Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

Plans Underway For Putin-Zelenskyy Meeting; Russia Launches Largest Air Assault On Ukraine Since July; Kremlin Refuses To Commit To Putin- Zelenskyy Meeting; Trump Escalates Museum Attacks; Hamas Agrees To New Gaza Ceasefire Proposal; China's "Super Embassy" In London. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 19, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE AND CNN ANCHOR, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: A good morning to you in Asia, good evening in Europe, wherever

you are joining us around the world. I'm Richard Quest. Jim's off today. And you're about to be briefed.

The White House says plans are underway for a meeting between presidents Zelenskyy and Putin. Donald Trump is accusing museums of being too woke and

ignoring America's success. Also, China plans for a giant embassy in the heart of London is raising security concerns.

We begin with plans for the one-on-one meeting between President's Putin and Zelenskyy. The plans are getting underway according to the White House,

even though Russia has not confirmed that it will attend. The White House is trying to put meat on the bones after yesterday's meetings with the

Ukrainian leader and heads of staging government from Europe.

CNN's Kristen Holmes asked the White House press secretary to clarify what exactly has been agreed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIORE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Just for clarification, when you said earlier about Putin agreeing to the meeting,

the Kremlin seemed to indicate that Putin did not firmly agree to a bilateral. Did he agree to have a sit down with just Zelenskyy on the

phone?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can assure you that the United States government and the Trump administration is working with both

Russia and Ukraine to make that bilateral happen as we speak.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Kristen's with me. Valiant effort there, Kristen, valiant effort to get that confirmation. But I don't think we are any closer to knowing

exactly. I mean, we know Donald Trump wants it, and Zelenskyy said he does, but we really don't know whether the Kremlin's going to go for this.

HOLMES: That's right. I mean, Putin had indicated that he'd be OK with a potential trilateral meeting, although he wasn't completely on board. But

then when the introduction of this bilateral meeting, the Kremlin really hasn't answered any questions as to whether or not Putin committed.

Now, after I asked that question, another reporter followed us specifically saying, look, Kristen asked you, did Putin say that he agreed to this? We

understand you're working with the governments. And she said he has. He's agreed to it. That was the most confirmation that we've gotten that Putin

is on board. But again, that came from Karoline Leavitt in the briefing room, not from the Kremlin. So, there are still a lot of questions as to

how exactly this would happen.

Now, one of the other things that I asked her is how long is President Trump willing to wait before Putin actually agrees to and schedules this

meeting? Because as we have heard from U.S. officials, European officials, there is a big concern here that Putin is going to continue to just kick

the can down the road, to continue this war, to continue to try and gain more territory so that he can have more at stake when he comes to the

negotiating table, if he comes to the negotiating table.

Now, she did not give a timeline on that, but said she feels as though President Trump has been harsh with Putin, saying he's going to levy

sanctions. Of course, he hasn't actually levied those sanctions. This has been more of a threat. So, there's still a lot of questions as to what

exactly happens next and when and if this meeting is going to take place.

QUEST: All right. Now, Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia, he has said that a meeting has -- should only be convened with the utmost care, which

is almost diametrically opposite what President Trump is sort of wanting to put together, which is this idea that if they meet, peace will follow.

HOLMES: Yes, and I think what was interesting about that is that, you know, I asked Karoline Leavitt how we got to this bilateral meeting, because when

we were going into the event yesterday, we heard from President Trump, we heard from the European leaders, everybody was talking about a potential

trilat as the next step, with President Trump there. And it's still really unclear how they landed on this meeting with just Putin and Zelenskyy and

what they think they'd get out of that instead of just going straight to the trilateral meeting where President Trump would kind of be there as an

intermediary.

[18:05:00]

And she said that this evolved over time. But again, you know, we don't have an indication that Putin's actually going to go for this bilateral

meeting. And it's not really clear that without someone like President Trump in the room, what he would agree to with Zelenskyy, since he's

basically agreed to nothing at this point.

QUEST: All right. Kristen, thank you. Kristen Holmes is at the White House. John Herbst is with me. He is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and he

is also a senior director at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Ambassador, I want to just break this up into two areas. First of all, just we'll talk about the current situation the ground in a moment, but I just

want you to tell me the risks of going into an ill prepared -- actually ill prepared judgmental, a meeting that does not appear to have been fully

prepared. In other words, you throw the adversaries in the room and you hope for the best.

