RESPOND IN A MORE SIGNIFICANT
MANNER, THAT MAYBE THE FORM OF
SECURING A HUMANITARIAN
CORRIDORS.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE
HEADED INTO RIGHT NOW.
>> LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT EDWARD
KIRBY, THE PENTAGON
SPOKESPERSON, SAID TODAY ABOUT
THIS QUESTION OF SENDING JETS
TO UKRAINE LET'S LISTEN TO
THIS.
>> WE ASSESS THAT ADDING
AIRCRAFT TO THE UKRAINE
INVENTORY IS NOT LIKELY TO
SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE UKRAINIAN
AIR FORCE, RELATIVE TO RUSSIAN
CAPABILITIES.
THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE GAIN FROM TRANSFERRING THOSE
GAIN FROM TRANSFERRING THOSE
AIRCRAFT, MIG-29 AIRCRAFT I --
MAY BE MISTAKEN AS ESCALATORY.
AND COULD INCREASE THE
PROSPECTS OF A MILITARY
ESCALATION WITH NATO.
>> SO, SOME ARE MAKING THE
POINT THAT THE UKRAINIAN PILOTS
ARE NOT FLYING NOW WITH THE
AIRCRAFT THAT THEY ALREADY
HAVE.
AND SO, JETS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE WHAT THEY NEED AT THIS TIME.
BE WHAT THEY NEED AT THIS TIME.
Hey Google.
BE W>> THAT IS NOT TRUE.
FRANKLY, I DISAGREE WITH THAT
ASSESSMENT.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT UKRAINIANS ARE NOT
FLYING IS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT
HAVE THAT MANY PLANES.
AND THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE
THEM AND THEY HAVE TO SAVE SOME
OF THEIR AIR POWER FOR A CRISIS
SITUATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A
CRISIS SITUATION AROUND KYIV.
THOSE JETS, AS WELL AS OTHER
KINDS OF SUPPORT, WOULD BE
MEANINGFUL, SUCH AS
INTERMEDIATE RANGE AIR DEFENSE
AND AERIAL VEHICLES.
WHAT I FEAR WHEN I HEAR THOSE
KINDS OF STATEMENTS AND THAT
KIND OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS
ANALYSIS --
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT IS IN
FACT CHERRY-PICKING.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE DIVERGENT
VIEWS WITHIN THE ENVELOPED IN
THIS COMMUNITY AND PLENTY OF
PEOPLE THINK THAT THIS WOULD
NOT BE ESCALATORY, WITHIN THE
BOUNDS.
THE U.S. HAS CONDUCTED PROXY
YOUR WARFARE, THAT IS SOME
CHERRY-PICKING OF INTELLIGENCE
ASSESSMENTS.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A HARSH
JUDGMENT BUT I HAVE SEEN HOW
THINGS WORK.
IT SUGGESTS THAT WE MAY HAVE
REACHED THE LIMIT OF WHAT WE
ARE WILLING TO DO AT THIS
MOMENT, WHICH IS PROVIDE THESE
SHORT RANGE AND A TANK SYSTEMS,
THESE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE JAVELINS,
AND THAT THAT IS ALL WE ARE
PREPARED TO DO AT THE MOMENT.
THAT SCARES ME BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE OF
THESE KINDS OF BARBARIC ACTIONS TARGETING HOSPITALS, TARGETING
TARGETING HOSPITALS, TARGETING
NEWBORN ... I'M SORRY, THE NAME
ESCAPES ME.
HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS AND SO
FORTH.
AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO REACT.
IF THIS WAS ANY OTHER COUNTRY
THAT WAS DOING A BIT OF
SABER-RATTLING, THAT WAS
SOMEHOW INDICATING THAT WE WERE
HEADING TOWARDS A NUCLEAR WAR,
WE WOULD'VE TAKEN ACTION I LONG
TIME AGO.
>> COLONEL, COLONEL WE ARE
RUNNING OUT OF TIME --
A COUPLE OF POINTS, THOUGH.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE MANY
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WE HAVE
NEVER CONSIDERED INTERVENTION.
