the man commanding the Marines there.

He said that they have days if not hours left. He was very, very clear about the dire situation there calling on a third party country to begin

evacuations basically saying that people in that plant don't necessarily trust the Russians to allow them to leave safely.

He is calling on another country say Turkey or the united States provide some sort of evacuation route for the people that remain in that plant. No

word of that is going to happen but that is the call that people inside that plant are making right now Julia, a dire situation but one that is

evolving as we speak.

CHATTERELY: Matt Rivers there. Unknown to Kremlin criticism billionaire Oleg Tinkov, one of Russia's most well-known businessmen, is strongly

denouncing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and urging the West to do more to "stop this massacre". CNN's Nic Robertson joins us now.

Nic, we had friend of Alexei Navalny and the Executive Director of Russia's anti-corruption foundation on earlier this week. And he says, said that

there has to be a way back for some of these sanctioned businessmen, these oligarchs, if they denounced the regime and they denounced the war.

There has to be a way back from the sanctions. And it does seem to be at least as far as that denouncing is concerned, that's what Tinkov is doing.


NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: He's also talking about a way back for President Putin. He's incredibly critical of Putin scathing,

in a way that no oligarch currently in the orbit of President Putin has been so far calling the war insane, saying that there's a terrible army

that the generals are waking up from hangovers realizing this an era.

And this is where the criticism becomes very direct of President Putin and the failure of the army by saying this sort of era of civility and

groveling and nepotism is what's led across the country is what's led to the fact that the army can't fight and that the making loss.

So really is laying this right at the feet of President Putin and criticizing the civil servants who work in the Kremlin saying that they're

in shock that their children can't go on holiday on the French Riviera?

It's not clear if he's talking about the Kremlin spokesman there or the Russian Foreign Minister. But these are certainly men whose children,

stepchildren travel around Europe. So he's taking a real aim at the top at the second level.

But at the same time, as I say, sort of trying to find a way out for Putin saying that the West should find a face saving way out for President Putin,

which I think really gets to the core issue here, that this is all about President Putin.

Tinkov understands this; it's not about anyone else. Putin is stuck, if you will, in this war that he created on this narrative that he created. But

it's not clear that Putin is going to listen or precisely what he'll do to try to silence; think of this is not the sort of message that Putin wants

spreading around Russia right now.

CHATTERELY: Yes Nic, you pulled out the two quotes that I saw as well in a country riddled with corruption, nepotism, sycophancy and civility, how can

the military be effective?

And to your point, dear collective West, please give Mr. Putin an exit to save his face and stop this massacre. Please be more rational and humane.

Nic, you've said this all the way along.

There needs to be an off ramp, there needs to be a way for President Putin to say I've got some kind of victory and I've succeeded here. And he's

pointing to that too. What does that look like at this stage? And how does the West provide it? Should they provide it?

ROBERTSON: It's going to be very difficult. The issue of war crimes and allegations against President Putin and his forces are stacking up their

investigators. Right now the European Union, the European Council President is in Kyiv right now talking about how the European Union can support an

investigation of war crimes, amongst other things.

As that evidence mounts up, it's very hard to see an international community currently backing Ukraine humanitarian in a humanitarian way,

economically, militarily, is going to step back from what Ukraine demands, which is that Russia should get off its territory that their forces should

go back to a pre February 24 position.

So as long as President Putin continues that level of aggression that's underway right now, and his forces dispersed in parts of Ukraine where they

never were before. It's hard to see how anyone in the international community could find a face saving way for President Putin.

That didn't look like appeasement, that's going to be tough. So the move, it seems, is also going to have to come from within Russia, from people

like this oligarch and others, to convince Putin that he also has to do something, it can't all come from the west0

CHATTERELY: And that's the key, Nic Robertson in Brussels for us there. Thank you so much, as always, now to China, where officials are urging

people to continue to take PCR tests in Shanghai.

This some residents are now refusing to take the COVID tests after nearly three weeks of strict lockdowns. David Culver, joins us. David it's an

experience that you continue to have yourself as well.

