Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Hegseth: Must Make NATO Great Again; U.S. Defense Secy.: Five Percent Defense Spending Represents Real Investment And Real Urgency; NATA Defense Ministers Meet After Trump Holds Call With Putin To Jump Start Talks To End Conflict In Ukraine. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired February 13, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: President Trump is doing anything other than negotiating from a position of strength, is on his face ahistorical and false.

So, when you look at what he may have to give or take, what's in or what's out in those negotiations, we have the perfect dealmaker at the table from a position of strength to deal with both Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy. No one is going to get everything that they want, understanding who committed the aggression in the first place, but I challenge anyone else to think of a world leader at this moment who, with credibility and strength, could bring those two leaders to the table and forge a durable peace that ultimately serves the interests of Ukraine, stops the killing and the death, which President has been -- Trump has been clear he wants to do, and hopefully, ultimately, is guaranteed by strength of Europeans, or they're prepared to back it up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why not invoke Article Five then for the NATO peacekeeping forces that could potentially be deployed? Like, how does that deter President Putin?

HEGSETH: Well, I would say -- I want to be clear about something as it pertains to NATO membership not being realistic outcome for negotiations. That's something that was stated as part of my remarks here, as part of the coordination with how we're executing these ongoing negotiations, which are led by President Trump. All of that said, these negotiations are led by President Trump (TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY) on the table in his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy. What he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world, of President Trump. So, I'm not going to stand at this podium and declare what President Trump will do or won't do, what will be in or what will be out, what concessions will be made, or what concessions are not made.

I can look, as our team has, of what's realistic likely on an outcome. I think realism is an important part of the conversation that hasn't existed enough inside conversations amongst friends. But, simply pointing out realism, like the borders won't be rolled back to what everybody would like them to be in 2014, is not a concession to Vladimir Putin. It's a recognition of the hard power realities on the ground, after a lot of investment and sacrifice, first by the Ukrainians and then by allies, and then a realization that a negotiated peace is going to be some sort of demarcation that neither side wants. But, it's not my job as the Secretary of Defense to define the parameters of the President of the United States, as he leads some of the most complex and consequential negotiations in the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sticking with the U.S. press, let us go with Axios' Zach Basu, right in the far right.

ZACH BASU, DIRECTOR OF NEWS, AXIOS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Given the position you've now staked out, what leverage exactly is Ukraine being left with, especially if the U.S. also plans to wind down into military aid? And then quickly, if a NATO ally is attacked by Russia or any country, will the U.S. unequivocally uphold its obligations under Article Five, regardless of that country's concern?

HEGSETH: Well, we've said we're committed to the alliance, and that's part of the alliance, right? You pointed out to Article Five. You point out Article Three. It's just a cheap -- I'm not saying it is cheap coming from you, but it's just a cheap political point to say, oh, we've left all the negotiating cards off the table in -- by recognizing some realities that exist on the ground. President Zelenskyy understands the realities on the ground. President Putin understands the realities on the ground. And President Trump, as a deal maker, as a negotiator, understands those dynamics as well.

By no means is anything that I state here, even though we lead the most powerful military in the world, hemming in the Commander in Chief in his negotiations to ultimately decide where it goes or does not go. He has got all the cards he would like. And the interesting part is, oftentimes, while the conventional status quo mindset or the legacy media wants to play checkers, the same checkers game we been playing for decades, President Trump, time and time again, finds a way to play chess, as a deal maker, as a businessman who understands how to create realities and opportunities where they otherwise may not exist.

Take, for example, the conversations that our Treasury Secretary had in Kyiv recently with President Zelenskyy, which will continue in Munich, with our Vice President and Secretary of State, around investments and resources inside Ukraine. I don't want to get ahead of any decision or announcement that could be made there. It could be any number of parameters. But, President Trump, as a deal maker and a businessman, recognizes that a investment relationship with Ukraine, ultimately in the long term for the United States, is a lot more tangible than any promises or shared values we might have, even though we have them.

There is something to relationships and deals in real ways, whether militarily or economically or diplomatically, that he sees, that are possibilities that could forge together, a lot of opportunities to show that solidarity, that Vladimir Putin will clearly recognize.

[11:05:00]

That's one of any number of other opportunities that this President will leverage in these high-stakes negotiations. So, I just reject, on its face, the premise that somehow President Trump isn't dealing with a full set of cards, when he is the one that can determine ultimately what cards he holds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great. Now, shifting to the international press, we'll take the French wire service, Agence France-Presse, with Max Delany.

MAX DELANY, JOURNALIST, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE: Thank you very much, Secretary of Defense. Can you -- you've spoken about trying to force both Putin and Zelenskyy to the table. Can you give a guarantee that no deal will be forced on Ukraine that they do not want to accept, and also that you will include Europe in the negotiations about their own -- about an issue that hat concerns European security? And can you tell us whether the U.S. will continue to supply arms to Ukraine during any negotiations?

