Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Putin Gets China's Support Amid Fears Russia Will Invade Ukraine; U.S Claims Russia Plotting False Flag Video to Justify Invasion; RNC to Vote on Censuring Cheney, Kinzinger for 1/6 Work. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired February 04, 2022 - 07:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: Physically, metaphorically, policy-wise, right next to each other, and that's the point.

[07:00:06]

With more Russian 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border, Putin wants Chinese support for whatever actions might follow, and he sure seemed to get it.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN NEW DAY: So, a joint statement just released by Russia and China says this, quote, the Chinese side is sympathetic to and supports the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation to create long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe.

Right now, Russian forces are poised at the Ukraine border for a possible invasion. U.S. officials are alleging that the Kremlin is preparing to fabricate a pretext for an invasion by staging a fake attack by Ukraine against Russia.

BERMAN: All right. More on that in just a moment.

I want to bring in CNN Senior Global Affairs Analyst Bianna Golodryga, Anchor and CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto and CNN Senior Political Analyst John Avlon. I feel like this is the senior meeting here right now of all people.

Look, I have to say, I want to start with that statement. First of all, the extraordinary picture between Xi and Putin, they get together a lot. But this is the Olympic Games. They know the whole world is watching this. There they are standing side by side. And did Xi give Putin the right to invade.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, in so many words, right, it's interesting. Until a couple of years ago, the view was that China and Russia, though they share an interest in diminishing the U.S., right, that they're in a competition with the U.S., we're not friends or allies. And, in fact, they do. And they still do have things they disagree over and conflict over, but in the last couple of years there's been a meeting of the minds on this and genuine cooperation. We've seen a number of fields joint military exercises over South Korea, around Japan, deliberately sticking their thumb in the eye of the U.S. and U.S. forces and, of course, all the speculation about Putin waiting for the Olympics to be over to invade Ukraine, potentially.

But this statement takes it out of the realm of speculation and puts them literally on the same page in terms of language, Xi endorsing Putin's position regarding invading a sovereign country.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes. And there is a timeline here. I mean, the tactical turn that Putin made towards becoming closer with China was after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. And that's where you really started to see that relationship start to blossom. This is the first meeting Xi has had with another foreign leader in two years. These two have met, I believe, nearly 40 times already. They call each other bosom buddies, best friends. And you are seeing a new alliance here. In fact, just today, they signed a 30-year natural gas deal, just once again highlighting the significance of this relationship going forward.

BERMAN: It almost seems, John, like Putin is the guest of honor at the Olympic Games. I mean, that's how it is being seen by the world.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That is how it is choreographed by Chinese state media within Russia. Look, this is an attempt to create an alternative alliance between autocracies against democracies. And that's what's driven together against. Overall the historic differences between these two nations, this has been growing for a while. They've been formalized with military exercises several years ago, as Jim said.

But now with the economic interest, the military interest, pageantry of the Olympics and Ukraine serving almost as a proxy for China's ambitions towards Taiwan, you see a lot of these alliances formalize. These are the dividing lines of the world right now.

SCIUTTO: In a way, it gives the U.S. two-front cold war, right? I mean, people have been using the cold war terminology for both Russia and China as it relates to the U.S. And now you have challenges. We've talked a lot about Biden trying to shift to Asia and having trouble doing so given the challenges in Europe today from Russia with the threat of invading Ukraine, this works, right? And it further diminishes the U.S. because it spreads its -- you have to spread yourself thin, right, to respond to this.

GOLODRYGA: And, no doubt, this is a short-term relationship of convenience. The longer term, we're going to have many issues between the two of them as the balance has shifted from where the Soviet Union and China historically stood. Now, China is more of the dominant super power, though their economies are mutually compatible, because what China needs, Russia can offer and vice versa.

That having been said, even this energy deal that they announced today, it's via euros. It's not in U.S. dollars. And it is showing that they are trying to move away from U.S. currency.

BERMAN: There are there two things I think sort of on display here, and Jim touched on it, John. Number one, Biden has long said he wants to pivot to Asia. And seems to be Putin saying, okay, try that, here I am. Look at me. And then if the Biden administration is trying to isolate Putin on Ukraine, well, it's worked to an extent in Europe, but, boy, you're not isolated if you have one of the world's largest global powers by your side.