And you also touched upon this with us last week saying that if you're not going out, perhaps the only time you could catch COVID is when you're

queuing up to get that PCR test. So you would understand why people are a nervous reluctance, scared, even.

DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And tired Julia. I mean, this has been relentless testing that they have now gone through day after day. You know,

we've been experienced in it just a couple of hours ago, and knock at the door, you have to drop everything.

You get your test. And then you're waiting anxiously, you're waiting several hours for those results to be posted. I think people are just tired

of the uncertainty. They're tired of the mismanagement.

And you have to realize that while this has been going on in the strict form of a lockdown for roughly three weeks or a bit longer, the rolling

lockdowns as a whole here in Shanghai have been about five weeks.

And including in my community, there have been times early on where they were locking us in our home. So this has just been non-stop and I think

people are getting to the point where they're saying how is it that we could have contracted it is it because the lockdown is not working.


CULVER: Is this an effective measure to keep this virus from spreading further? Or is it a failure altogether from the government? So there's a

lot of pushback, you can feel that neighbors here are getting more and more infuriated with each other really, I mean, there's just short tempers and

fuses. And it's only likely to continue if these tests continue that seem to be nonstop Julia.

CHATTERELY: Yes, it's a - 22, isn't it for the authorities, they want to try and show that they're containing this. But at the same time, as you

said, people are sick and tired of what the restrictions mean, David, there's also ongoing questions. And we talked about this last week as well

about, about the data about the classification of people that are perhaps dying off COVID versus dying of, of other things, because the numbers don't

seem to stack up.

CULVER: You and I were talking a lot two years plus ago, when the Wuhan outbreak was going on. And one of the biggest concerns at that time, was

that we were hearing from families about loved ones dying, the doctors telling them that they died from COVID-19.

And yet those numbers weren't coming forward, officially, same thing here. We were hearing anecdotally, people sharing on social media. In fact, I

would say much more vocal this time compared with two years ago, because there was still a lot of mystery and uncertainty.

But now people are determined to put it out there. And finally over the past few days, the government has started to list some deaths. I think part

of the complications for the government is they have to really show one that they want to be in control of this that their measures are working

that it's effective.

But at the same time, I think they've also realized if no one's dying from this, at least by the official count Julia, then why all these extreme

measures. So this is the balance that they're in the midst of right now.

And officials are going around and they're rounding up in the next couple of days. Anyone who has a positive case and close contacts, you're talking

about thousands more, who will be brought into quarantine and isolation centers.

And the goal for officials and no doubt they'll reach this because they put out the numbers is that they want zero community spread in the next couple

of days. And that means not zero cases altogether, but rather zero cases in the community.

The cases that they want to see coming up now are from the quarantine and isolation center. So that's where the numbers are going to be shifting,

they say that will then allow them to lift and ease some of these lock down measures. We'll see if that happens.

CHATTERELY: David, as always, you're framing of the challenge here is brilliant and something doesn't add up. And clearly to your point,

something has to get to.

CUVER: Thank you Julia.

CHATTERELY: David, hang in there, please, David Culver there. All right, let me bring you up to speed with some of the other stories making

headlines around the world.

Hong Kong's attempts to curb a current COVID-19 waves severely limiting air travel into the city. Rules require routes to being suspended for seven

days if three or more passengers on an incoming flight test positive.

As of today, 11 routes from 10 airlines have been temporarily cut off, including flights from both London and Amsterdam. CNN's Kristie Lu Stout

has more from Hong Kong.

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Here in Hong Kong COVID-19 cases are falling in person learning has resumed and some public spaces will reopen

starting April 21. But air travel in and out of the city remains very difficult as authorities have suspended some carrier's routes for seven

days after they carried passengers who have tested positive for COVID-19 or had insufficient health documents.

At least a dozen flight routes involving at least 11 airlines are banned, including flights from London, Tokyo and Singapore, this according to Hong

Kong authorities.

