Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Says No Negotiation without Ukraine; U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Denies U.S. Has Betrayed Ukraine; Some NATO Allies Skeptical of Trump's Outreach to Putin; NATO SecGen States Russia's War of Aggression Must End; U.S. Senate Voting to Approve RFK Jr. for Health Secretary; Senate Committee to Vote on Advancing Kash Patel for FBI Confirmation; Hegseth Presser at NATO Meeting. Aired 10- 11a ET
Aired February 13, 2025 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome back. You're with us for the second hour of CONNECT THE WORLD. This is a special show from the final
and closing day of the World Governments Summit here in Dubai. It is 7 pm here as we are wrapping up that third day.
Governments from all over the world gathered to discuss smart progress, efficiency and what is a very big talker, of course, AI. A lot of our
conversations were centered, though, on someone miles away, U.S. president Donald Trump, as he made headlines in the Oval Office.
Leaders here in Dubai reacting to his comments. And it is not just in Dubai. Defense ministers at the NATO meeting in Brussels criticizing the
U.S. stand on Ukraine and Mr. Trump's recent call with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is defending his boss' moves. We'll explain what those were and more from Brussels coming up.
It's 10 am in Washington, D.C., as we speak. And these are live pictures from Capitol Hill, where the Senate is expected to vote on Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. to serve as the next health secretary. That expected a few minutes from now.
We begin in Brussels, Belgium, where we are expecting to hear any moment now from U.S. president Donald Trump's Defense Secretary. Pete Hegseth has
been attending a meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels.
His appearance comes on the heels of president Trump's announcement of a phone call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. That happened
Wednesday. Following that call, Mr. Trump announcing negotiations to end Russia's war on Ukraine would start, quote, "immediately." His comments
raising alarm bells among some NATO allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN HEALEY, BRITISH DEFENCE SECRETARY: There can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine and Ukraine's voice must be at the heart of any
talks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, CNN national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand is in Brussels, in Belgium for that meeting.
And the minister there, responding to the fact that, effectively, Ukraine is being frozen out of at least the plans for any talks. We've seen the
first signs of a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy as well in Europe, Pete Hegseth calling on European member nations to step up and protect and
defend Ukraine.
Don't expect the U.S. to do so going forward. President Trump's phone call with Putin also giving food for thought at this NATO summit. just give us a
sense of what is being said there behind the scenes. And this sense of a new urgency, it seems, is one of the big takeaways at this point.
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Becky, there's a lot of concern, to be sure, not only about Hegseth's comments
yesterday, where he indicated very strongly that the U.S. was going to be stepping back from its role in helping Europe and Ukraine to secure
themselves against the Russians.
But also, of course, that phone call that president Trump had with President Putin yesterday, which really created the perception among many
NATO and European allies here that perhaps the U.S. president and the Russian president are trying to negotiate something over the heads of
Europe and of Ukraine.
And so you've heard a lot of strong pushback in recent hours here from some defense ministers, including from the Lithuanian defense minister, from
Estonia, as well as from Germany.
Interestingly, Germany, actually, their defense minister called it, quote, "regrettable" that Hegseth had taken off the table this idea that Ukraine
can eventually become a member of NATO.
He issued a pretty strong rebuke -- or the strongest you're likely to hear from a close U.S. ally here, basically saying that they have given up some
of the negotiation leverage before talks have even begun here.
So asked earlier today whether he believed that the U.S. had essentially betrayed Ukraine by opening up these conversations with Vladimir Putin
directly, Hegseth denied that that was the case. Here's a little bit of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There is no betrayal there. There is a recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and
interested in peace, a negotiated peace.
[10:05:04]
As president Trump has said, stopping the killing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERTRAND: Now we do expect to hear directly from Hegseth here shortly. He's going to give what is his first formal press conference since he
became Defense Secretary several weeks ago here at NATO headquarters.
And he is likely to be asked about all of this, particularly his conversations with NATO defense ministers that he has had all day here,
where he was asked what the plan is, of course, for continued U.S. support for Ukraine and whether that is even going to be happening at this point.
Because we should note that Hegseth has not announced since he's been here any new military equipment that the U.S. plans to send to the Ukrainians at
this point, Becky.
ANDERSON: Thank you.
Nigel Gould-Davies is senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
I want to discuss more on what we are hearing and where the path forward might be headed, Nigel.
Is there any practical end game to the war that Ukraine's government and its people would find acceptable at this point?
Let's lay this out, if you will.
NIGEL GOULD-DAVIES, SENIOR FELLOW FOR RUSSIA AND EURASIA, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES: Yes. So if we're looking at this from the
Ukrainian point of view, it's hard to offer a single view of what an entire population feels.
Of course there are -- there is understandably a determination to ensure that the terrible losses Ukraine has suffered up to now will not have been
made in vain.
But underlying the sort of question you've asked is, the implication that there might at some point be a critical mass of Ukrainians, so exhausted
and drained by the war and the prospect of further losses, that they -- that some could conceivably accept some form of an end to the war.
