Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Biden Weighs Letting Ukraine Use Long-Range Weapons In Russia; Strike Is Latest Blow To Troubled Plane Maker; Trump Campaigns In California, Nevada; Harris in Pennsylvania; Biden Holding White House Talks With British P.M. Starmer; Putin Warns Of War With NATO Of West Lifts Missile Limits; White House Launches Effort To Blunt The Influence Of R.T. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 13, 2024 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:06]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: So a five-day winning streak for the S&P 500. You see they are up all the way. Not sure many would have
predicted that given the volatility we have seen in the last couple of weeks.
Those are the markets and these are the main events: The new British prime minister at the White House. We expect to see the two leaders later this
hour. Ukraine, of course, expected to be high on the agenda.
A strike by 33,000 workers is the latest trouble for Boeing, now, corporate America's problem child.
And meet the TikTokers using the platform to try and influence US politics.
Live from New York, it is Friday, September 13th. I'm Paula Newton for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
We do begin at the White House where US President Joe Biden is considering whether to let Ukraine use long-range missiles inside of Russia. Now, it is
sure to come up when Mr. Biden meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer later this hour.
Officials say they don't expect the president to lift those restrictions on western missiles right away, but the fact that it is up for discussion is
in fact a major development.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sat down with our own Fareed Zakaria for an exclusive interview in Ukraine. He says long-range weapons
should be used only against military targets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Everybody is looking at the decision of the United States. Everybody is waiting for that decision.
After that, they make decisions, it is true.
And so we wanted to or in much to you this weapon and just to attack these jets on the military bases, not civilians, infrastructure -- military
bases.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS": So you just want to be able to attack --
ZELENSKYY: Yes.
ZAKARIA: The bases that are being used to launch these weapons, these planes, these missiles.
ZELENSKYY: Yes, because these jets, Fareed, these jets -- these jets from there, they use not only missiles, they use these jets and jets used per
month, 4,000 guided aerial bombs on just on the east of our territory, 4,000 bombs.
ZAKARIA: And these bombs and missiles are hitting Ukrainian civilians --
ZELENSKYY: Schools --
ZAKARIA: Energy structures.
ZELENSKYY: Universities, all our energy infrastructure, they destroyed 80 percent by these guided bombs, 80 percent.
Now, I said we have some meetings with officials and I said, we waited too long. Now Russia began to move their jets from 100 to 150 kilometers, 300
to 500.
After that, I will tell you that now we need more permissions, but now you will tell me, maybe we will give you 100 or 200, but for what? To destroy
what? If they begin to move, so we are again, like with the packages, again, slow decisions and again, we can't win in such circumstances.
ZAKARIA: Do you have permission now to --
ZELENSKYY: No. Until now, no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Zelenskyy's frustration apparent there. Now, you can watch the full interview this Sunday on "Fareed Zakaria GPS" that's at 10:00 AM Eastern
Time, 3:00 PM in London.
Kevin Liptak has been following all this for us from Washington where that meeting is about to get underway.
I mean, Kevin, look, Zelenskyy has been incredibly blunt, not just with Fareed Zakaria but obviously with the White House and the president, and
yet, we just heard in the last few hours that for now there will be no change in this policy.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right. But I don't think that means there will never be a change in the policy and certainly,
it will be a topic of quite intense discussion in about a half an hour from now when Keir Starmer, the British prime minister arrives here at the White
House.
And you'll remember Paula, both President Biden and Keir Starmer, just sent their top diplomats to Ukraine this week in a pretty rare kind of joint
visit, fact-finding mission to talk with Zelenskyy, hear him out about the necessity of allowing these long-range missiles to strike targets deep into
Russia.
And the fact that this conversation is happening at all, I think is a change.
You know, President Biden had essentially ruled this step out until now. He does appear more open to it, and I think there are a couple of reasons. One
is just the battlefield situation in Ukraine. The other is the specific revelation this week made by American officials that Iran is providing
Russia its own ballistic missiles and it all has created an intense amount of pressure on President Biden to switch this policy, to ease these
restrictions.
[16:05:00]
And there has been something of a debate here in Washington about the wisdom of this move. On the one side, you hear officials who continue to be
worried about the potential for escalation with Russia. You also hear officials question the effectiveness of this kind of move and you heard the
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin give voice to that last week when he said that Russia has already moved some of its highest value targets outside of
the range of these missiles, and also making the point that the supplies of these weapons are not limitless.
But on the flip side, you hear from members of Congress, including some very senior Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
who point out that the fears of escalation over the last two years have not necessarily borne out. And they say that Ukraine does need this capability
if it is to win the war. And so this will be an intensive matter of discussion.