WITH.
THERE WAS THE ETHIOPIAN CIVIL
WAR, WHICH WAS OFTEN NOT EVEN
CIVILIZED.
WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW IS THE
MOST THE U.S. HAS EVER DONE FOR
A COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN INVADED,
SHORT OF WAR.
THE OTHER POINT THAT YOU SAID
--
HE SAID IT DOES NOT SEEM
ESCALATORY TO YOU.
IT ALSO DOES NOT SEEM
ESCALATORY TO ADMIRAL KIRBY, HE
MADE THAT CLEAR.
THE POINT IS, WOULD IT BE SEEN
AS ESCALATORY --
THE JETS --
WOULD THAT BE SEEN AS
ESCALATORY BY VLADIMIR PUTIN?
SO, THEY ARE TRYING TO DEAL
WITH AN ESCALATION FROM
VLADIMIR PUTIN.
DO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN YOUR
ANTICIPATION THAT VLADIMIR
PUTIN WOULD NOT SEE THE
TRANSFER OF THOSE JETS AS
ESCALATORY AND A REASON FOR HIM
TO ESCALATE TO SOMETHING WORSE,
INCLUDING, PERHAPS, TACTICAL
NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
THE KIND THAT THE UNITED STATES
DOES NOT HAVE AND CANNOT DEPLOY
IN THAT SITUATION?
>> SO, PUTIN IS NOT A MAD MAN,
HE UNDERSTANDS THE DOCTRINE OF
MUTUALLY MUTUAL DESTRUCTION.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN WATCHING
THIS UNFOLD, WHEN MERCENARY
SUPPORTED BY THE RUSSIAN
MILITARY ATTACKED U.S.
PERSONNEL IN SYRIA, THE
RUSSIANS DID NOT RESPOND --
I COULD HEAR THE PLEATING FROM
THE RUSSIAN GENERAL STAFF TO
MAKE SURE THAT RUSSIAN SOLDIERS
WERE NOT TARGETED.
SO THAT THEY WERE IN POSITION
TO RESPOND.
I HAVE VERY GOOD CONFIDENCE,
BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, THAT
THE RUSSIANS ARE NOT GOING TO
TRY TO INVOKE OR ESCALATE TO A
DIRECT CONFRONTATION WHEN THEY
ARE ALREADY BOGGED DOWN IN
UKRAINE.
THAT IS A HUGE LEAP BETWEEN A SUPPORTING UKRAINE WITH --
SUPPORTING UKRAINE WITH --
Hey Google.
COLONEL, ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT
VLADIMIR PUTIN WOULD NOT
ESCALATE TO THE USE OF TACTICAL
NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHIN UKRAINE,
AND WIPEOUT UKRAINE BEYOND
RECOGNITION, IN RESPONSE TO ANY
ESCALATION BY THE UNITED STATES?
>> THAT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION
TO ANSWER, BECAUSE THERE IS NO
NUCLEAR RESPONSE FROM UKRAINE.
THE PRESENCE THAT IS SET FOR A
COUNTRY THAT HE BELIEVES
BASICALLY ONE OF THE SAME AS
THOSE PEOPLE, THAT'S ONE OF THE
CAUSES FOR THE WAR, HE'S TRYING
TO DELIBERATE PEOPLE, TO THEN
CONDUCTED NUCLEAR STRIKE ON
THEM, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT HE'S ABLE TO WALK AWAY
FROM.
AND ALSO, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE
--
YES, HE'S THE ULTIMATE
DECISION-MAKER.
BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF RUSSIAN
MILITARY OFFICERS IN THAT CHAIN
THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS
CAN UNFOLD, OR THE RISKS THIS
CAN BRING.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
TACTICAL DEPLOYMENT OF A
NUCLEAR WEAPON.
THE RUSSIANS UNDERSTAND, THAT
IT'S AUTOMATICALLY A STRATEGIC
CAPABILITY.