AVLON: No. But this is always -- this is Russia flexing its muscle as the definitive Eurasian power, right? If they can't move to the west, then, fine, they'll pivot to the east.

The flipside to that is, is Putin's actions with Ukraine actually having the effect of strengthening the NATO alliance.

[07:05:01]

Because the dividing lines are not just the United States versus Russia and China, a new alternative system, it's the west, it's democracy versus autocracies, as Biden has finally said.

BERMAN: The other major development overnight in Ukraine specifically, was the United States saying that they have intelligence that the Russians are trying this elaborate false flag operation. What does that mean? That they are going to fake a Ukrainian action against ethnic Russians and somehow that would be a pretext for a Russian invasion. This is how John Kirby described it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: As part of this fake attack, we believe that Russia would produce a very graphic propaganda video, which would include corpses and actors that would be depicting mourners, and images of destroyed locations, as well as military equipment, at the hands of Ukraine or the west.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Okay. I do want people to know we are going to talk about the fact that they haven't produced -- the United States hasn't let reporters see that evidence in a second. But what's going on here, Jim?

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, from the beginning, the U.S. intelligence assessment has been if Russia were to invade, this would be a multi- front war. This is hybrid warfare on multiple fronts, not just the tanks and the airstrikes and so on but in information, information warfare, cyberattacks, et cetera. And this is part of that, the idea that they want to create some sort of false justification for invading. There's been talk about a fake terror attack against Russian-backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, or something along those lines to give punitive justification for going into the country.

The other piece of this that is interesting is the U.S. showing what it knows, right? Clearly, the U.S. has pretty good vision into Russian plans here. And they are saying, we know what you're up to, and, by the way, we will tell the world, which is an interesting information of on its own.

GOLODRYGA: That is a different strategy. Russia's tactics here are not so new, right, the information warfare and the false flags. They have conducted these types of operations before. What's new here is what you are seeing particularly between the United States and the U.K., this new approach of revealing all of this information ahead of time, of being more transparent about it.

Now, whether or not this will keep Putin from ultimately going in, I don't know.

AVLON: It removes some of the credibility or the confusion intended to be created by such a false flag attack. And it is interesting because the new DNI said she wants to reduce the secrecy that generally surrounds intelligence. So, this is strategic reflection of that.

But it also shows how much the disinformation wars are here, obviously, Putin being a former KGB agent, but China transacting with these kinds of disinformation efforts every day to confuse and attack critics at home and overseas. And so this is yet another sense that these deep information wars have gone mainstream. They will be a primary tool of these autocratic regimes going forward, geopolitically as well as at home.

GOLODRYGAN: The only other thing I would add is that this is not only a good photo-op for Putin to show back home, right, him being in China here with his best friend, the two regional powers there, two dominant powers. But also there's a new polling out, independent polling, that shows over the last six months, Putin's popularity has gone up. And that is something that gives him a boost at home.

BERMAN: All right. Stand by, senior squad, here. I'm going to Brianna for a second.

KEILAR: So, twice in one day, top administration officials have suggested that reporters who were asking legitimate questions are siding with enemies of America. At yesterday's State Department briefing, this heated exchange between State Department Spokesman Ned Price and the A.P.'s Matt Lee, who, by the way, has covered the last eight secretaries of state.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATT LEE, DIPLOMATIC WRITER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: It's an action that you say that they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that. And I'm going to get to the next question here, which is what is the evidence -- I mean, this is like crisis actors, really? This is like Alex Jones territory you're getting into. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?

NED PRICE, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Now, this is derived from information known to the U.S. government, intelligence information that we have declassified. I think you --

LEE: Okay. Well, where is it? Where is this information?

PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified. LEE: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information?

PRICE: I just delivered it.

LEE: No. You made a series of allegations.

PRICE: Would you like us to print out the topper? Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself.

LEE: That's not evidence. That's you saying it. That's not evidence. I'm sorry.

PRICE: What would you like, Matt?

LEE: I would like to see some proof that you can show that --

PRICE: Matt, you have been --

LEE: -- that shows that the Russians are doing that.

