The Government Of Ukraine Should Be Uncomfortable With Statements From The White House Communications Director. A Bit More Comfort Though From DOD.

The following considerations are fueling the response by the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) to the attack on Ukraine by the Russian Federation:
President Biden does not want direct military-to-military contact with President Putin.
President Biden is comfortable with indirect military-to-military contact with President Putin.
President Biden will not accept publicly the possibility of direct military-to-military conflict with President Putin.

Ms. Kate Bedingfield (40), Communications Director at The White House, on 30 March 2022 would not confirm the position of the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) requires a complete withdrawal from Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Unlike Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who was unequivocal that a withdrawal was required for any change in sanctions placed upon the Russian Federation.   

Mr. John Kirby (59), Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs for the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and retired Rear Admiral (lower half) in the United States Navy, shared on 30 March 2022 that the sovereignty and national territory of Ukraine “needs to be protected.”   

Unknown is whether the Biden-Harris Administration (from podiums at The White House and the DOD) is defining the “territory” of Ukraine to be the map that included the Crimean Peninsula and Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast)- both under control since 2014 of the Russian Federation?  

Ms. Bedingfield shared the Biden-Harris Administration has provided to Ukraine everything that the country needs. 

President Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, has shared the Biden-Harris Administration has not provided everything that Ukraine wants. 

For perspective, and providing an unfiltered reference point, the following is the transcript of Ms. Bedingfield’s media briefing on 30 March 2022: 

·       Q    And just lastly, how does this impact concerns about whether, you know, any deal that may be negotiated with Russia -- between Russia and Ukraine -- can be trusted?
 
MS. BEDINGFIELD:  Well, again, we are not negotiators in that process.  We are obviously in close contact with the Ukrainians as they work through this process.  Again, our role is to do everything we can to strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield, as we've done with the security assistance -- the unprecedented amount of security assistance and weapons that we've flowed to Ukraine and also to strengthen -- strengthen their hand at the negotiating table by continuing to apply incredibly severe costs and sanctions on Russia.  

·       Q    And yet President Zelenskyy has been clear, including when he addressed NATO: He doesn't think it's enough.  He doesn't think that NATO is doing enough.  He thinks that there, yes, has been a lot of assistance, but it doesn't go far enough for him to achieve the goals.
 
MS. BEDINGFIELD:  Again, the scope -- the scope and scale of the assistance -- the security assistance that we have provided to the Ukrainians is unprecedented.  We have worked very, very closely with them -- again, as they discussed on the call today.  We've worked very closely with them to provide them with the weapons that they need.  And again, the President takes into account those two factors that I was just talking about when making decisions.  But that being said, he -- we have sent $2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine.  And we continue to supply them those -- those deliveries are happening daily.  Every day, they’re -- those weapons are being delivered.  So we are doing everything -- the President is making every effort to ensure that they are getting what they need. 

·       Yeah, do you mind?  Because President Zelenskyy just tweeted also that President Biden and him talk about a new package of sanctions.  Could -- do you have anything more specific on that?
 
MS. BEDINGFIELD:  So I don't have anything that I can preview in this moment.  But certainly, we are continuing to look at options to -- to expand and deepen our sanctions.  And I anticipate that we would probably have more for you on that in the coming days. 
 
Q    Okay.  Thank you, Kate.  Two quick ones, hopefully.  Could you give us any steer on the additional capabilities bit of that readout in -- from the Zelenskyy call?  Is there -- is there a shift in thinking, perhaps, that Ukraine needs a different category of weapons -- not just enough to hold the Russians back, but actually to push them back and out?
 
MS. BEDINGFIELD:  So -- so an example of one of the -- one of those additional capabilities -- something that we talked about a little bit last week while we were in Europe -- you know, shore -- ship-to-shore capability, anti-ship capability -- that's just one example.  You know, beyond that, I'm not going to go into further detail on what's being discussed, except to say that we're doing everything we can to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs on the battlefield. 
 
Q    Thank you.  And the other one is: Today, Boris Johnson said -- very black and white -- he said sanctions -- Western sanctions, not just British or G7 sanctions -- should stay in place until the Russian troops are all gone.  That was a lot more black-and-white than anything that's come out of the White House.  Did you -- does the White House share that kind of maximalist goal with sanctions?  Are they going to stay there until the last Russian troops are gone?
 
MS. BEDINGFIELD:  That's not something that I'm going to be able to pre-state in this moment.  I will let -- I will let Boris Johnson and the UK government speak for themselves.  

·       Q    Thank you, Kate.  When I asked Jake Sullivan the question of why no one in the administration had said definitively whether or not the White House thinks that Ukraine can win this war, he referred me to the Pentagon.  And moments ago, when the same question was asked to you, you said, you know, "I don't know I ha- -- I don't know I have to say it."  But the President has said, "I don't care what Putin thinks."  So why isn't the administration being more definitive on this question?  Is it for fear that this might provoke Moscow?  Is it that you don't have a clear definition of what victory might look like over there?
 
MS. BEDINGFIELD:  I think what is important here, as I said in my previous answer -- I think what's important here is our actions.  I think we have -- we have provided the security assistance.  We've provided the weapons to Ukraine.  We continue to support Ukraine.  We continue to do everything in our power to ensure that they have what they need.  So, I think if there's -- I don't think there should be any question about whether this White House and this President is doing everything in his power to support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.  
Q    But towards what end? 

John Kirby, the spokesperson for the United States Department of Defense (DOD), shared on 30 March 2022 that the sovereignty and national territory of Ukraine “needs to be protected.”   

·       Question:  Is the United States OK with Russia at the end of all of this getting the Donbas Region? 

Answer: No, no, not at all and we said before Mr. Putin decided to invade Ukraine that Ukraine’s sovereignty and national territory needs to be respected.  Whatever negotiations Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin come to, that’s between them.  The United States is not inserting ourselves in a peace process.  But, we’ve said from the very beginning that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be respected.  So, no it’s not OK with the United States if Mr. Putin gets to grab a piece of territory of Ukraine.  We’ve never observed the annexation of Crimea. 

·       Question: We’re not encouraging the president of Ukraine to accept losing some of that territory? 

Answer:  No ma’am.