That led at least to a de facto recognition of Russian control of part of its territory in return for cast iron security guarantees that there would
not be a resumption. But we're very, very far away even from that speculation at this point.
ANDERSON: Nigel, certainly from the U.S. Defense Secretary, it seems that there is an expectation from the Trump administration that Ukraine is going
to have to concede land now occupied by Russia and, indeed, that its ambitions for membership of NATO should effectively be dropped.
Those are two things that are going to sit very uncomfortably with the Ukrainian president, if not the people of Ukraine.
GOULD-DAVIES: They will indeed. And they're different from the objectives that Ukraine has set for itself in this war up to now. There is a very
important difference between acknowledging de facto that Ukraine is not in a position currently to regain control of its internationally recognized
territory.
And de jure under international law, accepting Russia's sovereignty over those Occupied Territories. And I think it would be a very alarming, indeed
appalling prospect if the United States or anyone else were to go further and take that step of actually recognizing those as Russian.
That's an important ambiguity, it seems to me in the Ukrainian, in the American position. Now, the question of NATO will perhaps be a greater
disappointment. And one can hear Ukrainian voices saying, potentially everything is negotiable except the matter of security guarantees.
This is really the single most important thing for the Ukrainians to ensure, that there is no new potential further escalation or resumption of
aggression against what would be a weakened Ukraine. And if it's not to be NATO membership, it should be NATO-like.
ANDERSON: We've also heard from the Trump administration that those security guarantees should be provided by Europe, in no uncertain terms,
going forward. You also have said, and I've discussed this with a number of experts, the economic angle to what is the very transactional president
Trump.
So just explain what we understand to be the case here and how unacceptable or not.
[10:10:00]
The sort of quid pro quo on an economic basis any support for Ukraine from the U.S. might be going forward.
GOULD-DAVIES: Yes. So going back to what happened yesterday, a flurry of activity, three different American initiatives simultaneously. Pete Hegseth
talking security in Brussels to Europeans.
Secondly, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent talking economics in Kyiv to Ukraine.
And thirdly, president Trump talking about the negotiating process to President Putin on the phone.
The worry is that, and this is really the underlying concern, there seems to be a lack of diplomatic sort of system and method and clarity here.
So for example, you have Bessent in Kyiv, saying, well, we can have a mining agreement to get Ukraine's rare earth metals. And he said that could
serve as a sort of economic, long term security shield for Ukraine. That implies a commitment by America to Ukrainian security.
On the other hand, Hegseth saying, as you have just noted, it's really on the Europeans to pay for and to provide the troops for any end of war
scenario.
But then Trump in effect, saying, well, I'm going to negotiate over the heads of everyone else of the Europeans and the Ukrainians. So you have
these contradictions.
And in particular the worry on the part of the Europeans that Trump might agree an end to the war with Putin without European input but demanding
that Europe pay for and secure whatever outcome Trump has decided. So I think there's a real worry that there's a lack of kind of underlying
coherence and clarity to the American approach to this.
ANDERSON: Nigel Gould-Davies with you viewers on the show.
Thank you, sir.
Well, Russia's foreign minister praising what he calls a polite call between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, even as he went on to bash the
previous U.S. administrations policies toward Russia. Fred Pleitgen with more reaction from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Nothing less than ecstatic about that phone call that took place between president Trump
and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
In fact, Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Vladimir Putin, he came out earlier today in a conference call with journalists and said that the
Kremlin is impressed with Donald Trump's position on the Ukraine conflict, on the war in Ukraine.
And the Russians really are already kicking into high gear. They say they're already designating people for possible peace talks. They're
already getting ready for a possible face to face meeting between Vladimir Putin and president Trump.
But at the same time, I was able today to go to a press conference of the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov. And I asked him whether he had a
lot of hope now that relations between Russia and the United States could normalize.
And he used that to rip into the Biden administration, also into the U.S.' European allies, saying that Russia shouldn't have been sidelined on the
international stage in the first place. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: Yesterday after the phone call between president Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin, are you more hopeful now that there can
be real and fundamental change and improvement in U.S.-Russian relations?
SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): No. What struck me was that now the entire world is in a state of shock. Viewing the
phone conversation and the news about it is something extraordinary.
This shows to what extent the staff of the Biden administration, led by their president and their European satellites, have abandoned dialogue and
diplomacy as a method of communication with the outside world, opting instead for threats, sanctions and the arming of the regime in Kyiv to wage
war against the Russian Federation.
Judging by the surprise and shock caused by the phone talks between Trump and Putin, it seems that everything happening in Ukraine and the actions of
Zelenskyy's Nazi regime have been taken for granted. This is how you should communicate with Russia. Perhaps that is why many in the West, including
the leaders of the European Union, were shocked when a simple, normal conversation took place between two polite, educated individuals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: And that was the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, speaking at a press conference there with me earlier today. There's two
things that have really caught the eye of the Russians, Becky.