As you said, we don't expect any announcements to come out of this meeting and US officials have in fact tamped down on the possibility that President
Biden would allow the American provided ATACM missiles to be fired into Russia. But what he could do is allow for the British Storm Shadow
missiles, also the French Scalp missiles, he could give sign-off for those weapons to be fired into Russia. And if there is a decision that could be
coming in the near term, that could be it.
Now, President Zelenskyy is expected so to meet President Biden on the sidelines of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly, that could be a
point where we hear more about this, but certainly he has been very clear that this is absolutely essential for his country if it is to win.
NEWTON: Yes, exactly, and he is very clear on the timeline as well as of two weeks, certainly that timeline would not work for him as far as he is
concerned.
Kevin Liptak, I know you'll continue to follow this at the White House for us. Appreciate it.
Now, if the missile restrictions are lifted, Ukraine will be able to hit many strategic targets across the border into Russia. Our Clare Sebastian
takes a look at how it could change the war.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ukraine has been using western long- range missiles on occupied territory for months. This believed to be a British Storm Shadow, a long range stealth cruise missile hitting Russia's
Black Sea fleet headquarters in Crimea last year. Russian territory has been off limits.
Now a major reason for that is of course, western fears of Russian escalation. But recently the US has also been arguing that actually lifting
those restrictions wouldn't make much difference on the battlefield because it claims many high-value targets, including aircraft that dropped those
deadly glide bombs are out of range.
But what exactly is in range? Well, this map from the Institute for the Study of War suggests that there are well over 200 targets still in reach
of US ATACMS. Those are the red dots you see there. And among them is also the headquarters of Russia's Southern Military District in Rostov and
dozens of command centers, storage depots, weapons production facilities, and military regiments, including, for example, the 52nd Guards Heavy
Bomber Regiment, believed to be responsible for a deadly cruise missile attack on an apartment block in Dnipro last January.
President Zelenskyy warning that any further delay may mean the US is proved right.
(PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY speaking in foreign language.)
TRANSLATION: Delaying this process leads to Russia moving these military targets deeper into the territory of Russia.
So, if your partners life the restriction, I really want it to be a strategy for Ukraine's victory, not a political strategy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Thanks. Clare Sebastian there.
Now, the first strike at Boeing in 16 years is now underway. Thirty-three thousand union members have rejected a new contract and walked off the job
at the plane maker. It is the latest in Boeing's no good, very bad year.
It started in January when a door plug blew off a plane mid-flight. The company has since seen a new CEO, multiple investigations and its Starliner
spacecraft returned to Earth without its astronauts.
Boeing's stock reflects the misfortune down nearly 40 percent from the start of the year. S&P says an extended strike could further hurt the
stock's rating.
Ben Tsocanos is the airspace director at S&P Global Ratings and he joins me now from New York.
Good to have you on this story, and as we said, the trouble just keeps coming for Boeing. Right now, the CFO just hours ago acknowledging that,
look, this strike will jeopardize its overall recovery. How did Boeing get here?
BEN TSOCANOS, AIRSPACE DIRECTOR, S&P GLOBAL RATINGS: Well, I think you summed it up pretty well. I mean, certainly had problems coming into the
year with the 737, but that door plug was really what triggered the current situation.
NEWTON: When we talk about where this company was, where it has been in the last few years, and where it needs to be, how dire is their situation?
[16:10:05]
As I said, the CFO, again, saying that look, this strike really will hurt our finances.
TSOCANOS: Yes, from a credit standpoint, from a rating's standpoint, they are under some pretty significant pressure. Even before the strike, the
company had guided to losing a pretty significant amount of money this year. I think it is fair to say that that number will go up and that's
before we know how long the strike takes.
So the longer the strike goes, the greater the pressure and probably the more money that they will lose this year. So yes, so I think we are very
much focused on where the negotiations go from here and how quickly they can reach a resolution.
NEWTON: I am just wondering what the downdraft as well beyond the current financial situation, anyone in aviation, right, indeed, anyone who flies
will be impacted in a way. This is a linchpin of American aviation. We've already had the delays in the deliveries of jets and as we were saying, a
string of safety related concerns.
TSOCANOS: Yes, well, that really has been -- there is no shortage of demand for new planes. Airlines are really eager to get Boeing's aircrafts and
Boeing has been building them much more slowly than they would like.
So it is a supply constrained situation and Boeing has been, I think, working very hard this year to get their Max production line straightened
out so they can increase pretty increased production and deliveries to their customers.
NEWTON: When we talk about though, as I said, the downdraft, Southwest, United waiting for about 800 Boeing Max jets combined.
If this strike is prolonged, how precarious do you believe the Boeing situation becomes and to wit, also the situation for some of those airlines
that really need those airplanes.
