Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
ICE Agent's Phone Footage; Minnesota Officials Demand Access To ICE Shooting Probe; Iran Protests Intensify; Trump Hosts Oil Executives For Talks On Venezuela; Russia Launches Oreshnik Missile; Trump's New Greenland Threat; Harbin Ice Show Lights Up Northern China. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired January 09, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and you're
watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, disturbing video from the cell phone of the ICE officer who shot Renee Good in Minneapolis, showing the seconds leading up
to that deadly incident. President Trump says if he is unable to acquire Greenland the easy way, as he called it, then he says the U.S. will have to
do it the hard way. Where does that leave NATO? We're going to get a reaction from a Danish lawmaker. And another night of protests across Iran
as demonstrators call for the end of the country's authoritarian Islamic regime. That story and plenty more coming up.
We now have new video showing Wednesday's confrontation between a Minnesota woman and an ICE agent from the perspective of the officer himself. The
Department of Homeland Security official confirms it was recorded on the agent's cell phone by the agent.
Thirty-seven-year-old Renee Good was killed in that incident on Wednesday, shot by that ICE agent three times. In the video, you will see Good's wife,
Becca, who was a passenger in the car moments before the shooting and then the deadly moments that followed. I will warn you, the following video is
graphic and contains profanity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not mad at you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's OK. We don't change our plates every morning, just so you know, they'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later.
That's fine. U.S. citizen. You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Out of the car. Get out of the fucking car. Get out of the car.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Good Lord, the moment she lost her life, Security Correspondent Josh Campbell joins us now. Josh, of course, you served a number of years
in the FBI. Tell us what you learned from watching this latest video.
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a new, incredible vantage point, because as you mentioned, we're seeing the vantage point of
the agent himself. And there are a couple of things I'll note. I mean, first of all, you see that that agent is interacting, you know, he's
talking to Renee Good. She's speaking to him. He then walks around the vehicle and is interacting with his partner. But, you know, he puts himself
in front of that vehicle. And I'll tell you, you know, law enforcement officers are trained essentially not to put yourself in that situation.
That's training that happens from coast to coast in this country.
But the moment that she then turns the wheel and begins to drive forward, it appears from other vantage points that he was likely struck by that car.
And so, under policy, an agent can articulate, I felt my life was in danger. I opened fire. But there are big questions based on the angle where
he was. Were there other options? Could he have jumped out of the way? That's a big question.
The other point quickly I'll note, Jim, is that we're learning something on this video we did not know before, and that is the number of bystanders
that were standing behind that car. Every agent and officer in this country, when they open fire, they're accountable for every single round.
They have to know what's beyond that target.
We're learning here in this case that the agent went to guns, opened fire, shooting towards the direction of those bystanders. Thankfully, you know,
no one else was hit.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And my understanding of policy, too, is that when shooting at a moving vehicle, officers, they are trained to think of where that vehicle
goes once it's out of control, if the if the driver is incapacitated.
CAMPBELL: No, that's absolutely right. I mean, you have, again, a weapon, a vehicle. And if you then shoot and kill the operator, are there other
innocent people that may be impacted as well as that vehicle continues to careen down? In fact, based on some of the video, we know that her vehicle
did continue after she suffered that fatal shot and collided head on into, thankfully, a parked vehicle, which did not appear to have anyone in it.
But you're spot on. That's a big question as well. If you have someone at the wheel who loses control because you use deadly force, what other
injuries or possible deaths could occur?
[18:05:00]
SCIUTTO: Final question. The officer was recording his interaction here with his cell phone while using the other hand for his weapon. Is that
procedure to have one hand occupied with your cell phone videoing something and use the other hand to fire your weapon?
CAMPBELL: It's not, and it's an important question because this has been the big debate, especially with immigration officers. Why aren't they
wearing body worn cameras, the ubiquitous cameras in so many police forces across the country? It sits on your uniform. You have your hands free as
you're conducting your law enforcement activity here, as you mentioned. He's the one actually filming with one hand. And when he shoots, it's the
other hand.
I will note, I mean, just based on the proximity of where he was to Ms. Good here, you know, I was I was an FBI agent. We underwent extensive
training in firearms. We're taught extensively to use shooting with one hand at a close range if it is necessary. And so, I don't think that, you
know, it's necessarily -- you know, there's a tactical issue there if you're that up close.