HEGSETH: Well, to the first part of your question, that's not ultimately my decision. President will lead these negotiations alongside our Secretary of State, our National Security Advisor, and numerous other officials that will be involved. And ultimately, we've played our role in talking to our NATO allies about what that would look like. President Trump, I want to point out I've got the truths right here that he posted, called both, in case we missed it, Vladimir Putin and President Zelenskyy, called them both. Any negotiation that's had will be had with both.

I also am very encouraged by what the Secretary General has said here, clearly attune to the realities of the moment, the need for peace, and that the NATO alliance and European members will play a role in that. Ultimately, President Trump, speaking to those two countries, is central to the deal being made, but it affects a lot of people, of course. So, I'm not going to be involved in those intimate diplomatic negotiations. That's for the pros atop the Trump administration, who do diplomacy and negotiations.

Ultimately, as security assistance, we have continued to provide what has been allocated. I think it would be fair to say that things like future funding, either less or more, could be on the table in negotiations as well. Whatever the President determines is the most robust carrot or stick on either side to induce a durable peace, understanding obviously the motivations that Vladimir Putin has had on Ukraine for quite some time. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll have a second international press outlet. We'll go with the German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung with Dr. Thomas Gutschker.

DR. THOMAS GUTSCHKER, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG: Thanks a lot. Thomas Gutschker, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Good afternoon. Mr. Secretary, two questions please. The first one regarding the new defense investment pledge. When you and President Trump speak about raising it to five percent, do you mean European allies only, or do you mean the U.S. as well, which is currently at 3.4 percent, according to NATO statistics? And if the letter is true, when do you think the U.S. could possibly reach the goal of spending five percent on defense? That's number one. Number two, you've said yesterday that Europeans need to take

ownership of their own conventional security. So, should Europeans expect that ultimately the U.S. would withdraw the bulk of their forces from Europe and just leave in place what is necessary for nuclear deterrence? I know there is a revision going on. I don't expect you to name any numbers, but maybe give us an outlook of what we should expect. Thank you.

HEGSETH: Thank you. I think nobody can or should contest the extent of America's willingness to invest in national security. We have a budget of $850 billion spent on defense. I'm in the business of ensuring that every dollar of that is used wisely, which is why we're pushing a Pentagon audit and making sure that we're cutting fat so that we've got more at the tip of the spear. 3.4 percent is a very robust investment, larger than most of our allies within NATO. Any Defense Minister or Secretary of Defense that tells you they wouldn't want more, would be lying to you. I understand that.

[11:10:00]

Ultimately, we have our own budgetary considerations to be had, but I don't think an unwillingness of NATO allies to invest in their own defense spending can be dismissed away by trying to point at the $900 billion that America has invested around the globe, to include the NATO alliance, and saying that's not enough.

So, ultimately, we are very much committed to the NATO alliance and to our allies, but without burden sharing, without creating the right set of incentives for European countries to invest, then we would be forced to attempt to be everywhere for everybody all the time, which in a world of fiscal restraints is, again to get back to that word reality, just not reality. So, yes, we will continue to spend robustly our expectation of our friends, and we say this in solidarity, is you have to spend more, on your defense, for your country, on that continent, understanding that the American military and the American people stand beside you, as we have in NATO, but can't have the expectation of being the permanent guarantor, as I alluded to, from what even Eisenhower observed post World War Two. That shift has to happen.

The peace dividend has to end. There are autocrats with ambitions around the globe, from Russia to the Communist Chinese. Either the West awakens to that reality and creates combat multipliers with their allies and partners, to include NATO, or we will abdicate that responsibility to somebody else with all the wrong values.

You mentioned Europe. We have not said in any way that we're abandoning our allies in Europe. There have been no decisions based on troop levels. Again, that's a discussion to be had by the Commander in Chief in these high-stakes negotiations, and that would most likely come later on. But, there is a recognition that the ambitious of the -- the ambitions of the Communist Chinese are a threat to free people everywhere, to include America's interests in the Pacific. And it makes a lot of sense, just in a common sense way to use our comparative advantages, European countries spending here in defense of this continent, in defense of allies here, against an aggressor on this continent with ambitions.

That strikes me as the right place to invest, and I don't say that in a condescending way. I say that in a common sense, practical way. Investing in defense on the continent makes sense. We support that as well. It also makes sense, comparatively and geographically, for the United States, along with allies in the Pacific, like Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Australia and others, to also invest in allies and partners and capabilities in the Pacific to project power there in service of deterrence. That deterrent effect in the Pacific is one that really can only be led by the United States. We wish we could lead everywhere at all times. We will stand in solidarity with allies and partners and encourage everyone to invest in order to have force multiplication of what we represent, but it requires realistic conversations.