Ned, I have been doing this for a long time.

PRICE: I know. That was my point. You have been doing this for quite a while. You know that when we declassify intelligence information we do so in a means -- we do so -- we do so with an eye to protecting sources and methods.

[07:10:03]

LEE: And I remember that Kabul was not going to fall. I remember a lot of things. So, where is the declassified information other than you coming out here and saying it?

PRICE: Matt, I'm sorry you don't like the format but we have --

LEE: It's not the format. It's the content.

PRICE: I'm sorry you don't like the content. I'm sorry you are doubting the information that is in the possession of the U.S. government.

LEE: But you don't have any evidence to back it up other than what you're saying. It's like you're saying we think -- we have information that the Russians may do this. But you won't tell us what the information is. And then which --

PRICE: That is the idea behind deterrence, Matt. That is the idea behind deterrence. It is our hope that the Russians don't go forward with this.

LEE: And when you're asked what the information is, you say I just gave it to you. But that's not the way it works.

PRICE: You seem not to understand -- you seem not to understand the idea of deterrence.

LEE: You seem not to understand the idea of --

PRICE: We are trying to deter the Russians from moving forward with this type of activity. That is why we are making it public today. If the Russians don't go forward with this, that is not ipso facto, an indication that they never had plans to do so.

LEE: But then it is unprovable. What is the evidence you have that suggests that the Russians are even planning this? I'm not saying they're not, but you just come out and say this and expect us to believe it without you showing a shred of evidence that it's actually true, other than when I ask or what anyone else acts what is the information? You said, well, I just gave it to you, which is just you making a statement.

PRICE: Matt, you said yourself you have been in this business for quite a long time. You know that when we make intelligence information public, we do so in a way that protects sensitive sources and methods. You also know that we do so, we declassify information only when we're confident in that information. If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments and want to, you know, find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.

LEE: I'm not --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: All right. Let's be clear. That was the State Department spokesman suggesting that an American reporter is siding with Russian propaganda, finding comfort with Russian propaganda. He's not. He's asking a question. It is our job as journalists to ask questions and to verify claims. You heard the reporter clearly explaining why, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and more recently whether Kabul would fall to the Taliban. This was President Biden in July.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: No, it is not.

REPORTER: Why?

BIDEN: Because you have the Afghan troops have 300,000, well- equipped, as well as equipped as any army in the world, and an air force, again, something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.

But the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: It happened less than a month later. Kabul fell. So, yes, it is important to question claims and intelligence.

The other exchange yesterday over a reporter just doing their job, asking about the raid in Syria that killed the leader of ISIS, NPR Reporter Ayesha Rascoe questioned White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on board Air Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER (voice over): I mean, I know the U.S. has put out a statement that the -- you know, they've detonated the bomb themselves. But will the U.S. provide any evidence? Because there may be people that are skeptical of the events that took place in what happened to the civilians.

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY (voice over): Skeptical of the U.S. military's assessment when they went out and took out an ISIS terror -- the leader of ISIS?

REPORTER: Yes.

PSAKI: That they are not providing accurate information and ISIS is providing accurate information?

REPORTER: Well, not ISI, but, I mean, the U.S. has not always been straightforward about what happens with civilians, and, I mean, that is a fact.

PSAKI: Well, as you know, there is an extensive process that the Department of Defense undergoes. The president made clear from the beginning, at every point in this process, that doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties was his priority and his preference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: She went on to say it's a fact, right, that information has not always been correct when it comes to civilians. Following the ISIS-K attack at the airport in Kabul, you'll remember, it killed 13 service members, the U.S. targeted what it thought was ISIS-K with a drone strike in Kabul on August 29th. Now, that strike killed ten civilians, including seven children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. MARK A. MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Were there others killed? Yes, there are others killed. Who they are, we don't know. We'll try to sort through all that. But we believe that the procedures at this point -- I don't want to influence the outcome of an investigation. But at this point we think that the procedures were correctly followed and it was a righteous strike.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:15:02]

KEILAR: The administration insisted that the intelligence was good.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MILLEY: We had very good intelligence that ISIS-K was preparing a specific type vehicle at a specific type location. We monitored that through various means. And all of the engagement criteria were being met. We went through the same level of rigor we have for years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The administration explained that civilian casualties appeared to be because of explosives that were carried by the purported terrorists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILLEY: Because there were secondary disclosures, there is a reasonable conclusion to be made that there was explosives in that vehicle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: It turned out that was wrong. The administration later admitted it had made a horrible mistake.