And I also point out that, you know, ICE has face so much criticism for not having videos, whereas here you have the agent actually providing us a
video of what actually occurred. And so, it's kind of -- you can see kind of the pros and cons of that as well. We obviously actually know from his
vantage point what happened based on that video.
But to your point, that is not something that is trained, I think, anywhere in this country that a law enforcement officer would be carrying around a
film while they're addressing someone that they're trying to detain.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Carrying a deadly weapon in the other hand. Josh Campbell, thanks so much.
CAMPBELL: You bet.
SCIUTTO: Well, outcry is growing over the shooting, not just in Minneapolis, but across the U.S. These are scenes from Minneapolis today
showing police confronting protesters. State investigators say the FBI is blocking them from access to evidence as it takes over the case.
Omar Jimenez is in Minneapolis. Omar, you've been there through this, the last 24 hours. I wonder what is the response you're hearing to this new
video, but also to the news that the federal investigators are not going to be sharing evidence with state investigators to move forward?
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, we heard pretty directly from the mayor of Minneapolis, from the Hennepin County attorney, sort of the
top prosecutor here in this county for Minneapolis, saying that they were disappointed that they're not a part of the federal investigation here,
that they're trying to exhaust any options they can at the state level.
But critically, the most they seem to be able to do at this point was we had the attorney general here in Minnesota putting out a call to preserve
evidence, putting out a call for more video, for people to send things in.
Now, what the next steps of that would actually look like as to actually moving forward with a use of force investigation at a state level, that
remains unclear because the FBI still has boxed state investigators out of the process to this point. And it was something the mayor was not shy about
saying he is disappointed in. And even the prosecutors here hoping that that changes to the point that they're not asking to take over the
investigation was how it was described today, but more so to be a part of it and be a part of any accountability that comes from this.
SCIUTTO: Can you describe the interactions that you've seen yourself between protesters and law enforcement there, including federal agents,
including ICE? Are protesters giving them cause to react with violence?
JIMENEZ: Yes, it's been a little bit of a mix, as it typically is in situations like this. And there have been a few different places where
protests have really sprung up. So, where I am is the memorial site. This is where the shooting took place. Just behind me is where the vehicle
crashed into the pole after Renee Good had been shot.
But another focal point here has been outside a federal building, miles from here. And that is where we've seen a lot of the standoffs between
federal agents and protesters that have shown that have showed up there. Those confrontations have tended to be a little bit more violent.
We were there yesterday, for example, and we did see someone throw a water bottle at the federal agents that sort of were making a line at the
entrance of the building. And it prompted them quite literally to sprint into the crowd, trying to take people down as they did so. And they did
take one person into custody. Even today, earlier, two people were taken into custody and detained after one of our crew members saw one of them
slap an ICE vehicle as they walked by. So, there have been confrontations.
But when you talk about law enforcement, one interesting thing, Jim, is where we are, we're actually seeing the Minneapolis Police Department for
the first time have a significant presence here. And a lot of times in situations like this, there is tension between local police and people in
the community that could not be further from the truth here. The interactions have been incredibly friendly. A lot of the anger seems to be
directed towards federal immigration enforcement.
[18:10:00]
We saw that before even the shooting that happened now two days ago, but a lot of interesting dynamics here between protesters and law enforcement.
SCIUTTO: That's a notable distinction. Omar Jimenez in Minneapolis, thanks so much. Well, from protests in the streets here in the U.S. to major anti-
government protests across Iran, making it the biggest popular challenge to the regime in years. The government cut internet access and telephone lines
in Tehran and other cities yesterday. The unrest began about two weeks ago over worsening economic conditions in the country. President Trump once
again threatened to attack Iran if its security forces kill protesters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Iran's in big trouble. I've made the statement very strongly that if they start killing people like they have in
the past, we will get involved. We'll be hitting them very hard where it hurts. They've treated their people very badly and now they're being paid
back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said the U.S. president should, quote, "focus on the problems of his own country."
For more now on what happens next, Holly Dagres, she's a senior fellow at the Washington Institute. Holly, good to have you.
HOLLY DAGRES, SENIOR FELLOW, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE: Thanks for having me, Jim.
SCIUTTO: You've been watching these protests, I know, very closely. Are these protests more of a threat to the regime than, say, previous protests
we saw, for instance, 2009, the Green Movement following the 2009 election? I was in Iran for those. Or 2023, the protests against the killing of Mahsa
Amini. Is there something about the economic conditions that make this more of a threat?