TSOCANOS: Yes, certainly, there are older aircraft flying longer and they need more support to keep them -- to keep them operating. I would say that
from Boeing's standpoint, the longer that they are unable to build planes and deliver them, the more likely the more financial pressure they're
under, and I think you heard the CFO's comments earlier today reflect that, that they are very focused on their financial situation.
NEWTON: He did also say that as new CEO, he was on the faculty floor trying to get this settled. When you guys look at the risks, the negative
financial risk, does that concern you or do you think it is a good way to go? This is a CEO with a lot of problems on his hands at this hour.
TSOCANOS: Yes, I was very much encouraged that the new CEO move to Seattle. I think that the fact that the headquarters of the company had been -- had
moved efforts to Chicago and then to the DC area, I think, was generally not great for the focus.
So I think this step, at least from a -- it is a good step, at least from the standpoint of renewed focus on where I think it needs to be.
NEWTON: And in terms of how far Boeing has fallen, we sometimes speak of banks in the context of too big to fail. That is not an exaggeration, is it
for Boeing given its place in American aviation?
TSOCANOS: Yes. Well, certainly it is one of two major aircraft makers. It only has one competitor, The market is split and customers, airlines,
really don't have a choice if they want plane because the only competitor, Airbus is also sold out and has their own much, much smaller delivery
problems.
Boeing is also crucial from a defense standpoint, so they make some very important aircraft for defense purposes. So yes, but Boeing is an extremely
important company to the US economy.
NEWTON: Yes, not to be forgotten, exactly, the defense contracts and also its activities in space, which we are going to get to now.
But Ben Tsocanos, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Have a good weekend.
Boeing's Starliner astronauts say the craft's troubled test flight will provide lessons for the future. Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore spoke to
journalists from the International Space Station.
The Starliner, and this is important, right, returned to Earth last week without them. It returned safely. The astronauts, though now will likely
come back in early 2025, about eight months -- eight months -- after they left.
[16:15:12]
NEWTON: The two described how they have coped with their extended stay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUTCH WILMORE, ASTRONAUT: Things that I can't control, I am not going to fret over it. I mean, there is no benefit to it, at all.
So my transition was, maybe it wasn't instantaneous, but it was pretty close. If I can't affect it, if there is nothing we can do, there's nothing
we can do.
SUNI WILLIAMS, ASTRONAUT: There are folks on the ground who had some plans, right? Like my family and to spend some time with my mom and I think I was
fretting more about that, like the things that we had sort of all talked about and planned for this fall and this winter, and I think I was a little
bit nervous to be honest with you to say they like, okay, I am not coming home for it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Kristin Fisher is in Washington, DC and I am sure you will agree with me, they are good sports, okay. They were delightful in the press
conference. Obviously, everyone is relieved that the Starliner got back safely. But this is not like missing a train, right? Just having to wait
another half an hour for that train.
When they talk about lessons learned, what do you think they're getting at?
KRISTIN FISHER, CNN SPACE AND DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: I think what they are getting at is, there was clearly some issues with their Boeing Starliner
spacecraft, right? And they said that those are some issues that NASA and Boeing are going to have to work out with. This is going to be a several
months-long processes as they figure out what to do next.
But Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, they were asked during this press conference do you have any hard feelings towards Boeing about this? And
they said absolutely not. They said, look, you know, not only are we NASA astronauts, but we are Navy test pilots, too. And this is what the job is.
The job is preparing and knowing that any possible Plan B, C, or D can be thrown at you and that you just have to deal with it. And so, I asked them
what has it been like, this mental transition for you going from a roughly eight-day mission to an eight-month mission, and Butch Wilmore said,
honestly, the transition was pretty quick for me. Once I knew, he said I am not a shoulda, woulda, coulda kind of guy. Once the decision was made, I
was on board.
Now, I will say this, as Starliner's commander and as a Navy test pilot, he said it was tough because you don't want to see your ship go off without
you.
So that must have been quite the moment for them to watch Starliner drift away into the vast expanse of space, but both of them seemed pretty excited
to get eight months on the International Space Station. And Butch said he even gets to watch his football, big SEC fan and there was an ESPN reporter
on the call and he said, if you ever need somebody to come in and be a sub on College Game Day, I'm your guy once I get back on Earth.
NEWTON: As I said, the best of sports. Kristin, it goes back to Boeing though on the Starliner, I mean, look, it did get back safely. Do we see
that this is salvageable now, despite what has happened to these two astronauts having to hang out at the International Space Station for so
much longer?
FISHER: Well, the NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said that he still has 100 percent confidence that a future Starliner spacecraft is going to fly NASA
astronauts again, and even Butch Wilmore, the commander during this press conference today, he said, we found some things that we just could not get
comfortable with, but he believed that if they had had a bit more time, that they might have gotten comfortable with it.