Those with disingenuous motives in the media, I don't mean to look at you, just saying anyone that suggests its abandonment, are trying to drive a wedge between allies that does not exist. We are committed to that NATO alliance. We understand the importance of that partnership, but it can't endure on the status quo forever, in light of the threats we face and fiscal realities. Europe has to spend more. NATO has to spend more, has to invest more. And we're very encouraged by what the Secretary General has said, and frankly, behind closed doors, what a lot of our allies have said as well, acknowledging that reality, and that's why, when I say, Make NATO Great Again, it's what President Trump set out to do in 2017.

The press said President Trump is abandoning NATO. He is turning his back on our NATO allies. That's what the headlines read in 2017 and 2018. What actually happened? That tough conversation created even more investment, to the point where now almost every NATO country is meeting the two percent goal that was said to be egregious when he first said it. Now, European countries are stepping up, and President Trump continues to ring the alarm bell that even more investment is required, considering where we are. So, suggestions of abandonment otherwise continue to be disingenuous, and we are proud to be part of this alliance and stand by it. I'll take a couple more. Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don't we take one from a U.S. outlet and one from an international outlet?

[11:15:00]

With U.S. outlet -- pardon me, sir. Well, we're going to take from the U.S. is Logan Ratick from Newsmax, please.

LOGAN RATICK, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEWSMAX: Mr. Secretary, you talked about expanding the defense industrial base and also expediting foreign military sales. Can you expand on that a little bit and how important that is to NATO?

HEGSETH: Well, one of the self-evident conclusions of the war in Ukraine was the underinvestment that both the European continent and America has had, unfortunately, in the defense industrial base. The ability to produce munitions, emerging technologies rapidly and field them, was a blind spot exposed through the aggression against Ukraine. Ukraine has responded to that as we've had a chance to listen to a great deal. Europe is responding to that, and so is America. We have to do more to ensure, whether you call it the arsenal for democracy or defending the free world, if America can't build and export and build and provide rapid capabilities because we're too stale or static or bureaucratic, or the Pentagon is bloated, then we're not able to field the systems we need in the future.

So, deep and dramatic reforms are coming at the Defense Department, with the leadership of President Trump, to ensure that we're investing robustly in our defense industrial base. A great example is ship building. We need to vastly increase our ability to build ships and submarines, not just for ourselves, but to honor obligations to our allies as well, and we will do that.

Foreign military sales is another thing I mentioned this morning with the Secretary General. We have, for a long time, been the country by with and through that our allies are able to supply major platforms and weapon systems like the F-35 and the Patriots and others. Whatever the system is, we need to reform that process so it's quicker. So, a request today isn't delivered seven years from now, but three years from now, with less red tape and with the most efficient and effective technology possible. We hear that from our allies, and that's part of being a good faith partner, is we're going to invest in our defense industrial base. We're going to make sure foreign military sales are as rapid as possible, which, again, is a force multiplier for American power, which is something we want to do in a contested world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For our final question, we'll go to an international outlet, the Japanese service NHK, with Sachiyo Sugita, please.

SACHIYO SUGITA, BRUSSELS BUREAU CORRESPONDENT, NHK: Sachiyo from NHK, the Japanese TV station. Thank you very much. I'd like to ask about China. As you mentioned that U.S. will be prioritizing and deterring China, what role will you be expecting Japan and IP4 countries to play in this context?

HEGSETH: Sure. I mean, first of all, I would point out that President Trump has expressed a strong relationship with Xi Jinping. We don't have an inevitable desire to clash with China. There is a recognition that there are divergent interests which lead to a need for strength on the American side to ensure our interests are advanced and that ultimately any aggression is deterred. That's a real thing. But, we don't feel like conflict is inevitable, and certainly don't seek conflict with China, and that's why President Trump has that good relationship with Xi Jinping.

But, it was prudent for us to work with allies and partners in the Pacific to ensure that that deterrence, hard power deterrence, not just reputational, but reality, exists. And that's why a lot of my first phone calls as Secretary of Defense were to Pacific allies, to Australia, to Japan, to South Korea, to the Philippines and others, and will continue, because that, just as this alliance in Europe is critical, working by with and through allies and partners in that region who understand the reality of the ascended Chinese threat, will be critical. It can't be America alone. It won't be America alone if we are to deter that.

So, it is a focus. I've articulated that from day one. America achieves strength, whether it's in this -- in peace through the Ukrainian conflict, or deterring it in the Pacific through strength. There is a reason why Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength at every moment. My job, my job alone, as the Secretary of Defense is to ensure he has the strongest, most capable, most lethal military possible. Heaven forbid, we have to use it. It's meant and built for deterrence. But, if we have to, we can close with and destroy our enemies and bring our men and women home with success as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for being here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, everyone.