JOHN E. HERBST, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: I think it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely that Putin will agree to a meeting with

Zelenskyy. He's avoided such meetings since before COVID. And the statement that came out from Ushakov, the adviser to Putin, only said, following the

Putin phone call with Trump yesterday, that the two sides agreed that you need to raise the level of the officials in Ukrainian and Russian dialogue,

not it needs to be at the level of presidents. So, it doesn't seem that Russians are prepared to do that, and I'm not sure they're prepared to meet

in a trilateral with Trump and Zelenskyy.

QUEST: OK. So, if they're putting that -- if you like, if they're playing for time, let's just have a bit of background because there's no sign of a

letup in the attacks on Ukraine at the moment with Russia launching its largest aerial assault since July. You know, we already know by Ukraine's

count, Moscow's launched 270 drones and 10 missiles. And of those 10 missiles and those 16 drones and four missiles slipped past Ukrainian air

defenses. Five people were killed, according to the authorities, Ukraine's authorities.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's security services says it used long-range drones to strike two Russian ammunition depots in the occupied Luhansk region. So,

Ambassador, factor in the military aspect of it at the same time as you've got these diplomatic talks about talks about talks.

HERBST: OK. On the ground there's kind of a mainstream narrative that the Russians are making inevitable gains, and that's an exaggeration. The

Russians have made slight gains over the past year at tremendous cost in both manpower, soldiers dead and wounded and materiel. And the Russians

have been predicting they would break through the lines of Pokrovsk, a key town in Western Donbas, and they still haven't taken Pokrovsk, although

some Russians have made it into that town.

And meanwhile, the Ukrainians have done some spectacular things going after Russian oil depots, refineries, and ammunition depots in Russia. That's the

military side. On the negotiations, it's actually a pretty simple situation. Putin does not want either a ceasefire or a negotiated peace. He

wants effective political control of Ukraine. In President Trump's own words, he wants the control of all of Ukraine, and he thinks he can get it

by outlasting the west, including Trump, and continuing the fight on the battlefield.

QUEST: So, at what point, bearing in mind that the president -- the U.S. president is continuing to put forward all of these potential meetings, at

what point do you think President Trump loses patience and says you're not interested in peace? And he either does one of two things. He either washes

his hands and leaves the room, which is unlikely, or he goes full throttle with the Europeans and the Ukrainians, which also seems somewhat unlikely.

HERBST: Look, Trump's stated goal, and I think he's sincere, is to establish a durable peace with Ukraine's sovereign independence, secure and

economically viable. Putin's goal is to subjugate Ukraine. The only way Trump can achieve his objective is if he puts major pressure on Putin. He

did a wonderful job mobilizing to do just that, starting in June, but then he sort of -- let gave Putin the pass on August 8th, when Trump's deadline

slipped, and no major sanctions on Russia. That's a problem. So, Putin thinks he can outweigh Trump.

At some point, I think Trump will decide he's given Putin a million chances and it's time to lower the boom. If he does --

[18:10:00]

QUEST: You really think so? You really think he's going to do that when the evidence suggests that all -- you know, it's almost as if the moment Putin

sort of tickles Donald Trump under the chin and gives him a little something and a pat on the head, Donald Trump runs immediately back and

takes his side.

HERBST: Your observation is not wrong, and I have many colleagues who think exactly the way you do. But Trump has stated multiple times what his goal

is. He does want a Nobel Peace Prize, and you don't get that by appeasing Putin. And he considers himself a strong man and he's vulnerable to charge

as he's not living up to that reputation.

So, I'm not telling you it's a hundred percent he will eventually take the steps, but I would say it's at least slightly better than 50 percent for

the reasons I've just described.

QUEST: Ambassador, how kind of you. Thank you very much. We'll talk more. I'm grateful for your time tonight.

HERBST: My pleasure. Thank you.

QUEST: Now, while the White House is ruling out U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine, it's not ruling out other options including air support. What does

that look like? What does that mean? Joining me now, Lieutenant General David Deptula. He's retired U.S. air force officer.