So essentially saying, when you're up at the Space Station, there are all of these other people and spacecrafts coming and going and they just
couldn't wait any longer to make the decision to bring Starliner home.
So some really interesting words from the commander there. He wouldn't say whether or not he was for or against NASA's decision, all he said was that
I trusted the people on the ground that whatever decision they made would be the right one for Suni and I.
NEWTON: Yes, and you have reminded us so many times, safety obviously being top of mind. So, if you don't need to take the risk, you won't.
FISHER: Right.
NEWTON: Kristin Fisher for us, thanks so much.
FISHER: Thanks.
NEWTON: Now, it is a stretch of road separating Egypt and Gaza that Benjamin Netanyahu says is vital to Israeli security, and the key sticking
point for a hostage deal with Hamas.
CNN gets very rare access to the Philadelphi Corridor. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:11]
NEWTON: CNN has gotten access to an area of Gaza that is crucial to any future ceasefire deal. Now, the Philadelphi Corridor is 14-kilometers strip
of land along the border with Egypt.
Benjamin Netanyahu says, there can be no peace unless it is controlled by Israel. Our Matthew Chance visited the corridor. He had an IDF escort at
all times, but CNN retained full editorial control over his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (on camera): -- brought us to this place called the Philadelphi Corridor, which is a key
bit of real estate in this conflict because its emerged as a sticking point in the negotiations to get a ceasefire and to get the hostages released.
As you can see, it is right up against the Egyptian border. That's the border fence right there, and it is important because the Israelis say this
is an area, which has been used over the years and particularly over the past several months as a way of smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip.
Some of the smuggling has taken place over land through presumably holes in the fence and through other border crossings, but a lot of it is taking
place right under or has been taking place right under our feet.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: That was our Matthew Chance, obviously with a very rare glimpse at the Egypt-Gaza border.
Now it is less than eight weeks until the US election. The two candidates are making every moment count. Donald Trump has been campaigning today in
California and in the coming hours, he is set to hold a rally in that key state of Nevada.
Now, Kamala Harris, meantime, is in Pennsylvania looking to build upon her performance in Tuesday's debate. She is visiting two counties that Trump
won in both 2016 and 2020.
Now, the latest IPSOS-Reuters poll conducted after the debate gives Harris a five-point lead over Trump among registered voters nationwide.
Now the campaign is also playing out on TikTok as you might have seen already, long home to dance videos and makeup tutorials, the app is
becoming a key source of political information for young people.
So what does politics look like on TikTok? Our Donie O'Sullivan met with two Gen Z content creators. One pro-Trump, one pro-Harris and is finding
out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's your most viewed video?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Born in Iran, raised in Iran, but more patriot than those who vote blue with the Trump flag in my office.
KAMALA HARRIS (D), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was a couple of days go in the airport on my way here to Atlanta.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump is the biggest, most existential threat to Gen Z's future.
O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Nearly all TikTok users said in a survey that they use the app because it is entertaining, but more than a third said they
also use it to keep up with politics.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen to this rant that Donald Trump just went on at --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It has been a really fun time to be on the internet.
[16:25:08]
O'SULLIVAN: And so I met with two Gen Z TikTokers to talk about how and why they make political videos.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you guys want to know what is worse than a liberal --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Despite what some people refuse to believe, Donald Trump is receiving so much support from people that are young, like kind of
like my age.
O'SULLIVAN (on camera): Right.
O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Nesa (ph) is an Iranian immigrant who has amassed thousands of followers with her pro-Trump TikToks, many of which show off
this MAGA store in Forest Lake, Minnesota.
NESA, CONTENT CREATOR: You will get compliments from most people on social media, as long as you support their opinions. And I believe the algorithm
also plays a huge part specifically on TikTok.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: God bless you. I followed your facts.
O'SULLIVAN: You know, when you're posting this stuff that it is going to start a debate.
NES: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN: And that's kind of the point?
NESA: Kind of, yes. I believe on providing a space for Republicans and Democrats to have debates.
O'SULLIVAN: What are you seeing on your feed?
NESA: I mostly see Trump stuff --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finish getting ready with me while I talk about --
NESA: I went to the same high school as Barron Trump. I am going to save this to watch it later.
MARIANNA PECORA, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, @VotersOfTomorrow: Sure, you might have seen online engagement for Donald Trump, but that's because
young people are really, really scared of him.
O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Marianna Pecora works with Voters of Tomorrow, a non-profit focused on getting Gen Z to the polls.
PECORA: What's your least favorite thing in Project 2025?
O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Marianna is a big fan of Vice President Harris.
O'SULLIVAN (on camera): You edited it?
PECORA: This one, I had some help from one of our younger volunteers. We were specifically trying to reach like a younger Gen Z, almost Gen Alpha
leaning audience with that.