DAGRES: I would say it's not just the economic and what's happening with the country right now. Domestically, it's also regionally. There's a
newfound fragility since the events of October 7th with the maiming of the proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and, of course, losing its big ally in the
region, Bashar al-Assad, in Syria. And then, of course, you noted the economy. Iranians are unable to get by. They're unable to find water in
some parts. Like, Tehran was actually literally running out of water in December at some point until some snowfall happened. And, of course,
there's been power outages.
So, this is a crisis of their own making. And Iranians are out in the streets because they've realized over the years that this is an
irreformable and irredeemable regime that needs to go.
SCIUTTO: Do they also -- does the public also conceivably have the impression that the regime is weaker now because, for instance, the loss of
its proxies in, say, Syria and elsewhere, also Israel proving its ability to strike inside Iran and the U.S. as well? Is there some perception that,
you know, maybe they're not as threatening as they used to be?
DAGRES: Absolutely. And the 12-day war, which I didn't mention it earlier, was very key in all this because that was a realization that this is a
regime that's been infiltrated from the inside by Mossad. And it's a country that has been unable to defend its airspace. And so, a lot of
Iranians realize that this is a paper lion. And they've come to the realization, and it's been conversations like this since the 12-day war,
that this regime is on its way out, and it's going to collapse within. That's at least their hope and their thinking.
SCIUTTO: That's their hope. But as you know, there have been previous protests not just in Iran but also around the region. You remember the Arab
Spring when the impression was, ah, the people are rising up. But so often the regimes have proven more resilient, right, than many -- those people on
the streets would hope. Is there cause for, at this point, perhaps some conservative expectations?
DAGRES: I think this time around we should be looking at it through a different lens, not just because of that newfound fragility I've discussed
earlier, but because of the sword of Damocles that's hanging over the Islamic Republic in the form of Israel and President Donald Trump's
threats.
I mean, look at what happened with Venezuela. We were all shocked by it. And that doesn't mean he could take action in Tehran or that the Israelis
might think that, oh, this is a movement where there's weakness for the regime, and we shouldn't just take out its ballistic missile program, maybe
we should go a step further. I think that as an analyst, I have to remain humble right now in a different way because of the events of October 7th.
SCIUTTO: And listen, I mean, you go back to 1979, the CIA said, or assessed quite soon before the collapse of the Shah's regime, oh, the regime's just
fine. It's in power. Iran's supreme leader has said these protesters are trying to please Trump. I wonder, is it dangerous for Trump to align
himself with the protesters for their sake? Does that give the regime cause to portray them as instruments of the U.S.?
DAGRES: I think historically that's been Khamenei's favorite line during protests. He likes to say that protesters are foreign agents, that they're
rioters, and this time was no different.
[18:15:00]
And what might surprise viewers, and maybe yourself, if you haven't seen it, is that since Trump has actually made these threats against the Supreme
Leader and the Islamic Republic, they've been actually sending videos before the internet shut down, thanking the president, even changing the
street names in Tehran, which shocked me. And that should tell you that they don't care anymore. They're looking for some sort of change, and
they're willing to put their lives on the line knowing full well they'd be met with batons and bullets.
SCIUTTO: Do the people of Iran, from where you're sitting and your many contacts in the country, do they have the impression that the U.S. can
topple this regime? That seems to be what Trump is claiming, right?
DAGRES: I mean, I think that we do have a history of toppling regimes around the world. It's not a new thing. I think that it started in the
'50s. So, I think they're looking at precedent, they look at their neighbors in Afghanistan, Iraq, but I mean, you and I know what that looks
like, and that's not great. I don't think that Iranians are calling for boots on the ground. I think they're calling for the International
Community to pay attention to them and what's happening.
They, for years, have been calling for positive change, and everyone's been ignoring them. And so, this isn't something new. Why is it that we listen
to what other countries are saying when there's mass protests? But with Iran, it's almost -- it's status quo, hands-off diplomacy.
SCIUTTO: And as you know, the folks there who are protesting the regime, they're taking enormous risks because in the past many people have paid,
you know, with prison time or worse when they stood up to this government. Holly Dagres, good to have you on. Thanks so much.