ERICA HILL, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": So, you just have been listening, of course, to the U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at NATO headquarters there.

Joining me for some perspective is Matthew Schmidt, a former Professor of Strategic and Operational Planning for the U.S. Army Command and also General Staff College. He is currently an Associate Professor of National Security at the University of New Haven in Connecticut.

[11:20:00]

Matthew Schmidt, I just want to -- for folks who are just joining us, some of the notable moments that stood out, or what I'd like to drill down on with you. So, of course, Pete Hegseth followed Mark Rutte, who was really pressed by reporters, U.S. reporters and the international press, about what Pete Hegseth's comments yesterday had meant, what it meant that Donald Trump was calling Vladimir Putin first, Volodymyr Zelenskyy second, and these questions and this push to Rutte really came on the heels of what we heard from a number of European leaders in the last 24 hours or so, that a deal without Ukraine in the table is -- at the table is unacceptable, that Ukraine needs to be at the center of these talks.

I'm curious, what stood out to you most in his answers? As he was pushing back, saying that they would be there, he also made the point, though, that we can't put too much on the table right now because we don't want to give Putin a gift, essentially.

MATTHEW SCHMIDT, ASSOC. PROFESSOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY, UNIV. OF NEW HAVEN: Thank you, Erica. It's a pleasure to be here. My first sense, honestly, is that much of his comments were directed to a domestic audience, and that was Donald Trump. He was repeating a lot of the key phrases and a lot of the soundbites for the President, and it continued to go back and refer to the negotiations with Putin as being the most complex in the world, and that Donald Trump would swoop in and solve these.

So, I think he is very much focused on looking at Putin first because of the optics for the President, because the President is dealing with Putin, is dealing with the other nuclear power -- big nuclear power in the world, and they really are, even if not technically sidelining Ukraine, I think very much so symbolically doing that, and I think that matters.

HILL: 100 percent it matters, and that's why I think it's so fascinating that so much of the questioning, right, did focus on that. To your point about who Pete Hegseth was really speaking to, I agree with you. It did sound like -- we heard a lot of the similar phrases and talking points, right? He really went with common sense, which Donald Trump has been trying to drill down, and even noted that Donald Trump says that Vladimir Putin used that in their call. So, clearly, he was sort of on board with him, was the message that Donald Trump was sending.

It was interesting to me that he was asked specifically about what leverage Ukraine is left with. That is a question he did not answer. Right? Instead, he brought it back to Donald Trump as a deal maker. It's insulting that you would think he wouldn't know how to do what he is doing, but again, refused to say what leverage Ukraine still has.

SCHMIDT: Yeah. I think that's exactly right. He kept bringing it back to President Trump, because in the end, I think that's what this is about. It's not about Zelenskyy. It's not about the Ukrainian people. And the answer that he left unsaid was basically that there was no leverage in Ukraine. The United States, Donald Trump, in whatever he is doing with Vladimir Putin is the leverage. And it doesn't seem like what Donald Trump is planning to do with the caveat that, who knows, maybe it will change. But, what we've heard is that he is not really planning to push for concessions from Russia. Right?

The most important one, I think, would be this question of seized Russian funds, releasing those and giving them to Ukraine to rebuild the damage of an illegal war, of a war with war crimes on the Russian side, of a war where the Russians took Ukrainian children and reprogrammed them. And to not give anything to the Ukrainian people, to not even be talking about that right now, I think is pretty terrible.

HILL: He was also -- I'm not sure if this stood out to you, but one thing that really caught my ear, he said, no one is going to get everything they want. That's true, right? But, he then went on to say, it's important that we understand who committed the aggression in the first place. He didn't elaborate to say, just a reminder, Russia invaded Ukraine. He simply left it at that. That is noteworthy.

SCHMIDT: It absolutely is, and it depends on where you look for that answer. If you go back to Donald Trump, years ago, they're making the argument that the aggressor might have been NATO, that it was NATO expansion, right, that drove Putin into Ukraine. I don't agree with that argument at all, or the idea that the Maidan Revolution in 2014 was the act of aggression that forced Putin to come in and take Crimea, right? I don't agree with that at all. But, the President has engaged in those kinds of theories publicly more than once, which I think leaves open the question you're raising.

HILL: And there is also -- which came sort of towards the end of the questioning, right, he was asked specifically about, which we've heard time and again, right, and that NATO members need to spend more. And so, the push right now, as he said in the beginning, is he wants to see five percent spending.

[11:25:00]

He was asked by a reporter, does that five percent also apply to the United States, because, based on current NATO data, the U.S. spends 3.4 percent. So, would the U.S. also commit to spending more? And he also asked specifically what the changes mean in terms of troops in Europe. He said -- not specifically asking you for numbers, but what is that change going to be? He notably did not answer that question on funding, danced around it, and said only that the U.S. would continue to spend robustly, but others need to do more. What does that signal to you in terms of what the role of the United States may be moving forward when it comes to NATO?