We've been talking about what Congress can do to support young people. Congressman Bowman, what have you got?
At this point, just about every member of Congress has either like a Facebook page or an Instagram or a Twitter. Not all of them are on TikTok
and I think that's okay.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
PECORA: Not everybody is suited for it, but I think it is really important and exciting that there's a lot of young people working in politics that
are focused specifically on content creation right now.
The best messenger for a member of Gen Z is another member of Gen Z.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And our thanks to Donie for that report.
Now, the US says Russian media outlet, RT, plays a key role in the Kremlin's efforts to meddle in elections. What the White House is doing to
warn other nations and blunt Russia's influence operations. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:35]
NEWTON: And back to our top story now. U.S. President Joe Biden is meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House this hour. The
two are expected to discuss Western restrictions on Ukraine's use of long- range missiles. Kyiv would like to use NATO weapons to strike deep within Russia. The President has signaled he's open to the idea, though, the White
House says there is no decision that is imminent as of yet.
Alexander Vindman was the director of European Affairs for the U.S. National Security Council, and he joins me now. It is good to see you,
especially as we await this latest meeting. I mean, look, bottom line, how detrimental do you believe it will be if Ukraine continues to be handcuffed
by these restrictions?
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think it's significant in that right now, Putin
believes he's he really has NATO as a whole over a barrel. He's been able to signal through threats on nuclear escalations, lots of saber rattling that somehow there will be a
significant cost to NATO. And that's had an impact throughout the war, throughout the 2-1/2 years impacting how quickly we provide support, how
much support we provide.
And he's been doing that right now. Just recently, he said that, you know, provision of long-range weapons to Ukraine could result in a direct
confrontation with NATO. Something that he said at least a dozen times. But the idea would be that he continues to affect our decision making, impedes
the kinds of support that we should be providing to a partner, an ally, in the form of Ukraine defending itself against unprovoked aggression.
So, I think this is a doable. This is -- we should -- something that we should be moving towards expanding that or lifting the restrictions on
Ukraine and the way we offer them weapons and support in general, but I think it's -- it is not an easy thing to do. It would be a significant
policy shift to from -- what we've seen thus far.
NEWTON: OK. So, to your point, it wouldn't be an easy thing to do. Strategically it would be a big change. But are you suggesting that, you
know, the U.S. and NATO shouldn't take Putin's threat seriously?
VINDMAN: I would say that he's not going to be able to respond directly to us. That is
relatively hollow saber rattling. The results of a direct attack on us would be a conventional war in which Russia would very quickly -- its
conventional military forces would be destroyed relatively quickly, may be compelling an escalation to nuclear. And a nuclear war would be mutually
assured destruction.
So, that's not a realistic scenario, it's not in Putin's interest. Putin's interest right now are to impede the -- any fulsome support to Ukraine and
then to try to deter expanding support by doing what he's already doing now, which is hybrid warfare, sabotage operations,
interference and those are the areas that he's likely to respond in. He's not going to respond directly.
But he's more than likely to expand the kinds of operations he's already doing through intelligence services that he's doing by supporting enemies
of the West, whether that's the Houthis in Yemen, Iran, with provision of more advanced capabilities. That's the way he's likely to react to lifting
of further restrictions on cupping Ukraine.
NEWTON: Now, you know, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin as you know, made it clear he doesn't believe lifting these restrictions would make that much of
a difference. Anyway, doesn't he have a point?
VINDMAN: I think this is a political decision, and you're hearing some political discourse around this issue. I think it's less effective than it
would have been six months ago or a year ago, because the Russians have started to adjust some of their basing. They're trying to push things
further back to hedge against the fact that these restrictions might lift. So, you know, obviously they would be less effective but that's because we
also -- we also rather lethargic in making this change in the first place.
Nevertheless, they will be effective because you can't run a war from too far of a distance. You have to have command and control where your
leadership are making decision -- decisions relatively close and you have to have logistics and logistics hubs relatively close, so those areas will
be vulnerable. And the kinds of capabilities that are being offered right now to -- that seem to be on the horizon right on the cusp of being
offered, will have a major impact on the Ukrainian battle field. They'll allow Ukraine to target deep into Crimea, for instance, likely target the
Kerch bridge.
[16:35:06]
And certainly, if there ---- if these restrictions lifted on Russian mainland territory it'll have -- it will have some sort of effect on
critical infrastructure that Russia needs to sustain the war effort. So that's power generation, oil depots. My concern is that, thus far, we have
a scenario in which we de facto provided Russia safe haven on weapons that are in Ukrainian -- Ukraine's possession.
Once we get weapons to country, we tend to -- tend to not provide excessive restrictions on how they're employed. They become the sovereign weapons of
that country. For instance, we didn't hold the Russians accountable for providing weapons to Vietnam or to Korea during the Cold War. It's just not
the way things work in the international system.
