Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
EU to Finance Ukraine Without Using Frozen Russian Assets; Putin: No New "Special Military Operations" if Russia is Treated With "Respect"; Suspect in Brown University, MIT Shooting Found Dead; Rubio on China & Japan Tension: We Can Work with Both Sides; U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio Holds News Conference; Rubio: We have an Illegitimate Regime in Venezuela. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired December 19, 2025 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: All right. Ukraine secures critical funding from the European Union.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: "One World" starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If Europe had walked away today with -- without an agreement, we would not only have failed Ukraine, we would have failed
ourselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What it took to reach a deal and why the EU stopped short of tapping frozen Russian assets?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We haven't really learned the motive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: The search turns to uncovering a motive after the Brown University shooting suspect is found dead.
GOLODRYGA: Plus, TikTok signs a deal to create a U.S. owned venture. What we know about the agreement? Hello, everyone. Live from New York. I'm
Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher. You are watching "One World".
GOLODRYGA: Ukraine is welcoming a massive new deal from the European Union. Kyiv has just secured desperately needed cash for its operations over the
next two years as it fights to hold its own on the battlefield against Russia. The EU says that it will provide Ukraine with more than $100
billion. Now it's using borrowed money rather than tapping into frozen Russian assets held in the bloc.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELOR: We were confronted with the question of whether we really understood the challenges of geopolitics, whether we
really saw the provocations of a new world order, and whether we had anything to counter them with. And I want to say that the answer is a
resounding yes. Europe has understood what is at stake, and Europe has demonstrated its sovereignty in Moscow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: In Moscow Vladimir Putin just announced Russia will not launch new quote, special military operations. That's the Russian Leader's euphemism
for Moscow's all out invasion of Ukraine. Here's some of his message to the West from his annual news conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT: We are ready to work with you, with UK, with Europe, and whole with U.S., but on equal terms and mutual respect. It
us who are fighting you, it is you who are fighting us be the Ukrainian nationalists. We are ready to cease these hostilities immediately while
ensuring Russia's security in the medium and long term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: We'll have much more on Putin's end of year news conference a little bit later on the show. But let's bring in Melissa Bell joining us live now
from Paris. So, in terms of this interest free loan, what's interesting is that, yes, of course, it helps Ukraine for the next couple of years or so.
But really the avoidance of touching frozen Russian assets here, part of the issue is that Belgium fears retaliation, because that is where the
frozen Russian assets is predominantly held here. Just walk us through what happened Melissa.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. In the end, it took Zain and Bianna more than 16 hours of negotiations to get out
of this sand pass that had been building in the days leading up to the summit. There was Belgium's objections. Other countries had lined up behind
it.
And essentially, there was this fracture within the European Union about whether it was legitimate to tap into this nearly $250 billion worth of
frozen Russian assets, largely hold in this financial institution in Brussels.
And what we understand happened in the run up this summit is there was a lot of pressure that was brought to bear, not just by Moscow on the
particular financial institution, in the shape of more than 100 lawsuits already and they feared more to come. Should they go down this road?
But also, pressure from the United States, who was opposed, that was opposed to the use of these frozen assets. Remember that they were at the
heart of the initial American Russian plan that had been hammered out a couple of weeks ago in Moscow.
So, there was a lot of pressure for the Europeans not to go down this road. Those who were in favor were you just heard him there, Chancelor Merz, the
German Chancelor, Ursula Von Der Leyen, they were all very keen on this plan. Because the alternative, which is what the Europeans have gone for,
is this loan to be backed by the EU, the bloc's budget. So, common lending, and that is something a lot of countries within Europe are not very
comfortable with.
Still, in the end, they got that loan to Ukraine, and hence the boasting of so many of them coming out of that meeting, that was the key issue that
Ukraine, that we believe will run out money by the spring of next year, will have the money to fund its state and its military campaign to continue
defending itself, whatever the outcome of the continuation of those peace talks that are due to pick up in Miami over the weekend.
[11:05:00]
ASHER: All right, Melissa Bell live for us. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Orysia Lutsevych is the Head of the Ukraine forum at Chatham House, and she joins us now live from London. Orysia, thank you so much for
taking the time. So, European leaders have framed this decision ultimately of providing $105 billion worth of loans as a win.
But "The Wall Street Journal" headline reads this. By not tapping Russian assets for Ukraine, Europe showed its fear, basically saying that Europe
blinked before Vladimir Putin and his threats about tapping in to frozen Russian assets. How do you view it? Which description is more accurate?
ORYSIA LUTSEVYCH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, UKRAINE FORUM, CHATHAM HOUSE: Well, I think Europe has chosen the path of less escalation with Russia, that's for
sure. And I think the dimension of this law, this asset, it's not just money that should be available for Ukraine.