SCHMIDT: First, let's correct the record on this. The U.S. has 85,000, 100,000 troops at peak in Europe, and our European allies in NATO are fielding of militaries of 1.3 million. Most of what NATO provides is logistical support. What isn't in Europe, what isn't in the NATO membership is the ability to do heavy airlift and things like that. And to be clear, that is a role that the U.S. has wanted to keep for itself, because the U.S. and NATO is getting a good deal for its security, so long as it decides that it wants to maintain the position of global leadership.

But, I think the real thing you heard all the way across this press conference, what was underneath everything, is that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are arguing to let go of that global leadership. They are arguing to say, we are not going to lead NATO and we are not going to match that five percent, and we're probably going to cut those troops, and we're handing off that responsibility to NATO. I disagree with that strategy. But, in a sense, that's the President's choice to make.

I think what happens now is that European publics are going to have a hard choice to decide how much more money they're going to spend on defense, as the reality of an American withdrawal becomes more and more real, and I don't think that all of those publics are going to decide to raise that spending.

HILL: It is certainly going to be an interesting few months or years, to put it mildly, as we look down the road. And Hegseth -- as Trump has done, making it clear, it's not just about America first, but it is also a shift in focus that the focus for this defense department, this administration, is more firmly in Asia than it is in Europe.

Matthew Schmidt, really great to have you with us. Thank you.

SCHMIDT: Thanks.

HILL: CNN National Security Correspondent Natasha Bertrand is also with us now in Brussels, Belgium, where it has been an eventful morning, to put it mildly. So, we heard from Pete Hegseth. How has that been received among world leaders?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Well, world leaders, they've been trying to put on a show of strength and unity in the face of Hegseth's comments yesterday where he indicated, as well as today, where he indicated that Europe really has to step up, has to do more, has to spend more, in particular, all points that he reiterated in a press conference that he finished just about five minutes ago here. He reiterated a lot of the points that he had made as well about these negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and how ultimately President Trump, he said, is going to be leading on those talks.

But, he did hedge a little bit something that he had said yesterday, which caused a lot of uproar here at NATO and around the world, which is that ultimately, he and the United States do not believe that it is realistic for Ukraine to ultimately be a member of NATO as a result of any kind of negotiated settlement here. He actually appeared to walk that back a little bit, and he said, look, while I still believe that it is not realistic, it is ultimately up to President Trump to define the parameters of kind of what is and isn't going to be discussed with regard to U.S. involvement or NATO involvement during these peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

So, essentially saying, look, he is not wanting to take anything off the table with his own comments, but still, he does not feel that it is realistic that Ukraine can ultimately become a member of the alliance. And that is pretty significant, because he mentioned a few times during that press conference that he did not want to kind of box the President in when it comes to decision-making. And clearly, this was the result of a lot of the allies, particularly Germany's defense minister this morning saying that it was unwise to take that offer of NATO membership to Ukraine off the table before negotiations even begun.

But, apart from that, a lot of this press conference that he just gave was essentially saying that everything related to Ukraine, related to NATO, is going to be left up to President Trump and the negotiators, and that the Department of Defense and Pete Hegseth, they are not going to be involved in that. Their role, he said, was really to talk to the NATO allies during this conference, today and yesterday, get them to spend money and get them to understand that the U.S. is not going to be at the forefront of European and Ukrainian security anymore.

[11:30:00]

HILL: Natasha really appreciate it. Thank you.

And stay with us. We are going to get in a quick break here. We'll see you on the other side. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Welcome back. Thanks for joining us here in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Erica Hill in New York.

We have just finished hearing from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who, of course, followed Mark Rutte, as we were learning more about those comments, which he made yesterday, of course, about negotiating President Trump negotiating a deal between Ukraine and Russia to end the war there.

Joining us now to dive a little bit deeper is Ambassador John Bolton, who, of course, served as National Security Advisor during President Trump's first term. Ambassador, good to have you with us, as always.

I just want to give our folks who are watching and also you a sense of some of the things that we heard from Pete Hegseth just a couple of moments ago. He was looking to clarify the comments that he made yesterday. So, he says very specifically that NATO membership should not be a part of a negotiated settlement. Important to note, he didn't say it should totally be off the table, but said it shouldn't be part of the negotiated settlement. Today, he said he wanted to be clear about that.

It's something that was stated as part of his remarks, he said, as part of the coordination of the talks that will be led by President Trump. He says everything is on the table for the President. And so, I'm not going to stand out here and declare what President Trump will or won't do, what will be in or will be out, what concessions will be made or what concessions are not made.