NEWTON: Yes. But --
VINDMAN: So, we tend to not be restrictive in the kinds of constraints. We put on except if it's a nuclear power and Russia. There we are much being
much more careful. At times that's warranted. I think this is a bit excessive.
NEWTON: I know President Zelenskyy has frustratingly brought up the example in the Middle East as well. I'll leave it there for now, as it is an
incredibly complicated issue. Thank you though, Alexander Vindman. You are going to stand by for us as we continue to await this meeting in the White
House. We appreciate it.
In the meantime, Washington says the Russian media outlet R.T. is also trying to influence U.S. voters through social media. According to U.S.
intelligence, R.T. plays a key role in spreading the Kremlin's propaganda. State Department now says R.T. possessed cyber capabilities and even helped
arm Russian soldiers in Ukraine. R.T. has stopped broadcasting in the U.S., and it's been banned in the E.U.
Washington is trying to warn other nations now about the risk. Sean Lyngaas is in Washington. And you have been going through kind of this latest
determination by U.S. intelligence. We knew about, certainly some of these activities before. What more did we learn, though, with these disclosures?
SEAN LYNGAAS, CNN CYBERSECURITY REPORTER: Well, Paula, these disclosures show in the eyes of U.S. intelligence officials and frankly, objective
experts, that R.T. goes way beyond trolling and propaganda and overt things to now covert activities that include influence operations aimed at
elections in various countries, not just the U.S. And that's actually what was different about today, rather than last week, where we heard a similar
set of allegations from the U.S. government against R.T.
Today was about warning other countries and citing specific examples in South America, Africa, elsewhere that U.S. officials strongly believe and
they have evidence to show that R.T. employees are sort of an extension of the Russian government. And in this case, they've alleged that the Russian
government has embedded an intelligence unit within R.T. I should say that CNN reached out to R.T. for comment and they provided what is a typical
response to -- a mocking response, sarcastic response that said, in part, we're broadcasting right now from KGP headquarters, referencing the Soviet
Union spy service.
So, they're not taking these allegations seriously, but the U.S. is hoping, Paula, that allies will as we continue to see elections held around the
world this year.
NEWTON: What perhaps would be even more fascinating though to Americans is the fact that there are some social media influencers that also now seem to
be getting some backing from Russia?
LYNGAAS: Right. That was the gist of the allegations last week, the Justice Department revealed an indictment of two R.T. employees. They did not
accuse the right-wing influencers of any wrong doing in America. However, the U.S. government believes that they were essentially unwitting victims
of this Russian covert scheme to set up a front company, really in Tennessee and pour about $10 million into that.
And then hire prominent right-wing influencers that have millions of social media followers to try to get out a message that was at the end of the day,
sympathetic to Kremlin views about -- whether it's about the mostly about the Ukraine war, but also U.S. democracy and trying to sow doubt and
undermine democracy here. So, that was an eye-opening indictment in terms of -- we've gone from very sort of overt activity, bots and trolls online.
Platforms to do more insidious, you know, covert operations where paying lots of money to people that don't know where that money is coming from,
Paula. So, this is a series of actions that the U.S. government is trying to expose the Russian activity. Before the election, they're comparing this
to what they did before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in terms of declassifying intelligence early and not waiting until things get more
chaotic and these activities can have more of an impact, Paula.
[16:40:06]
NEWTON: Yes. What is clear that they are influence operations, and people need to be obviously alert to what they are and how they can spot them.
Sean Lyngaas for us. Appreciate it. Now, El Salvador is using mass arrests to crack down on gang violence. A crime has plummeted as a result, but the
President's actions are not without controversy. David Culver has our report from on the ground after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: The U.S. has imposed sanctions on 16 Venezuelan officials who are aligned with embattled President Nicolas Maduro. The Biden administration
claims they play a role in obstructing a free and fair presidential election in the country in late July. Many Venezuelans and world
governments have rejected Maduro's claim of victory. The sanctions come days after opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez fled to Spain seeking
political asylum.
Now something the U.S. Secretary of State says is the direct result of Maduro's anti-democratic measures. With hopes of a peaceful transfer of
power fading, an increasing number of Venezuelans are again leaving the country as Stefano Pozzebon reports, one Brazilian border town is facing an
influx of post-election migrants.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN REPORTER (voice-over): The queue to get out of Venezuela spreads along the side of the road. This is Pacaraima, a remote
outpost in Brazil's Roraima state, just south of Venezuela. And these days, the traffic is one directional.
According to Brazilian police, the number of Venezuelan migrants leaving their country through Pacaraima grew over 30 percent between July and
August, amid several reasons, one more bitter than others.