It's also the question of accountability of Russia for an unprovoked aggression that it has launched for basically crime against peace. And this
is where Europe says Russia is violating international law, but it is not prepared to hold Russia accountable and seize those assets and repurpose
them for Ukraine's budget and military purposes.
ASHER: So, how does Russia view the fact that Europe essentially cowered here? And what sort of retaliation exactly do you think Belgium is
specifically fearing from the Russians? Had they made those frozen Russian assets available for Ukraine?
LUTSEVYCH: So, Europe is, in a way, from a two-side pressure on one hand, Putin is threatening retaliation. And, you know, we have seen even some
kinetic measures drones flying over Brussels airports. I think they've been sending very strong signals that there will be response.
That also they, this week, on Monday, said they will launch a legal case against the seizure. And though there will be risk for Belgium. On the
other side, there's President Trump who says, do not touch these assets because they are my card on the table when I negotiate with Putin.
And we have seen in Trump's original plan, 28-point plan, the carving up of these assets between actually U.S. and Russia. And also, for the purposes
of Ukraine's recovery. But part of that actually was supposed to be directed for rebuilding Russia after the war as well.
GOLODRYGA: But this alternative plan is likely much more expensive for European tax holders there and taxpayers, and more difficult to scale
longer term. How much of this is viewed as a risk, potentially for Ukraine, if there is more and more pressure and more and more European taxpayers
don't want to carry the burden of having to continue to support Ukraine the longer this war continues?
LUTSEVYCH: Yeah, absolutely, there is that risk. Of course, for the European Union, the common the shared borrowing, is a practice that has
happened in times of crisis. When the Euro Zone was in crisis, Europe was ready to do whatever it takes to save Europe.
Right now, Europe is facing an incredible security crisis, and that is why it's prepared to take the path of borrowing. It's a matter of top the heads
of states in key European countries, explaining to their taxpayers, to the voters, why they are doing it. And it's one of the -- one question is
legitimate question, why they are not touching Russian assets?
I'm sure they have an answer for that. But as you say, in the long term, Ukraine's finance is roughly 1 billion euros a year, 100 billion euros per
year. And this borrowing will cover Ukraine for year, year and a half, and it will not if the if the war continues, will not answer the question of
future finance. And then the assets, the Russian assets, will come back on the table.
ASHER: So, you've got the EU obviously shouldering much more of the financial burden in terms of helping Ukraine. You've got the fact that
Donald Trump is telling the Europeans, listen, don't touch these frozen Russian assets, because that is one of the very few negotiating tools that
I have when it comes to speaking with Vladimir Putin and getting him to negotiate with us.
Based on all of that, do Ukrainians see the U.S. or rather, the Trump Administration is still a true ally for their cause?
LUTSEVYCH: I think since President Trump came into office, he positions himself as a mediator, not as an ally. And this is clear that he says, I am
mediating between the two sides, and actually what is quite discomforting for a victim of unprovoked aggression is that the pressure is put more on
Ukraine than on Russia.
[11:10:00]
And Ukraine is threatened with the discontinuing of military assistance, intelligence support. And it seems like the some of these points,
especially on elections, that America is pushing Ukraine to hold elections under such you know, horrible security situation is coming straight from
the Kremlin's playbook.
That is why, you know, the trust to United States is decreasing, and President Trump is not seen in favorable light across Ukraine, right?
GOLODRYGA: Right. And it's not that President Trump just wants to use these frozen Russian assets as leverage for pressuring Putin to end the war. He's
actually discussing in at least their initial 28-point plan about creating a joint U.S. Russian investment line using these funds in a post war
relationship and reality in which the United States is hoping to reintegrate Russia into the global economy.
European Leaders are also describing this agreed upon deal as a guarantee for them to have a seat at this table, because we spent so much time
focused on increased concern among Europeans that they are being excluded from these talks. Do you think that this deal that they reached upon now
today will give them a seat at the table from the perspective of Moscow or Washington?
LUTSEVYCH: Well, let's just say something very clear, Ukraine is a victim of aggression has the right for reparations, and there has been a UN
General Assembly decision. There is the Council of Europe register of damages. And the damages that Ukraine has already incurred since the start
of invasion is nearly $200 billion.
So, it's soon, it will soon be more than Russian sovereign assets. So, it's not just some pot of money that you can, you know, split and shove at your
own liking. There are rules and norms that are regulating the use of sovereign assets for different purposes. But yes, I think the fact that
Europe came up with a plan that it didn't fall apart, that it's prepared to take risks.
This is what is very important, financial risk and other risks to actually defend itself from a very hostile and aggressive Russia will be a
convincing argument for President Trump, who always wants to see Europe caring more for its security and supporting Ukraine, be it now or in the
future, when there is a ceasefire to ensure that the Russia doesn't invade again.
ASHER: We just had Putin speak in terms of his end of year speech. Obviously, this is for a domestic audience. But behind the scenes, just
walk us through from your perspective, how much internal anxiety there is in the Kremlin about this war, about the number of casualties.
