Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

This Hour: Biden Holds Call With U.K. PM On Ukraine Crisis; White House Warns Russia Could Invade Ukraine "Any Day Now"; Official: U.S. Intel Assesses Russian Military Plans Include Surrounding Kyiv, Air And Missile Campaign; Russia-Ukraine Tensions Present Big Political Test For Biden; GOP Sen. Graham Argues U.S. Should Hit Putin With Sanctions Now. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired February 14, 2022 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Hello, and welcome to Inside Politics. I'm John King in Washington. Thank you for sharing your day with us. A shock and awe campaign from there then, and on the ground onslaught that ends with Kyiv surrounded. New details this hour from what U.S. officials say is Vladimir Putin his plan for war, as the world waits for his next move.

Plus, new details on Mitch McConnell's midterm recruitment strategy. His plan to retake power in Washington counts on keeping the "goofballs" who repeat Donald Trump's lies off the ballot. So far, it is not going well. And a Parkland father's protests, he climbed this crane near the White House to send a loud message to the president about gun violence, and he ended up in handcuffs.

We begin though with new warnings, new intelligence and a persistent struggle to read Vladimir Putin mind. This hour President Biden convenes a call with the British prime minister and today the Biden national security team briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill. That briefing we are told includes an assessment of how Russia would invade Ukraine. U.S. intelligence indicates Moscow would first target airfields and early warning systems with missiles. Then, a fast- growing ground assault with the goal of surrounding Kyiv.

The Biden in White House says an invasion could come any day now and diplomacy. While it does not appear to be paying dividends at 62- minute weekend call between Presidents Biden and Putin, yielded no apparent breakthrough. And a call between the American president and Ukraine's president ended with Mr. Biden promising to respond swiftly and decisively to any new Russian aggression.

Our senior National Security Correspondent Alex Marquardt is live for us in Ukraine. Alex, what's the scene there?

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, @MARQUARDTA: Well, John, you're still seeing this significant difference in tone between the United States and Ukraine. You have the U.S. still saying that an invasion could come any day now that it could come this week, while Ukrainian officials are saying that everything's under control. And we don't necessarily believe that it could happen in the coming days.

Over the weekend, President Zelensky saying, well, we have other information when he was responding to this new U.S. intelligence. As you noted, John, the two presidents did talk over the weekend. We understand that a President Zelensky made several big asks and key requests of President Biden notably that he come and visit Kyiv in the coming days.

We are told by U.S. officials that is extremely unlikely. But President Zelensky also asked for more military and financial aid, which he said would help calm the panic or help ease any panic. This has been a major focus for President Zelensky to avoid chaos. And whether it's through his own doing or just the people's attitudes themselves, it does appear to be working.

Just for example, John, we are here in the city of Zaporizhzhia. This is a city of around 750,000. We have walked around. We have spoken with people. We've gone to grocery stores. There is not a hint of panic. It is remarkable when you compared to the alarm that we hear from Washington. Some people are concerned, others are completely dismissive. They say this is a threat that we've lived with for years. Russia invaded eight years ago. They could do so at any moment again.

Of course, John, we do know that this is different that the buildup is massive, more than 100,000 troops on three different fronts. So, this is certainly something to be taken seriously. The diplomatic effort does continue furiously. We have the German chancellor visiting Kyiv today, meeting with President Zelensky, the same German chancellor who met with President Biden just last week, and he goes on to Moscow tomorrow.

And perhaps the most curious moment in terms of diplomacy today or potential diplomacy, John, was in Moscow, when President Putin sat down at a comically long table with his own foreign minister. This is a very well-choreographed event that was on national TV and President Putin said to Sergey Lavrov, is there a chance to make an agreement, and Sergey Lavrov responded, we should continue, and it should be increased.

Is that how they really feel? Do they want to talk and avoid war? Or is this something that they're putting out there in response to these really alarming U.S. warnings? We simply don't know. You know, obviously, we're watching all kinds of tea leaves on this front. Meanwhile, the warnings from the U.S. about an increased Russian presence on the border are growing.

John, you outlined it very well. It could be an attack that starts from the air, followed by a very rapid assaults across the country, including on the capital Kyiv, from the north, from the East, we are keeping an eye on all this, all kinds of different possible scenarios. John?

KING: Alex Marquardt, grateful to you and our entire CNN team there at this important moment. We'll continue to stay in touch. Let's bring in to share their expertise and their insights at this moment, retired Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, and CNN national security analyst Beth Sanner. She's the former director of National Intelligence, Deputy Director for Mission Integration.