On the one hand, it's those comments also by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, essentially saying that the U.S. would not put any troops on
the ground in Ukraine. There would be no NATO membership for Ukraine.
And also that any sort of mandate for foreign troops inside Ukraine would not have the participation of the United States. Obviously, that all music
to the ears of the Kremlin.
But also the fact that the Russians are picking up on what they believe is essentially the Ukrainians getting sidelined in any sort of talks that
could take place between the United States and Russia.
[10:15:05]
We were just watching Russian state TV here, where that was exactly one of the points they were making. So right now, the Russians certainly believe
that they are in a prime position with this new administration in Washington to get talks going.
Not just to end the Ukraine war in a way very favorable to Russia but also to get U.S.-Russian relations back on track with the Trump administration
as well. Becky.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Fred Pleitgen reporting from Moscow.
Let's get you to Brussels. The NATO secretary general Mark Rutte is speaking to reporters at the NATO defense ministers meeting there. Let's
listen in.
MARK RUTTE, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: To ensure we are fully ready to execute these plans also in the future, we need more military capabilities
and for that, we need significantly more defense spending.
So there is no time to waste. Our continued freedom and prosperity depend on it. Defense spending is already growing. Since 2014, European allies and
Canada have added more than $US 700 billion additional for defense.
In 2024, NATO allies in Europe and Canada invested $US 485 billion in defense, a 20 percent increase compared with 2023. With a full two-thirds
of allies spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. But we need to do more, much more and we need to do it faster.
It is clear from our discussions today that allies recognize the need to invest much more. Several announced large increases in spending in today's
meeting. And I expect many ministers to return home from today's meeting with an even greater sense of urgency.
We also discussed the need to ramp up defense production as we ramp up defense spending. Our industry must be able to produce what our extra money
allows us to procure. We have already seen a significant increase in defense production across the alliance in recent years.
We are producing more and faster than at any time in decades but we can and must do more to ensure the credibility of our deterrence and defense for
years to come. We need to shift to a wartime mindset and we need industry to shift with us.
Industry has taken steps to improve production capacity but they can do better. The demand signals are clear and they will continue to grow. Today
we agreed an updated action plan to rebuild a strong defense industry on both sides of the Atlantic.
A robust defense industry will make the alliance stronger and create more jobs in Europe and North America.
Allies also met with Ukraine in the NATO Ukraine council and we were joined by the E.U. high representative Kaja Kallas. Defense Minister Umerov
briefed allies on the latest developments on the ground.
And allies took note of president Trump's initiative for peace talks, which secretary Hegseth had already outlined in our consultations within the UDC
yesterday afternoon. We discussed the importance of our continued support to Ukraine, which is crucial so that this brutal war of aggression can come
to a just and lasting end.
And we discussed the need for European allies and Canada to do even more. In 2024. NATO allies provided over 50 billion euros in security assistance
to Ukraine, nearly 60 percent of this coming from Europe and Canada. This is well above the 40 billion that we have pledged for the year.
The newly established NATO command in Wiesbaden, Germany, is at the forefront of coordinating these contributions. This command is now
operational and is doing important work.
And allies announced new military support packages yesterday and today. This will help Ukraine in its fight today and to build up Ukraine's armed
forces in the long term. All of this sends a clear signal that Europe and Canada are taking on a greater proportion of the transatlantic burden
sharing.
So we had an honest and forthright discussion among ourselves and with Ukraine. And we are coming out of our meetings over the past 24 hours with
a clear sense of purpose, commitment and urgency. And with that, I'm ready to take your questions.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. we'll start with Sky News.
QUESTION: Thank you. Deborah Haynes from Sky News.
RUTTE: Good afternoon.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
Are all united?
[10:20:00]
Are all NATO allies united behind Ukraine in this?
What President Zelenskyy has said, this belief that no negotiation on ending the war can take place without Ukraine at the table and our allies
united that Ukraine cannot be forced into an agreement unless it actually accepts the conditions.
RUTTE: What we are clearly united about is that, first of all, we have to make sure that, when talks start, Ukraine is in the best possible position.
And obviously this is about Ukraine. So Ukraine will be involved in any way whatsoever.
And at the same time, we are also in total agreement that an outcome has to be durable. As Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday we
cannot have a Minsk 3 again. So whenever the outcome is there, we have to make sure that Putin will not try to grab another square mile kilometer of
Ukraine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, we'll go to Reuters.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, secretary general. You have said repeatedly that Ukraine needs to be put in a position of strength before talks could
start. But president Trump has said that talks are starting immediately.
So does that mean that Ukraine is now starting negotiations from a position of weakness?
RUTTE: No, and I do not completely agree with you because what will happen, of course, even if talks start, they will not end on day one or day
two. So there is, let's say, a path there, where we have to make sure that talks are successful.
And it is important that we get to a peace deal and, at the same time, to make sure that Putin understands that the West is united, that Ukraine is
getting all the support it needs to prevail.
And that is very important but also that he understands that we will only conclude those talks when we are absolutely assured that the outcome can be
sustained, that the outcome is enduring, is lasting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. RBC Ukraine.