I mean, obviously Russia is very liberal with its willingness to expend human life in this war. But just in terms of fears about the casualty, the
effect on the economy, sanctions. Obviously, there's been additional sanctions as part of Russia's shadow fleet. Public fatigue with the war.
What is happening behind the scenes?
LUTSEVYCH: It's interesting to watch Putin's body language and his projected confidence, right? He's trying to convince Russians that
everything goes according to the plan, that Russian mighty army will be able to achieve all of the goals of what he calls special military
operations.
But Russian people know that is not the case, actually. And if you look at the public mood, there's been data in "The Economist" reported that more
than 80 percent of Russians want the war to end. They do not want to push more for the conqueror -- conquer of Donbas, and there's still quite large
chunk, even of Donetsk region that Russia needs to occupy if it's where to control it, all of it, some calculate that it may take three years for them
to do it.
So, that is not something Russians are excited about. But also, there is quite grim understanding that Putin is not willing to sue for peace, that
he's stubborn and that he sees West as the enemy. He sees Europe as the enemy, and keeps reciting that NATO enlargement mantra is something that
provoked Russia.
So, he presents it as a defensive war for his audience. But it is clear that Russia is fighting on Ukraine's sovereign territory. He finds it
difficult to bring his society along on a voluntary basis, and he does not want to mobilize more Russians for war, so he's facing some very difficult
choices.
[11:15:00]
That is why he's pushing so hard, especially with Donald Trump, to -- for Ukraine to concede to these terms of settlement to Russia's capitulation
terms, because the war is not going according to his plan.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, I except for when you hear President Trump say that it is Ukraine who is on the losing end here just given their size and that they
are the ones ultimately that are going to have to agree to some very, very painful concessions here. Not much pressure, at least publicly, directed
from President Trump towards President Putin.
I also would say, I'm sure he must have been relief to hear President Macron of France today say that talks between the parties need to resume.
So, he always likes to be included in these types of conversations. Sure, that was welcome for him as well. Orysia Lutsevych, thank you really
appreciate your time.
ASHER: Thank you. All right, a shocking end to the day's long man hunt for the Brown University mass shooter. The suspect was actually found dead at a
storage facility. Police say that Claudio Neves Valente took his own life in Salem, New Hampshire.
They believe that he is also responsible for the killing of an MIT Professor as well just Tuesdays -- just two days after killing two people
at Brown University and injuring nine others.
GOLODRYGA: Neves Valente was a former student at Brown and 48-year-old Portuguese national. In reaction to the horrific shootings U.S.,
immigration officials now plan to pause the visa program that brought Claudia Neves Valente to the United States in 2017.
ASHER: Michael Yoshida has been keeping a close eye on these developments. He joins us live now from Salem, New Hampshire. I mean, there are so many
bizarre aspects of this case, Michael. I mean, the what link there might be between the Brown shooting and also the killing of this MIT Professor as
well?
But also, the way this case was cracked open. It was a Reddit user who apparently said that he had seen the suspect and he was dressed
inappropriately for the weather, and followed him around the block and saw him approach his car and then leave his car and continue circling the
block. I mean, the way the case was cracked open is also extremely strange. Just walk us what we know about this Reddit user?
MICHAEL YOSHIDA, CNN REPORTER: You're exactly right. This case has been taking twists and turns throughout the last week basically. You mentioned
that Brown shooting last Saturday, a few days after that, we had that MIT Professor who was shot and later died at a hospital. And originally,
investigators had said they didn't see any connection between the two.
But within the last 48 hours, we're told by investigators, that's when this case really got cracked open, and they started to make progress and
eventually track down this suspect who was found deceased, as you mentioned, in a storage facility behind me, still surrounded by crime scene
tape.
In terms of how they found this individual or that Reddit post was made by an individual. And then police had actually put out information wanting to
speak with someone who they had thought had maybe passed by their person of interest. It turns out that Reddit post was made by that same individual
they were looking for.
They talked with them, and that's when they were able to identify a vehicle and license plates on that vehicle connected with their person of interest.
They tracked that across state lines into Massachusetts, into the City of Boston, where that vehicle had been rented.
They went through the paperwork, identified their suspect, and eventually saw some financial records connecting him to this storage facility. They
arrived here some 24 hours ago, saw the vehicle went inside. That's where they found this suspected shooter deceased. But all the credit from
investigators that we heard from last night, pointing to that community support and that key tip from that user.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NERONHA, RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL: He blew this case right open. That person led us to the car, which led us to the name, which led us to
the photographs of that individual renting the car, which matched the clothing of our shooter here in Providence, that matched the satchel that
we see here in Providence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YOSHIDA: And along with connecting that suspect to the vehicle and eventually here in New Hampshire, investigators say that information also
helped them connect the two cases, saying that that individual, this suspect, now deceased, was seen on surveillance camera several days after
that Brown University shooting in a suburb of Boston, within about a half mile area of that MIT Professor's home.