Affected airlines include Cathay Pacific All Nippon Airways, Singapore Airlines, Qatar Airways, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Air India Turkish

Airlines, Ethiopian Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Scoot and Emirates.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, only a single flight came from outside the Asia Pacific region. And Emirates flight landed on Tuesday, the first after a

seven day ban on the carrier.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Emirates was banned again. Now the bands have added an extra layer of stress and anxiety for travelers. They're also

further eroding Hong Kong status as an international aviation and business hub.


GEOFFREY THOMAS, HK AVIATION: It's a tremendously stressful time. And, you know, the volatility, the uncertainty, though those are the sorts of things

that business hates, it just loves certainty. It loves to secure outlook. And we've got anything back that at the moment for Hong Kong sadly.


STOUT: In this third year of COVID-19 Hong Kong remains virtually cut off from the world and the cost of isolation is rising, Kristie Lu Stout, CNN

Hong Kong.

CHATTERLEY: OK straight ahead, oligarch opposition Russia's richest could turn against President Putin is Ukraine sanctions bite. We'll discuss with

Putin arch enemy Bill Browder, a one-time believer in Russian reform now turned fierce corruption fighter, he's up next.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. The IMF saying that it's spring meetings this week that the Russian economy will contract by some eight and a half

percent in 2022 driven lower by successive waves of Western sanctions.

President Putin however, painting a far more optimistic picture of how the country is faring assuring citizens that sanctions have failed and vowing

to ramp up spending to help those who have lost jobs since the Ukraine invasion began.

And Moscow does actually have cash to spend, estimates say some $800 million flows into its coffers each day from overseas energy sales.

And the EU ban on Russian energy imports would be a game changer in the West's economic war against Mr. Putin. Western government is currently

discussing further penalties to with many arguing for fresh sanctions against oligarchs and their enablers.

Russian billionaire Oleg Tinkov, the Founder of sanctioned Tinkov Bank is urging the west now to offer President Putin a dignified way out of what he

calls an insane war that 90 percent of the country does not support.

Bill Browder joins us now. He's the CEO and Co-Founder of Hermitage Capital Management, a firm that was once the largest foreign investor in Russia.

He's also the author of best-selling book Read Notice and the new book Freezing Order, documenting his life as a top target of President Putin.

Bill, always great to have you on the show. Let's talk oligarchs first because I feel up until now it's been a policy choice of support and or

silence. Do you see Tinkov as a one off, or perhaps this could be the start of more of the wealthiest oligarchs in the country, perhaps breaking rank?

BILL BROWDER, CEO & COFOUNDER, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Well, what you didn't hear in his statement, is a criticism of Vladimir Putin. He didn't

say that Putin is a war criminal that Putin should stop this. He's just basically is a very timid statement, in my opinion.

And if you go around, and you sort of survey the oligarchs, they're all you know, saying, its terrible what's happening, but they're not saying it's

terrible that Russia has started a war to invade Ukraine.

They're all afraid to say it, they're all afraid to criticize Putin. And the reason that they're afraid is because the oligarchs can be wiped out in

one second by a stroke of the pen by Vladimir Putin.

They can go to jail, lose all their money and even get killed. And so I think the oligarchs are not going to be the solution to this problem, the

oligarchs, the reason to sanction the oligarchs is quite simply because they're holding money for Putin.


BROWDER: And you don't want him to have access to that money. But these are not people who are going to determine the outcome of this conflict.

CHATTERLEY: I mean, you've long said, tackle the oligarchs, because that's where the wealth and the influences they fundamentally hold Putin's wealth


Why aren't more of them being sanctioned, you consistently point out in social media, it's just a fraction of the oligarchs out there that are

known on lists. Forbes lists them regularly. Why haven't the United Kingdom the EU and the United States sanctioned more oligarchs? What are they

afraid of?

BROWDER: Well, at this point, I don't think its fear that they're definitely doing things that are what I would describe as fear less in

terms of going after the biggest oligarchs. I think it's a difficult process because they have to do it legally.

They can't just arbitrarily sanction somebody who's on a Forbes list. They have to come up with, you know, real information that connects that person

with the Putin regime one way or another.