[12:05:00]

Beth, I want to start with you. You have the United States again, releasing what it says is Putin's war plan. We have seen this over the past several weeks, declassified information then released by the White House and other intelligence agencies to reporters, talking about what Putin is up to. At this point saying, that he has a plan. It would start with missile attacks. You take out airfields. You take out other key systems then surrounding keep. Is there value in that? Or are they trying to essentially say, you know, Mr. Putin, we are watching your every move. We're tracking your every communication. What is the goal there?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I do think it is to keep everybody on their toes. And part of it is because of this disconnect, I think, between Europe and the United States on where things stand. I mean, I think the intelligence what we're hearing is that the intelligence is very clear. But the one thing that is lacking is our understanding about Putin's intent.

And there's clarity on that too, from the White House saying that they don't know that Putin has actually decided yet. And, you know, so I think the other major thing missing is a pretext for Russia to go. And without that pretext, I don't think they're going to start, you know, hitting the buttons.

KING: So, General Kimmitt, you do see this disconnect in the Ukrainians obviously, you know, they don't have a financial panic that it wants their own citizens fleeing the country. So, they're trying to play down the imminence anyway, where the United States says this could happen any day.

Now, you hear conversations that might happen as early as Wednesday. What metrics would you watch as a military man, for example, Russia does have these what it says are exercises with Belarus troops? In Belarus that are supposed to wind down this week. If those troops leave, is that a sign Putin wants de-escalation? What would you be watching?

BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, I think the most important thing to be watching is his logistics trains. You can't conduct an invasion without a whole lot of ammunition vehicles, fuel vehicles, food vehicles. If you start seeing those equipment - that equipment moving to the border and getting itself prepositioned, that would cause me to be worried because you can't get over a couple of 100 miles inside a Kyiv unless you've got those logistics trains behind you. And if they're not there, they're not going to be able to attack too deeply. KING: And so, Beth, help us understand, how the intelligence agencies would walk through what the remarkable event that Alex just talked about that happened in Moscow today. Putin sits at the table with Lavrov, publicly asked him, knowing the country is watching, knowing that Putin needs public support at home for what if there is a military incursion would be a very bloody and costly action.

Lavrov sits at the table, Putin says, is there a chance still to talk this out? Lavrov says, maybe we should keep it up. Is that just pure propaganda? Or do you take the Russians at their word, that they're willing to keep talking?

SANNER: I would never take the Putin administration on their word under any circumstances. But I do think that it could go, you know, I don't want to rule out the option that that there might be dialogue. It is interesting that this happened on the - right after the Putin- Biden call, which the Russians said, Biden laid out options for answering Russian demands.

And so, you can kind of see Putin setting this up as like a statesman. We're listening. And that fits very much with the Russian narrative that we're the ones Russia have reasonable demands. It's Ukrainians and the U.S. that are the warmongers. And we're open to anything.

I think it could be biding time as a pretext. But I also think that there's a very, very small chance that they are trying to add pressure on Ukraine to capitulate, and especially around these Minsk accords, where they would get some sort of neutrality. That's still open. But you know, I'm still looking for that pretext. And you see, the Russian media rife, just rife with disinformation, that Zelensky is planning massacres and that mass graves have been discovered.

KING: And so, General Kimmitt, from a military planning standpoint, you have Ukrainian troops, obviously, who are along their borders and Russian troops on the other side. You have U.S. and other NATO troops in the surrounding countries that are members of NATO, and you have the constant rhetoric from the White House. I want you to listen here. This is Jake Sullivan, the National Security Adviser saying, this could happen anytime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE SULLIVAN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We have seen over the course of the past 10 days dramatic acceleration in the buildup of Russian forces and the disposition of those forces in such a way that they could launch a military action, essentially at any time. They could do so this coming week. But of course, it still awaits the go order. And so, therefore, we cannot predict the precise day or time that they may take action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Number one, in your view is that rhetoric saying, this could happen anytime helpful. And number two, to Beth's point about Putin looking for a pretext or a provocation. What are the communications from the Ukrainian command to their troops in the most sensitive areas? And what are the orders being sent out to U.S. and NATO troops to make sure, don't give them an excuse? Don't do anything provocative or don't invite a miscalculation.

[12:10:00]

KIMMITT: Well, in fact, John, I think we forgotten one other group of fighters and that's the separatists that are in the Donbas region. If anybody is going to welcome the Russians coming in, it would be them. And I'm seriously concerned about either miscalculation, or a mistake or some intentional act on the part of the separatists to provide that pretext that Beth was talking about.

I don't think it's going to come from NATO. I don't think it's going to come from the United States forces. We're doing everything we can to ensure we don't give them an excuse, but I can just imagine some separatists coming up with some mischief, perhaps their own false flag, not a Russian false flag but the separatists basically being the trigger that launches and blunders ourselves into war, quite frankly.