They then saw that suspect on video right after that shooting, and then eventually here, hours later, at that storage unit, another interesting
detail from investigators they revealed that MIT Professor, as well as this suspect, they were in the same academic program going back into the late
1990s at a school in Portugal.
[11:20:00]
So obviously, that's one of the things they're focusing in on as they try and figure out and answer the key question as to what the motive of both
the shootings was.
ASHER: All right, Michael Yoshida live for us there. Thank you so much. All right, let's discuss all of this with our next guest, Former Philadelphia
Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey. So, Charles, now that the suspect is deceased, obviously they can't bring him in for questioning. There's so
much is going to go unanswered.
So, walk us through how investigators go about piecing together a motive, which, of course, is the priority here.
CHARLES RAMSEY, FORMER WASHINGTON, DC POLICE CHIEF: Well, right now, they're going through all the evidence that they collected, and now that
they have an identity, they're also interviewing relatives they're interviewing friends. They're doing everything they possibly can to find
out why this individual committed the crimes that he committed.
I mean, he was a student at Brown 20 years ago, almost 30 years ago, he was in Portugal with the MIT Professor. Did they have any relationship from
that time, in the late 90s to the current time? I mean, we don't know the answer to that, but they're trying to seek out as many answers as they
possibly can, and they're going to do that by going through all the evidence and the interviews that they'll be conducting or that they are
conducting.
GOLODRYGA: Officials say that Reddit tip quote blew this case wide open. In practical terms, how decisive was that post? And how much harder in your
view, would this investigation have been without it?
RAMSEY: Well, I mean, the case could very well still be going on if it hadn't been for that tip. And oftentimes in an investigation, it takes that
one tip. Now you may get thousands, but it's that one that makes the difference in a case, and this is a perfect example of it.
Here's an individual who saw something, or an individual he saw that he thought was suspicious. He did interact with him briefly. He continued to
kind of follow him, and then saw him get into a car, described the car and had a license tag. I mean, without that information, you know,
investigators probably would not have been able to locate him as quickly as they did.
ASHER: How rare is that? I mean, I don't know for me, if I saw somebody that wasn't dressed appropriately for the weather, I would think, because
this all took place before the shootings that actually happened. I don't know if I would think, you know what, I'm going to follow that guy.
And wow, gosh, he's not getting into the car. That's his car. I'm going to follow him. I mean, just in terms of the thought process here as to why
this individual is Reddit user Jon as police have referenced him as sort of looked upon the suspect. Followed him, saw something in him that he thought
was a little off. I mean, does it? Does it sort of -- I guess my question is, it's kind of a rare thing to see somebody hone in on somebody based on
such little evidence that they may have even done something wrong.
RAMSEY: Well, I mean, it's not common, but you know, you hear people talk about that sixth sense, just something that just tells you inside that
something's not right, and makes you want to follow up on it. Now, many people resist that urge.
Fortunately, this individual didn't. He knew something was not quite right, and he followed up on it. It turns out he was the key in breaking this
case. So, you know, listen, sometimes a little luck is needed in order to solve case, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. You take whatever
you can get a tip, luck, whatever, as long as you can find the bad guy off the street.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and hopefully this tipster, Jon, will be the recipient of the $50,000 reward --
ASHER: I was thinking --
GOLODRYGA: -- FBI had put forward.
RAMSEY: It sounds like he should be.
GOLODRYGA: Well, deserved if so. Still, though we know that over the course of five, six days, the suspect was able to murder students at Brown
University. Basically, the state, the city on lockdown. He then leaves the state, travels across multiple states, commits another murder, changes
license plates.
Looking back and again, not to cast any criticism from your view on these law enforcement officials, but I would imagine there is a post mortem that
takes place to say, what could we have done differently? What should we have done differently to prevent yet more deaths? What are those
conversations like right now?
RAMSEY: Well, there's an after-action review that normally takes place. The university certainly probably will do one. Providence Rhode Island Police
Department will probably do one as well. If there are areas where you feel as if you can improve, then that's what you do.
But you know, these cases are complicated and they don't -- they don't unfold like they do on television, where within the hour, you know they've
got the suspect in custody, and everything is fine.
[11:25:00]
I mean, you know you're doing the best you can to try to solve the case. It's not as if you're not trying to solve it, and you're following as many
tips and as many leads as you possibly can. And unfortunately, they weren't able to catch him within that first 24-hour period or so, and a second
crime was committed that on the surface, didn't even look like they were connected, but they were.
Which is another thing that they'll be looking for to see whether or not this individual had someone else in mind, because he clearly did not want
to get caught. And whether or not he had someone beyond the professor that he was looking for is something that they'll be combing through all the
evidence to find too.