Or they have to come up with information about somebody being involved in corruption. Based on what I've seen, most recently, about 32 oligarchs have

been sanctioned by the United States, the EU, the UK, Canada, or Australia, out of 118 oligarchs.

And so that's not terrible. But there are 118 oligarchs. And so I think that it's going to it's going to happen, it will probably happen as a

result of more atrocities being committed.

I think every time an atrocity is committed, all these governments sort of get moving again and add more people to the sanctions list. I would have

told you six weeks ago or eight weeks ago, that it's all you know that governments are timid, they don't want to rock the applecart.

They don't want to go after people who are bringing money into important economies. But I don't believe that's the case anymore. I think what we're

seeing now is just pure, you know, pure bureaucracy and administrative slowness, as you know, different government officials have got to put their

pen to paper and actually come up with proper evidence packages before they put these people on the sanctions list.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, so it's just about getting the paperwork, right. We spoke to the Head of Alexey Navalny's anti-corruption Foundation, Vladimir

Ashurkov earlier this week, and he said should be a way back for the sanctioned oligarchs.

If they denounce the regime, if they denounce Putin, they might get relief from some of these sanctions. Based on what you were saying, Bill earlier,

do you think that works? Do you think that would work in getting some of these oligarchs finally to criticize Putin himself? Particularly they did

it on mass?

BROWDER: Well, I mean, I think it'd be pretty exciting if they did. And I kind of agree with him in the sense that, you know, in order to stay in

order not to get put on the sanctions list, there's a litmus test will an oligarch openly and very brazenly criticize Putin and denounce the war and

even invest in helping the West win this war.

But I mean, I think it's sort of a nice thought. But I know, the oligarchs, and none of them are willing to do it. It's so interesting to read their

statements, because they're all saying this is a terrible thing that's happening. But if you actually try to get them to say anything bad about

Putin, they just refuse to say it.

CHATTERLEY: But what's the difference between them and you? Why are you willing to denounce Putin and they're not?

BROWDER: Well, I've never grown rich off of being a partner with Vladimir Putin. My business in Russia was always criticizing Vladimir Putin, which

is how I ended up in this terrible mess where I become his number one foreign enemy.

I've been threatened with death with kidnapping. I've been sentenced to 18 years in Russian prison in absentia. And so basically, I'm in a certain

way, the case study for why these people don't want to become.

CHATTERLEY: What not to do?

BROWDER: They're all just tiptoeing around trying to hoping that they don't become a Bill Browder so that they don't them can live comfortable lives in

partnership with Vladimir Putin. I never I chose a different path, a much more dangerous path.

I feel I can live with myself much better. You know, being a critic of Putin and calling out the truth, but, but it's definitely a more dangerous

and more unpleasant day to day life.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, the consequences are indescribable. There's a moment that you do describe in your latest book. You were in Colorado on holiday in

2018. And President Trump at the time was in Helsinki with President Putin.

And it was in a - and President Putin and I always remember it offered to exchange intelligence agents for you, personally. And President Trump, I'm

not sure whether he understood the situation, I didn't want to talk about President Trump's role in this.

But he described it as an incredible idea. I just wonder how you felt at that moment to get back to your point about the life that you've led and

the fear, I think that you've had to face?


BROWDER: Well, I was sitting there, and I wasn't even watching the summit, but my phone started blowing up with messages. And I started looking at

them. And people were saying, you got to, you know, are you watching this right now, and I turned it on. And I did get a replay.

And indeed, Putin wanted to have me handed over and, and Trump seemingly agreed. And I could have I imagined that a whole bunch of blacked out U.S.

government SUVs would be surrounding where I was staying and grabbing me and then driving me to some airfield where a government jet would take me

back to Russia.

And if I had been taken back to Russia, for any reason, I would have been put in a Russian prison right away, I would have been tortured for some

false confession, and then I would have been killed.

And so it was a terrifying moment. And it took Trump four days to walk that back and say, no, we weren't going to cooperate. The U.S. wasn't got to

cooperate with this. But it was terrifying.