DAGRES: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, President Trump met with the heads of major U.S. oil companies at the White House today. Why? He wants them to spend billions of
dollars to rebuild the Venezuelan oil industry. Some oil officials say, however, not so fast.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back in today's Business Breakout. U.S. stocks ended the week higher. The S&P 500 closed at yet another record despite more warning
signs from the latest U.S. jobs report. The unemployment rate fell slightly last month to 4.4 percent, but the economy added a weaker than expected
50,000 jobs with sizable downward revisions for November. Less than 600,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy all of last year. That's the worst
annual number since 2003, not counting years where the economy was in a recession.
[18:20:00]
Most of the job gains in 2025 came early in the year, before, and this is notable, President Trump's tariffs kicked in.
Well, President Trump met with top oil executives at the White House today, urging them to invest billions of dollars to rebuild Venezuela's oil
industry, this after the arrest of Nicolas Maduro. Executives for more than a dozen oil firms, including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron took
part. The president wants them to spend at least $100 billion. That's a lot of money. He assured them that the U.S. will have their back, though.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're going to be working with Venezuela. We're going to be making the decision as to which oil companies are going to go in, that we're going
to allow to go in. You have total safety, total security. One of the reasons you couldn't go in is you had no guarantees, you had no security,
but now you have total security. It's a whole different Venezuela.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: ExxonMobil's CEO, however, expressed caution going forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DARREN WOODS, CEO, EXXONMOBIL: If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it's
uninvestable. And so, significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment
protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Other executives said at the meeting that they are eager to invest but need security guarantees before committing. The president announced
that the U.S. had seized another tanker in the Caribbean, this time with the help of Venezuelan authorities. He says it will be brought back to
Venezuela and that its oil will be sold by the U.S.
Jason Bordoff joins me. He's the founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and was special assistant to President
Obama and senior director for energy and climate change at the National Security Council. Good to have you on. Thanks so much for joining, Jason.
JASON BORDOFF, FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY: Good to see you, Jim. Thanks.
SCIUTTO: So, you listen to the president's words there, we're going to be deciding which companies go in. We're going to be selling the oil. We're
going to be controlling the money from the sale of the oil. This is not exactly a free market. This is, I mean, the president has said we're going
to be running the country. It appears he's quite certain he's going to be running the oil industry. Is that good for the U.S.?
BORDOFF: Well, we sort of heard two different things. One was the sense in which the United States is taking more direct control of the Venezuelan oil
industry, taking, as the president has said, take the oil, 30 to 50 million barrels, marketing it, selling it, deciding what to do with the revenue.
That's pretty inconsistent with what has developed over many decades, as you said, which is a globally interconnected, well-functioning oil market
where market forces allocate where supplies go. This is sort of reminiscent of a century ago, quasi-imperial powers controlling resources through
concessions or colonies or protectorates.
The other thing he said was, let's -- and the companies like Darren Woods at ExxonMobil said, is let's have a stable transition to another -- to a
government with changes to, and confidence in the rule of law, stability in the government, an investment framework where we can go and put billions of
capital -- billions of dollars of capital to work for the long-term, well beyond Trump's term in office.
And that's how this is supposed to work. You create a stable investment regime and private companies go and put capital to work and develop the
resource.
SCIUTTO: Well, you made the point, and you wrote about this recently, that pursuing that almost 19th century system of resource control is not in the
U.S. interest because the U.S. has actually benefited from that free market, free oil market you described, let market forces to decide
allocation of resources, et cetera.
BORDOFF: Yes. I think that's right. I mean, we're still sort of scarred, in many ways, the mentality of energy policy is framed by the shock of the
Arab oil embargo a half century ago in the 1970s oil crises. That sort of scenario seems much less possible to even occur today. Because again, the
way global oil markets work is through interconnected, well-functioning, deep, liquid, transparent markets. When there's a supply disruption
somewhere, supplies can adjust. That system is underpinned by the dominance of the U.S. dollar, for example. And that has accrued to the benefit of
American energy security. The U.S. is better off with that system.
And I think when we see governments, whether it's Russia going into cutting off supplies to Europe, or seeking to go into Ukraine to seize resources,
or the United States maybe starting to act in some ways along those lines, it undermines confidence in that system and it start to think about
resources like oil as sources of geopolitical control and sources of geopolitical coercion. In the long run, that's going to undermine a system
that has actually made the U.S. better off from an energy security standpoint over the last several decades.