KING: Important days ahead, General Kimmitt and Beth Sanner, grateful that you're both here to help us through it as we walked through this the next few days. Appreciate it very much. Up next, for us testing time for President Biden, this stare down with Vladimir Putin, just one of the president's giant complicated election year challenges.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: This is a moment of giant consequence for the president. He promises a Russian invasion of Ukraine would bring swift and severe consequences. Yes, he knows those consequences would not only test global alliances, but also likely would have a significant negative impact on the U.S. economy in his already challenging first midterm election year.

Joining me to share their reporting and their insights, CNN's Dana Bash, CNN's Phil Mattingly, and McClatchy's Francesca Chambers. I want to start there, Phil, with you, in the sense that in the Trump presidency, President Trump was always very accommodating, very nice, actually half the time repeating Vladimir Putin's propaganda.

While his team actually had a tough on Russia policy, the state department and the treasury department were trying to impose sanctions. They called out Putin as a bad guy. How does this president work when he has an issue with Vladimir Putin like this with his team, which right now the defense secretary, the secretary of state at the White House?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's a team that's very experienced in dealing with Russia, Vladimir Putin and the issues, and I think that's more important than anything else. Because you have seen in the posture that the White House and the administration has taken over the course of the last several weeks, a willingness to really get out on their foot be more proactive than reactive.

That is far different than what we saw from the Obama administration, where many of these same officials once served, either in the state department, either in the NSC, kind of across the administration. And to some degree, accord officials I've talked to it's very much a lessons learned.

When you've dealt with Vladimir Putin, when you've seen how he operates, whether it's in misinformation, whether it's false flags, all of those types of issues, they made a clear calculation to be more forward with what they're seeing on the intelligence side of things to the degree they could without making clear who the sources of methods were, than perhaps any U.S. administration has ever been. They're doing that intentionally because they have learned lessons.

I think that the interesting element right now and we were talking about this during the break is, right, how does this teamwork with one another? I think they work very well with one another. They know one another very well, between Blinken and state Jake, they've known each other for a very long time, John. Finer, is the Deputy National Security Advisor worked with all them for a very long time. And Lloyd Austin, a little bit slower at the beginning to kind of become one of the team is now very much in that team.

But how they interact with the president, who has done this for 40 years, four decades, and believes very clearly that he knows everything that there is to know. And I think in this case, it's been clear that they've been willing to take a different posture, and not just the last administration, but any administration has taken, how that plays out in the weeks ahead.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And if I can just add to that, to your reporting about how much the president is listening to the very experienced people around him, which is true and from the state department to his own National Security Council, by all accounts and people I talked to say, and this may seem obvious, given the fact that he - the president has 40 years of experience with going back to the Senate.

He is highly engaged in the Ukraine issue, highly exercised by it on a personal obviously, professional, political, geopolitical level, to the point where maybe some of his predecessors, several of his predecessors weren't that way. He is.

KING: And one of the challenges, let me - before you jump in, just one of the challenges for the president is, he had a call with Putin, White House says he drew a very clear line. There will be severe and swift consequences. The other thing is to deal with U.S. public opinion. I want you to just listen to Senator Lindsey Graham, who says, you know, he wishes the president and they tried to - they've tried to negotiate a bipartisan package of sanctions in Congress. They've been unsuccessful. Lindsey Graham says, he wishes the president would do more. Now, the president says no, I've drawn a line if Putin has further aggression, then he gets sanctions. Listen to Senator Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I'd like to hit him now for the provocation and have sanction spelled out very clearly, what happens to the ruble and his oil and gas economy. I think that's what's missing. We're talking way too much and we're doing too little.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The president's approach appears to be right now, if you do that, you probably shut down the diplomatic window. So, leave the diplomatic window open, and say but, if you cross my line, then it comes.

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT MCCLATCHY: And we were hearing just earlier today from John Kirby that they just don't know what's in Putin's mind. They don't know what he could do. So, there's still a lot of uncertainty in this situation. And, Phil, what I want to touch on, we were talking about President Biden. His people may forget that Ukraine was an issue that was on his plate in 2014, when he was vice president. So, he does have a lot of experience with this and talking about lessons learned, about how you would want to move forward.

But at the same time in this White House, foreign policy has moved back in many ways to the state department, of course, through the National Security Advisor, the White House also. But it was really centralized in the Trump administration and amassing of power around foreign policy in a different way that we've now seen moving back to those other agencies.

[12:20:00]

KING: Let me come back, I was going to move on, I want to come back. He was vice president in the Obama administration, which was widely criticized as being too soft as letting Putin get away. They let Putin get away with it. What they brought to the table was not tough enough. How does that shape President Biden's thinking?