Of course, the leader of the free world, seemingly agreeing to hand me over to the Russians, to my death was a pretty bad moment.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, I can't even begin to imagine. But I think what we keep coming back to in this conversation is fear. Tinkov is saying that 90

percent of Russians are against this war. But there's a level of degree of fear.

You're saying that the oligarchs won't stand against Putin, because they're afraid of potent consequences as you suffered now, for many years. How do

we break the fear? How do you get Putin to a point where actually, he's more afraid of carrying on this war or the consequences of doing so then

carrying on? Is there a line he won't cross?

BROWDER: Well, I think you've touched on the key issue, which is, I don't think that we're ever going to convince Putin to change his course, because

he's a person who only knows how to escalate, he can never back down back down, backing down shows weakness, he just can't do that.

But the one thing we can do, and this is really important, is that you say that, and you're absolutely right, that the Russians are scared of him. And

so the best thing we can do is to show Putin, to the Russians to be the weak man that he really is. And the way that we do that is by doing

everything possible to have the Ukrainians beat him in this war. If he's shown to be a loser to the Russian people, they'll take care of him


That 90 percent number that you talked about, will be 90 percent people who are not afraid of him anymore, but will be angry with him and not want him

in there. And he could arrest one or 10 or 100 or 1000 opposition leaders but he can't arrest 10 million people if they stand up to him.

And that's got to be our strategy is to do everything possible for the Ukrainians to win this war to show Putin to be a loser.

CHATTERLEY: Turn Ukraine's fight for survival into a Putin fight for survival. And I guess weaponry is the way to go. That's the message.

BROWDER: Indeed.

CHATTERLEY: Bill, great to chat to you as always, and a very thought provoking book, I think particularly at this moment. Bill Browder, the CEO

and Co-Founder of Hermitage Capital Management and the author of the new book Freezing Order, great to chat to you.

All right, still to come, prosecuting President Putin; one expert is calling for a new tribunal to make President Putin pay for the war in

Ukraine. The question is how, stay with us.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. As the war continues and more atrocities are uncovered, there are growing calls to pursue war crimes against Russian

President Vladimir Putin.

Currently investigations are underway at the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice

in the Hague.

Well, earlier today, the President of the European Council Charles Michel tweeted from Ukraine history will not forget the war crimes that have been

committed here, there can be no peace without justice.

My next guest argues prosecuting for war crimes risks, in his words, letting the main man Putin off the hook. Philippe Sands joins us now. He's

the Professor of Law at the University College London.

He's also the Author of "East West Street on the origins of crimes against Humanity", and Genocide. Philippe, fantastic to have you on the show, I

think we have to explain the difference.


CHATTERLEY: Thank you, we have to explain the difference between prosecuting for war crimes and prosecuting what you want to see, which is

crimes of aggression, because that pushes forward the conversation about requiring a separate tribunal to do so, just explain the difference and why

it matters?

SANDS: Sure, well, I'd be pleased to. I mean, you really need to get back to 1945, to the famous trial at Nuremberg, which prosecuted for

international crimes, the old established war crimes, which is basically the conduct of war.

And armed conflict methods means not targeting civilians, then it prosecuted two other crimes, crimes against humanity, protection of

individuals, and genocide, protection of groups.

But there was a fourth crime, which was really the central crime at Nuremberg, and it was called crimes against peace today, it's called the

crime of aggression. And it's the decision to wage an illegal war.

And that is the one that I have focused on, and now many others are focusing on. Because it's the only way to get if you like, to the top

table, it's leadership crime. And it brings into the frame, that small group of people who decided to wage the war and continue with the war, a

war which is in my view, manifestly illegal.

CHATTERLEY: So it's not about the definition of war crimes and whether or not Russia or Putin himself is perpetrating war crimes. It's about how best

to use the laws that exist, or those that don't probably to be clearer to tackle Putin himself. SANDS: I mean, the real issue what's in crime as

you've described is the investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And some are now addressing the issue of genocide is in hand.

The prosecutors in Ukraine and other countries at the International Criminal Court are all now actively investigating how the war has been

conducted. The central issue, though, is that none of these crimes would have been committed if this war had not been started.

