PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday to you.
Okay, my gift to you before a long weekend is no opening statement. So, Bob, I think we got you on the phone, we'll go to you.
Q: Yes. Thank you, John.
I have a question about the Ukraine situation. I know the administration has said that it would not commit combat forces in Ukraine. But I'm wondering what you can say about the extent to which the U.S. military would continue support for Ukrainian forces in the event of a Russian invasion. In other words, what form of support would you consider?
MR. KIRBY: (Off mic) details. And certainly no one wants to see another invasion and incursion of Ukraine. And as I said yesterday, we still here in the department believe that there's time and space for diplomacy.
But what I also said stands true as well: that we're gonna -- that -- that we have and we will continue to provide security assistance to Ukraine to help them better defend themselves. And that will continue.
Yes.
Q: I was going to ask, we're watching the diplomatic talks this week, but nothing really seems to be changing. We're not getting that commitment of the de-escalation that they were hoping to hear from Russia. And the State Department hinted on Thursday that Russia is laying the groundwork or fabricating the pretext of an invasion.
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: Could you confirm that? And if this is yes and Russia does this, how will the U.S. prove it? And how is the Pentagon prepared to respond?
MR. KIRBY: There's a lot there.
(Laughter.)
I mean, look, we've certainly seen this playbook before, particularly in 2014 with their illegal annexation/occupation of Crimea.
Without getting into too much detail, we do have information that indicates that Russia is already working actively to create a pretext for a -- for a potential invasion, for -- you know, a move on Ukraine.
In fact, we have information that they pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct what we call a false flag operation, an operation designed to look like an attack on them or their -- or Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, again, as an excuse to go in.
And we already have, in addition, indications that Russian influence actors are already starting. They're already starting to fabricate Ukrainian provocations that -- in both state and social media to, again, try to justify in advance some sort of pretext for incursion.
I'm not at liberty to go into a whole lot more detail than that. But I -- I hope that, by the fact that we can say this as confidently as we can, you -- you can take away that there's a fidelity here to the information that we have that we believe is -- is very credible.
And again, we've seen this kind of thing before out of Russia. When there isn't an actual crisis to suit their needs, they'll make one up. And so, we're watching for that.
Yes?
Q: The national -- yesterday the national security advisor said that this information that you just mentioned was downgraded and that he's going to update the media in 24 hours. Should we take from your statement or answer right now that this information now is -- more accurate and adequate? It's not --
MR. KIRBY: I believe that this is what the national security advisor was speaking to. But I certainly refer you to -- to the White House for additional context and information. I can't speak for Mr. Sullivan.
Q: Yes, I know you can't speak for Mr. Sullivan. But it's -- you all speak for the same government. My question is -- yesterday he talked about the information, but he described it -- says, quote and unquote, "which has now been downgraded." So -- has been any --
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: That -- that's what we're -- that's what we're talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: So it's -- it's -- that information is when you say -- when he says it's downgraded. And in your statement now, should we understand that there's more validity to that -- to the information? That there's some kind of a --
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: I'm not --
Q: -- of -- of new indications? I'm trying to understand.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, I'm not sure I totally understand your question. But let me try it this way --
(CROSSTALK)
Q: Let me put in a different way --
MR. KIRBY: Okay, sure.
Q: So based on his statement yesterday, there's information. However, he described this information as being downgraded, which means --
MR. KIRBY: Downgraded in classification so that we can talk about it, as we've just done today.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Does that help?
Q: Yes --
MR. KIRBY: I think we were hung up on the word downgraded.
Q: Yes.
MR. KIRBY: You and me both, yes. Okay, I got it.
Jen?
Q: So would you say that this recent cyber attack on the websites in Ukraine is related to this false flag operation?
MR. KIRBY: I don't -- I don't think -- I think it's too soon to say that it's part and parcel of a false flag. These were disruptive attacks -- cyber attacks --
Q: Carried out by Russia?
MR. KIRBY: We are not at the point of attribution right now, so I don't want to go there. But again, Jen, this is of a piece of the same kind of playbook we've seen from Russia in the past.