QUESTION: Secretary general, do you believe that Vladimir Putin really wants to end the war now as president Trump said it yesterday?
Thank you.
RUTTE: Well, I don't know what is exactly in President Putin's mind, of course. And neither can you. I have had many meetings with him between 2010
and 2014 in my previous role. And he is a strong negotiator. He is very unpredictable.
But in the end, if we want to get to a peace deal, we need him there because he was the one starting this war of aggression against your
country. So we have to make sure that we navigate those talks in a way that the outcome is such, that it is clear to the whole world that there is a
strong deal.
That also the Indo-Pacific countries, like China but also a country like North Korea and even in the Middle East, Iran, know that it is the West
which is prevailing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: BBC. Thank you. In the center. We'll get the mic to you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
RUTTE: Your voice is so commanding. You don't need it.
QUESTION: Jonathan Boyd BBC.
RUTTE: Hi.
QUESTION: Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, said it was regrettable that the Trump administration had made concessions before
negotiations had begun. Similar message from the E.U. foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, not a good idea.
Would you agree with them?
RUTTE: Well, I'm not in a position to comment on everything everybody is saying but I would not be surprised about president Trump's views on this.
He has been clear during the election campaign.
And we knew for a couple of days that talks were imminent, at least that a phone call with President Putin was imminent. And that phone call took
place yesterday. And now we have to make sure collectively that we do everything to make sure that we get to a lasting outcome of those talks.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Secretary general, many experts say that, after yesterday's -- president Trump's speech that the agreement, if it might be signed, the peace
agreement, if it might be signed in the way, in the tone which was articulated by the Washington, will make Moscow and President Putin
stronger.
And it will -- it might lead to President Putin's decision that he can challenge some other countries. If yes, do you agree with this?
And who he might challenge or attack, as experts say?
RUTTE: Well, I have not seen the outcome of peace negotiations. They have not even started.
[10:25:00]
What I know is that all allies here today -- and I know that the White House thinks the same -- are of the opinion that we have to make sure, yes,
that there is peace in Ukraine, that we end this awful situation, this war of aggression.
Where hundreds of thousands of people have now been dead or seriously injured on both sides of the border. It is really horrible. So we want to
end this. But, of course, you have to make sure that you conduct those talks in a way where the outcome is such that it will not be seen as a loss
to the West, one.
And two, that we make sure that the outcome is seen as and doing, that it will not be challenged again, like we have seen after Crimea and after the
Minsk accords in 2014, where immediately and basically moving forward to 2015 and 2016, Putin started to challenge the outcome of these agreements.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bloomberg, behind the cameras.
QUESTION: Secretary general, this is Andrea Palasciano from Bloomberg. President Trump has said that negotiations are effectively starting.
Europeans are not in the conversation right now. They're not at the table.
What can European allies, European NATO allies do to get back in the conversation?
And what exactly can they offer?
What can they put on the table to be included in these discussions?
RUTTE: Clearly, we are intensely consulting amongst each other, including with the United States. I will be myself in Munich tomorrow meeting with
vice president Vance; Kellogg, the special representative for Ukraine.
Special representative for president Trump will be here at NATO on Monday. Yesterday I had dinner with Pete Hegseth, the new Secretary of Defense of
United States. So we are as NATO.
And the teams are, of course, intensely coordinating. And I know that many allies and many E.U. member states are doing the same with Washington. So
we are really -- and what we did last 24 hours was also very much about getting to the same page.
And this is a democratic alliance. You do not always start with concurring positions. But in these 24 hours, what I have seen was a tremendous sense
of unity and of convergence of views. And maybe not on everything, in every detail but still in alliance, moving united forward.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. Staying in the same part of the room, woman in the white blouse and beige vest.
QUESTION: Good afternoon. My name is Yulia. I'm from Republic of Moldova, representing Herr Journal Police (ph).
So Mr. Rutte, last night the airspace of the Republic of Moldova was overflown by Russian drones. Some of them even exploded on the Moldovan
territory, which is very serious and endangers the lives of our citizens.
What can allies do to help Moldova to protect its airspace?
Because it's really dangerous right now and, as we speak, Moldovan citizens are endangered.
RUTTE: Well, as you know, many allies and I hosted Maia Sandu, the president of Moldova, here myself in late 2024. I think it was in December.
So we are having a lot of talks and consultations. And many allies also bilaterally supporting the Moldova. The European Union is very much
involved because we all care about your beautiful country.
And to make sure that you prevail in this ongoing, let's say, yes, you would call it hybrid in the past. But this is really destabilization
campaigns and sometimes even state sponsored terrorism against your country.
And this is what we are doing, working together on this, consulting and making sure that we are on the same page. That is very important.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And just behind her, Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung.
QUESTION: Thanks a lot. Thomas Khuzaa with Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung.
Secretary general, yesterday, the U.S. Secretary of Defense also said that, in the future, Europeans need to take ownership of their own, as he said,
conventional security.