There was a fraud in the election, says Claudia Cupido, we don't want Maduro.
The vote on July 28 raised the hopes of finally pushing strongmen Nicolas Maduro out of power after a decade of social and economic collapse, but
after Venezuelan electoral authorities and the Supreme Court, declared Maduro the winner without showing any proof. For many, it only added insult
to injury.
I'm angry because my children had to leave their country before me because of the government. Now I'm trying to join them.
Migration is a tedious process. There is a lot of waiting day and night, a soup kitchen offers some relief, but for those not as lucky, the garbage
pit is an alternative.
[16:45:12]
I get $10.00 here every day, says Norberto. I pay three for a room, and with the remaining, I eat. That's how I make ends meet.
In 2018, Brazil launched Operation Welcome. A coordinated effort to transfer migrants from remote border towns like Pacaraima to bigger cities
where they could enter the job market.
Over 125,000 Venezuelans have taken advantage of the program, and while Brazil is seeing the first post-election wave of Venezuelan migrants, it's
by no means the only country affected.
Colombia has so far welcomed over 2.8 million Venezuelans, more than any other country. For many, it is just a stopover before moving north towards
the United States through the swampy jungles of the Darien Gap. This week, Human Rights Watch released a new report calling on Latin American
countries to grant temporary legal status to all Venezuelan and Haitian migrants, foreseen that numbers are only destined to grow.
POZZEBON (on camera): You've just been to the Darien Gap. What did you see there?
TIRANA HASSAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: The thing that stays with me from speaking to young families that were full of hope. They
returned to Venezuela with a vision for the future. These aren't families who want to live somewhere else, and unfortunately, the day after the
election, what they saw was the opposite.
POZZEBON (voice-over): On the border, each step to leave Venezuela marks the hope of a different future now shattered by the thirst of power of an
autocrat. Another day, another long line of crushed dreams.
Stefano Pozzebon CNN, Bogota.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And will be right back with more news as we await the meeting at the White House between President Joe Biden and Keir Starmer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: And we continue to await more news out of the White House as President Joe Biden meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. We will
get to that momentarily. In the meantime, Alexander Vindman was the director of European Affairs for the U.S. National Security Council. And he
joins us again now. Thanks for standing by for us. You know, President Zelenskyy will be here for the U.N. General Assembly meeting in a few
weeks.
[16:50:03]
He is supposed to, at that time be presenting some type of a victory plan, so called, to the Biden administration. In terms of the components of that
you know, the comp -- the conflict seems to be changing by the day, especially when you look at Russia's progress in Kursk, where the Ukraine
had had that incursion. Do you worry that the so-called victory plan will basically be a nonstarter by the time Zelenskyy even gets to this country?
VINDMAN: I'm not worried about it because the victory plan is not really realistic until sometime, probably in the second half of next year. It's
probably something at least a year out from now, that requires -- that's supposed to focus Western support and attention, probably material support
that's supposed to enable this victory plan. It'll lay out, at least in broad strokes, what the Ukrainians will do with regards to their own
industry.
And I'll probably cast a vision where the Ukrainians, without telegraphing too much in the way of details, that they will build capacity for probably
a major operation in the second half of next year. So, it's not something that's derived from, you know, tactical changes or even operational
changes. It's a strategic plan that's supposed to look in the future. One of the things that would concern me about this plan is that it should
include components like mobilization, a larger number of Ukrainians that could be mobilized to fight in the war.
Mobilization of Ukraine's industrial base, support from the west are -- and then better trading for the Ukrainians. So, like this -- they can conduct
complex operations. Those would be the key elements that I would want to see in a plan of this sort. And then something that allows the Ukrainians
to be tied through the next year or six months. This winter is going to be probably one of the hardest winters for the Ukrainians, based on the
Russian strikes, on power generation.
It's going to be a cold winter. So, I think those are the elements that should be
communicated to the west and much, much deeper behind scenes, in closed, classified channels. But some of that public facing material should be what
I just laid out, I think.
NEWTON: Yes. Understood and yet, obviously with U.S. politics on the front burner here, how much could a lot of this change if President Trump is
reelected in it comes into office in January?
VINDMAN: A cardinal change in direction, if it's -- if it's not a Harris- Walz administration. And none of those plans are likely to materialize, what we would see is a protracted war. The U.S. would cut support to
Ukraine. It would be Ukraine with Europe's backing, continuing to demonstrate to Russia that this is a futile war, a folly for Russia to
continue but Russia would press on.
Russia would certainly be apt to test whether it could win in a year or two years, given the fact that they would have the tacit support of a Trump
administration in their corner. We would not see a reduction in violence. We potentially would see an expansion violence. And frankly, I would have
deep concerns about a broader spillover. Various European powers understand that they strongly believe that they're next in the crosshairs of Russia.