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Venezuela produces less than 1 percent of global supply today. The U.S. is, of course, an oil exporter now. Is the administration risking a
lot for something that is relatively a drop in bucket when it comes to oil markets?
BORDOFF: Well, again, we don't know what the administration is risking. And the president today said he hopes the U.S. government doesn't have to put
subsidies in place or guarantees for these companies. If, again, a transition to hopefully a democratically elected government provides more
stability, provides more confidence for private companies, energy and otherwise, to go invest in Venezuela, we know that the projections for peak
oil demand, the pace of the energy transition, these are getting pushed back. Not great news for climate change, but they're getting pushed back.
U.S. shale production is going to be flat this year, maybe slightly declined.
So, companies were already looking for where they can go to invest billions of dollars to develop new resources and some geopolitically risky places
like Libya or Iraq, other parts of Latin America like Argentina. Venezuela may now be on that list. Again, if you provide that stable investment
regime that Darren Woods talked about to give companies confidence.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And as I understand it, shale producers in this country say, hey, if you lower the oil price too much, we're going to be operating at a
loss. Steve -- Jason Bordoff, thanks so much for helping us understand.
BORDOFF: Thanks, Jim. Checking some of today's other business headlines, Elon Musk's Grok chatbot is tweaking its image generation policy following
an international uproar. Under the new rules, only paid X subscribers will be able to generate some deepfake images on Grok. The move comes after
users and regulators expressed outrage over a Grok feature that let users digitally undress people, including children. This new policy does not,
however, take away that function completely.
Shares of Apple halted a seven-session losing streak Friday, the company's worst stock slump since spring. Apple is down more than 4 percent so far
this year as investors are worried about its A.I. strategy. Alphabet overtook Apple this week as the world's second most valuable publicly
traded company behind NVIDIA.
E.U. member states have signed off on a massive free trade deal with four South American countries. The so-called Mercosur agreement is Europe's
largest ever trade deal with Latin America. It was some 25 years in the making. The deal will eliminate the majority of tariffs on E.U. exports.
The deal bitterly opposed by French farmers who've been holding demonstrations in Paris.
Straight ahead, Russia strikes Ukraine, leaving more than half a million people without power in the middle of winter. It's cold there. We're going
to break down why this attack was so different just after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto and here are the international headlines we're watching today.
CNN has obtained video that shows the confrontation between an ICE officer and the Minnesota woman he shot and killed on Wednesday. The Department of
Homeland Security official confirms the video was recorded on the agent's own cell phone. 37-year-old Renee Good, you see her there, was killed, shot
dead in the incident, leading to nationwide outrage.
In Iran, protests continued into Friday night. You are looking here at some of the latest images from the northeastern city of Mashhad, where
protesters shouted death to the dictator. People in more than 100 cities have taken part in demonstrations for 13 days now, driven by anger over a
falling economy, as well as the regime's security crackdowns.
One of the owners of the Swiss bar where a deadly fire broke out at New Year's is said to be detained now. A memorial was held on Friday for the 40
victims, many of the young people of the fire. The bar's owners are currently being investigated for several crimes, including homicide by
negligence.
Russia's attacks on Ukraine intensify with one of its most advanced weapons, an Oreshnik ballistic missile. Ukrainian authorities report damage
to critical infrastructure in the western city of Lviv, which we should note is not far from Ukraine's border with NATO member Poland. Russia's
attacks have left thousands of people without power in the middle of winter, including more than half a million in the Kyiv region.
This is the first time that Russia has fired an Oreshnik missile in more than a year. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh got a closer look at the weapon just a
couple of weeks after the last time it was used. Here's what he learned.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Russia struck Lviv late Thursday with a rare Oreshnik ballistic missile. Last January, CNN saw the remains of the first Oreshnik fired at
Ukraine. It hit Dnipro in November 2024, killing nobody.
WALSH: Well, these are the remnants of what Ukraine has of a missile that Russia claimed was a huge breakthrough in technology and that got the
world's attention when it landed around Dnipro in late November.
This burned out remains studied for signs of exactly what Vladimir Putin might have been referring to when he talked about this Oreshnik missile
being a new phase in Russia's ballistic missile program. They claim that it could get through western air defenses, but the experts we've spoken to
here are saying that in the technology they looked at, it doesn't seem to be an enormous departure. In fact, they've pointed at some of the
components seeming relatively old.