How do you read this?
Does it mean that we should expect the bulk of the U.S. forces in Europe, which are about 100,000 at the moment, will be withdrawn from the
continent?
Did you discuss this with him?
Did you get any assurances?
And would it be wise for Europeans to basically foresee a situation where the U.S. only provides a nuclear umbrella?
[10:30:00]
But no longer any conventional protection?
Thank you.
RUTTE: Thank you for the question. And, you know, Pete Hegseth visited to Stuttgart on Tuesday. And on a question I think by you or one of your
colleagues said that there are no plans to reduce troop levels. That's one.
At the same time, the U.S. is quite irritated, basically for a long time. And Trump made this very clear when he came on board in 2016-2017 about the
fact that the U.S. is spending much more on defense than the average is in the rest of NATO, in Canada and in Europe.
So we have to do more. Last year, we spent 20 percent more U.S. NATO allies. So if you take out us from the from the numbers, the rest of NATO
spent 20 percent more. So we can do this.
But it is not nearly enough. When you look at the capability targeting process and when you then, from there, start to see the emerging gaps, it
has to be much and much more than this famous 2 percent. It will be more than 3 percent at least.
So here he is right. And the good thing, of course, is when we and the rest of NATO spend more, that there will be more of a burden sharing with what
the U.S. is doing, because the U.S. Itself is now on about 3.3 percent, 3.4 percent, 3.5 percent, depending on which year and how you calculate it.
So that burden shift is necessary. But to your concrete question, I think Pete Hegseth was very clear in Stuttgart.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's see, here, woman in the second row.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about, like yesterday, not already did what Putin wanted, dropped off the -- of Ukraine membership in the alliance in
the foreseeable future.
If this how NATO will make Putin to start the talking process, by just give him what he wants?
RUTTE: Well, listen, in Washington, again, NATO committed to future NATO membership for Ukraine. But it has never been agreed that whenever peace
talks would start, that peace talks would end anyway and always and definitely with NATO membership. That has never been agreed.
It could be but it never was that clearly stated. What I consistently have said is we have to make sure that, whatever the outcome is, we have to make
sure that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin will never, ever try again to attack Ukraine. That is crucial.
And then you and I, as I said yesterday, we can spend time and not very long time -- I think in 10 minutes we can think of five or 10 ways to make
sure that we have those guarantees in place for Ukraine going forward. But it has never been a promise to Ukraine that, as part of a peace deal, they
would be in NATO.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And now we'll go to the woman in the black jacket.
QUESTION: U.S. Secretary of Defense said that U.S. are interested toward the Indo-Pacific and China more than Europe. So, you know, European Union
states, they are a little bit concerned about this.
What do you think about?
RUTTE: Spend more, spend more. And those not on 2 percent get to the 2 percent by this summer. And those on 2 percent prepare for much, much more.
And it will be north of 3 percent.
Because what is behind this is two things. One is the genuine issue that the U.S. has to concentrate on multiple theaters, including on the Indo-
Pacific. Absolutely, China, et cetera. It is a great worry for them and rightly so.
But also a continuous debate they're having with European allies. Hey, guys, we are spending over 3 percent, 3.5 percent on average in the U.S.
And you are close to 2 percent or not even at 2 percent in the rest of NATO.
So they are right. They have every right to be extremely irritated because we are saying, yes, but spending more, that might mean maybe saving
somewhere else or increase taxation or, yes, hey, guess what?
That's the same for the U.S. When you spend 3.5 percent on defense, then you cannot spend it on your pensions or you cannot lower your taxes by that
amount. So they are absolutely clear.
So I think these things, two things come together. U.S. has to concentrate on Europe, yes, but also on other issues. And by the way, when it comes to
the Indo-Pacific and many allies today made that point, these theaters get more and more interconnected with North Korea, China and Iran backing up
Putin.
Particularly North Korea and China being the -- over there in the Pacific region. As I said before to you, I have sometimes more phone calls coming
out of Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand from senior politicians there than from some NATO allies.
[10:35:00]
So they are really worried about what is happening there. They want us to work closer together. And I also said today, if the U.S., rightly so, sees
China and other emerging situations in the Indo-Pacific as an emerging threat to that country, then we have to face that together, not that NATO
is now expanding to the Indo-Pacific.
But then you have to work together as an alliance how to make sure that those security threats of the U.S. are also a concern for us here in
Europe.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: NHK.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Kind of following up on my colleague's question, do you expect the IP4 (ph) countries to be spending more on defense, considering these situations?
RUTTE: Well, of course, what I'm really doing in NATO is to make that push for more spending. It's not up to me, of course, to advise Japan or Korea
or Australia or New Zealand on their spending levels.
But your country has now a prime minister and foreign minister and a defense minister. The defense minister is defense minister and the foreign
minister and the prime minister are former defense ministers.
So you have the three most involved politicians in the cabinet really being very much -- and I was on the phone with the prime minister recently and we
totally agreed on the importance of working together.