And would probably want to maybe even go so far as to put troops in Ukraine on the premise that it's better to fight on Ukrainian territory than their
own. So, it would be a recipe for spillover under a Trump administration.
NEWTON: You know, that was quite an escalation that you paint a picture of there. Obviously, the former president says that, look, he'd be able to get
this conflict settled much more quickly than President Biden. What has not worked so far, though, is, as you said, the kind of aid that the West has
so far employed. Certainly, it's worked to help bolster Ukraine, it has not worked to actually end this conflict.
VINDMAN: Yes. So, I think that's true to a certain extent. I -- I've been a critic of how plotting we have been with some of our support. There is a
large number of former policymakers that have been advocating for more robust support. I would expect that the Harris and encourage the Harris
administration to do a policy review. These are periodic reviews of how things are going would be three years into this war, after she's
inaugurated to determine that maybe we need to be more fulsome in our support to Ukraine.
The idea that Trump would somehow wave a hand and end this war is comical from a national security perspective. I've listened to J.D. Vance attempted
-- the vice presidential candidate, attempt to defend this absurd notion that the war would end before Trump is even inaugurated.
NEWTON: I'm going to start --
(CROSSTALK)
VINDMAN: -- territory.
NEWTON: Alex, just apologies for interrupting. We're going to go to the White House now.
[16:55:00]
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- United States and your Great Britain can't work together and haven't worked together. And we're going to
discuss some of these things right now. You first, Ukraine. I want to thank you for the U.K.'s leadership in this front. United States is committed to
standing with you, help Ukraine as a defense against Russia's unsquared aggression.
And we're clear that Putin will not make it clear -- Putin will not prevail in this war. The people of Ukraine will prevail. Second Middle East today.
We'll discuss our work to secure a deal release the main hostages that are helping held by Hamas, bring immediate ceasefire, increase the flow of
humanitarian aid to Gaza. And thirdly, we're going to be talking about the Indo-Pacific. No reason is more important, our future.
And I'm so proud that under our office, partnership with Australia and with Australia, the last three years we've made the region more free, open and
secure. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you again for being here. And I look forward to our conversation.
KEIR STARMER, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Mr. President, thank you very much for those words. Thank you for the invitation to be back here
just two months after our last meeting here. But it's really important as great allies that special relationship to have this time to talk about the
global issues you have just identified, starting, of course, with Ukraine, where I think the next few weeks and months could be crucial.
Very, very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom. And so, I look forward to discussing that with you. The Middle East, of
course, again, vital over the coming weeks and months and elsewhere in the world. I think that historically, we've shown the strength of our
relationship, that we are strategically aligned. We have common cause on these global issues.
And therefore, it's very important us -- for us to have this opportunity to talk them through, not just as a matter of tactics, but also the wider
strategy that underpins them. So, thank you for the invitation. It's very good to be here again.
BIDEN: Good to have you back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you say to Vladimir Putin's threat of war, Mr. President?
BIDEN: I don't think much about Vladimir Putin.
(CROSSTALK)
NEWTON: And you have been listening too quick. Very quick statements from U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. They are
at the White House, as you see both them having Cabinet members and advisers at their side as they discuss both the Middle East, but obviously,
crucially, right now would be Ukraine and those Western weapons. Whether it's from the U.S. and Europe and if Ukraine will be allowed to use those
to strike deep into Russia.
That is at issue. When the President was asked, you saw him there about Putin's warning that doing so would, in fact, mean that the West was now
involved in this conflict. He said, I do not think much about Putin. We had heard already from the White House that there would be no definitive
decision on that today, but as we have heard from the White House, they are considering it and will certainly speak of it in the days to come.
It is important to point out that some, including Secretary of State -- Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has hinted that even if Ukraine is
allowed to use some of those weapons to strike deep into Russia, that perhaps it would not be a game changer. And that unfortunately, this
conflict will continue to go on and as we had heard from certainly Alexander Vindman who just said, it is a very difficult winter ahead for
Ukraine.
We -- Alexander Vindman joins us now. When you hear that the fact that they're still stalling on this decision, how crucial will that be?
VINDMAN: Well, I think the President Biden and the administration were expecting this visit from Prime Minister Starmer. And I think the British
or the British security establishment is much more kind of, let's say, open to the idea of providing Long Range Systems, so they want to hear the
arguments from the Brits before they make their kind of own internal decisions and deliberations.
It's part of this special relationship and this, you know, broad discussion about all the critical global challenges and this is going -- this would
amount to a fairly significant change on lifting the restriction on long- range strike capabilities and the provision of additional weapons. And I think we, you know, it's the right thing to do to take counsel and compare
notes with our closest allies, like we're doing in this case.
[17:00:03]
END