Q: And what could be the point of a cyber attack like we saw last night?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I -- I -- you're asking me to speak for the actors responsible for this, but -- but one could imagine, right, that an attack like that is meant to disrupt capability, to -- to try to dissuade action, to try to -- to change the -- the behaviors of the leadership decisions inside Ukraine -- I mean, any number of reasons, not to mention just to intimidate.
Now, as I understand it, most of these websites are coming back online now, but I mean, I think there's probably a -- multiple purposes that were -- excuse me -- that was sought -- by the actors in this case.
Q: And these operatives that you mentioned that are inside of Ukraine, are they in the Donbas region, or are they -- have they moved out into other areas?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to get into very specific information about -- about our knowledge of what these operatives are -- are capable of doing, and where and when. I think we've really spoken to it at about the -- the farthest level we can right now.
Q: And John, just on vaccine mandates, what impact does the Supreme Court decision, the OSHA decision have on the U.S. military and its mandate?
MR. KIRBY: It -- it -- as we understand it, does not affect the federal contractors in executive order by the president with respect to defense contractors specifically.
Q: And National Guard, any --
MR. KIRBY: Well, it -- it is not -- yeah. It has nothing to do with the National Guard; it has to do with civilian employers with a -- an employee level, I think, of over 100. That has nothing to do with the National Guard, and the secretary, again, remains convinced that the vaccines work. The mandate remains in place for the total force. And -- and again, we continue to encourage those who haven't been vaccinated and don't have an exemption to -- to get vaccinated and do the right thing.
Q: And what about civilians working for the Pentagon or DOD? Are they under a mandate right now --
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: -- or does the OSHA -- oh, but OSHA doesn't apply to them?
MR. KIRBY: They're -- they're still -- I mean, they're -- the workforce mandate for our civilians is still in place. Yeah.
Mike, did you have a question?
Janne?
Q: Thank you, John. I think that you are aware of that North Korea fired another missile yesterday, and North Korea continues to fire missiles. Are we just watching and condemning on these? And does the United States have any -- contemplating any actions? What we are doing now?
MR. KIRBY: You're right. There was a -- another launch yesterday, which we have assessed to be of a ballistic nature. We're continuing to consult with our allies and partners and with the international community about best steps forward. And as I think we've made clear, we're willing to sit down and -- and talk about these issues with North Korea, and there's been no sign of any interest in doing it on -- in Pyongyang's part.
Here at the Department of Defense, to your question of, what are you doing, we're continuing to work very closely with our ROK allies to make sure the alliance remains capable and strong and -- and vibrant. And we were just there, as you know, not long ago. So our focus here is making sure that we can meet our treaty commitments to the people of Korea and on the Korean Peninsula, and in the region writ large, and we're going to continue to do that.
Q: Yes. Another question: State Department Spokesperson Price said at a briefing this week, quote, there are many tools in the U.S. arsenal, and we'll use them when necessary. That means, do you think any military options are possible in response to North Korea?
MR. KIRBY: Well, the spokesman's right. I mean, there are lots of levers of power that the United States government and our allies and partners have at our disposal. Obviously, President Biden has been very clear: diplomacy leads, and that would be no different here when we're talking about North Korea and -- and the Korean Peninsula. I -- it will -- it will be largely unsatisfactory to you, but I'm going to go back to what I just said before, which is from -- from a Department of Defense perspective, our priority is on -- we -- we already have security commitments on -- on the Peninsula. And so our job here at DOD is to make sure that we are able to meet those commitments to the best of our ability, and that's why we've been to Korea twice now. That's why we continue to discuss and maintain a close relationship with our South Korean counterparts, and we're going to continue to make sure that the -- that the alliance is ready. As we say, ready to fight tonight. Okay?
(CROSSTALK)
Q: Just a quick follow-up: Was it a hypersonic missile test recently?
MR. KIRBY: We're still conducting an intel assessment of it, Jen. We're not at the point where we're willing and able to go beyond classifying as a ballistic missile launch.