No boots on the ground, but intelligence and aerial support. That -- I mean, I don't understand the difference per se. I mean, obviously, boots on

the ground, but how far do you think they're going to go committing U.S. military assets?

LT. GEN. DAVID DEPTULA, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Well, Richard, it's an excellent point and one that needs to be addressed when we get into the

subject of just what security guarantees might look like. Now, when we talk about security guarantees from the air, it's not an abstract concept, it's

about making it clear to all what the response will be if Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty again if there's a settlement.

Now, airspace violations, whether with aircraft missiles or drones, they're not only an act of aggression, they're going to be the fastest way for

Russia to destabilize any kind of an agreement. That's where -- why there's got to be credible air power guarantees. So --

QUEST: But what does that mean?

DEPTULA: -- if you'd like -- go ahead.

QUEST: What does that mean, credible? Because the whole point of a security guarantee is you never want to have to use it. It's like a standby

agreement. You never actually want to put it. I mean, it will be tested in some shape or form, but you hope the other party is so terrified of the

prospect of reprisal that they never actually really go for it.

DEPTULA: Absolutely, Richard. So, let me offer a couple of observations along those lines. There are a variety of different alternatives to

consider when building these air power security guarantees. First, Ukraine requires a robust air defense umbrella. That's got to be put in place. And

by the way, that's nothing new. But they need that equipment to be able to do that.

Second, they've got to have capable and sufficient numbers of modern western air power that can deal with all the Russian air threats. And

Ukraine needs more modern fighters. It's got a nascent F-16 force but it needs more.

But we're talking about guarantees. So, the third piece is what's going to be critical, and that's allied backing. So, think about NATO's Baltic air

policing missions where the allies sign up to rotate aircraft into Ukrainian airspace or along its borders to make it clear to Russia that any

violations will not be tolerated and they'll be responded to if necessary, to even include attacks on Russian aircraft and missile sites that violate

the security agreement. So, this is essentially would like NATO Article 5 condition, but without Ukraine joining NATO.

QUEST: You see, that's its biggest problem, General, that's the big problem, isn't it? Article 5. What is Article 5 not Article 5? When it's a

security guarantee for Ukraine, but if you are not prepared to push the button and fire the gun or whatever then -- and if Putin believes you are

not prepared to push the button and fire the gun, then it's -- we may as well all stay at home.

DEPTULA: Well, Richard, you're spot on. The bottom line here is at the end of the day, security guarantees from the air aren't just about airplanes or

missiles, they're about credibility. If Ukraine skies are protected with enforceable rules of engagement and allied backing, then Russia will think

twice before violating any kind of a deal, and that's what'll make a difference between a fragile pause and a lasting peace.

[18:15:00]

QUEST: Can I ask you, I always worry that we're all paranoid. And I do think if -- let's just assume there's a piece of negotiated settlement or

whatever it might -- however we want to call it. Is it like -- do you believe -- you're a military man, you're an extremely experienced senior

military man, do you believe that Russia will almost from day one challenge it, look for ways round it, look to destabilize Ukraine, look to continue

to destabilize the Baltic States, or am I just paranoid?

DEPTULA: No, I don't think you're paranoid, but I think Putin is more clever than that. He won't attempt to violate on the first day or very

early on, but he'll look for some excuse. And that's why the security guarantees need to be extraordinarily credible and backed up with

consequences that if there is a violation that he needs to be convinced that all the European nations that sign on to this agreement, as well as

the United States, will actually act. Because the point's not to punish for the sake of punishment, it's to prevent violations in the first place.

So, Putin's got to understand that every incursion is going to be costly, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. Because without that clarity,

he's going to test the system and with it -- with this kind of dramatic security guarantee, you give peace a fighting chance, but without it, no

way it's going to happen.

The other point -- and I know you're short on time, but the other point that I think is really under important is China's watching. Russia cannot

be rewarded for its aggression or China's going to be encouraged to do the same in the Far East. So, you know, Putin's playing for keeps and he needs

to understand that the United States and the European nations are playing for keeps as well.

