Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.S. Official: Russian Air Defenses May Have Downed Passenger Jet; 1 Dead, 6 Hurt in Russia Attack on Ukraine Power System; Trump Names His Pick for Ambassador to Panama After Saying He Wants to Take Back Control of Canal; Trump Claims Chinese Soldiers "Illegally Operating" Panama Canal. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 26, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:48]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: A U.S. official tells CNN what may have brought down that Azerbaijan Airlines flight yesterday in Central Asia. Was this disaster a consequence of Russian aggression?

Plus, after saying he wants to take back control of the Panama Canal, President-elect Donald Trump now tapping a loyal ally as U.S. ambassador to the country, what he's claiming about China's influence.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: And Netflix acing its big Christmas Day test, delivering two big football games virtually error-free, not to mention a halftime show, facing off against the sports league that used to own the Christmas Day holiday.

I'm Jim Sciutto, alongside my good friend, Erica Hill. We are following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

HILL: New today, for the first time, we are hearing from a U.S. official about what may have caused the Azerbaijan Airlines crash in Kazakhstan, killing dozens on board Christmas Day. The official telling CNN early indications suggest a Russian anti-aircraft system was responsible and that it may, in fact, have been a case of mistaken identity. Video of the plane's wreckage shows small perforations in the body of the plane. Experts say those holes look similar to damage from shrapnel or debris. CNN cannot confirm where they came from.

Joining us now to discuss, CNN Aviation Analyst Miles O'Brien.

Miles, good to have you here.

So, there's been plenty of finger pointing at Russia behind this and questions about whether it was, in fact, intentional or not, should it have been Russia. We know there's also a fair amount of GPS jamming in the region that apparently is sort of standard practice, according to Matt Borie of Osprey Flight Solutions. He told me that a short time ago. How could that complicate things, Miles, when it comes to safety and security in the region? MILES O'BRIEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, the GPS jamming is an ongoing problem, and this has affected civilian airliners over the course of the years in the context of the Ukraine war. In this case, it does not appear that the aircraft in question was in heavy instrument conditions, bad weather, although the ceiling was pretty low at Grozny, and there might have - that might have had some factor in the decision of the crew not to do an emergency landing there.

It's quite possible, though, if the crew realized it had been struck by a surface-to-air missile, that it wanted to land outside the borders of that country and thus fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan. That's a possibility as well.

But there's no question from looking at the records here, Erica, that this was an aircraft that was in close proximity to some sort of explosion in the tail section of the aircraft. The metals tells the story there. The rest of it, with the source of it and all that, will come in due course.

HILL: Miles, as you mentioned, and this has sort of struck me, and I know we have a map that we can put up as we're discussing this next part here, but the fact that this plane then flew back over the Caspian Sea, just from a simple logistics, right, perspective, the fact that it could be hit and then make this sort of circuitous route and go back before crashing, I was struck that it continue - could continue flying for so long, despite the other issues as well, right? Does that alone offer any insight, perhaps, into the extent of the initial damage before this plane went down?

O'BRIEN: Yes, what happened in this case most likely, Erica, and we've had crashes like this in the past. Japan Airlines 123, back in the '80s, comes to mind immediately, where damage in the tail section causes a hydraulic failure. This makes it very difficult to control the plane to say the lease, United 232 in Sioux City, Iowa in the 1980s was another case like this.

The loss of hydraulic pressure throughout its system makes it impossible for the crew to fly the aircraft using the control surfaces, the ailerons and the rudder, for example.

[15:05:07]

It is possible to - in a fairly crude way, control general direction of an aircraft using the power, the differential thrust between the two engines, which it appears is what the crew was doing as it was - led to that crash landing. The question of why they didn't try to put it on the ground sooner is an interesting question. Why would you fly that far across the Caspian Sea, about an hour of flight time from the time they declared an emergency to the crash. Were they concerned about landing in the territory region there of Chechnya? That's a possibility. Or, as you say, was the GPS problem, the jamming of their GPS systems, giving them less confidence about flying into Grozny, which did have a relatively low ceiling of about 600 feet. So those are two distinct possibilities.