Barb?
Q: You've -- regarding Ukraine and Russia, you've used the word "operatives" several times. For the public, can you help them understand what you -- people understand what you mean when you say "operatives"? Who are they, who are they working for?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I mean --
Q: If you -- if your intelligence is of such high fidelity, who are these people?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to go into more detail than what we've been able to go to specifically today. That said, Barb, and again, we've seen this playbook before when we talk about Russian operatives. It's -- it -- you know, it could represent a blend of -- of -- of individuals inside the Russian government, whether it's from their intelligence communities, their security services or even their military. They -- they often hybridize their -- their personnel to such a degree that the lines are not necessarily really clear who they specifically report to in the conduct of -- of some of these more covert and clandestine operations.
Q: And do you think -- I just have a couple of follow-ups. Do you think that, again, because you're saying your intelligence is that good, would any of this --
MR. KIRBY: Can I -- can I just stop you there? What I said was --
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: Well, yeah. What I said was that we are able to share with you this finding and this belief. I think -- I would hope you would take away from the fact that there is enough supporting evidence underneath that that we would not be willing and able to talk to publicly. That's what I meant. I -- I don't think I said it's so good. I just want to make sure I make that clear.
Q: So my question is, I think you said "high fidelity", so would -- what would you assess? Would any of this be happening without Vladimir Putin being directly knowledgeable about it?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I want to be careful not -- not to speak for another sovereign government. That said, again, if we -- if past is prologue, it is difficult to see that these kinds of activities could be, would be done without the knowledge, if not the imprimatur of the very senior levels of the Russian government.
Q: And a very quick follow-up on the FAA NORAD anti-airspace. So we have another statement from NORAD today saying that they did not warn of a missile threat to Canada or the United States.
MR. KIRBY: I believe that's the statement I gave.
Q: It is, I'm so sorry. You said it. So you're clearly saying the FAA made a mistake. There's just no question that that's what you're saying. My question is this, we have now seen two cases in recent years; FAA and the incident in Hawaii. In both cases the Defense Department says other people made mistakes. But nonetheless these are issues that two cases where Americans were seriously impacted and there were real questions in people's minds about whether there was a threat to the United States.
Is there something that the Defense Department needs to do to make sure this doesn't happen a third time?
MR. KIRBY: Well, number one, I'm not blaming another agency or casting aspersions upon another agency or the decision making process that they executed. To your larger point, I would tell you that we are a learning organization and we are always trying to improve our processes and the manner in which information is processed and shared, not just within the Department of Defense but outside the department. We're always looking at ways to try to improve that.
Yes.
Q: John, back to Ukraine. Given the operatives in Ukraine, given the attacks on websites is there still room for diplomacy to work?
MR. KIRBY: In short, we believe there is. And it's certainly the department's hope that diplomacy can prevail. But the administration is not willing to give up on the effort to solve this diplomatically.
Yes, Mike.
Q: Can you confirm if Russia is using any of their Wagner Group mercenaries in this or is all going to be government?
MR. KIRBY: I can not. But your question gets to Barbara's question that they can hybridized their agencies and their personnel in very unique ways. I got to get to the phones here pretty quick.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: No, no that's all right, go ahead, I called on you. It's actually more of a reminder to me to get to the phones than it is to you.
Q: Okay. I let you go to the phone --
MR. KIRBY: No, no, no, no.
Q: So based -- again to revisit the Ukraine, thanks for sharing this information. But based on the -- based on this information that you just mentioned, are you able to assess whether such a potential attack or invasion by Russia based on this pretext attack that might be coming is something imminent? Can you -- can you put certain timeframe on it?
And what is the administration doing to try to dissuade Russia from carrying on this campaign?
MR. KIRBY: Well look we just spent two days, you know, in Europe as an administration and I won't speak for the State Department, but trying to do exactly that, Fadi, which is to find ways to de-escalate the tensions and to prevent an incursion diplomatically. So we're still very much -- and to Jim's questions -- we still very much believe that there's room, there's time and space for diplomacy. We do not believe that Mr. Putin has made a final decision yet.