What do you make of him walking that back?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N., & FORMER U.S. NATL. SECURITY ADVISOR UNDER PRES. TRUMP: Well, any time you are clarifying your remarks, you are in trouble. You ought to think about what you say before you open your mouth. I'm amazed, frankly, that the -- for speech for that nature in the very public context it was made, it had not been cleared with the White House in advance. Of course, in a Trump presidency, it might have been cleared by the White House in advance, and the President changed his mind.

But, leaving the embarrassment of an administration that's not well coordinated even one month in, the main problem is the substance, because the message that was clearly conveyed was consistent with what J.D. Vance said during the campaign, which is he believed that an acceptable settlement would result in Ukraine making the commitment not to join NATO, and that is a reversal of a long-standing American policy, and NATO policy itself, going back to 2008 and the George W. Bush administration, where NATO membership for Ukraine, at some point, was clearly contemplated.

[11:35:00]

And even worse, just as a process issue, if you're prepared to accept no NATO membership, you don't give it away to the country that committed unprovoked aggression against Ukraine before the negotiations even start. You don't even get anything for it. So, it's a mess, and the cleanup today, I don't think really changes the fundamental problem, which is the direction of the policy.

HILL: In terms of the direction of the policy, two-part question for you. Number one, just briefly, should Russia have any say in who gets to join NATO?

BOLTON: The answer to that is, absolutely not. Any country is free to apply and no country has a veto. That's been the consistent policy since NATO was formed 75 years ago. But, Hegseth's comments yesterday were really troubling in a number of respects, and committed the same basic mistake of making concessions before the negotiations begin. All this is wonderful news to Vladimir Putin, and I'd be surprised if in his 90-minute conversation with Putin yesterday, Trump hadn't basically said those same things anyway.

HILL: So, when he was asked a short time ago, Pete Hegseth was asked, I'm paraphrasing the question here, but the reporter said there has been a real focus on what Ukraine is giving up. What will Putin be asked to give up? He did not answer that question. Instead, the Defense Secretary's answer was that, quote, "Putin responds to strength. No one is going to get everything they want." That's true. Right. "And that it's also important to understand who committed the aggression in the first place." Number one, he did not follow up by saying it was Russia who invaded Ukraine, which is notable, but the fact that in his mind, not in his mind, in his words, he says, Putin responds to strength.

Do you see these moves by Vladimir Putin over the last three weeks or so, since the inauguration, as Vladimir Putin responding to strength that he sees in Donald Trump, or is he responding to opportunity?

BOLTON: Well, it's not in response to strength at all. Remember, Donald Trump thinks he is friends with Vladimir Putin, and I'm sure Putin has friends somewhere, but they don't include Donald Trump. He thinks Trump is an easy mark, and what Putin has done, particularly in the last two weeks, is begin the manipulation that he thinks will help deliver him the best possible outcome in these negotiations. You'll recall, during the campaign, Trump said repeatedly that the war in Ukraine never would have occurred if he had been President. And about 10 days ago, Putin said, I agree with President Trump that it's -- it wouldn't have occurred. So, he is doling out the flattery.

Earlier this week, the Russians released Marc Fogel, a hostage that they had kept as a bargaining chip for several years. He gave that up with or without exchange. That was part of the charm offensive. Yesterday, Belarusian leader Lukashenko gave up one American prisoner held in Belarus and two people from another country, also part of the charm offensive, and it was clearly working.

So, I think that Putin has been preparing the ground here for the negotiations, and he couldn't have asked for anything better than what he heard from Hegseth yesterday in Brussels and from the President himself.

HILL: There is a certain element of, as Pete Hegseth pointed out, of realism that needs to come into play in these negotiations. Even Zelenskyy has expressed concern about what happens with the occupied territories, right? So, the chances of going back to pre-2014 borders, likely unrealistic. Maybe it needed -- didn't need to be said out loud. But still, what struck me, though, is the immediate reaction we heard to all of that, but also sort of where Ukraine stands in all of this, whether Ukraine really has a seat at the table, the fact that Zelenskyy got the second call, not the first call, I've heard conflicting thoughts on that. What stood out to me this morning were comments from the foreign policy chief in Europe, who said, any sort of a quick fix would be a dirty deal. What keeps this from being a dirty deal?

BOLTON: Nothing, really. This -- look, Trump wants to negotiate with Putin. He also said yesterday that he hoped to see Putin in Saudi Arabia and that he looked forward to visiting with him again in Moscow and having Putin come to Washington. Since the Russians invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, Putin has been an international pariah for good reason. Countries that commit unprovoked aggression in an area of core American interest, which is what Europe is, deserve to be treated that way. And Trump rehabilitated him effectively overnight.