QUEST: I'm glad you mentioned China. Thank you, sir. You've -- it's almost like we planned it. Thank you, General. Because China is closely watching,

as the general just said the U.S.-led push for peace in Ukraine.

Beijing is considering reunification with Taiwan. So, what happens in terms of security guarantees in one part of the area and how far they are

maintained will certainly have repercussions elsewhere. CNN's Will Ripley with this dispatch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody.

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): As U.S. President Donald Trump poses for talks with Ukraine's president, China's

leaders see something very different, opportunity.

Observers of Chinese leader Xi Jinping say, what's at stake is nothing less than reshaping the world order, perhaps even tilt the balance of power

toward Beijing.

When it comes to Russia's war in Ukraine, China's official position remains objective and impartial, even promoting peace talks. But on China's tightly

controlled social media, comments like these are meant to cast doubt on America's traditional alliances, and they're being allowed to go viral.

Trump doesn't give a damn about Europe. Trump loves Putin so much, he did everything he could to become president just to protect him and keep him

safe.

A popular pro-Chinese government researcher predicts cracks in the Western alliance will continue to deepen. NATO's role will be weakened. The E.U.

and Japan will continue to be marginalized, and Ukraine is destined to be the biggest loser.

All of it rattling nerves here in Taiwan. A small island claimed but never controlled by China's communist leaders.

VANESSA CHEN, TAIPEI RESIDENT: It does make me feel a bit worried, like I cannot predict what Trump is going to do. And I think compared to the

Ukraine situation, I do feel like we are like one of the items on the list that can be traded for Trump's -- for his own good.

RIPLEY (voice-over): I do worry that Taiwan's security will be traded away, he says, but I also believe there will be other ways for Taiwan to protect

itself.

Trump claims President Xi personally promised not to invade this island democracy, at least while Trump's in office.

TRUMP: He told me, I will never do it as long as you're president. President Xi told me that. And I said, well, I appreciate that. But he also

said, but I am very patient and China is very patient.

[18:20:00]

RIPLEY (voice-over): Taiwan's government says it's continuously committed to improving its self-defense capabilities. Recently holding its largest

ever military drills, putting billions U.S.-supplied weapons on full display.

Chinese commentators certainly took note when Trump cozied up to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin in Alaska, saying NATO's role is shrinking and the

west is fracturing, something Xi Jinping may have predicted even before Trump's reelection.

We dug up this Russian state media footage from the Kremlin more than two years ago. Xi is on camera telling Putin, change is coming that hasn't

happened in 100 years. And we are driving this change together. The world is bracing for what comes next.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Will Ripley reporting there. As you and I continue, SoftBank gives Intel a $2 billion lifeline. And now, the U.S. government also wants a

stake.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Interesting day on Wall Street, if you look at the way the numbers. Now, doesn't -- you see, you had the Dow Jones eking out a small gain, but

really it was the NASDAQ where the action was because we had NVIDIA, we had Amazon, we had Tesla, many big tech stocks were sharply though, a lot of

A.I. was down as well because the -- I think Sam Altman had said the A.I. might not be providing all the gains that everybody thinks quite in the

timescale, and that took the NASDAQ down. Interesting. Because as I say, the Dow at one point had been at an all-time high.

One company that also moved the market was Intel, where -- which gained almost 7 percent, and that's because of Japan's SoftBank, a lifesaving

transfusion of $2 billion from the Japanese company. Intel has been struggling, it's been falling behind in the chip making tech race. But

here's the weird bit, now the Trump administration says it may also buy a stake. In fact, probably will.

So, the White House wants to ramp up American manufacturing. And the Commerce Secretary told CNBC, the U.S. may demand equity in exchange for

government funds.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, U.S. COMMERCE SECRETARY: Why are we giving a company worth a hundred billion dollars this kind of money? What are in it for the

American taxpayer? And the answer Donald Trump has is we should get an equity stake for our money. So, we'll deliver the money, which was already

committed under the Biden administration. We'll get equity and return for it, get a good return for the American taxpayer instead of just giving

grants away.

