We each have the “courage of our ignorance.”  Our collective goal should be to minimize it.  To support this goal, sharing an excerpt from yesterday’s daily press briefing at the United States Department of State. 

Why read it?  This statements-questions-statements-questions exchange by correspondents is an important example of how statements reported as fact can collide with questions about evidence. 

The dialogue moves swiftly, is entertaining in places; could have been crafted by a skilled screenwriter from Hollywood- Reginald Rose, Aaron Sorkin? 

The premise is succinct:  Should a correspondent, a reporter, take as fact a statement or statements from an official, officials, of any government because that official, those officials, say a statement is true.   

Not sharing a judgement, there are reminding remnants of then-United States Secretary of State Colin Powell at the New York, New York-based United Nations (UN) in 2003 and the “slam dunk” vial-based evidence that Iraq was hosting weapons of mass destruction and, more recent, statements by the Biden-Harris Administration relating to the exit from Afghanistan. 

On this occasion, the statements are about what the United States Government, the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ), wants the world to believe about the Russian Federation.   

That the Russian Federation has engaged in full-on Hollywood Dream Factory having created, with Opening Night to be determined, for the worldwide distribution amongst all media platforms a full-length “Wag The Dog” feature in support of its necessity to save Russian-identifying masses residing within the [current] territory of Ukraine from horrifying treatment by entities controlled by the government of Ukraine.   

Yesterday, the questioning at the daily briefing began with Mr. Matt Lee, the longtime State Department Correspondent for New York, New York-based Associated Press (AP).  Mr. Lee often presents a curmudgeonly figure- half-spectacle-wearing, no tie in a tweed sport coat, and while he has a cellular device, in a correspondent landscape of laptops, Matt writes on a yellow pad- which often seems quite worn with curled-up edges.  His place is first row, far right seat- so he has the first question at each daily press briefing.  For those of you of age, Matt reminds of the late Ms. Helen Thomas of United Press International (UPI) who from her front row center seat in the briefing room at The White House would hold forth with the first question- often pointed. 

United States Department of State
Washington DC
3 February 2022

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson 

MR PRICE: Good afternoon. We have previously noted our strong concerns regarding Russian disinformation and the likelihood that Moscow might create – seek to create a false flag operation to initiate military activity. Now, we can say that the United States has information that Russia is planning to stage fabricated attacks by Ukrainian military or intelligence forces as a pretext for a further invasion of Ukraine. 

One possible option the Russians are considering, and which we made public today, involves the production of a propaganda video – a video with graphic scenes of false explosions – depicting corpses, crisis actors pretending to be mourners, and images of destroyed locations or military equipment – entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence. 

To be clear, the production of this propaganda video is one of a number of options that the Russian Government is developing as a fake pretext to initiate and potentially justify military aggression against Ukraine. We don’t know if Russia will necessarily use this or another option in the coming days. We are publicizing it now, however, in order to lay bare the extent of Russia’s destabilizing actions towards Ukraine and to dissuade Russia from continuing this dangerous campaign and ultimately launching a military attack. 

Russia has signaled it’s willing to continue diplomatic talks as a means to de-escalate, but actions such as these suggest otherwise. We will continue to diligently work together with our allies and partners to expose Russian disinformation and other hybrid tactics used against Ukraine. We continue to work to prevent any effort Moscow might make to justify further military action in Ukraine. We again urge Russia to stop its destructive and destabilizing disinformation campaign, to de-escalate tensions, and to engage in diplomacy and dialogue for a peaceful solution.

 Thank you. 

QUESTION: Thanks. Okay, well, that’s quite a mouthful there. So you said “actions such as these suggest otherwise” – suggest meaning that they suggest they’re not interested in talks and they’re going to go ahead with some kind of a – what action are you talking about? 

MR PRICE: One, the actions I have just pointed to, the fact – 

QUESTION: What action? What — 

MR PRICE: The fact that Russia continues to engage in disinformation campaigns. 

QUESTION: Well no, you’ve made an allegation that they might do that. Have they actually done it? 

MR PRICE: What we know, Matt, is what we – what I have just said, that they have engaged in this activity, in this planning activity — 

QUESTION: Well, engage in what – hold on a second. What activity? 