And that is the same situation as pertained at Nuremberg. So the question is, really, how do you get to the people who are most responsible? You can

of course, argue that the war crimes the crimes against humanity, are the responsibility of Mr. Putin and the people immediately around him, but

proving that is pretty tough, and it will take a long time, even if you can do it.

The much more straightforward approach is the crime of aggression. The decision to go to war that's a small group of people. The evidence is

reasonably clear. It can be up and running pretty quickly. And you're absolutely certain to get to the top table, that's the difference.


CHATTERLEY: How likely is it that we see a separate tribunal agree to?

SANDS: Well, the international criminal court has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide has been committed on the

territory of Ukraine.

It does not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The crime of aggression exists in Ukrainian law and in international law, but there's no

mechanism for delivering it.

And so the proposal is to create a special instance, which effectively delegates the law of Ukraine on the crime of aggression to an international

tribunal that will be specially created, maybe based in The Hague.

You need an agreement between Ukraine and either an international organization, the Council of Europe, or, or the European Union, or an

agreement between Ukraine and a number of countries who support the idea.

And there are now some who are calling for this that can be done pretty quickly, it can be done in a matter of weeks, frankly. And you could have

an indictment up in running by the summer, which would not be the case for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

How likely is it? Well, Julia, that's a matter of political will, if countries want to do it, they can do it. I'm working with a small group of

European countries, there will be a meeting in Vilnius in Lithuania, called by the Prime Minister of Lithuania, to address this issue.

And I think one of the big questions is whether countries like France, UK, Germany, the U.S. will want to support it or just remain neutral.

CHATTERLEY: You wrote an op-ed in the nation, and I put out a quote from it that you wrote, the international rule of law is a fragile creature, those

who have a semidetached relationship to it, including the United States, are perhaps not best placed to invoke it for the crimes of others.

And it goes to your point about the political will, and perhaps the fear of creating a precedent here, for nations like the UK, like the United States

for France, and I could name many others, that perhaps their own actions come back to haunt them. And someone decides they want to prosecute them

for it. That's what's potentially going to stop this.

SANDS: You're absolutely right to put the focus on this. The elephant in the room, so to speak, is of course, Iraq. Most people think that war was

illegal. And of course, no special tribunal was created for that.

And there is, I think, certain nervousness, particularly in Washington and London. If you're going to create a special tribunal to deal with Russia, a

permanent member of the Security Council today, and why not us tomorrow, perhaps not in relation to past actions like Iraq, but in relation to

future actions. And that's what I think is concentrating minds, particularly in Paris, London, and Washington. A precedent would be

created, I think it's worth creating that precedent, it's based on Nuremberg, the countries we've just mentioned all supported the creation of

the Nuremberg Tribunal.

And the central question is, whether international law, international criminal law is only for others, or is to be applied to everyone. My hope

is, these countries will end up supporting the proposal.

CHATTERLEY: And treat this like a special case. I mean, the hope, I guess, is the ultimate aim is some degree of accountability for the Ukrainians and

for what they're going through at this moment, and the boost of morale.

But in Russia, and I think this is the for me, also a critical point, the hope that would be it would be like Nuremberg, that perhaps faced with the

prospect of this, some Russians peel away from Putin, recognizing what might be coming.

SANDS: Indeed, I mean, you're right. I mean, it is difficult, there is going to be hesitation. But one of my concerns is that we find ourselves in

a situation three or four years down the line where there are proceedings trials in The Hague.

And you find some sort of mid-level military types called up for war crimes or crimes against humanity, or maybe even genocidal that I think that's

tough to prove.

But the people at the top table, Mr. Putin, Mr. Lavrov, those who participated in this decision, the military, the intelligence folks, the

finances, somehow get off the hook, I think that will be a deplorable situation.

And so you've got to look at the alternative approach. And I think this is the only way to go if you want to address that kind of issue. It's

difficult to do, but it's not impossible to do. I don't think anyone wants to leave the chop table people off the hook.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, very quickly Philippe because I have 30 seconds. How quickly could this be done in an ideal world compared to the several years

that may not actually get to Putin?