[18:25:00]

QUEST: The transactional administration, everything has its price. Clare Duffy's with me. So, now, they've got to give the money because it's under

the CHIPS Act, but they're going to take a stake. It's a question of it's a passive stake, is it just going to be parked for diffs? Who knows what?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Richard, I mean, in some ways you could see this as sort of a raw deal for Intel. Just a few months ago, this

CHIPS Act money might have been free money from the government to help the company, but now the White House wants as much as a 10 percent equity stake

in return. And I think you hit on sort of the key question that you know is in place here with this deal going forward is what exactly does the White

House plan to do with this stake if this deal does go through, what do they want with that influence?

Howard Lutnick says the kind -- that the White House doesn't want governance over Intel, but Intel has been seriously struggling with its

technology falling behind rivals like TSMC. You know, if this investment goes through, I don't know how that will necessarily change.

Now, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson did comment on this on CNBC this morning as well. He said the White House doesn't want to pressure other

U.S. tech companies to buy this subpar chip from Intel. Take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: The last thing we're going to do is put pressure, is take a stake, and then try to drum up business. That the

stake would be a conversion of the grants and, you know, maybe increase the investment into Intel to help stabilize the company for chip production

here in the U.S. There's no talk of trying to force companies to buy from Intel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: So, if the hope is not to -- the plan is not to drum up business on Intel's behalf, perhaps then the hope of the White House is that Intel will

be able to use that investment to open a new chip making factory. It's got this plan to open a chip making factory in Ohio that has been repeatedly

delayed because of the company's financial troubles. But again, just because you have a chip making facility that's in place doesn't necessarily

mean that you're going to have customers wanting to buy that technology. And I think that's the key question here as we look at this deal

potentially going forward, Richard.

QUEST: How far behind is Intel? Because if you remember the share price -- I can't remember how much it fell, but it felt like 20, 30 percent, quite

some months ago because it was perceived to be so far behind, it was having cutbacks. So, from your experience and knowledge, how far behind are they?

DUFFY: Yes. I mean, Intel has missed not just the A.I. technology wave, which is this latest, obviously major transition in the industry, but it

also missed the mobile technology wave. This is a multi-year problem for the company, and it's going to take some time for the company to catch up.

It's not clear that, you know, an investment or a new facility is going to get it to the technology that it needs. You know, these are really

intricate advanced chips. This technology that is so advanced and yet is on these tiny chips, and it's just not clear that Intel is in a position to

catch up with rivals like TSMC, even if it does get this investment open a new facility.

QUEST: Clare, I'm grateful. Thank you very much indeed. Clare Duffy joining me. Now, rewriting history in some shape or form. Well, museums are

supposed to tell us the story of what happened, warts and all, that's not good enough for Donald Trump. He says there's too much woke. For instance,

how much bad slavery was, and he wants proper ideology. In a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

QUEST: Good morning, if you're joining us in Asia. And a good evening, if it's Europe and the Middle East. I'm Richard Quest. The international

headlines that we are watching for you today.

The White House says preparations for that U.S.-Ukraine summit underway. According to the press secretary, Vladimir Putin's agreed to hold talks

with President Zelenskyy. The Kremlin though has yet to make a firm commitment. Russia's foreign minister says any meeting must be prepared

with the utmost care.

The U.S. Oversight Committee -- House Oversight Committee plans to release some redacted Jeffrey Epstein files. The panel's expected to start

receiving materials from the Justice Department on Friday, and it says it will work to protect victims' identities and sensitive material.

Hurricane Erin is threatening the U.S. East Coast with high waves and dangerous rip tide currents. North Carolina Governor Josh Stein has

declared a stage of emergency as the outer banks prepare for the storm surge. Multiple beaches from Maryland to New Jersey have banned swimming

because of life-threatening conditions.

Donald Trump's campaign to bend American institutions to his vision for the country continues. First, of course, it was the law firms, that was

followed by the universities. Now, the president wants it seems some poised to rewrite history, quite literally. He's doubling down on an order last

week to review the Smithsonian museums and exhibits. A Truth Social post by the president today accuses the Smithsonian of being, in his words, out of

control for saying how bad slavery was, amongst other things.

Mr. Trump added, there was nothing about the future, not something you had expect in a museum. The president said he's instructed his attorneys to go

through museums in the same way that it was done with colleges and universities.