So, this is why Putin wants to negotiate with Trump. He will get a better deal from Trump than he will from Zelenskyy or from the Europeans. And it's not like the Europeans and others weren't warned that if Trump became President, this was going to happen. They just didn't pay attention, apparently.

[11:40:00]

HILL: Ambassador John Bolton, always appreciate your time. Thank you.

BOLTON: Thanks for having me.

HILL: We will get you to this breaking news out of Washington, where the Senate has just confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. This vote largely along party lines, as expected, although important to note, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell did vote, once again with the Democrats, to oppose this confirmation. Kennedy joining President Trump, of course, during the campaign under the banner of Make America Healthy Again. He has come under fire repeatedly for his anti-vaccine activism and a number of controversial conspiracy theories, which he has promoted.

Next up in the confirmation process, Kash Patel. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voting to advance Patel's nomination to a vote to be Director of the FBI. The 12 to 10 vote from the Committee was along party lines. His confirmation, of course, now heads to a full vote in the Senate.

And also happening at this hour, a hearing in the Senate for the Committee that will consider Linda McMahon's nomination. She is President Trump's pick for Secretary of Education. Interesting to note that this hearing, of course, coming just the day after Donald Trump said, once again, he'd actually like to get rid of the Department of Education. He calls it a, quote, "big con job", and said he would like to immediately shut it down. That is the latest out of Washington. Not a quiet day here in the U.S.

We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: As we're continuing to hear more reaction about a potential move towards talks for negotiation to end the war in Ukraine, we're also hearing more from Russia. Senior International Correspondent Fred Pleitgen joining me now from

Moscow. Specifically, we're hearing from Sergey Lavrov today.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, we certainly are. I was at a press conference with Sergey Lavrov earlier today, where he spoke a little bit about the talk that took place, the phone call that took place between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And I asked Sergey Lavrov whether or not he felt that right now is a chance, an opportunity for better relations between Russia and the United States moving forward, whether he saw that trajectory coming. Sergey Lavrov then launched into a tirade against the Biden administration and against America's European allies. Let's listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 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 and U.S.-Russian relations?

SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Interpreted): 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 dialog and diplomacy as a method of communication with the outside world, opting instead for his threats, sanctions and the arming of the regime in Kyiv to wage war against the Russian Federation.

[11:45:00]

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: So, there you can see, Erica, Sergey Lavrov clearly quite angry at the fact that Russia essentially has been sidelined by the Europeans and by the United States over the past couple of years, since the full on invasion of Ukraine. Obviously, some hard feelings towards the Biden administration as well.

But, one of the things that we do have to say, when we were on the ground, Erica, here in Russia, is that the vibe right now is that the Russians certainly believe that things are changing for them and that they could potentially be changing rapidly. It was quite interesting. There was a phone call today with reporters and the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, where he said that the Russians were very impressed by the Trump administration's new way of doing it by that phone call between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And you can see the Russians already acting on all of this.

The Russians are already saying that they're designating individuals for possible negotiations. They are already, they say, in the early stages of trying to work out where a possible meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could take place. And of course, they have indeed invited President Trump to come here to Russia as well.

So, they certainly believe that the new administration, at least potentially, could offer them an inroad to end the war in Ukraine in a way that's favorable, very favorable for Russia, and at the same time, also bring Russia back to the international stage. And of course, one of the things that they're definitely seeking in all of that is sanctions relief as well, Erica.

HILL: Yeah. Absolutely an important note. Fred, appreciate it, as always. Thank you.

Well, as Munich prepares to host world leaders for an annual high- stakes security conference, a terrifying incident now has the city on edge. At least 28 people injured today, including children, when a car plowed into a crowd of demonstrators. Bavaria's governor says it may have been a deliberate attack. There is video from the scene, which shows people on the ground, covered by jackets and metallic sheets, as rescuers come to their aid. Officials say the driver who has been detained by police is believed to be a 24-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan. Police say he is no longer a threat.

CNN producer Sebastian Shukla visited the scene in Munich and just filed this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEBASTIAN SHUKLA, CNN PRODUCER: I'm here at this crossroad in central Munich, where you can see that another attack against the German people have taken place, as this white Mini Cooper vehicle plowed into a group of some 28 people on a peaceful protest this morning, at around 10:30 a.m. You can see the chaos and destruction that was wrought by it. There is foil blankets left, strewn on the floor to deliver that emergency first aid, and even more disturbingly, what appears to be a child's push chair.

The police have told us, the perpetrator of this attack was a 24-year- old Afghan asylum seeker residing here in Germany. And questions will now start to abound about how an incident like this was allowed to take place, given the massive security operation that is going on in this city at the moment with the Munich Security Conference, where we will have heads of state, heads of governments, coming here to the city to discuss, ironically, international security issues.