So as long as that's the case, yes we still believe there is -- there is time and space for diplomacy and we obviously want that to prevail. But if it doesn't, we're also, as an administration, ready to continue to look at options on the back end of that.
And as for timing, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't begin to speculate right now. Again, we still think there's -- back to my time and space argument -- that there's time and space to diplomacy, so I wouldn't begin to hypothesize or speculate about if there's an incursion when that can happen.
That we are seeing these indications of pretextual moves by Russia certainly gives us deep concern, and I think that's -- that's one of the reasons why we're willing to talk about it now. Yes. Jared from Al-Monitor?
Q: Hi, Mr. Kirby. I'm just wondering if the department can confirm. We've seen reports particularly in Iranian media that Iran has launched -- the IRGC has launched a solid state fuel rocket into space carrying a satellite. Just wondering if you can confirm?
MR. KIRBY: I'm afraid I can't, Jared. I haven't seen those reports. We will take that question for you, and if we can provide any context on it we will, but I've not seen those reports. Okay, Tony Capaccio?
Q: Hi, John. Couple questions. Can you -- can you review the bidding of the U.S. frce training forces in the Ukraine? I think there's a National Guard unit, the Task Force Gator and Special Ops forces. Roughly, how many are there and the types of training they provide? Also, if the Russians decide to move will those troops be pulled out of the Ukraine or does the U.S. have a de-confliction line with Russia like we've had in Syria to give the locations of our troops so they would not be attacked?
MR. KIRBY: Tony, there's less than 200 Florida National Guard there on a rotating advise and assist mission. This is something that we've been doing now for several years, and they remain in Ukraine and at their task.
I talked about this a little bit yesterday. I got a similar question or maybe it was your question about what we would do with them if there's an incursion? Again, we don't want to see an incursion. We still think there's time and space for that not to happen. We don't believe that President Putin has made a decision, so I'm not going to speculate about what we would or wouldn't do if there's an incursion, but what I would tell you very clearly is that force protection remains paramount in our minds, certainly in the secretary's mind, and we will make all the appropriate and proper decisions to make sure our people are safe in any event.
Q: Well, I got to ask you in Syria --
MR. KIRBY: Sylvie?
Q: -- you had a -- you had a de-confliction line in Syria with Russia?
Q: Do you have a de-confliction line?
MR. KIRBY: Do I have -- do we --
Q: In Syria?
Q: Do we have a --
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: Yes. No, I mean, there's no de-confliction line in Ukraine with Russia, but I think I get the gist of the question.
Q: Yes, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: We have many lines of communication with Russia, including direct communication with Russian military leaders. The secretary just spoke to Minister Shoygu a few days ago. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, has spoke on numerous occasions with his counterpart. I mean, we have direct lines of communication with them, so I don't think we need a hotline necessarily with respect to Ukraine.
Again, I understand the gist of the question. It's about what would you do with the trainers on the ground. We will do the most appropriate thing to do to make sure that we're always keeping their safety and security foremost in our minds. But again, nobody wants to see another incursion, and we want to make sure that that doesn't occur. So we want to give time and space for our diplomats to see if there's -- if there's a way for this to resolve itself without outright conflict, but we will do what we need to do. We will make the right decisions we need to make to make sure that our people are safe and secure.
Sylvie?
Q: Yes. Good morning. I know you don't want to speak about the military assistance you may give to Ukraine in case of invasion, but would it be possible to provide them some weapons that were supposed to go to the Afghan military and are now available?
MR. KIRBY: Sylvie, we are -- as I said, we're going to continue to provide security assistance to help Ukraine defend itself, and we're looking at a broad range of options for what that kind of material could be. I don't have any decisions to speak to today, so I don't want to get ahead of that, but we're going to -- we're going to continue to look for options to help them defend themselves.
Q: And will you announce it when you do it?