>> RUSSIA DOES HAVE TECHNICAL
NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THAT THEY CAN
USE IN UKRAINE, THE WHOSE
EFFECTS WILL BE FELT IN THE
UKRAINE, THEY CAN DO THAT, THAT
IS THE FEAR THAT EXIST WITHIN
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND
THE DECISION-MAKERS.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD BE
CONCERNED ABOUT, AND CONSIDER,
OR DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE
JUST CONFIDENCE IN A PREDICTIVE
READING OF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S
BEHAVIOR, LIKE THE PREDICTIVE
READING THE YOU ARE MAKING?
>> WE SHOULD I'VE SULLY NOT BE
DISMISSIVE OF NUCLEAR SABER
RATTLING.
BUT WE CAN DO, IS MAKE RISK
INFORMED DECISIONS.
WELL THOUGHT OUT, WELL INFORMED
DECISIONS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THOSE DECISIONS INFORMED BY
WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, AND HAVE
HIGH CONFIDENCE ON IN REGARD TO
RUSSIAN ACTIONS.
WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IN THE
PAST, WE PLAYED OUT THESE
SCENARIOS CONSISTENTLY.
WE HAVE GENERATIONS OF
EXPERIENCE FIGHTING PROXY
WARFARE IN A LIMITED MATTER.
BUT WE ALWAYS GO TO THE
WORST-CASE SCENARIO OF NUCLEAR
--
THAT HAS MISPLACED FEAR, THAT
OBSTRUCTS OUR ABILITY TO ACT,
AND SUPPORTER INTEREST VALUES.
>> COLONEL, I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT NONE OF THE PRE-EXISTING
MODELS OF ANY CONFRONTATION,
POTENTIAL CONFRONTATION BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA,
NONE OF THEM FIT THE CURRENT
MODEL.
THIS IS THE MOST EXTREME WITH
THIS KIND OF SITUATION HAS
REACHED SINCE 1960, TO SINCE
THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WE'VE
PLAYED PROXY WARFARE WITH THE
RUSSIANS, WHO ARE OPERATING IN
MANNING AIRCRAFT AGAINST OUR
FORCES IN NORTH KOREA.
THEY WERE THE ONES WHO ARE NOT
OFF HER PLACE IN VIETNAM,
INCLUDING LIKELY SENATOR
MCCAIN'S PLANE.
I'VE HEARD RUSSIAN AIR DEFENSE
TROOPS --
>> COLONEL, THIS IS NOT A PROXY
WAR BY RUSSIA.
THIS IS A WAR BY RUSSIA AGAINST
ANOTHER COUNTRY.
THIS IS NOT PROXY, THIS IS NOT
THEM USING ANOTHER COUNTRY'S
BATTLEFIELD, AND SUPPORTING
ANOTHER COUNTRY, THAT'S PROXY,
WHEN YOU'RE SUPPORTING ANOTHER
COUNTRY.
THIS IS DIRECT.
AND THERE IS NO PREVIOUS MODEL
THAT FITS THIS PARTICULAR
CONFRONTATION.
>> WE DID NOT CONFRONT THE
RUSSIANS IN AFGHANISTAN.
WE ARE DOING IN UKRAINE, WHAT
WE DID IN AFGHANISTAN.
THE RUSSIANS CONFRONTED
AFGHANISTAN, WE DID NOT DARE
CONFRONT THE RUSSIANS IN
AFGHANISTAN.
>> WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING,
FRANKLY, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS THE UKRAINIANS,
WITH THE MATERIAL TO FIGHT IT.
I'VE NEVER ADVOCATED FOR U.S.
FORCES ON THE GROUND, OR IN THE
AIR.
THAT'S NEVER BEEN PART OF THE
DISCUSSION.
WHEN I'M SAYING IS, WE NEED TO
PUT THE UKRAINIANS TO BE ABLE
TO EFFECTIVELY FIGHT ON THEIR
OWN, THEY'VE ACTUALLY PROVING
THEMSELVES, AND SHOWS IN THE 42
IN.
THEY JUST NEED TO BE EQUIPPED,
JUST LIKE WE'RE ABOUT RUSSIAN