MR PRICE: But let me – let me – because obviously this is not – this is not the first time we’ve made these reports public. You’ll remember that just a few weeks ago – 

QUESTION: I’m sorry, made what report public? 

MR PRICE: If you let me finish, I will tell you what report we made public. 

QUESTION: Okay. 

MR PRICE: We told you a few weeks ago that we have information indicating Russia also has already pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine. So that, Matt, to your question, is an action that Russia has already taken. 

QUESTION: No, it’s an action that you say that they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that. And I’m going to get to the next question here, which is: What is the evidence that they – I mean, this is – like, crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making? 

MR PRICE: Matt, this is derived from information known to the U.S. Government, intelligence information that we have declassified. I think you know — 

QUESTION: Okay, well, where is it? Where is this information? 

MR PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified. 

QUESTION: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information? 

MR PRICE: I just delivered it. 

QUESTION: No, you made a series of allegations and statements — 

MR PRICE: Would you like us to print out the topper? Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself. 

QUESTION: But that’s not evidence, Ned. That’s you saying it. That’s not evidence. I’m sorry. 

MR PRICE: What would you like, Matt? 

QUESTION: I would like to see some proof that you – that you can show that — 

MR PRICE: Matt, you have been — 

QUESTION: — that shows that the Russians are doing this. 

MR PRICE: You — 

QUESTION: Ned, I’ve been doing this for a long time, as you know. 

MR PRICE: I know. That was my point. You have been doing this for quite a while. 

QUESTION: I have. 

MR PRICE: You know that when we declassify intelligence, we do so in a means — 

QUESTION: That’s right. And I remember WMDs in Iraq, and I — 

MR PRICE: — we do so with an eye to protecting sources and methods. 

QUESTION: And I remember that Kabul was not going to fall. I remember a lot of things. So where is the  declassified information other than you coming out here and saying it? 

MR PRICE: Matt, I’m sorry you don’t like the format, but we have — 

QUESTION: It’s not the format. It’s the content. 

MR PRICE: I’m sorry you don’t like the content. I’m sorry you — 

QUESTION: It’s not that I don’t like it or — 

MR PRICE: I’m sorry you are doubting the information that is in the possession of the U.S. Government. 

QUESTION: No, I — 

MR PRICE: What I’m telling you is that this is information that’s available to us. We are making it available to you in order – for a couple reasons. One is to attempt to deter the Russians from going ahead with this activity. Two, in the event we’re not able to do that, in the event the Russians do go ahead with this, to make it clear as day, to lay bare the fact that this has always been an attempt on the part of the Russian Federation to fabricate a pretext. 

QUESTION: Yes, but you don’t have any evidence to back it up other than what you’re saying. It’s like you’re saying, “We think – we have information the Russians may do this,” but you won’t tell us what the information is. And then when you’re asked — 

MR PRICE: Well, that is the idea behind deterrence, Matt. That is the idea behind deterrence. 

QUESTION: When you’re asked – and when you’re asked — 

MR PRICE: It is our hope that the Russians don’t go forward with this.

QUESTION: And when you’re asked what the information is, you say, “I just gave it to you.” But that’s not what — 

MR PRICE: You seem not to understand — 

QUESTION: That’s not the way it works. 

MR PRICE: You seem not to understand the idea of deterrence. 

QUESTION: No, no, no, Ned. You don’t – you seem not to understand the idea of — 

MR PRICE: We are trying to deter the Russians from moving forward with this type of activity. That is why we are making it public today. If the Russians don’t go forward with this, that is not ipso facto an indication that they never had plans to do so. 

QUESTION: But then it’s unprovable. I mean, my God, what is the evidence that you have that suggests that the Russians are even planning this? 

MR PRICE: Matt, you — 

QUESTION: I mean, I’m not saying that they’re not. But you just come out and say this and expect us just to believe it without you showing a shred of evidence that it’s actually true – other than when I ask or when anyone else asks what’s the information, you said, well, I just gave it to you, which was just you making a statement. 

MR PRICE: Matt, you said yourself you’ve been in this business for quite a long time. You know that when we make information – intelligence information public we do so in a way that protects sensitive sources and methods. You also know that we do so – we declassify information – only when we’re confident in that information. 

QUESTION: But Ned, you haven’t given any information. 

MR PRICE: If you doubt – if you doubt the credibility of the U.S. Government, of the British Government, of other governments, and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out — 

QUESTION: Solace? 