But you know, they did the best they could. If there's any area that they need to rethink, when they had that press conference, when they had that
first quote, unquote person of interest, they moved too fast, the evidence didn't support having a press conference and even naming an individual as a
person of interest, and that's something that I'm sure they'll review and- in-the-future will not do.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, perhaps that could have given this suspect more time --
ASHER: More time --
GOLODRYGA: -- and more freedom and confidence to feel that he could continue on with his murderous rampage.
ASHER: And also, I think that just having more surveillance video in the --
GOLODRYGA: Cameras.
ASHER: -- On cameras -- on campus, in cameras in buildings, I know the building was slightly older, so they didn't have many surveillance cameras
to go on. But that is, I think, a key area that sort of needs to be addressed as well going forward. Charles Ramsey, live for us. Thank you so
much. Appreciate it.
RAMSEY: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: All right, still to come for us, deadline day, the U.S. Justice Department is required to release all of the unclassified Epstein files by
midnight. So why is the Deputy Attorney General saying that it could be weeks. We'll bring you the details ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: It is deadline day for the U.S. Justice Department in a political scandal that has consumed Washington DC for months now. And first
exposed a potential power shift in Donald Trump's Republican Party.
Under a new law signed one month ago today, the DOJ has until midnight to release all of the Epstein files in a searchable, downloadable format with
a few exceptions. Sources tell CNN, the department is racing to redact thousands of pages of documents related to the convicted sex offender.
[11:30:00]
The Deputy Attorney General says that could take weeks.
ASHER: But earlier, the Republican lawmaker who co-sponsored the bill says its language is clear, all unclassified documents must be released by the
end of the day. President Trump's top aide, meantime, confirms his name is in the files, but says he's quote, not doing anything awful. CNN's Katelyn
Polantz has more what you might expect.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Full transparency for the Epstein files, not exactly. This morning alone Todd Blanche, the Deputy
Attorney General has already been out there saying on Fox News that several 100,000 documents in the Epstein files will be released today by the
Justice Department, as required by law.
But also, they're not going to finish everything, and so several 100,000 additional documents in the Epstein files will be expected to be released
by the Justice Department in the next few weeks. Here's a little bit more from Blanche.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I expect that we're going to release several 100,000 documents today, and those documents will come in
all different forms, photographs and other materials associated with all of the investigations into Mr. Epstein.
We are looking at every single piece of paper that we are going to produce, making sure that every victim, their name, their identity, their story, to
the extent it needs to be protected, is completely protected. And so, I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of
weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
POLANTZ: Now how does that comply with the law that Congress has passed saying that today is the day the deadline for transparency to release all
the Epstein files? Well, we're going to have to leave that to the Justice Department to explain.
The other thing that's important to note as we await the release of these files is that there's a lot of work being done to them. They are not
unadulterated files. They are files that lawyers within the Justice Department are reviewing page by page and making redactions to and the
redactions, there's a lot of reasons for redactions.
It's not just victim's names and personal identifiable information like credit card numbers or social security numbers. There's going to be a lot
of redactions because there's a lot of exemptions to the law that the Justice Department believes they have reason to black out things in the
Epstein files.
This has caused some frustration in the Justice Department. Sources speaking to Evan Perez and I have told us that this week, the guidelines
feel unclear. It is a difficult task. It's very laborious to go through thousand pages, say per person or per lawyer at the National Security
Section of the Justice Department as they're doing this work.
They've been doing it since Thanksgiving, essentially dropping everything to work on these files, to get as much release today as possible, the day
of the deadline. Not a simple or straightforward task. And also, there's the possibility of mistakes.
A lot of people are going to be watching to see if there are things that are released that shouldn't have been, perhaps sensitive information or
victim information. And there's also going to be a lot of people watching, including Congress, to see if there are over redactions, too much blacked
out, that hides information that should not be withheld, that should be released.
So, a big day. There are no productions yet of these documents, but it's something that we are watching very closely throughout the afternoon and
very well late into the night and into the next several weeks. Back to you.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, as we noted, as we noted, that deadline is midnight tonight. All right. U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio is taking
questions at the State Department. Let's listen in.
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We don't see surrender any time in the near future by either side, and so only a negotiated settlement gives
us the opportunity to end this war. A negotiated settlement requires two things, both sides to get something out of it, and both sides to give
something.
And we're trying to figure out, what can Russia give and what do they expect to get. What can Ukraine give and what can Ukraine expect to get? In
the end, the decision will be up to Ukraine, and up to Russia will not be up to the United States. So that's the role we are trying to play in this,
and that's why you see so many meetings going on.
This is not about imposing a deal on anybody. It is about determining what both sides expect and need to have and what both sides are prepared to give
in return for it, and figuring out whether we can have those two overlaps. And of course, that takes a lot of time and a lot of hard work.