If you go, the traditional route of prosecuting war crimes, how quickly could this be done in an ideal world?

SANDS: I think the ideal world you can have a tribunal up and running within three months, and you can have an indictment followed within a

couple of months after that.

CHATTERLEY: And they're in - Philippe, great to chat to you. Thank you so much, we'll speak to you again soon I hope, Philippe Sands, Professor of

Law at University College London and Author of the book East West Street.


CHATTERLEY: Now coming up, a new source of financial support how Ukraine is using crypto as a tool of war to help itself, next.


CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. The U.S. is preparing another $800 million in military aid for Ukraine. As the international community continues to raise

money to support the country, more than $16 billion has been provided to date that according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

But the Ukrainian government is also finding unique ways to help itself including swiftly raising and distributing 10s of millions of dollars via

crypto, and they currently accept 14 different currencies.

I spoke to IMF Chief Kristalina Georgieva, and Bank for International Settlements Head Agustin Carstens about the risks and benefits of digital

money in a time of crisis.

KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, IMF: The Ukrainian authorities were fans of digital currency before the war, so they have done quite a lot

of work. They're looking into Central Bank digital currency, it is not a new topic, they see the need of the people to allow the use of digital

channels to send aid to Ukrainians.

And that has been really successful, low cost fast gets to people who need it can be deployed immediately to support families. But let's be clear, in

terms of size, in comparison to the more traditional forms and channels, it is relatively small, our data shows something in the order of perhaps 100


This is not anything. But just to give you a perspective, we have provided $1.4 billion emergency financing to Ukraine. So it is useful. They are

however, two issues that came across one, that because of the demand in Ukraine and the difficulties in Ukraine.

It looks like maybe pricing has been a bit higher than on average. So if we want to bring down cost that was not fully achieved and two, there have

been some scams.


GEORGIEVA: Unfortunately, we know that in the digital space, there is a segment that is of wrongdoing luckily, in this case on a very small in a

very small scale. More interesting is how Ukraine is thinking of its future.

And I'm very impressive even under the incredible hardship of war, that the thinking there is to have standards and wallets that are regulated. So

there can be safety and trust for the users of digital money.

And I wish the Ukrainian authorities all the very best in pursuing this longer term trajectory.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, and you raise a great point that the deputy digital ministers point with me certainly was that he believed crypto could be a

swift way of raising money and distributing it.

But the point about scams, I think we've all seen those as a hot topic and a highly valid point. Agustin coming here to, because I think there's two

points raised here, one, perhaps the ability of a central bank digital coin of the future to get money to people very quickly in a crisis or in an

emergency situation.

Or even those that have had to flee across borders, perhaps too. Your views on what we've seen, and perhaps what we might see in the future?

AGUSTIN CARSTENS, GENERAL MANAGER, BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS: Well, thank you very much. In general, I fully share the views expressed

Kristalina. The problem I mean, yes, crypto different crypto currencies can be a way to send money right now to change money in Ukraine.

But the limitations that are well known of crypto assets are showing up there is comes pricing, volatility, and so on. Now, this, this also helped

us imagine a world in which --CBDC were present.

I mean, it's obvious that the distribution of bills in the country is completely disrupted in time of a war. That problem probably would not have

happened or wouldn't have happened if we had CBDC, CBDC could still be working. And therefore, many of the problems that are faced now would

probably not exist.

GEORGIEVA: I have family in Kharkiv, the second largest Ukrainian city. And as you would imagine, it has become really difficult to rely on the banking

system to withdraw money from a bank, but internet is functioning 24/7.

And in fact, more of the monetary transactions are done using the oldest form of digital money, e-money, in other words, transactions that are done

computer to, to computer.

So we have to think about the world of digital money also as adding resilience. And we know from the case of the Bahamas, that their sand -

served them extremely well at the time of a hurricane when connections were only based on internet and not on physical movements.