But, of course, it's not up to me to now even move outside NATO territory and start to lecture the whole world that they have to spend more on
defense.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. We have time for just a few more. BBC Russian service.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Firstly, just to follow up, you said it was clear that this call that happened between Putin and Trump was imminent.
And you knew about this.
Should we take it as a sign that you and other allies knew beforehand, before this call happened, that like Trump was going to talk to Putin?
And do you think that the position that he shared with Mr. Putin, was it just American position or was it, you know, like something that everybody
agreed on?
This is my first question.
(CROSSTALK)
RUTTE: Now what I said is, we always knew that this week that that call was imminent. Not exactly at that particular time slot. It's not that
detailed that we consult with each other but we knew a call would happen soon. It was imminent.
And teams are consulting each other. That doesn't mean that we always consult in detail about all the talking points and each of the phone calls
each of the leaders within NATO is making. But, of course, there is a large sense of sharing what each of us is doing.
QUESTION: OK. And my second question is, President Zelenskyy said today that there's a huge risk that this, the negotiations and just the
conversation about the future of Ukraine and Europe could turn into bilateral U.S.-Russia conversation.
And I think it's not a secret that Vladimir Putin wants to see something like the second Yalta, you know, like the situation where he sits with an
American president and they decide on the fate of the whole world.
And it feels that, in the last two days, the risk that Europe will be excluded, Europe and Ukraine will be excluded from this conversation became
much higher.
What do you think about this?
RUTTE: Well, first of all, the first one president Trump called after he was on the phone with Putin was President Zelenskyy. They talked for an
hour. Tomorrow, President Zelenskyy will meet with vice president Vance. I will myself have talks tomorrow with President Zelenskyy in Munich.
So we are closely coordinating between the U.S. and also Ukraine and, of course, European allies.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And just behind her, the blonde woman.
QUESTION: What are the key challenges in NATO's relation with nonmember countries in the Western Balkans?
And how does NATO plan to strengthen cooperation with these countries?
RUTTE: Well, obviously, we are very much involved, as you know, in Kosovo, through K4. We also closely following and being helpful, trying to be
helpful in Bosnia Herzegovina. I myself have excellent relations with all the leaders in the region, thanks to my previous role, including president
of Serbia.
So we are in constant contact, making sure that whatever we can do to contribute to stabilizing the region, we do. We have just had the Kosovo
elections. The electoral committee still has to decide, I think, on the exact outcome. But we have seen the trend.
It might probably mean that you will have a coalition now in Kosovo and that political process, of course, has to take place, as is normal in a
democracy. But we are closely connecting and following everything happening there.
And as you know, the deputy secretary general is also from the Western Balkans. She is from North Macedonia and she is a great adviser on all
these issues.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. Echo (ph).
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).
[10:40:00]
So if we see a negotiation may start soon, maybe in this half year or year, does that mean that member states are effectively accepting the suspended
status of the annexed territories?
How does it align with statements supporting Ukraine's sovereignty?
Does that mean that NATO accepts all these territories are controlled by Russia forever?
RUTTE: Well, again, what I said before, we want peace. We want to make sure that, when the talks really get underway, that you guys are -- sorry,
the Ukrainians, but I know you are in exile. I'm not sure where you live in Ukraine now.
But at least that Ukrainians are in the best possible position to conduct those talks and that, whatever the outcome is, that we make sure that it is
the full stop and that Russia will never try again.
And really, our consulting with our allies here in Europe, with the Canadians and particularly, of course, with the Americans, as I said
myself, I will have many meetings with senior American officials, in person in Munich and here in Brussels.
But, of course, also on the phone. And that is important so that -- because we all have that wish that we will get to a durable peace in Ukraine but
that we try to do it in a way that it is, indeed, enduring, lasting. And, of course, President Zelenskyy himself is very much part of all those
conversations.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, gentleman in the front and center.
QUESTION: Secretary general, you said the NATO alliance is united around the goal of putting Ukraine into the strongest possible position going into
these negotiations.
But did secretary Hegseth explicitly confirm to you that that is the American position?
Because the way president Trump was speaking yesterday, it sounded to many people like he sees the United States as essentially a neutral mediator in
these talks.
RUTTE: No. But you know that the U.S. is one of the biggest suppliers of military aid into Ukraine, which is still ongoing. And what is very
important, of course, here is that, going forward -- and I've said that before -- I expect the U.S. for the European allies to take a bigger share
of the financial burden.
That might be the case and I would not be surprised because the U.S. has paid a lot of money and, luckily, over 2024, what we have seen is that now
the European part of NATO is taking about 60 percent of the burden in terms of the money involved. And going forward, I expect the U.S. to -- for the
Europeans to step up even further.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And final question, gentleman in the beige jacket.
QUESTION: Secretary General, thank you for this opportunity. Secretary Hegseth said yesterday that the idea of putting boots on the ground
involving the U.S. troops in Ukraine is off the table.
Do other NATO allies share the same idea?
And if NATO is not involved in this type of security guarantee for Ukraine, what can we expect from NATO?