It can't generally be done in the media or in press conferences. I think we've made progress, but we have ways to go. And obviously the hardest
issues are always the last issues. Yes, all right, I'm going to go to the next row, that gentleman right there with the glasses. Well, right behind
you, because you're not the next row. That's the next row right there. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'd like to ask --
RUBIO: Oh, sorry I didn't see. OK, go ahead. You can start. I had -- I hadn't seen you. I've seen it, but you can go because you're first on that
row.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, great. Thank you.
RUBIO: Well, oil machine, ladies and gentlemen, go ahead. I'm sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMAEL: Thanks. I'd like to ask how you view recent escalation of tensions between Japan and China? You've been known for your tough
rhetoric towards China over the years. Do you condemn, excuse me, China's recent provocative actions against Japan?
[11:35:00]
RUBIO: Yeah, no, I think I've been nice to China, you know, in terms of the work we have to do with them. And I mean, I had another job. My job now is
to -- I represent the President of the United States and the United States in foreign diplomacy, and I think we've made good progress with the
Chinese.
The Japanese are very close ally of the United States. I think these tensions are pre-existing. We understand that's one of the dynamics that
has to be balanced in that region. And I believe that we feel very strongly that we can continue with our strong, firm partnership and alliance with
Japan, and do so in a way that continues to allow us to find productive ways to work together with Chinese the Chinese Communist Party and the
Chinese government.
Look, there will be tensions. There's no doubt about it. I mean, at the end of the day, China is going to be, is, and it will continue to be, a rich
and powerful country and a factor in geopolitics. We have to have relations with them. We have to deal with them. We have to find the things we are
able to work together on.
And I think both sides are mature enough to recognize that there will be points of tension now and for the foreseeable future. Our job is as part of
responsible statecraft, is to find opportunities to work together. Because I think if there's a global challenge that China and the U.S. can work
together on, I mean, it's I think we can solve it.
And there will be points of tension, we will recognize that in our job is to balance these two things. I think both sides understand that. But and I
think we can do that without imperiling or in any way undermining our very firm commitment to our partners in the Indo Pacific, that includes not just
Japan, but South Korea.
And obviously, if you extend further out, you know, I don't want to leave anybody out but India and Australia and New Zealand and all the other
countries. And we also have growing and burgeoning relationships with countries like Vietnam and even Cambodia that we really haven't had, you
know, very close contacts with historically.
But we've talked to them a lot lately, obviously through the context of the of the conflict going on with Thailand, but also to figure out
opportunities to work together strategically and I say Thailand, of course, we've had a very long and strong strategic alliance with them for many
years. All right now your yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE]
RUBIO: I'm going to answer in Spanish, if that's OK, guys, and then I'll do it in English as well. And does somebody do closed caption? Can they do it?
Can they -- it doesn't matter, because I'm going to say the same thing in English.
[FOREIGN LANGUGAGE]
[11:40:00]
You know the question that I, it's a question many of you might have as well, is, when it comes to the Western Hemisphere, the single most serious
threat to the United States from the Western Hemisphere is from Transnational terrorist criminal groups, primarily focused on narco
trafficking. But they're in all sides businesses as well.
So, the good news is we have a lot of countries in the region that openly cooperate and work with us to confront these challenges. Mexico, their
level of cooperation with us is the highest it's ever been in their history.
Throughout Central America, for the most part, except for maybe Nicaragua and to some extent, Honduras, we've had great cooperation from Ecuador,
from El Salvador, from Ecuador, being in South America, but across the Pacific Coast, we're also undertaking efforts. Guatemala, Costa Rica,
Panama.
These are all nations that cooperate with us openly in search of stability in the region. You move to the Caribbean Basin, in Trinidad, in Guyana, in
Jamaica, in the Dominican Republic, countries that openly cooperate with us. Even Colombia, despite its unusual president, has institutions in that
country that work very closely with us, and those ties remain unimpeded and unaffected.
So, all of this is very positive. There's one place that doesn't cooperate, and it's the illegitimate regime in Venezuela, not only do they not
cooperate with us, they openly cooperate with terrorist and criminal elements.
For example, they invite Hezbollah and Iran to operate from their territory. But they also allow the ELN and the FARC dissidents, not just to
operate from inside of Venezuelan territory, to control Venezuelan territory, unencumbered, unimpeded.
On top of that, we know that they are in cahoots with drug trafficking organizations. It's not that they don't -- it's not just that they don't,
it's not just that they don't work with us against these organizations, OK? It's that they openly, you know, cooperate with these guys and allow them
to operate.
So, these guys are, you know, you know, marching in and out, doing whatever they want from Venezuelan territory and it's a challenge. And so that's why
that's received so much attention. But I would urge you to not just focus on that, but also focus on all the other things we're doing in the region,
including, for example, standing up this gang suppression force in Haiti, which we, you know, we were looking for 5500 forces.
We already have pledges of up to 7500 forces from a variety of countries. We've seen donors step up to fund that effort. That's a very important
effort. It all ties together cohesively. But the goal here is to bring security and stability to the hemisphere, to the region, the region we live
in, OK, which has not received enough attention.