MR PRICE: — that is for you to do. 

QUESTION: I don’t want – I’m not asking what the Russian Government is putting out. And what do you – what is that supposed to mean? 

MR PRICE: Shaun. 

QUESTION: Does the government have the video? Because U.S. officials are describing very specific scenes, but do they actually have a video? 

MR PRICE: The fact that we are able to go into such great detail – obviously, I am not going to spell out what is in our possession, but I will leave – I will leave it to you – I will leave that to your judgment, to your imagination. 

QUESTION: Ned, there are no facts that you’ve spelled out. 

QUESTION: Whether they use it “in the coming days” – do you have evidence this was intended to come out in the coming days? 

MR PRICE: We’ve said, Ben, for some time now that the Russians have positioned forces, they have undertaken preparations, that if Putin decides to move forward with an invasion they’re positioned to do so. They are poised to do so. 

QUESTION: You just said – you said “in the coming days.” I mean, was that a timeline that you felt that this was going to happen imminently? 

MR PRICE: Well, we know what they are planning for. We know the contingencies that they have engaged in. And again, these are the kinds of steps that they are poised to undertake if that decision is made. Our goal in all of this is to deter an invasion, to deter this type of activity. So we certainly hope it doesn’t take place. We are making clear what we know so that in the event it does take place it will be clear to the world what this actually was and what it was not. 

QUESTION: And the pre-positioned teams, when do you suggest they were pre-positioned? Is it going back months, I mean, or was this a more recent sort of deployment? 

MR PRICE: Well, this was something that we made public several weeks ago now. So several weeks ago we said that information available to us indicated that Russia had already pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine. 

QUESTION: Was it recent at that point? Because if they had come across just a few weeks ago, that would be a Russian aggression across the border, which you’ve warned time and time again would result in severe consequences. 

MR PRICE: Ben, you know that the sort of hybrid activity that we’ve been pointing to, much of it has been going on since 2014. Obviously, we’re very attuned to any Russian aggression against Ukraine that may take place in this atmosphere given the heightened tensions.

Andrea. 

QUESTION: Could you in any way describe your level of confidence at – which you have not suggested – at how far along in the planning this is, at some level of planning in terms of their possible operations? 

MR PRICE: The fact, Andrea, that we are able to go into such detail, the fact that we are able to do that with confidence, because we would not be saying this otherwise, suggests that this is something that is – this planning at least, this contingency planning, is well underway. We wouldn’t be making this information public were we not confident in the underlying details and confident in the allegations that we put forward. 

QUESTION: Is this in any way connected to the previous report, as another phase of the previous report, the previous report – excuse me – that the British put out that was then confirmed to have come originally from American sourcing? 

MR PRICE: This is all part of – part and parcel of a broader effort. I’m not going to speak to how various streams of intelligence, now declassified information, may or may not stitch together. But what we know is that Russian military and intelligence entities for some time now have been engaged in this type of activity. We know that it was a very similar set of tactics that they undertook in 2014 as a means by which to fabricate a pretext for the invasion that took place some eight years ago. So that is part of – that certainly is part of the concern. 

The other element of the concern is not only the historical aspect of it, the fact that we have seen this before, but the fact of what we are seeing now, what we are picking up now – through means that, of course, we can’t get into, but that has produced information available to us in which we are confident. 

We know that – similarly that Russian military and intelligence entities are engaged in a broad disinformation and propaganda effort. This includes malign social media operations, the use of overt and covert online proxy media outlets, the injection of disinformation in television and radio programming, hosting of conferences designed to influence attendees into falsely believing that Ukraine, not Russia, is at fault for heightened tensions in the region, the leveraging of cyber operations to deface media outlets and conduct what are known as hack-and-release operations. 

To give you one example, we know that the Russia’s – that Russia’s Federal Security Service, or the FSB, directly tasks and influences proxy media outlets – for example, NewsFront – to publish content that denigrates Ukraine and falsely depicts it as the aggressor. Articles written by this and other outlets as a result have made their way not only to pro-Kremlin proxy outlets but also official Russian state media outlets, like RIA Novosti, and others. You know that the other week we put out a great deal of information on Russia’s disinformation and propaganda efforts. This has been long-running, but we also know that this type of activity has accelerated in recent weeks, which further fuels our concern. 