Because we are fighting that war.
RUTTE: Yes, I understand that.
But why do you guys want to discuss in a press conference the exact configuration of what a lasting peace deal would look like, including this
-- and you're right on this -- the security guarantees, which have to be part of that?
Because as I said before, you can have many discussions on how to do that. It could be NATO; it could be not be NATO, it could be individual
countries. There are many ways to do that.
But to go into that in detail, the only thing we will be doing is informing Vladimir Putin. And he is sitting in that reclining chair, listening to
what I'm answering to your question. If I would give you the answer in full -- and I won't because I don't want to make him any wiser.
QUESTION: That's exactly what the U.S. Defense Secretary has done.
RUTTE: What he said is he made very clear the U.S. position on yes or not NATO as part of a peace deal. And he is totally entitled to do that.
Thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much. That's all we have time for.
ANDERSON: And you've been listening to the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, speaking to the press about exactly where NATO and Europe stand with
regard to Ukraine and Russia. We are back with analysis after this quick break. Stay with us.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:45:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson, live from what is the closing day of the World Governments Summit
here in Dubai. Beautiful evening here, I have to say.
Happening this hour in the United States, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Kash Patel and whether Donald Trump's nomination for FBI
director will move forward. His pick for Education Secretary, Lynda McMahon, also facing questions from senators today, even as Trump threatens
to abolish that department.
And vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could be taking control of America's health agencies as the U.S. Senate is voting on his confirmation
as we speak. CNN security correspondent and former special agent with the FBI, Josh Campbell, joining us live from Los Angeles.
And as we keep one eye on the confirmation voting on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Josh, I do want to talk to you about the Senate committee overseeing the
FBI, approving Patel's nomination.
What happens next in this process?
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. We're watching the hearing right now. We expect that he will
make it out of the Senate committee. This is, as you mentioned, Kash Patel, who has been nominated for the director of the FBI.
We're hearing right now, Democrats slam this nomination for various reasons but we don't expect that there will be enough Republican votes to actually
block it. And then it will go to the full Senate for another vote. So we'll wait to see what happens there.
But, of course, this is all coming, as there have been serious accusations that have been raised by Democrats against Kash Patel; have also heard from
numerous people inside the FBI, who come from different political persuasions, both Republican and Democrat.
Who say that what's at danger here is having an FBI director who is so politically tied to a president. You know, it was 50 years ago that the
U.S. Congress actually passed a law making sure that an FBI director would have a 10 year term and that was meant to try to limit the abuses that
occurred the past 50 years.
Before that, where you had an FBI director who was trying to curry favor with particular presidents, Congress didn't want that to happen. But, of
course, in Kash Patel, we now have a Donald Trump loyalist, someone who has, you know, spread certain conspiracy theories that the president has
been known to tell as well.
Things against the FBI, slamming the FBI, calling it, you know, the deep state and so on. And so there's major concern there. But then, of course,
for, you know, our international viewers, there is a major international component here as well.
Because what I'm hearing is that this political connection between an FBI director and a president may threaten those critical international law
enforcement and intelligence relationships that the FBI has as well.
Because, you know, the FBI gets intelligence from foreign sources all of the time, different partners, that they work with in order to try to stop
threats here in the U.S. and stop threats abroad.
And so if you have an FBI director, who could presumably just be, you know, sharing whatever they get with a president, if it suits him politically,
major concern there about, you know, could those sources dry up.
So a lot of questions here that have been raised. But, of course, amid all of that, because of the political infusion here, we don't expect Democrats
to actually -- or excuse me -- Republicans to actually buck Donald Trump. We expect at this point that this nomination is going to move forward.
[10:50:00]
ANDERSON: Yes. Voting on party lines is the expectation. You are a former FBI agent, of course, yourself, I just want to remind viewers. So you
really do speak from a position of experience here.
Earlier this week, Democratic senator Dick Durbin said that Kash Patel may have committed perjury. Now just explain what this allegation is and
whether you see this as something that could indeed ultimately impact his confirmation.
CAMPBELL: Yes. You know, this is interesting. So this actually stemmed from a whistleblower that Democratic senator Dick Durbin alleges came to
Democrats and said, look, you know what Kash Patel told you in his confirmation hearing is not correct.
And what he actually told the Senate was, when he was asked, you know, does he know of any firings at the FBI that are being planned, he said, no, he
was not aware, you know, firings related to Trump investigations.
However, this whistleblower claims that the Justice Department told the FBI that they were going to clear out the executive floor. About eight people
have already been dismissed.
And in this meeting, based on contemporaneous notes that someone took, they allege that this was all being directed by Kash Patel, who wanted to see
this clearing of the House.
And so what Senator Durbin says is that that actually contradicts what he told the committee. Whether that's actually criminal, you know, criminal
perjury, probably not rising to that bar, because, again, this is based on someone's notes that were taken, not, you know, a first or second hand
actual witness.
But what Democrats have been trying to raise here is the question about his candor.