In either case, the fact that they had to fly on for an hour certainly exacerbated the problem. If there's a hydraulic leak, it's not going to get any better.

HILL: Yes, absolutely. The investigation, right? So, given the fact that the plane landed in Kazakhstan, in terms of who will be involved in the investigation, there's an initial commission that's been announced, how much information do you think we're actually going to get out of that investigation, given who is currently involved?

O'BRIEN: That's a difficult question. I mean, the Kazakhs will take the lead on this. That's the way the international treaties are set up. The Azerbaijanis, of course, will be involved as well. The manufacturer of the aircraft, which is made in Brazil, they will be a party to this as well.

The question of whether all that will come to light is an open question right now. It's not going to be exactly the way things transpire in - whether it's Europe or the United States involving the NTSB and the FAA or EASA.

HILL: Is there a chance that any of those organizations get pulled in?

O'BRIEN: I doubt they will be invited, frankly, but, you know, they - there is expertise there. And if there's a real desire to find out what happened, certainly the amount of expertise the Europeans and the United States have to track the source of this down is quite evident.

However, there may not be a huge mystery here. Certainly, the black box recorders, the flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder will likely have been recovered. Looking at the metal, we can see what happened. There may not be a lot of huge mysteries here. It's just a question of whether the culpable party in this case, you know, comes forward.

HILL: Yes. It's such a good point. Miles, appreciate it as always. Thank you. Jim?

SCIUTTO: I want to speak more about this now with Evelyn Farkas. She's a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. Also, the executive director of the McCain Institute. Good to have you on. Thanks so much.

EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR Russia, UKRAINE & EURASIA: Thanks, Jim. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, in a perfect world, to Miles' point there, you would have international organizations and all the countries involved cooperating on a transparent investigation based on the facts. This is not a perfect world. Russia has a dismal track record when it comes to investigating crashes, when you think of ones where it was involved. Like MH17, they still deny to this day, despite the evidence there, that that was a Russian missile that took it down.

So how do you judge where we are so far with Russian authorities saying this was a bird strike whereas reporting out of Baku as well as a U.S. assessment saying that this was Russian air defenses?

FARKAS: Right. I mean, Jim, I think, look, the political dynamics are as follows: This happened over Russian airspace. The Russians launched a war against Ukraine in 2014. You mentioned the civilian aircraft, the Malaysian MH17 aircraft that the Russians shot down over Ukrainian airspace, that it was their Russian fighters with Russian equipment in 2014. To this day, they deny that they did it.

They have acted incredibly recklessly. They should have closed - in this instance, they should have closed the airspace because apparently there was some Ukrainian drone fighting and back and forth between the Russians and the Ukrainians over that airspace. So, most of the outside experts who have seen pictures of the aircraft on the ground after it safely landed noted that there were puncture marks on the aircraft consistent with the use of a Russian air defense system.

So, it's basically the fact that Russia's at war with Ukraine and didn't close off the airspace here to civilian aircraft that caused people to die. They were lucky that the - that all 60 something people didn't die on that aircraft. But Vladimir Putin is obviously not willing to take responsibility so far. So, we'll have to see what happens in terms of an investigation.

[15:10:03]

SCIUTTO: What do you make of the second piece of this? Because you have an event which caused the pilots to declare an emergency. The theory now, at least a U.S. assessment, an early one, is that that initial event was a mistaken hit by Russian air defenses. Then you have this long looping journey over the Caspian Sea, an hour in the air after a crisis in the air to get to Kazakhstan. How do you explain that?

FARKAS: Yes, that's interesting, because you don't know whether it was that the pilots requested permission to land in Grozny, which, remember, is the capital of Chechnya in the Russian Federation. It is under the control of Vladimir Putin. He has a strong man there. Everyone knows Ramzan Kadyrov. He is essentially in charge calling the shots.

But it may be that the - either the pilots or the - you know, somebody intervened to say, we don't want to land in the Russian Federation. Of course, that could have cost lives because people may have been hurt at that point. We don't really know.