To give you just one example, during December, a couple months ago, Russian language content on social media covering the narratives that we’ve talked about – the lie that Ukraine is the aggressor, the lie that it is Russia that is being threatened – increased to an average of nearly 3,500 posts per day. That was a 200 percent increase from the daily average just the month before. And it was the month before that we had seen a similarly large spike. 

So we are quite concerned by all this, we’re concerned by the specifics, but we’re also concerned by the broader trends that, to us, are reminiscent in many ways – many disturbing ways of what we saw in 2014 and what we fear we may be seeing a replay of now. 

QUESTION: With all of the diplomacy that is underway – Macron and others as well as what the Secretary may be doing with Foreign Minister Lavrov – do you see a longer timeline? Because the White House notably did not use the word “imminent” in terms of an invasion. Has that perspective changed at all? 

MR PRICE: So I think there has been some confusion around this because we’ve always been consistent that insofar as we know, Vladimir Putin has not made a final decision. So until and unless he makes a final decision to invade, this will not be imminent. 

What we do know and what our concern is, is that Russia has undertaken these steps, including the amassing of 100,000 forces along Ukraine’s borders, the dispatch of thousands of troops – up to 30,000 forces into what should be the sovereign, independent country of Belarus, undertaking this sort of disinformation and propaganda activity. 

All of this puts Moscow in a position to be able to move swiftly in a very aggressive way against Ukraine if it so chooses. That has always been our position, or at least I should say that has been our position in recent weeks, as all of these ingredients have come together.

Simon. 

QUESTION: Yeah. Also on Russia, the Russian foreign minister met with his Chinese counterpart and China expressed understanding and support for Russia’s position regarding the U.S. and NATO. They’re talking about coordinated positions between China and Russia. Is this concerning to you that there is this kind of new alliance seeming to be forming in opposition to U.S. policy interests around the world? 

MR PRICE: I’d make two points. First – and this is something we discussed a very days ago, but Secretary Blinken had an opportunity to speak to Foreign Minister Wang of the PRC last week, and as part of that conversation the Secretary and the foreign minister discussed the tensions that are result – the result of Moscow’s needless provocations and military buildup and the potential implications of a Russian incursion or invasion into Ukraine. This is an eventuality that poses risks not only to Ukraine, to Europe, to the United States, but well beyond that, including to the PRC. The global security and economic risks posed by further Russian aggression would be enormous and they would have consequences not only on Ukraine, Europe, the transatlantic community, but on the PRC as well. 

The second point gets to some of the measures we’re taking in an effort to deter what could be additional Russian aggression, and that’s the economic and financial consequences that we have said would befall the Russian Federation if there were – if this was to go forward. Similarly, those would be massive on the Kremlin. If Russia thinks that it will be in a position to make up some of those consequences, to mitigate some of those consequences by a closer relationship with the PRC, that is not the case. It will actually make the Russian economy in many ways more brittle. If you look at, for example, where the major inputs to foundational technologies come from, they still come from the West. If you deny yourself the ability to transact with the West, to import with the West – from Europe, from the United States – you are going to significantly degrade your productive capacity and your innovative potential. 

Putin knows that this would be of massive consequence to his country and to his economy. This – a closer relationship with the PRC, a closer relationship between Russia and the PRC – is not going to make up for that; it is not going to account for that. 

One final point. We have – and when I say we I mean collectively, the United States and our allies and partners – we have an array of tools that we can deploy if we see foreign companies, including those in China, doing their best to backfill U.S. export control actions, to evade them, to get around them. I wouldn’t want to speculate on what those tools are, but we do have tools that can address that, and that would seek to account for that. 

QUESTION: But you said a closer relationship with China would actually make their position – Russia’s position more brittle. How would it do that? 

MR PRICE: Because it would make the Russian economy dependent on one economy, or much more dependent on one economy. This is a recipe for catastrophe for the Russian economy if Putin thinks that the measures we’ve talked about won’t have the bite, won’t have the consequences that we’ve warned about. And no partnership can account for the massive economic toll that we’ve talked about given the financial tools that are available to us, the sanctions tools that are available to us, and the export control actions, among others, that we’re in a position to take. 