Was he actually honest with the Senate when asking that question?
And, of course, if you have an FBI director who, you know, has to tell this Congress the truth on any given day, because they provide that critical
oversight, you know, what Democrats are saying is that if he was not truthful in trying to get the job.
Will he be truthful while he does the job?
ANDERSON: It's good to have you, mate. Thank you very much indeed, Josh --
CAMPBELL: Always.
ANDERSON: -- there with his insight and analysis.
We are back after this.
Hang on. We're not going to take a break. We are going to get back to NATO headquarters, because this is Pete Hegseth. He is the new U.S. Defense
Secretary. He is at the podium now and expected to start speaking momentarily. And here we go.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
HEGSETH: Also with my wife, Jenny, who's been meeting with families of U.S. troops both here in Germany. And we're heading to Poland right after
this as well. That's what this is all about for me, for president Trump and the Defense Department.
I also want to express a special thanks to the secretary general, Secretary General Rutte, for your boldness, for your friendship, for your leadership
and most especially for your urgency.
Your urgency of the matter at hand, which is great to see from the leader of NATO. Look forward to working very closely with him and his team.
And before we're talking about what we've done at the ministerial, I want to reaffirm a few things from this podium.
First, as we see it, NATO's strategic objectives are to prevent great power conflict in Europe, deter nuclear and non-nuclear aggression and defeat
threats to treaty allies should deterrence fail.
Second, the U.S. is committed to building a stronger, more lethal NATO. However, we must ensure that European and Canadian commitment to Article
III of this treaty is just as strong.
Article III says that allies, and I quote, "by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their
individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."
Leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for defense of the continent, which means security, ownership by all allies,
guided by a clear understanding of strategic realities.
And it's an imperative, given the strategic realities that we face and that begins with increasing defense spending -- 2 percent is a start, as
president Trump has said. But it's not enough. Nor is 3 percent. Nor is 4 percent. More like 5 percent real investment, real urgency. We can talk all
we want about values.
Values are important but you can't shoot values. You can't shoot flags and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power. As
much as we may not want to like the world we live in, in some cases there's nothing like hard power.
[10:55:00]
It should be obvious that increasing allied European defense spending is critical. As the president of the United States has said. Also critical is
expanding our defense industrial base capacity on both sides of the Atlantic.
Our dollars, our euros, our pounds must become real capabilities. The U.S. is fully committed under president Trump's leadership to pursue these
objectives in face -- in the face of today's threats.
Yesterday, I had a chance to attend the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. Today participated in both the NATO ministerial and the Ukraine council. In
both, we discussed Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.
I had the chance to brief allies on president Trump's top priority, a diplomatic, peaceful end to this war as quickly as possible, in a manner
that creates enduring and durable peace.
The American Defense Department fully supports the efforts of the Trump administration and we look to allies to support this important work with
leading on Ukraine security assistance now through increased contributions and greater ownership of future security assistance to Ukraine.
To that end, I want to thank my U.K. counterpart, Defence Secretary John Healey, for hosting this Ukraine Defense Contact Group and for his
leadership on support of Ukraine.
President Trump gave me a clear mission: achieve peace through strength as well as put America First -- our people, our taxpayers, our borders and our
security. We are doing this by reviving the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military and reestablishing deterrence. NATO should pursue these goals as
well.
NATO is a great alliance, the most successful defense alliance in history. But to endure for the future, our partners must do far more for Europe's
defense. We must make NATO great again. It begins with defense spending but must also include reviving the transatlantic defense industrial base.
Rapidly fielding emergent technologies, prioritizing readiness and lethality and establishing real deterrence. Finally, I want to close with
this. After World War II, first general and then President Eisenhower was one of NATO's strongest supporters.
He believed in a strong relationship with Europe. However, by the end of Eisenhower's presidency, even he was concerned that Europe was not
shouldering enough of its own defense, nearly making, in Eisenhower's words, quote, "a sucker out of Uncle Sam."
Well, like president Eisenhower, this administration believes in alliances, deeply believes in alliances. But make no mistake, president Trump will not
allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker. Thank you. And we're glad to take some questions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks very much. Let's start with the U.S. traveling TV pool with Liz Frieden.
QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Hegseth; you have focused on what Ukraine is giving up.
What concessions will Putin be asked to make?
HEGSETH: Well, that's -- I would start by saying the arguments that have been made that somehow, coming to the table right now is making concessions
to Vladimir Putin outright that we otherwise or that the president of the United States shouldn't otherwise make.
I just reject that at its face. There's a reason why negotiations are happening right now, just a few weeks after president Trump was sworn in as
president of the United States Vladimir Putin responds to strength. In 2014, he invaded Crimea, not during the presidency of Donald Trump.
Over four years, there was no Russian aggression from 2016 to 2020. In 2022, Vladimir Putin took aggression on Ukraine once again, not while
president Trump was President of the United States.
So any suggestion that president Trump is doing anything other than negotiating from a position of strength is, on its face, ahistorical and
false. So when you look at --
END