ANDRIY KULCHYTSKYI, KYIV SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC EXPERTISE (through translator): There was nothing to terrible about its
use. Here's a gyroscope from Oreshnik. Yuri Gagarin flew with one of these.
WALSH: Putin said this is a new phase in their weaponry.
WALSH (through translator): Is that not true?
KULCHYTSKYI (through translator): His job is to say something. And we have to listen. The people are listening. We found lamps. Soviet lamps.
SERHII, KYIV SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC EXPERTISE (through translator): Old. Everything is old. And everything Russian.
WALSH: And this, they've pointed to as well, was a thing that seems so different. It's the multi-stage part of the missile. Each one of these
segments dropped off a separate part of the missile that landed targeted around Dnipro. And that's what terrified so many in the night sky, to see
these separate projectiles landing over Dnipro. They were carrying conventional payload, but normally something like this could potentially
carry a nuclear device.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now from Kyiv, Oleksiy Sorokin, he's deputy chief editor of The Kyiv Independent. Oleksiy, thanks so much for joining.
[18:35:00]
OLEKSIY SOROKIN, CO-FOUNDER, THE KYIV INDEPENDENT: Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: First, I want to start with this missile itself, and as you know far better than me, Russia relentlessly strikes Ukraine with a whole range
of weapons, ballistic missiles, drones, etc. What's the significance of this new missile? Is it, in your view, a significant jump in the threat to
Ukraine?
SOROKIN: I think there's absolutely zero significance of this particular missile. It's the second time it was used, the first time it was used in
November 2024. So, if Russians can use this missile only once every year, then I think Ukraine will be fine.
The problem is is that Russia has enough weaponry to strike Ukraine, to strike even the most western part of Ukraine, like Lviv, which proves that
Ukraine needs more air defense systems, western air defense systems, and especially American air defense systems.
SCIUTTO: Russia said it launched this attack in response to Ukraine's alleged attempt to target Putin, which of course the CIA found was not
true. You recently pointed out that as soon as President Trump seemed to make headway in negotiations, particularly with Ukraine, Putin stepped in
to tell him that Ukraine is trying to kill him. Is this, in effect, an influence operation targeting Trump himself?
SOROKIN: It is, and unfortunately, Trump is apparently influenced by Mr. Putin, because we see that every time there's some kind of breakthrough,
every time there's some kind of attempt by the U.S. to help Ukraine, Mr. Trump gets a call from Mr. Putin and suddenly Trump then is hesitant. He
doesn't provide Ukraine with the necessary weapons. He doesn't back Ukraine with a necessary peace plan. For example, the recent one that Mr. Trump
proposed was clearly dictated by the Russians.
And so, unfortunately, everyone in Ukraine expects every time that Ukraine gets closer in trying to pull the U.S. closer to Ukraine's position, Putin
will call and Mr. Trump will probably change his mind.
SCIUTTO: So, tell me, does the Ukrainian public trust President Trump as a, well, one defender of Ukraine, but as a mediator in any peace negotiations?
SOROKIN: Well, to be polite, I'm going to say no. Maybe some people do still, but obviously the past year showed that the U.S. is either unwilling
or unable to help Ukraine win this war, to defend itself. And right now, everybody in Ukraine hopes that the U.S. won't side with Russia and won't
force Ukraine to lose.
And so, the CNN, for example, calls me every time I don't have electricity, but it's not a coincidence. I almost never have electricity because Russia
bombs Kyiv constantly, right? Today, we had drone strikes in Kyiv as well. I didn't have heating in the morning. I didn't have running water in the
morning. And so, this is the reality that Ukrainians live constantly, even in the regions that are far from the front lines.
And so, obviously, when we see that the U.S. is also bullying Ukraine into something that the Ukrainian public is not willing to accept, then
obviously trust drops significantly, because the U.S. was always an ally to Ukraine. And right now, I think if you look at the polls, then a lot of the
people in Ukraine are actually hesitant to call the U.S. an ally.
SCIUTTO: Yes. So, who does Ukraine look to? I know to a large degree, it looks to itself, right, and that it's taking on more and more of a
responsibility for its own defense, its own weapon systems, et cetera. Does it trust Europe or part of Europe to fill the gap left by the U.S.?
SOROKIN: Well, that's a question more to Europe, because if the Europe actually wanted to do it, then they definitely have the capacity, right?