QUESTION: But you said Secretary Blinken spoke to Foreign Minister Wang and tried to make this case, but it sounds like from what they’ve said today, they have not taken that on board. Do you – are you concerned that the Chinese don’t agree with what you’re arguing here. 

MR PRICE: I would leave it to the PRC to characterize their position. I think what you have heard publicly from the PRC, including in the context of the UN earlier this week, is that the PRC – like us, like just about every other country around the world – would prefer to see a diplomatic solution to the crisis that Russia has needlessly provoked. 

QUESTION: Ned, before we leave Ukraine, when was the last time the Secretary spoke to the foreign minister, his – the Ukrainian foreign minister? 

MR PRICE: To the Ukrainian foreign minister? It has been – he spoke to him just after we left Geneva. That was 10 days ago. 

QUESTION: Okay. But not since the – not this week, in other words? 

MR PRICE: I’m not aware of a call this week, but we do regularly engage with our Ukrainian counterparts at many different levels. 

QUESTION: All right. And then one – just one last thing. I’m not buying into Russian propaganda, but I’m also not going to buy into an — 

MR PRICE: I’m not asking you to. 

QUESTION: — accusation – yeah, you are. You’re saying the proof is that I just said it. So let me just appeal to you on behalf of all of us, and the American people and the people of the world, and the Russian people and the Ukrainian people: One piece of evidence to suggest that the Russians are planning to use crisis actors to stage a false, mass-casualty event to use as a pretext. Just one piece, okay? And not you or Kirby or Jen or Jon Finer or Jake saying, “This is what is so,” and then you turning around and saying, “Well, because we said it, it’s a fact.” 

MR PRICE: So let me — 

QUESTION: One piece of — 

MR PRICE: Let me make — 

QUESTION: One piece of verifiable evidence. 

MR PRICE: Let me make – let me make a couple of broad points, and I acknowledge this will probably be unsatisfactory to you in the moment. But here’s what I think you know, what I certainly know, what everyone here knows: There are 100,000 Russian troops encircling Ukraine right now, approaching Ukraine’s borders, close to the borders. There are thousands of Russian troops, with the potential for some 30,000 Russian troops to stream into Belarus. All of these forces are positioned, could well be positioned if Putin makes that decision, to engage on Ukraine in a coordinated assault. We also know that the Russians have resorted to these tactics in the past, have developed a remarkably similar playbook in 2014: amassed troops, engaged in 2014 – it is a historical fact – engaged in disinformation and propaganda to paint Ukraine as the aggressor, fabricated a pretext for an invasion, and went in. 

So with what we know from eight years ago, with what we have seen – you and I both have seen, everyone has seen – with what we have heard eight years ago, in the ensuing eight years, and in recent weeks, it seems to me that it should not be outlandish that the Russians may be engaging in this activity again. 

QUESTION: Well, okay, fine, but not being outlandish doesn’t mean that you have any proof that it’s happening — 

MR PRICE: The second point – the second point — 

QUESTION: — or being planned. Hold on, Ned. You can’t just – all of that may very well be true, probably is true, okay? But it doesn’t provide any evidence of what you’re alleging now, which is that they’re planning this mass – fake mass casualty event with, quote/unquote, “crisis actors,” which is something that in the U.S. we rarely hear outside of the kind of nutty conspiracy theory crowd. 

MR PRICE: Well, to be to be clear we’re not alleging what the United States is doing. This is information available to us of what the Russians are up to. 

QUESTION: No, no, but that’s — 

MR PRICE: I understand your point, but I just want to — 

QUESTION: You do? Because, I mean, you’re treading into serious waters here. And if you can’t provide any evidence other than, “Well, I said so and so it’s a fact,” that’s a problem. 

MR PRICE: Matt, there’s a second point. This is derived from intelligence, intelligence in which we have confidence-  

QUESTION: Well — 

MR PRICE: — in which we have confidence, otherwise — 

QUESTION: The same confidence you had in WMD in Iraq? I mean, what — 

MR PRICE: Otherwise – otherwise – otherwise we would not be making it public in the way we are. But here’s the other point: Intelligence and evidence, these are two separate things. It is no — 

QUESTION: But you’re saying it’s a fact and that you have proof, and then you can’t offer any proof to show that it’s a fact. I’ll drop it, but I think we should move on. 

MR PRICE: Thank you.  Yeah.