Samuel Redman is with me. History professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and an expert on the Smithsonian. You know as well

as I do, sir, this is all about fact and degree, isn't it? It's all about nuance. The president says it's all too much dwelling on the misery and the

horribleness of America's past, slavery, genocide, Africa, Indian tribes, and not enough about celebration of American achievement. Can you have one

without the other?

SAMUEL J. REDMAN, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And I think that the

mission of the Smithsonian Institution characterizing whether or not it is woke is frankly a gross mischaracterization of the mission of the

institution, which is all about the increase and diffusion of knowledge.

[18:35:00]

And as you stated in your introduction, the job of the institution in seeking truth is to tell the story of the United States and to tell the

larger story of the world in which we live in a way that is honest and forthright and includes the truthful expression our --

QUEST: Oh, sir. No, no, no. Come on now. At the -- you know as well I do, at the margins of that laudable ambition, you can sort of tweak one way or

the other and the result is either a preponderance of, we were awful, we were dreadful, we killed, we massacred, and it was all horrible versus

whitewashing the whole thing. And I agree, you want to get the middle line, but the argument is it's gone too far as negative.

REDMAN: Well, I think that this fundamentally misses the fact that historians have been thinking about this professionally and museum

professionals who work at the Smithsonian have been thinking about this for decades. When you look back at the opening of the National Museum of the

American Indian, which very successfully opened on the mall a little over a decade ago, some of the initial reaction was that some of the elements of

the story, frankly, were a bit overly celebratory and they didn't go enough into depth of the challenges that have been faced by Native American

communities.

So, the story was revised. And now, you see a different version of the Smithsonian years later. So, that's part of the history here is that the

Smithsonian naturally evolves as society evolves and tells a different story over time.

QUEST: Do you fundamentally fear that as with universities and law firms the president is going to use the full hammer and weight of the government

to tie them up in litigation, fines, possible investigations, all sorts of inquiries to the point where they bend to his will and you end up with a

halcyon view of American history?

REDMAN: Yes. Let's state this plainly. This is an assault of questionable legality, first and foremost, it is also politically and ideologically

driven. This is not a fact-oriented assault on the way in which the Smithsonian tells the story or presents history, it is politically

motivated, it is top down in its orientation. And historians, professional historians from the American -- the Association of American Historians, the

organization of American historians as -- they're all in agreement that this is not the correct path forward.

QUEST: Unfortunately, the MAGA right, for those people -- organizations, the MAGA right is going to be quite happy with this. I mean, in the same

way that we have, you know, statues being returned, ships being renamed. All of these things plays well to the populist view and nice arguments

about, well, it's not actually technically correct or historically accurate, gets brushed aside in the wealth of rah-rah.

REDMAN: Sure. And the fact of the matter is that these museums change over time. That statues go up and they come down. And in my view, I don't think

that fundamentally reorients how history is really told or studied. I think that we're sort of arguing -- frankly, when we argue about the naming of

certain things, it's consequential, it's important, no doubt about it. It's part of our heritage that surrounds us, but it's also a little bit of a red

herring.

What is fundamentally really important to me is the institutional independence of the Smithsonian and the ability of the professionals there

to tell truthful stories rather than getting caught up in some of the noise about what military bases should be named or which statues should be where.

I think that's a somewhat of a different conversation, but it's certainly connected in terms of an assault on the way in which people think that

history should or shouldn't be told.

QUEST: Sir, I'm grateful. We'll talk more. It's a story that's not going away. Thank you for your time tonight. Very kind of you.

REDMAN: Thank you.

QUEST: As you and I continue, held captive in the Hamas tunnels, now freed. The Israeli hostage telling us how we managed to survive for 505 days, 505.

And the gift a fellow hostage gave him he will never forget. It's all after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

QUEST: Negotiation efforts are taking place around the clock to secure the release of Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza. It's a message from

the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu's, hostage coordinator to the various families today. Israel is not saying if it will agree to the

ceasefire proposal that would free some, but not all of the hostages. The White House is crediting President Trump with pushing Hamas to agree to the

deal.