To bring the elements of American power to achieve that, to do it in partnership with as many countries as they're willing to work with us in
that regard. That's the goal here, and it's comprehensive and involves more than just one place. What makes a Venezuela stand out is that the regime
there actually cooperates with the terrorists? Yes, sir. And that row right there, yeah, right there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- you recently, the White House recently put out the National Security Strategy, essentially reorienting towards the Western
Hemisphere strategy --
RUBIO: It was good right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- going here.
RUBIO: Well, I was involved.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you can answer from both hats, you know.
RUBIO: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But, how is that strategy going to dictate your relationship with other hemispheric powers like Canada and Mexico?
RUBIO: No, I mean, we want to partner with as many people. They face the same threats that we do. I mean, it's Mexican mayors that are being
assassinated in public squares. It's Mexican journalists that are being assassinated. It's parts of Mexico and institutions in Mexico that, in some
cases are compromised, usually through threat by these elements.
They recognize it, which is why they're partnering with us. Of course, we want to work with other governments in the region to confront this
challenge, and in most cases, we have cooperative places. Now we don't have that from Nicaragua or Cuba, but obviously didn't have it historically from
Bolivia.
We hope and expect that that will change. And we certainly don't have that from the regime in Venezuela, who actually don't just not cooperate with
us, they openly cooperate with narco trafficking elements that use Venezuela as a trans-shipment point. Yes, Ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Today you had the second round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. Do you
foresee a potential deal between these two countries without another round of war?
And the second question, if I may, on Sudan. We know, Mr. Secretary, it's a civil war. But also, there's a regional factor here --
RUBIO: Regional what you say?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Regional factor in this war.
RUBIO: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where the U.S. stands here? And what's a red line for you? Is a divided Sudan, is a red line for the U.S?
[11:45:00]
RUBIO: Let's separate the two, because they're both easy questions, right? So, the first one is, is we're hopeful. Look at the end of the day, the
goal everybody shares is a strong Lebanese Government that controls the country, and Hezbollah is disarmed. They're no longer an armed element that
can threaten Israel's security.
That's the goal here. And we have tried, in a cooperative way, to do everything we can to empower the Lebanese Government to have the ability to
do that. And so, I hope that's what these talks are aimed towards, and we'll be supportive in every way we can to achieve that outcome.
What I think is abundantly clear to everybody is no one is in favor of a Hezbollah that can, once again threaten the region act as a direct Iranian
proxy. And obviously, if they threaten Israel, we're not going to have peace. So, we are hopeful that talks between Lebanese authorities and the
Israelis will create outlines and a way forward that prevents further conflict.
I think I don't speak for the Israeli government. I can only tell you and echo what they've said publicly, and that is that if they feel threatened
by Hezbollah, they will take actions in their defense against them. So, we all would hope that we could avoid that, right?
We would all hope, in order to have peace, you have to avoid that, and the best way to avoid it is to have a strong Lebanese government that can
actually control the country, and that Hezbollah is no longer an armed threat to Israel or to the Lebanese state.
And that's what we're committed to, hoping to achieve. And we hope that, I can't speculate on what the talks will lead to, but we'll do everything we
can to make them productive. On Sudan, you've rightfully outlined. I mean, there are regional elements to this. I mean, there are clearly both sides,
you know, the South and the RSF are have supporters from outside of Sudan's borders that are involved.
And we've been engaging with those countries there. It's not just countries that are providing them weaponry and equipment. It's also countries that
are providing trans-shipment, particularly to the to the RSF, to receive weapons, in some cases advanced weaponry.
Our goal right now, in the short term, and what we've emphasized to everybody, including in my calls with leaders in the UAE, leaders in Saudi
Arabia, we're very engaged in that. Our Special Envoy, Mossad just returned from the region, meeting with the Egyptians, with the Saudi's, with the UAE
and others.
We've also been in collaboration with the UK on some of this. Our goal, the immediate goal we have, is a cessation of hostilities, OK. A humanitarian
truce going into the new year that allows humanitarian organizations to be able to deliver aid to the people in great distress. Right now, that's not
possible.
We are hearing, continue to see, reports of humanitarian convoys actually being struck on their way in. And so, you can just imagine, what's amazing
to us is these convoys are struck and the rest of the convoy continues. That's how committed these groups are.
But what we said to everybody on it is that what's happening there is horrifying. It's atrocious. That one day the story of what's actually
happened there is going to be known, and everyone involved is going to look bad. And we have planned -- we -- the role we have played is a convening
role in bringing the parties to the table.
So, I think we will know more very soon about whether this is possible. One of the challenges and frustrations in Sudan has been that one side or the
other will commit to certain things, and then they won't live up to those commitments. They'll agree to anything and implement nothing.