CHATTERLEY: Coming up a Netflix nightmare. The streaming service suffering a post lockdown at letdown with subscription growth falling sharply, call

it a stranger thing stunner or perhaps a Bridgerton too far details, next.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to a mix day on global markets with one high profile stock Breaking Bad. I'll explain the Dow is advancing but tech is

softer after Tuesday's 2 percent rally Europe as you can see mostly higher the footsie in the UK the underperformer, IBM overall though big winner up

more than 5 percent after an earnings and revenue beat.

Results coming in solid even as the company takes sales hit from its exit from --. You can see more and more of that. Consumer products giant Procter

and Gamble high too after raising guidance, consumers are still spending for its products even as prices rise.

And later this session Tesla reports its first quarter results but all stock stories today pale in comparison to that of Netflix shares of the

streaming giant losing more than a quarter of its value. Wow, take a look at that.

Netflix is reporting its first quarterly subscription drop in years and warning of an even grimmer performance this quarter to. Netflix now vowing

to clamp down on Password sharing it also was open to a lower priced advertising supported subscription tier.

Netflix's future seems once a spark here, is an episode of Emily in Paris. Today it's looking like something out of a dystopian drama Squid Game. Paul

La Monica joins me now Paul, my favorite of all of that kudos to David, one of my writers there.

A Bridgerton too far said with a British accent. I can account for the subscription loss in that quarter with Russia and the 700,000 people that

they lost there. But the forecast for losing 2 million this quarter, Paul, what are the things going on here?

It's sort of peak subscription on steroids.

PAUL R. LA MONICA, CNN REPORTER: Yes, exactly. I tweeted last night, a Bridgerton over troubled Waters are going to one up David on that one. But

I agree that what you have right now Julia is a combination of consumers are fatigued, I think with all the streaming options that are out there,

and an environment of rising inflation, everything is more expensive.

Cutting back on streaming services is a natural thing to potentially do if you're worried about when you go to the grocery store, order groceries

online and how much more expensive.

Everything that you need to eat and live on a daily basis, which is not Netflix exactly, is rising and going higher. So I think that is potentially

a problem. And then that crackdown on Password sharing is also likely to hurt Netflix.

Because it shows that there aren't really as many paying consumers as Netflix would like.

CHATTERLEY: 100 million people potentially that is sharing passwords, even if you could just monetize that a little bit. As they said, look, it wasn't

a focus when we were in this crazy growth stage. But now they're going to focus on it.

That is a monetizable solution, perhaps but it's not the be-all and end-all pool. What else can they do?

MONICA: Well, there are two things, Julia. One, charging people for sharing passwords could be a problem, because you could have people basically

decide and say, hey, you know what, was fun lasted, I don't want to pay for it.

But then there's also the advertising conundrum Reed Hastings, who has long said that he does not want ads on Netflix finally said during the

conference call yesterday that he would consider having ads for Netflix subscribers.

And that then begs the question, what kind of rates do you charge? Are you able to use the official numbers to say to advertisers, we have this many

million subscribers?

Or do you try and cheat and say, hey, you know what, we actually have more people than we officially count because of all of these people sharing

passwords. So we're going to charge you ad rates based on that.

I don't think many Fortune 500 companies would want to pay higher ad rates for phantom password sharing people. They're going to go probably by the

official subscriber counts, and that's obviously not great news for Netflix at a time where subscribers are now apparently going down.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, attack. Have you pruned your apps?

MONICA: I haven't yet partly because I'm lazy. But I definitely am streaming less but I think that's more about having two crazy children at

home than any worries about costs, at least for me.


CHATTERLEY: There's more to come. That's the argument there, I think. And I agree, Paul La Monica, great to chat to you, as always. Now there's a tie

from this and finally on First Move.

A return to work survey claims the worker bees, and nearly twice as likely to be back full time as their bosses. That's according to an international

poll from slacks Future Forum.

Now while 35 percent of workers say they've returned to the office full time, only 19 percent of bosses can say the same. And that disconnect,

well, its driving discontent.

Workers who don't have a flexible schedule are three times more likely to look for a new job in the next 12 months. Let that be a warning. That's it

for the show. Stay with CNN "Connect the World" with Becky Anderson is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.