For Germany, though, this will be another reminder that the election that is coming around the corner will force the issue of a migration to the fore one more time, and something that the far right will look to seize on, and of which German, Bavarian politicians here have already said may be an attack.

Sebastian Shukla, Munich.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: There are some new signs of hope to point to that a crisis threatening to collapse, that Israel-Hamas ceasefire, could actually be resolved. Hamas now saying it will release Israeli hostages this weekend, as initially planned, after positive talks with mediators from Egypt and Qatar. Israel had threatened to unleash a new war in Gaza if the hostages were not returned by Saturday's deadline. That, of course, came after Hamas had announced that it was delaying their release after accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire. An Egyptian source telling CNN, Israel has violated the truce numerous times. That source shared a detailed list of 19 alleged violations, including preventing mobile homes and reconstruction materials from entering into Gaza.

Families of Israeli hostages, meantime, protesting in Tel Aviv today, blocking a major highway, demanding their government get this deal done to bring their loved ones home.

Well, there is still, of course, so much uncertainty. And Israeli source, though, tells CNN, officials are cautiously optimistic the ceasefire will, in fact, hold.

Here is my colleague Jeremy Diamond from Tel Aviv with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, a ceasefire agreement that just 24 hours ago seemed like it was on the brink of collapse, now appears to be getting back on track.

[11:50:00]

Hamas putting out a statement, saying that they intend to honor this ceasefire agreement and release hostages according to the timetable provided by this agreement. That would mean releasing three hostages this coming Saturday. Israel has yet to officially respond to that statement from Hamas, and we know that, of course, the Israeli Prime Minister has threatened to go back to the fight in Gaza, go back to war come Saturday, if Hamas does not release hostages.

But, I've spoken with a number of Israeli officials who, while they declined to comment officially on this Hamas statement, they are indicating that there is quite a bit of optimism inside the Israeli government about maintaining this ceasefire agreement, indicating that if Hamas goes ahead and releases three hostages as planned this coming Saturday, that Israel will hold up its end of the ceasefire agreement. That would mean releasing Palestinian prisoners in exchange for those hostages, and of course, maintaining the ceasefire, not going back to war in Gaza.

The Israeli Prime Minister, of course, had not said exactly how many hostages would need to be released on Saturday in order to honor Israel's side of this agreement. He certainly didn't go as far as President Trump in saying that all hostages must be released on Saturday. Israeli officials had previously indicated to us that Israel would need to see nine hostages released, but at this stage, it doesn't appear that Israel is going to be making that demand.

We know that the mediators, Egypt and Qatar, have been working to try and resolve this dispute between Israel and Hamas, some of it stemming from Israel, according to Hamas, not allowing in certain shelters into the Gaza Strip. We know that Israel has said that it has upheld its side of the agreement, but all eyes, of course, will be on this Saturday to see if this ceasefire holds up and if Hamas releases those hostages.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: Much more to come here on CNN Newsroom. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Drugs like Ozempic, originally developed for Type 2 diabetes, but now getting a lot of attention in how they're used for weight loss. It may also have another potential benefit. A small study seemed to support another benefit that some people had already claimed, noting that Ozempic actually leads them to drink less alcohol.

Here is CNN's Mike Meg Tirrell.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we heard from people who are taking Ozempic and similar medicines that they not only reduce the amount of food that they want to eat, but also for some people, they can reduce the amount of alcohol that they feel like drinking. But, this really hadn't been studied in an organized way until now.

So, in this new clinical trial, they looked at 48 people who reported having signs of sort of moderate alcohol use disorder, and they put half of the people on Ozempic, low doses of Ozempic, and half on a placebo. And over nine weeks, they monitored how much alcohol they drank and also their cravings for alcohol. And what they found is a significant effect on both the amount of alcohol they drank and how much they craved it. In fact, at the end of the nine weeks, people on semaglutide, or Ozempic, drink about 40 percent less alcohol than those on placebo.

Now, they think that this might be working in this way, because we know that these medicines work not just in the gut, but also in the brain, and there might be an effect on sort of the reward system around things like alcohol.

[11:55:00]

Interestingly, they also looked at cigarette use in the trial among about 13 people who reported also smoking. Now, that's a very small sample size, but what they saw is that, over the course of the nine weeks, people on Ozempic reported smoking fewer cigarettes per day as well.

Now, this needs to be borne out in larger and longer clinical trials before these drugs could be prescribed widely for things like alcohol use disorder or smoking cessation, and additional trials are underway. But, this is really sort of the first study that we've seen in this really organized way to show this effect. And so, there is hope that these medicines could add to an arsenal of addiction treatment, which unfortunately has been fairly lacking.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: And our thanks again to Meg Tirrell for that report.

Thanks to all of you for spending a very busy hour with me on this Thursday. I'm Erica Hill in New York. Stay tuned. More CNN comes your way after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]