But there are always politics, unfortunately, involved when you're talking about the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. Let's remember the aircraft is an Azerbaijani aircraft. Relations between Azerbaijan and Russia are kind of touch and go. Right now, they may be better than otherwise, although the government in Azerbaijan is waiting to see what its relationship is with our government, the incoming Trump administration. So that's complicating things, I'm sure.

Kazakhstan is a Central Asian country, used to be part of the Soviet Union. The Russian foreign minister not that long ago declared that Kazakhstan was not a real country. They view Russia with a lot of nervousness and skepticism, and they're always trying to balance between or have the United States, China and Russia be their kind of partners so that they don't come under control of Russia or China. So, the politics are really complicated, Jim. The answer is something we may never really know fully.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, it's worrisome when the Kremlin announces you're not a real country. That's exactly the language they used for Ukraine before invading it. They've said that about other countries that formerly were part of the Soviet Union.

I do want to now turn to Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. After Russia bombarded Ukraine's power grid on Christmas Day, President Biden is now urging the U.S. and international community to, quote, stand with Ukraine until Trump's - until triumphs over - it triumphs over Russia's aggression. But whether the U.S. itself does that is a major question, as President-elect Trump is pushing to end the war.

Ukraine reports Christmas Day - on Christmas Day, Russia launched some 70 missiles, more than a hundred drones striking the Dnipro and Kharkiv regions, killing one person, injuring six, forcing more than half a million households into the cold due to a lack of power. Biden said that was the purpose of the strikes, calling it outrageous.

And, Evelyn, it's not the first time we've seen strikes such as this specifically targeting the power grid and doing so in wintertime when Russia knows it will leave people in the cold. Is it safe to say this is a deliberate Russian tactic to put pressure on the civilian population of Ukraine?

FARKAS: Absolutely, Jim. It's psychological pressure. It's the kind of petty, mean-spirited, brutal politics and military - political- military action that we see from the Kremlin repeatedly. The Ukrainian government decided, I think about a year ago, to change when they celebrated Christmas. They used to celebrate on the Orthodox calendar, which would occur later than our - the generally Roman Catholic or the Western Christmas, which is on December 25th.

So instead of celebrating Christmas later in January, the Ukrainians decided we're going to align not with the Russian Orthodox calendar, but we're going to align with the Western calendar. So, Putin was trying to breeze out the Ukrainians on now what they celebrate as Christmas deliberately. And I'm sorry, this is just a jerky move, you know, for lack of a better way of saying it, except for the fact that people potentially could have lost their lives if they're relying on electricity for life support and other systems.

So, I'm sure the Ukrainians have backup systems by now. But nevertheless, you said one person died. It was a brutal move, and it was aimed at the civilians. And as you said, it's trying to demoralize them. And certainly, the Ukrainians are, of course, under a lot of stress. But they - I'm doubtful that they would, you know, react to this in the way that the Russians would like (INAUDIBLE) capitulate ...

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, because of course the question now is how the incoming U.S. president responds to this war.

[15:15:01]

It was notable that Keith Kellogg, who is acting something as a emissary of the Trump administration, the incoming Trump administration to Russia. He did condemn the attack. The U.S. is watching both sides in this conflict, when of course we know this is a conflict that Russia started when it invaded in February 2022. Is it becoming clearer to you how President-elect Trump is going to approach this war?

FARKAS: Yes, Jim, I have to say I'm optimistic for a couple of reasons. One, I think General Kellogg understands the dynamics, and he's using careful language saying both sides, that's fine. We want Ukraine to continue to abide by international law as it has. And of course, we note that Russia has not, repeatedly.

So, I think that that's a practical, pragmatic approach. President Trump, I think, is starting to sense that he needs to be able to put pressure on Vladimir Putin in order to bring a real negotiation, you know, to a close or even to start a real negotiation. And I guess I shouldn't say he's starting to sense it, but there are a lot of indicators that point to that fact.

His Truth Social tweets about this - the fall of the Assad regime in Syria recently, where he said that Russia is weak. I think President Trump, if he doesn't understand yet, he will soon understand that he needs to put pressure on Russia because they're the ones that aren't ready to make a fair peace and a real compromise.

SCIUTTO: Evelyn Farkas, always good to have you on. Thanks so much.