Europe is huge. The economy is big. They have the means of production. But unfortunately, we see over and over that Europe kind of wants to help, but
for some reason, it stops short of actually doing the right thing, right? For example, the Coalition of the Willing that promised troops immediately
after the ceasefire is in place. But most likely, there's not going to be any ceasefire. So, this promise is useless at this point.
[18:40:00]
And then the times, the U.K. times wrote that France and the U.K. are ready to give around 7,000, 8,000 troops each, which is nothing, right? So, when
we hear this kind of news coming from Brussels, from London, from Paris, it kind of makes Ukraine wonder, does it actually have allies at this point?
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, listen, I appreciate you joining. And I know you're getting to the dangerous hours there in Kyiv when Russia likes to bomb. So,
I wish you a safe and quiet evening.
SOROKIN: Thank you very much.
SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," President Trump's renewed threat to take Greenland, escalating concerns in Denmark, and among other NATO allies. A
member of the Danish parliament will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: President Trump once again has expressed his commitment to acquire Greenland by any means necessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don't do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland
and we're not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.
I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way, but if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he had said earlier that the U.S. was just looking to buy Greenland. Trump seems to contradict him
there. He is set to meet with foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark next week. Yesterday, the top Washington-based diplomats for Greenland and
Denmark met with U.S. officials at the White House.
The president's renewed threat to a treaty ally in Denmark comes after a major U.S. military operation in Venezuela, of course, which captured the
leader of that country over the weekend. What does that say about his willingness to exercise military power? Nic Robertson is in Greenland's
capital. He's been asking residents how they view America's demands.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Greenlanders here have woken up to not just the ubiquitous snow, and of course they're used to it.
I mean, just look at their dogs here. They can handle this stuff, the snow, the freezing temperatures.
[18:45:00]
But what they've woken up to as well is President Donald Trump doubling down on his desire to have and control Greenland. He says that it's not
enough just to have the current arrangement, that it's important to own it, psychologically important to own it. He says he gets more out of it that
way. That's a better deal for him. So, this is what Greenlanders here have woken up today, an uncertain future, increasingly uncertain.
And I was speaking to some Greenlanders a little earlier today, and they said, look, we've heard that Donald Trump wants to offer us $100,000 each
per person. This is being reported by Reuters, $100,000 per person. And they said, look, for some people here, you know, think about the fishermen
whose livelihoods are being changed. I mean, we're looking at snow, right? But climate change, they say, is making the temperature here much warmer.
Some of the traditional jobs, the hunting and fishing that the Inuit and a large part of the population here do. That's not possible.
So, this person said to me, look, there are some people for whom that $100,000 is a huge amount of money. And I said, well, would you go for it?
And they said, look, no, we don't want to sell the country, even if it's a lot of money. But the reality is, all the minerals here in Greenland, they
say that's worth so much more than 57,000 people, $100,000 each.
The message coming back from people here, again, is this is Greenland. We don't want the United States to have it. We're going to defend it. This is
the message that's coming from Danish and Greenland politicians. Their ambassadors in the U.S. have been on Capitol Hill, lobbying lawmakers there
at the European Union.
Denmark is putting the issue of Greenland in the United States, Donald Trump's claim to it, putting it on the agenda there for ambassadors of the
E.U. to talk about. This isn't going away. Donald Trump isn't making it go away.
And just before we started filming, a man came up to me and said, we're going to defend Greenland. And I said, well, how? America's big. And he
said, look, this is our country. This is for us. We want it this way.
Nic Robertson, CNN, Nuuk, Greenland.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Joining us now is Rasmus Jarlov, a conservative member of Denmark's parliament chair of its Defense Committee. Thanks so much for
taking the time to join us.
RASMUS JARLOV, CONSERVATIVE MEMBER, DANISH PARLIAMENT: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, you heard the president's comments, whether Greenland and Denmark like it or not, the easy way or the hard way, he's going to take
Greenland. Tell me your response to those words.
JARLOV: I actually noticed that what Trump said that he wants to do something on Greenland. And if that's the case, we can work on that.
There's plenty of room to do something about the American presence in Greenland, which the Americans have downgraded by 99 percent since the
height of the Cold War. So, they today only have one military base left.
If they want to have more again, they are more than welcome. The door is wide open and there's nothing we would like more than to assist Americans
in building up that presence again. Some of the bases that the Americans have left are still there. We've maintained the runways and the buildings
so they can move right in. They're going to need a little bit of painting, but it's certainly very easy to upscale the American presence again, if
that's what's needed.