MATTINGLY: I think one of the more hawkish individuals in the Obama administration, based on my reporting of the time and sense was now President Biden. He wanted them to particularly when it came to defensive (Inaudible) to boost Ukrainian capabilities. He wanted the Obama administration to do more.

And I think it is unquestionable. It's such a great point that everything that the vice president dealt with, I believe he was the last, definitely a last U.S. leader to meet with then President Petro Poroshenko, on the ground in Ukraine before they left office in January 2017. Everything he's learned is playing into this at this moment in time.

And so, while there might be some moments. Dana makes great point, you know, you're oftentimes when it comes to foreign policy, you have the president talking about, well, I experienced this this many years ago. So, this will inform how I'm doing this. This is very near term. And I think the lessons that he learned in his time running point, were the same lessons that the folks over at the state department, the Obama administration over DoD and over the NSC in the Obama administration's learned as well. A lot of those people are now with him, around him and driving the policy, right?

KING: And you have to do - as far as the United States, you have to do what you think is the right thing at the moment, given the challenge. This president also has to know, we're in mid-February, in a midterm election year, and the price of crude oil is going up, the price of gas is up, the consumer prices went up 7.5 percent in the last year. He's in a midterm election year. Where if you impose heavy sanctions on Vladimir Putin, it is likely to drive those energy prices up even further. And who knows what other geopolitical and economic fallout that would be, comes with the job, I guess?

BASH: It comes with the job, but it is the consequences are as plain as day. The consequences that you were talking about economic consequences. And there's something else which is, there's not a lot of evidence right now that the American people, the American voter really cares that much about what's going on in Ukraine now.

If and when they are presented by - with the facts about why they should care, and there are a lot of facts about why they should care. Maybe that will change, but there's a lot going on at their kitchen table at the - in their wallets that whether the money is flying out to pay for gas, to pay for food, harder to find food, all the things we've been reporting about, and Ukraine seems really far away and really distant and really unimportant to them.

KING: And about a third of the country still hears in primetime from a couple of people that Putin is not such a bad guy. We'll leave that one for another day. But it matters, but it matters in this context when you want the whole country with you. It matters. Coming up for us, Trump versus McConnell in the future of the GOP. How Mitch McConnell is working to defeat Trump back candidates. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Mitch McConnell, no secret wants to be Senate majority leader again and he sees Donald Trump not the Democrats as his chief obstacle. This tension is not new, but the midterm campaign calendar is bringing it into sharper focus as McConnell tries to block Trump allies in several big Senate races.

McConnell wanted Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, to run for Senate. Hogan last week said no. And McConnell wants Arizona governor Doug Ducey to run. Ducey will decide soon, but is said by close friends to be leaning, no. Both governors have a very dim view of Donald Trump and vice versa.

Jonathan Martin of The New York Times writes this of the McConnell strategy. It's all aimed at recapturing the Senate majority, but the election also represents what could be Republicans last chance to reverse the spread of Trumpism before it fully consumed their party.

Great reporters are back with us. And to that point, that is how McConnell sees it. He looks across the chamber at the House and sees the rise of the Trump allies, doesn't like it from a policy perspective about how they conduct themselves perspective. And he's worried that's going to come to him.

BASH: Yes. He's worried that's going to come to him. But let's be clear, his number one goal is getting the majority back and being majority leader. And a big part of why he doesn't like Trump and Trumpism is because he sees that as an obstacle to attaining that goal. I mean, there is a philosophical part of it, but it seems to be much more of the power part of it.

And the reason is because he's lived this before, a different set of obstacles back when the Tea Party was big, but different - similar dynamics in that to win a Senate seat in a purple state. You need a candidate on the Republican side who appeals more to the middle. It's not the House. The districts are not drawn that way. That's just not the way it is.

And so, he has lived two cycles of not getting the majority back because he's had conservative at that time was Tea Party. This time there will be Trump back conservatives who can't win the state. That is the number one thing. And he is up against a former president who is making it incredibly personal. We all got emails from the Trump campaign last night, specifically going after the Republican Leader Mitch McConnell asking for money saying, let's try to get rid of Mitch McConnell, not Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell.

KING: Right. In a midterm election year, where Republicans you would think knowing the wind is at their back, just figure out, you know, settle our family feuds quietly, and publicly folk, but so this is what J Mart writes in his piece in The Times. In conversations with senators who would be senators, Mr. McConnell is blunt about the damage he believes Mr. Trump has done to the GOP. Privately, he has to declared he won't let unelectable goofballs win Republican primaries.

This is one of the reasons, Phil, he wants Governor Ducey to run in Arizona.