FARKAS: Thank you, Jim. Happy New Year.

SCIUTTO: Still to come, President-elect Trump doubling down on his suggestion that the U.S. could unilaterally retake the Panama Canal, who he just picked to be U.S. ambassador to that country, and the message that sends to leaders there.

Plus, Netflix survives its live NFL Christmas games unscathed after another sports fiasco. What's next for the streaming giant?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:50]

SCIUTTO: President-elect Trump has announced his pick to become U.S. Ambassador to Panama. This as he spends more time in his Christmas Day post, focusing on his desire for the U.S. to take back control of the Panama Canal. In the same post, Trump suggests the people of Canada and Greenland would be better off if their countries became part of the United States. Something that the citizens of those countries, we should note, are not asking for. CNN's Alayna Treene is live in West Palm Beach, Florida with more details.

Alayna, one of the claims Trump is making without presenting evidence is that Chinese soldiers are controlling the Panama Canal. I wonder, based on your conversations with Trump administration officials, is he serious about this? Is this a negotiating tactic?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: I think that is the big question and from my conversations so far, it's been unclear. I think what is clear is that Donald Trump is really trying to assert his dominance right now as really, you know, a leading figure in the global stage and trying to show these different world leaders that he wants to have, you know, fair trade. He wants to not - he wants to make sure the U.S. isn't being taken advantage of. Something he believes that the U.S. is being taken advantage of as it relates to the Panama Canal.

He said explicitly that he believes U.S. vessels are not getting their fair shake out of the Panama Canal, going back to how it was U.S. made, even though Panama has controlled the canal for more than 25 years. All to say, it's really unclear why, as of now, he is so fixated on this. But it's very similar with the way that he's been responding to, what we saw a couple weeks ago, with his threat against Mexico and Canada to put a 25 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States, if they do not crack down on how they handle the border and crime and the flow of drugs into the United States.

Kind of similar things we're seeing play out now, where he's trying to make it known that he means business when he is sworn in. When he becomes president, he is going to be acting in a very aggressive way. But again, it's very - it's not totally clear right now whether he's being totally serious about actually wanting the United States to take over control of Panama.

And just to your point as well, Jim, about his comments as it relates to trying to buy Greenland, a Danish territory, or also trying to make Canada the 51st state of the United States. These are things that these countries are not asking for. I think it's clear, I mean, the Danish - or excuse me, Greenland's prime minister, who's in control of the Danish territory, has said Greenland is not for sale.

Trudeau, of course, is not going to be playing ball on this idea of selling Canada to the United States. And it's still unclear exactly what Panama is expecting that Donald Trump wants out of these different threats. But again, he is trying to show that he is asserting his dominance over this.

Now, I do want to read for you some of what we've heard from Panama's president, Jose Mulino. He said this, this morning in response to these claims about Chinese soldiers operating the canal. This is what he said. He said, quote - he said, "There are no Chinese in the canal. It is as simple as that. Neither Chinese nor any other power is in the canal." So again, trying to make clear that pushing back on Donald Trump's claims here. Now, I do also want to just briefly talk about what Donald Trump also posted yesterday because, again, he is very much fixated on the Panama Canal right now.

He announced that he is naming his pick for the ambassador to Panama, Kevin Marino Cabrera. He is someone who has been - is currently the Miami-Dade Commissioner. He's someone who has worked on the Trump campaign before back in 2020. He helped run the Florida's director for Donald Trump's campaign. But he also has been someone who is very much in Donald Trump's corner, who has very clearly wanted to boost Donald Trump.

I think it's clear that he's going to be aligned with Trump. He's very close to the campaign. I'm told he still speaks with many of Donald Trump's advisers. So, he's kind of putting someone in Donald Trump's corner on this. But, again, it's unclear what Cabrera is actually going to have on his plate as it relates to Panama, whether or not Donald Trump is totally serious about this or if this is kind of him just throwing red meat to the base with just weeks ago until Inauguration Day. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Yes. And we should note that there is a Senate ratified treaty from the late 1970s that transferred ownership of the Panama Canal to Panama.