If they have concrete mining projects in mind that they want to do, that's also going to be very easy for them to do, and they will only meet an open
door. But they can't run Greenland. They can't take over the sovereignty and they can't run the country. It's the Greenlanders that are running the
country. They want to preserve their way of life. They don't want to become Americanized. They're very, very clear about that.
And there's no way Denmark can sell people like their slaves to become part of the United States against their will. That's just completely out of the
question. I'm sorry, we can't do that. But everything else we can do, and it should be possible to find a solution instead of escalating the
situation.
SCIUTTO: But when President says we could do this the easy way or the hard way, that's not a negotiation. That's a threat. Do you read that as a
threat?
JARLOV: Yes, absolutely, it's a threat. But it really depends on what he wants. We haven't heard concretely what it is that the Americans need in
Greenland. We've only heard they want to take Greenland, but we haven't heard why. So, what is it that they actually think they can get up there?
Is it minerals? Is it more military presence? We need to hear concretely what the needs are, and then we can address that in a constructive way. But
the idea of just taking over just for the sake of taking over doesn't make sense. It's therefore kind of hard to address, and it's not something we
can give into.
So, we don't like the threats. Certainly, we think this is very, very dangerous. I'm really sorry when I hear Greenlanders, how concerned they
are at the moment. It makes me very sad. It also makes me very sad to think about a military confrontation, because they keep saying that's on the
table.
[18:50:00]
And of course, that's -- that would be a complete disaster. I would have to go to funerals. I would have to look at the people that will be gunned down
in order to take Greenland. And yes, I really hope it's not going to come to that.
But it's time to meet next week for the foreign ministers. And hopefully, we can get this on a constructive path rather than having it escalating all
the time.
SCIUTTO: You said that it would be wise for European allies to be welcomed to Greenland to help defend it. Do you believe that might become necessary
for Greenland, for Denmark, for Denmark's European allies to defend its territory against the U.S., which is of course, or should be a treaty ally
under the NATO Charter?
JARLOV: It would be the biggest self-inflicted wound to the Western world in history. So, I mean, I hope not, but I mean, you have American
officials, they are asked every week, are you going to invade Greenland? And they refuse to say that it's off the table. So, we can't rule it out
when the Americans are not ruling it out. We can't rule it out either, but we don't think it's the most likely scenario because it's just simply too
stupid. It would be such a disaster, so absurd that it's -- we still think that's, yes, unthinkable.
But of course, Americans are keeping it on the table, and that's very threatening, it's very concerning, and it's not a good way to go.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And well, I would note a lot of things we thought were unthinkable have proven to be thinkable in recent days, weeks, and months.
Rasmus Jarlov, I hope we can continue to keep up the conversation.
JARLOV: Anytime. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, another cold part of the world, massive ice shows, setting records in Asia. We're going to take you to Northern China, one of
the most famous, after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: To another story from the frozen north, the Harbin Ice Festival kicked off this week in northern China, welcoming ice sculptors and
visitors from around the world. This year's festival is bigger than ever, with teams of artists carving up literally tons of ice. Paula Newton has
more.
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The annual Harbin Ice and Snow Festival is lighting up the January sky. A winter wonderland in one of
China's coldest cities, built using a record 400,000 cubic meters of ice and snow. This year's theme, a fairytale world. Designs include a castle,
frozen flowers, and a replica of the Taj Mahal, just a little smaller.
The festival has become a tourist mecca, featuring light shows, ice slides, and even weddings. Couples braving sub-zero temperatures just to say, I do.
[18:55:00]
CAO WEIDONG, BRIDEGROOM (through translator): Although it's quite cold outside, my heart feels warm.
NEWTON (voice-over): The event attracts ice artists from right around the globe.
NINA KYIVIET, DUTCH ICE SCULPTOR: Our sculpture is a lot about, yes, perfect shapes, geometry, but they're going to be blocks on top of each
other. So, it's also kind of like more of a natural formation that's growing.
NEWTON (voice-over): It's not just glitz and glam. Harbin is a cold weather cash cow. Last year, state media reported more than 90 million visitors
spending nearly $20 billion. The show goes on until mid-February, weather permitting.
Paula Newton, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Wow. Bring your warm clothes. Thanks so much for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do
stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