So, when we look at the failures of journalism, many times, the failures are questions not asked. That is why reporters question officials, because government officials have been wrong. It happens a lot. And this administration specifically has been wrong. As you see, they're dead wrong in the recent past when talking about civilian casualties.

It is entirely plausible that the leader of ISIS did blow himself up and killed people doing so. His predecessor, al-Baghdadi did, and killed his own children when he did it.

Just last week, the U.S. defense secretary though ordered top Pentagon officials to come up with a plan to protect civilians. Secretary Lloyd Austin called it, quote, a strategic and moral imperative. He said that efforts to mitigate and respond to civilian harm are a direct reflection of U.S. values. So, yes, journalists will keep asking questions, hopefully undeterred by these suggestions. To do so is not siding with America's enemies. It is, as Secretary Austin himself said, a moral imperative and a reflection of U.S. values, not Russian values, not ISIS values, American values.

I wonder, Bianna, when you were watching some of these moments yesterday, what you thought.

GOLODRYGA: Well, you know, I was watching Russian state media throughout the evening and sort of their reactions to this. And this is another indication of why, in their view, democracy is dirty, it's ugly, right? Why have to deal with this? This is something that's playing out in the United States. It's not playing out in Russia right now. And here they are, once again, a divided weakened, in their opinion, country, where they can't even trust their own government. If they can't trust their government, who is to say what they are accusing Russia is, in fact, true? Once again, they are denying all of these allegations. KEILAR: Did you think those were just pretty important questions, Jim, to ask? I mean, how did you see them?

SCIUTTO: They are obvious questions. I mean, as you saw, it's the job of journalists to ask questions. It's the job of journalists to be skeptical of sources regardless of the source, right? It's a ridiculous point of view to say that you can't ask those questions.

Now, when it comes to intelligence, you know, administrations will declassify intelligence. Will they, you know, hand you the thumb drive that shows the full intelligence report? No. So, you know, it's okay to say this is how much we're showing and we can't show the whole thing. But when you're asked a reasonable question about what is the intelligence particularly when -- or what's the evidence, rather, particularly when you have made mistakes, right, and very recent mistakes, as you have identified. You've got to show more, right? You've got to show more. It's reasonable to ask for them to show more so that you can convince.

I mean, we were just talking about how this is partly an information war, right, in whether you're talking about Syria or Russia or China. So, that also has tactical value, right, for the U.S. to show that, to show why they know these things.

KEILAR: I mean, what do you think, Avlon? This was just a moment that really stood out to me, these two things happening in one day, yesterday.

AVLON: Sure, and I understand, why, because you are a principled journalist who's going to hit -- it doesn't matter what administration it is. If you question the integrity and process of journalists whose job, as you said, to ask questions by attacking the messenger, whether you call it -- enemies of the people or say you are siding by the enemy by asking these questions, it crosses a basic fundamental line.

Our enemies and our opponents say democracy is divided and it's messy, and indeed it can be. But the point is this system of rigor we put in place gives us greater strength than autocracies can ever have. And so whatever frustration those spots may be feeling at that particular moment never justifies crossing that line into questioning the patriotism and intentions of the journalist.

SCIUTTO: Whatever value Russia sees from this and so on, I mean, Bianna knows this better than me, we all do, Russia kills journalists. And democracy is messy. And one of the things that -- one of the advantages of being in this democracy, you can ask those hard questions and sleep at night, feel safe when you sleep at night.

So, those other countries, as much as they are going to attempt to profit from this, they don't have a leg to stand on.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. I mean, any journalist in Russia that would asked those type questions would be deemed a foreign agent and wouldn't be allowed access to being on national television.

[07:20:02] So, that's the difference there.

And I think also not to defend administration here, but here you see one of the downfalls of having a new tactic that they are putting out there, right, and being so forthcoming, and here's all the information we're getting but you're going to have to trust us on this, because, perhaps, they didn't think that they would be getting this type of push back when they are being novel in some of their approaches in revealing this intel.