[15:25:06]

Alayna Treene, thanks so much.

TREENE: Mm-hmm, thank you.

SCIUTTO: Erica?

HILL: Joining us now to discuss, as well, someone who knows the country quite well, John Feeley served as ambassador to Panama under Presidents Obama and Trump. It's good to have you with us. You know, and it's important to remind everyone, as Jim just pointed out, there is a treaty. The canal is, in fact, under Panama's authority. When we look at this and what is being floated by the president-elect, I know you've noted this is actually a longstanding obsession of Donald Trump, something that he raised in a White House meeting with Panama's then-president back in 2017 with nearly identical language. What was the reaction then?

JOHN FEELEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO PANAMA UNDER TRUMP: The reaction was one that we had prepared then-President Juan Carlos Varela for. I and another Trump adviser at the time had met with Varela the night before, and we basically told him, look, this is going to be unlike any meeting you've ever gone in. We had no idea that President Trump was going to raise the canal or canal fees. But what we gave him as general guidance was, don't raise any issue on the bilateral agenda. We can work that out at our level. But if he gets you in a corner and he's being very belligerent, try to change the subject.

And so, President Trump and the broad bilateral, 20-odd people sitting there, raised the canal, the same issue, the same language. And President Varela very astutely listened for a few minutes, and then he said, Mr. President, can I ask you a question? How are you doing in Syria? And Donald Trump went off and handled that answer. And we didn't talk about the canal anymore.

HILL: That is quite a left turn to make, but clearly it was effective. You didn't talk about it anymore in that meeting, but how often did it come up during your time as ambassador?

FEELEY: Never. I have to be honest. That was the one and only time. Now, granted, I resigned from the Trump administration six months after that meeting, partly because of what I saw and heard in that meeting, and realized I couldn't represent him. But no, Donald Trump and the Trump administration never raised that issue again during Trump 1.0.

HILL: There's a lot of speculation about what may be behind this. Is it a negotiating tactic, is it some sort of an opening salvo to try to get lower fees, whatever it may be, based on your experience in the Trump administration? Where do you think the ultimate goal lies with this language?

FEELEY: Well, I think two things. Number one, let's get something very clear, Erica, the United States is not being charged exorbitant fees. The United States doesn't have a very large shipping industry. The five major conglomerates are Danish, Maersk, they're Greek, they're Chinese. The United States doesn't do much commercial shipping through the canal to be charged those fees.

The products that come through the canal do go in large part to the east coast of the United States, and the United States liquid natural gas industry along the Gulf Coast absolutely depends on that canal. But the fees are an issue of climate change. The Panama Canal saw a record low waterfall and had to limit passage. That's a supply and demand issue simply for a commercial waterway.

HILL: So, you're talking about supply and demand, you're talking about all the facts there, which are important when it comes to discussing any story, but it's certainly where we are now. And yet the water continues to be muddied, even just as recently as yesterday, with Donald Trump's post on social media where he said in part, Merry Christmas to all, including the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly but illegally operating the Panama Canal. Panama's President Mulino pushing back, noting once again, there are no Chinese in the canal, saying it's as simple as that.

There are concerns about China's rising power globally. This is something that has always skin (ph). Could that maybe be guiding this - at pushing a conversation?

FEELEY: You know, speculation is always difficult and especially when it comes to Donald Trump. I think in the report we just heard, there may be some elements of truth in there. Trump likes to keep his adversaries and his friends on edge. He likes to be unpredictable. He considers himself a disruptive force.

As president, I think, one, it bears saying, there's no way he's going to take the canal back by force absent a second just cause, the 1989 invasion where the United States grabbed Manuel Noriega and took him home for trial on drug trafficking charges.

But I don't think that President Trump and his domestic political advisors believe that he's really got the constituency that would support another foreign war. I mean, for goodness' sake, the man ran against the Biden foreign war. So, I don't think he's going to do another invasion and short of another invasion. And there are no Chinese in there, as President Mulino correctly stated today. Again, facts are facts, and even Donald Trump has to accept - well, he doesn't have to accept them, but the rest of the world does and knows.

[15:30:07] I don't think he's really doing anything ...