Eliya Cohen knows painfully well that the hostages in Gaza are going through. He endured 505 days, 505 in captivity after being shot and

abducted in the October the 7th terror attack. He was talking to Clarissa Ward in his first international interview since he was freed back in

February.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIYA COHEN, FORMER ISRAELI HOSTAGE: I feel guilty. I feel guilty by myself. When I eat, I feel guilty. When I get showered, I feel guilty. When

I go to the hospital to check something, I feel guilty because I know what they go through right now.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eliya Cohen has been free for six months, but he's still imprisoned by the

knowledge that his fellow hostages are not.

Eliya and his girlfriend, Ziv Abud were at the Nova Music Festival on October 7, 2023. When rockets started raining down, they ran to a shelter

only to come under attack by Hamas militants.

COHEN: In this road, the first grenade inside. And the grenade explode and killed the most people in -- at the entrance. At that moment, I jump on Ziv

and I told her, Ziv, I love you. I took dead bodies and I cover me and Ziv to survive. They came inside and they start to shoot. And then I got shoot

in my leg.

WARD: What's going through your mind in this moment?

COHEN: I really start to pray to God, to tell him, God, I love you, please keep me alive. And they came inside. And when I opened my eyes, I saw them

film us with big smile. And when I came out of the shelter, so I saw so many people with RPG, with grenade, with Kalashnikov, with a lot of tools

to kill people. They were so high for me. I saw them. They laugh, they sing like crazy people.

WARD (voice-over): Eliya was bundled onto the back of a truck and taken to Gaza. Also, on that truck, Israeli American Hersh Goldberg-Polin. His hand

blown off trying to throw a grenade out of the shelter. The pair would later be held together for a short time.

COHEN: We took a lot for three days. After three days, they told him that, Hersh, wake up. You go to your mother, it's happy day. You go to your

mother, be happy. And he gave me his book. He got some book in English. I didn't know to speak English before.

WARD: You didn't know how to speak English before?

COHEN: Yes. He didn't know, not speak English before. He told me, take it from me because I go home. Keep it for you. So, it really gave me power to

continue because I saw to myself that Hersh came back home, maybe he will come to my mother and to my father to tell him that I'm alive and I will be

OK.

WARD (voice-over): But Hersh never came back home. He was executed by Hamas along with five other hostages.

COHEN: So, for me, it was difficult because I really love him. We were for three days, but it felt like we were friends for 10 years.

WARD: I'd love to get a sense from you of the bond between hostages.

COHEN: The experience there and the connection of us, you know, the situation made us really connected. We really love each other.

WARD (voice-over): Most of Eliya's captivity was spent deep in tunnels alongside fellow hostages Or Levy, Alon Ohel and Eli Sharabi. He says he

went an entire year without brushing his teeth. At one point, surviving on a single can of beans shared between them each day.

COHEN: I can tell you about a lot of situation that they came and really tried to do any torture to laugh on us. Like --

WARD: Mind games?

COHEN: Yes, like mind games. You can call it mind games. After something like eight months without mattress, without nothing, we slept on the floor.

They came with big smile. And little us, we have big good news for you. We gave you mattress, but we have bad news, we gave you just three. So, check

who slept on the floor and -- who will sleep on the floor and who will sleep on the mattress. And we look to each other, you know, nobody want to

continue to sleep on the floor after so many days, we tired.

One of the hostages, his name is Alon Ohel, and that's still there. He came and told to the terrorist, give them mattress for them, I will sleep on the

floor.

WARD (voice-over): After 505 days, Eliya was finally released, reunited with his parents and his girlfriend, Ziv, who he had assumed was killed in

the shelter.

COHEN: And then I met Ziv, and it was like dream. For a week, it felt like dream. I look at her and I told her, Ziv, I can't believe you are here.

Because she survived.

WARD: And now, you guys are getting married, is that right?

COHEN: I can tell you. That's in the news.

WARD (voice-over): Since his release, Ziv is always by his side.

COHEN: She want to join us.

WARD: She wants to join us? OK.

COHEN: Yes.

WARD: Let's put a microphone on you. I mean, Ziv, did you ever let yourself imagine that moment while you were waiting for Eliya?