KEILAR: Yes. But they have to consider why are they maybe not getting that trust. And take a look, that it is self-generated. But I don't know, Berman. I've, you know, some questions I think we know as journalists, there are better than others. But I thought those were pretty good questions. And when I look back at moments that I think we all have to kind of do some soul were searching a lot of times, it's that there weren't enough questions, there wasn't verification that was asked for enough.

BERMAN: Yes. Look, they were also obvious questions there. You would think that they would know. They're going to have some good answers for it.

Bianna, Jim and John, thank you all very much.

KEILAR: So, hours from now, the Republican National Committee is going to vote to censure House Lawmakers Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, the party's most vocal critics, and the January 6th committee members.

And newly released body cam video shows a police SWAT Team shooting a black man. It turns out he wasn't even a target of the raid. What happened next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:25:00]

BERMAN: Today, the Republican National Committee will vote to formally censure Republican members of congress, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, over their service on the January 6th committee. This is all happening in Salt Lake City, where the party is holding its winter meeting.

Joining us now, CNN Reporter Gabby Orr, who is there, and former Republican Presidential Candidate and former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh.

Gabby, why don't you tell us what is in and isn't in this censure resolution.

GABBY ORR, CNN REPORTER: Well, good morning, John and Brianna. Hours from now here in Salt Lake City, the full voting body of the Republican National Committee is expected to pass a formal censure of Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Illinois Congressman Adam Kingzinger. This is a watered-down version of what was previously expected to be put before the resolutions committee yesterday that would have asked House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to expel both Cheney and Kinzinger from the House Republican conference. Instead, this is simply a censure by the RNC, national party, against the two lawmakers over their involvement in the House panel investigating January 6th.

Now, this is very much a member-driven resolution here at the winter meeting among people who have embraced former President Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 election, as well as his sharp criticism of Cheney and that January 6th panel.

KEILAR: So, you know, it's really interesting, Joe, because the RNC chairwoman told The Washington Post that these people are not sticking up for hard-working Republicans. And yet we look at these members who are being chastised here, Liz Cheney, I mean, her conservative credentials are indisputable, and yet she is facing this, Kinzinger is facing this.

FMR. REP. JOE WALSH (R-IL): Brianna, we get so caught up in the daily, pardon me, bullshit that is this Republican Party. We lose sight of the bigger picture. 13 months ago, there was a violent attack to overthrow an American election. A congressional committee was formed to get to the truth. Two members of a political party joined members of the other political party to get to the bottom of it.

And here we are 13 months later, those two members who dared, I mean, dared to get to the bottom of a violent attack against an American election, there's no place in that party for those two members anymore. And I don't care whether you talk about expelling them or censuring, it's a bunch of crap. It doesn't matter, Brianna. There's no place in this party for them. Kinzinger is not running for re- election. He knows that. Liz Cheney is a dead woman walking in Montana. She knows that. It's just so sad.

BERMAN: Wyoming, I think you mean, Joe.

KEILAR: Both beautiful states.

WALSH: Wyoming. Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Yes. I'm a huge fan of Yellowstone. Joe, though, I don't think we should totally just dismiss the idea that they had to water this down. They had to water down their condemnation of Cheney and Kinzinger. I'm not suggesting that there is a place for them in the Republican Party, writ large, right now, but the fact that these people felt that they couldn't get it through as harshly as they initially wanted, does that show perhaps some of their powers waning?

WALSH: No. Because I don't think, John, this committee of these party bosses had the authority to expel Adam Kinzinger or Liz Cheney from the Republican Party. I mean, don't think they have that authority. And, again -- I'm sorry, but the bigger picture is this. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney know, and they won't say it, but they know there's no place in this party for them right now. That's what needs to be driven home, not what a bunch of party hacks do in Salt Lake City. KEILAR: Gabby, on this issue of kind of watering it down, what is your reporting telling you about the dynamics or what's going on behind the scenes with that?

ORR: Well, look, the original form of this would have been very ceremonial in nature.

[07:30:03]

Because, as was mentioned, there is no mechanism by which the Republican National Committee can.