And oftentimes what happens is when one side feels like they're making advances in the battlefield, they don't necessarily see the need to concede
at that point, because they believe they're on the verge of achieving some success on the ground, and a truce would set them back.
But what we've emphasized is none of these groups can operate without the support they're receiving externally. So, we have been engaging with the
countries involved from the outside to ensure that they are at the table and that they are pushing for the same outcome that we want, which is phase
one, a humanitarian truce that, at a minimum, allows us to deal with a humanitarian calamity that occurs there.
And obviously we hope that while that truce is ongoing, we can focus on the other elements that led to this conflict and helped to resolve some of
those. But our number one priority we're focused on, 99 percent of our focus is this humanitarian truce and achieving that as soon as possible.
And we think that the new year and the upcoming holidays are a great opportunity for both sides to agree to that, and we're really pushing very
hard on that regard. Yes, sir, right there. Because I missed you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [FOREIGN LANGUAGE].
GOLODRYGA: All right, we've been listening to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, give basically an end of year assessment, the first year of
President Trump's second term, from the State Department there answering a number of questions about a number of issues and foreign policy
developments hot spots around the world.
Obviously, so much focus on what is happening in Venezuela and U.S. policy. There increasing pressure on the Maduro regime and now the oil blockade,
the most recent measure the President and the United States has taken there. The continued strikes on boats, which the United States labels as
carrying drugs, though they have not given much more information other than that.
He also just spoke on Sudan. The conflict continues in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, and obviously the war in Ukraine.
[11:50:00]
Really, really impressive to hear him go back and forth so seamlessly between English and Spanish. And we'll continue to monitor this news
conference and bring you any developments as they come in. In the meantime, we're take a quick break and we'll be right
back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, let's go back to U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, taking questions at the State Department on Gaza. Let's listen in.
RUBIO: -- that our partners can push them and pressure them to agree to. It also has to be something that Israel agrees to. In order for that to work,
both sides have to agree on it. We need the space to do it. But that's the way to think about it, OK.
You cannot have a Hamas that can threaten Israel in the future. If they can, you won't have peace. So that's the goal. All right. Who's left in
that row right there with a mustache.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As the U.S. have the goal of removing Maduro from power. Do you expect any regime change this 2026? I would appreciate if you could
answer both in English and in Spanish?
RUBIO: In Spanish? It sounds so much better in Spanish when I answer that question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, but for myself.
RUBIO: So, I'll start in English. Look, our goal is regional stability and security and the national interest of the United States. The national
interest of the United of the United States, specifically, when it comes to Venezuela, is as follows.
We have a regime that's illegitimate, that cooperates with Iran, that cooperates with Hezbollah, that cooperates with narco trafficking and narco
terrorist organizations, inclusive, not just protecting their shipments and allowing them to operate with impunity, but also allows some of them to
control territory, the ELN and the FARC-D, OK.
The ELN and the FARC Dissidents operate openly. They have like, open camps that they control territory inside of Venezuela. That is our -- that is our
national interest, and that is what this is focused on. And that's what the president's been focused on, and that's what we're conducting.
And that's what we have been focused on the entire time, because that is the threat to the national interest of the United States. Now, do we
consider Maduro legitimate? No. And by the way, guys, when I say these things about Maduro and his role in narco trafficking, it's not I hear his
reports.
Marco Rubio says it. I don't. It's not me. A grand jury in New York, in the Southern District of New York, a Grand Jury in the Southern District of New
York was presented evidence and came back with an indictment not just against Maduro, by the way, but against a bunch of people in his government
for narco trafficking.
A bunch, he had, you know, his nephews, or the nephews of the of his wife, indicted convicted in the United States for narco trafficking. Like this
was until President Trump started doing something about these narco trafficking lanes. Nobody disputed that Maduro and his regime was in
cahoots with narco traffickers.
[11:55:00]
Not to mention the fact that they unleashed Tren De Aragua gangs on the United States. They've unleashed a mass migration event, perhaps the
largest in history. 8 million people have left Venezuela since 2014. So also destabilizing all the countries in the region who have had to assume
people that are fleeing this illegitimate regime.
So, but nobody disputed the drug link. So, our -- that's what the president's been focused on, and that's the problem. That's the problem
Venezuela.
[FOREIGN LANGAUGE]
ASHER: All right, Marco Rubio, speaking there about the U.S.'s policies on Venezuela, essentially saying in both English and Spanish, that the
government of Nicolas Maduro is illegitimate, essentially defending also the U.S.'s policy when it comes to striking drug votes.
That's what he did, an earlier question, an earlier answer. Drug boats is one of the ways in which the U.S. continues to combat the threat of narco
trafficking in the region. Also talking about the fact that Nicolas Maduro and Venezuela collaborates with not just terrorist organizations, but
Hezbollah is one of the organizations that he talked about as well as Iran. All right, stay with us. We'll have much more "One World" after this short
break. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