ZIV ABUD, ELIYA'S GIRLFRIEND: No, not really because I was scared. I never let myself to imagine this moment because I don't want -- I didn't want to

fall, you know? I told to myself, I believe just when I see that Eliya across the border to Israel with -- you know, with soldier, and this is the

moment that I look and told myself, OK, now you can breathe.

WARD: In an interview with Israeli media during the ceasefire, Eliya said that he worried that if the fighting continued, it would be, quote, "a

death sentence for the hostages." In our conversation, he was very careful not to criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu or his plan to occupy the whole

of Gaza. But other hostage families have been more outspoken about their fears.

Clarissa Ward, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Because the news never stops, neither do we. This is CNN.

[18:50:00]

QUEST: The Chinese government is planning to build the largest embassy in Europe, and it's right in the center of London. Beijing's already bought

the building, which is a remnant of the U.K.'s past. There is though a major pushback against this so-called super embassy and some very pointed

questions from officials about why sections of the blueprints have been blacked out?

CNN's Salma Abdelaziz has been taking a closer look at some of the embassy's closest potential neighbors who are raising security concerns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hong Kong activist Carmen Lau looks nervously at the building behind us.

CARMEN LAU, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY ASSOCIATION, HONG KONG DEMOCRACY COUNCIL: My heartbeat right now is actually quite fast.

ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): We are standing at the gates of what could become China's new embassy in the heart of London. Critics have dubbed it a super-

embassy. If the proposal goes ahead, China will invest millions in what would become the largest embassy in Europe on the sprawling 5.4-acre Royal

Mint Court. Beijing bought the historic parcel of land in 2018 for around $312 million.

Lau fears the site will be used to spy on, harass and potentially detain and torture opponents of the Chinese government, including herself. Fears

the embassy has dismissed.

Lau fled Hong Kong for London about four years ago. She says after she faced persecution for speaking out against the Beijing government. Hong

Kong police later issued an arrest warrant for Lau, accusing her of incitement to secession and collusion with foreign element, charges she

denies.

Now, she says her sense of safety has been shattered yet again. This is why in February her neighbors received the sheet of paper, a wanted poster

promising or award for information or --

LAU: Or take her to the Chinese embassy.

ABDELAZIZ: Take her to the Chinese embassy?

LAU: Yes.

ABDELAZIZ: And what's the reward?

LAU: It's 1 million Hong Kong dollar.

ABDELAZIZ: And when you think about that embassy being right there and getting posters like this?

LAU: Yes, it's not hard for everyone to imagine if I got taken into this site, what would happen to me. They could do whatever they want.

ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): This 2022 video speaks to her concerns, it shows a pro-democracy protestor being dragged into a Chinese consulate in the

English City of Manchester and beaten up.

Lau's fears of a block site grew after a blueprint of the mega embassy showed several rooms, including the basement area, marked redacted for

security reasons. The current Chinese embassy says it needs more space and called opposition to its plan despicable slandering by anti-China elements

and unfair.

ABDELAZIZ: Chinese officials also noted that the U.K. is seeking to rebuild its own embassy in Beijing. The United States says it is deeply concerned

that China will exploit the critical infrastructure of one of its closest allies, that's according to a senior administration official.

[18:55:00]

ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): British officials have asked Beijing to provide more information on the redacted areas and clarify how it will address the

concerns of local residents.

ABDELAZIZ: This whole --

MARK NYGATE, ROYAL MINT COURT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION: All the way along here. All the way along to the end.

ABDELAZIZ: All the way over there.

NYGATE: Yes.

ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): Like Mark Nygate.

ABDELAZIZ: And your flat is just right there?

NYGATE: Yes, yes, yes. And I said, I'm closer to Beijing now.

ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): His flat is just a few feet away from what could become a housing block for dozens of Chinese embassy staffers and their

families.

ABDELAZIZ: Do you feel like you'll have your privacy?

NYGATE: No, not at all. Not all. Yes. You -- we were told we've had to put our blinds down, people with their privacy.

ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): China says it aims to foster friendship and cooperation between Britain and China. The U.K. is expected to make a

decision the proposed embassy in the coming weeks.

Salma Abdelaziz, CNN London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Fascinating story. I am so glad and grateful for your company today. I'm Richard Quest in New York. And you have been briefed. Stay with CNN,

around the world, around the clock.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END