MR. KIRBY: That's -- I can't promise that there'll be announcement every time something goes. That's not the way we've done it in the past. So I wouldn't look for that to happen in the future. What I can tell you is, and I've said this before, that even as we completed the last tranche that we were going to provide security assistance material to the Ukrainians, and we will do that.
The last question, I think today, unless there's in the room, will go to Sho from Nippon TV.
Q: Thank you, John. It's about the spread of the Omicron variant at the overseas bases. Infections at the U.S. military bases in Japan and maybe also South Korea having spreading since the end of the last year. Although U.S. military in Japan has strengthened its protocol, some point out the measures to prevent infection were insufficient or it was a little bit too late to strengthen the protocols. So what lessons have DOD learned from this case, and how will DOD improve communications between Japan, the U.S. regarding other infection control?
MR. KIRBY: We did make more stringent our own protocols in Japan. We obviously take very seriously not only our commitment to our own people and their health and readiness, but to the Japanese people certainly in surrounding communities to our bases in Japan. So we take that very, very seriously.
We are in constant communication with Japanese government officials and certainly in the Ministry of Defense. And we're going to keep watching Omicron just like we're doing it here and elsewhere around the world to see if we need to change our posture. Just recently here in the Pentagon we increased our health protection conditions from Bravo Plus to Charlie, which obviously has resulted in a lot of very visible changes, and we're going to continue to do that in Japan as well.
And if there are changes that need to be made, if the spread of the virus gets more severe, then we will absolutely do that, and we will do it in full transparency with our Japanese allies. Yes, ma’am.
Q: Thanks so much.
Q: I just want to follow up for the second part of my question earlier. Just if Russia does follow through with the pretext for this invasion, how will the U.S. prove it? How is the Pentagon prepared to respond, and does the Pentagon have a warning to Russia?
MR. KIRBY: I think we've been very clear through the multiple conversations that we've had with Russia, particularly President Biden himself, that there will be severe consequences if there's another incursion.
So I think we -- we and many others in the international community, to include the NATO alliance, has been very clear about what the consequences and repercussions will be. I won't speak to announcements that haven't come yet or how we might communicate what we're seeing on the ground except to say that we do have evidence and indications that they are trying to set this pretext for another incursion. And we believe it was important to make note of that, that -- that we are aware, that we do see what they're doing, and that there are echoes of what they did in 2014. And whether -- whether or not that actually ends up happening or not and what we speak to at the time, I think I'll leave to a future setting.
Q: Can I get a quick follow-up on that?
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: Nonetheless, pretty extraordinary for any administration to speak about this kind of information. So you could have chosen just to communicate it privately to Moscow. Can you tell us why the administration decided to go public?
MR. KIRBY: Your -- your question presupposes that we didn't -- you know, that we didn't --
(CROSSTALK)
Q: -- to whatever other communications you had.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, I think we just believed it was important to make it clear what we were seeing. And that we felt it was in the public's interest, not just here in the United States, but around the world, to know that we know what's in this playbook and how it would potentially play out in Russian state and social media so that if it does happen, it can be easily identified for what it is, which is a fabrication and a pretext.
Q: And you say -- you said a couple of times now "what we are seeing." So from that, can we accurately assume that the intelligence is, well, first, generated by the U.S.? You're not getting this through second or third parties. And your assessment is a U.S. assessment, so it's -- when you say, what we are seeing, the U.S. is seeing the information directly. You're not getting that from other parties in the region?
MR. KIRBY: You know, intelligence is a fabric, Barb, and it comes oftentimes from many different sources, some organic and some not. I am not can speak to the nature of the specific intelligence other than to assert our -- our confidence in it. And I think I'll leave it at that.
MR. KIRBY: Another one?
Q: Yes, quick. Just to verify, in North Korea, Kim Jong Un said just the that hypersonic missile was the final test fired last Monday. But this one, yesterday one is not a hypersonic missile. It's possible or what do you think?
MR. KIRBY: We’ve classified it as a ballistic launch and we're going to leave it at that right now. We're still doing an intelligence assessment.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: You're welcome.
All right. Have a good weekend, everybody. See you in a few days.
