Via Teleconference
1:32 P.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Hey. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining. I’ll turn it over to John Kirby here at the top for some words, and then we’ll take your questions.
MR. KIRBY: Good morning, everybody. I’ve got quite a few things to get through, so just hang on for me, if you will.
As you know, today marks three years since the devastating terrorist attack at Abbey Gate outside of Kabul International Airport, an attack that killed 13 American service members and more than 100 innocent Afghans. Of course, it wounded many more.
In statements released this morning, the President and the Vice President honored the 13 American heroes who were taken from us on that day. Their prayers and all of our prayers have been and will continue to be with the members’ families and their loved ones and their colleagues in the military. And those prayers will stay with them every day and have stayed with them every day since that terrible attack.
As our statements said this morning, these 13 Americans and those who were wounded were patriots in every sense, in the highest sense. They embodied the very best of who we are as a country: brave, committed, selfless. And we owe them and their families a sacred debt that we’ll never really be able to fully repay but that we can never stop trying to do so.
Today, our longest war is over, but our commitment to preventing attacks on the homeland and our people will never be. We’ll continue to disrupt terrorist activity wherever we find it, continue to deliver justice to terrorists who plot against America, just as we have over the last three years with leaders from al Qaeda and ISIS. And we’ll also be able to do all that without having to deploy thousands of American troops to ground wars overseas.
So, again, as we mark this solemn day, we also honor all those who served and sacrificed and for the families who likewise served and sacrificed.
Moving to Ukraine: Earlier today, Russia launched a massive aerial assault against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. Ukrainian officials report that this outrageous attack included more than 100 missiles and 100 Iranian-provided drones and that it resulted in the deaths of Ukrainian civilians and targeted more than two dozen critical energy sites.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms Russia’s continued war against Ukraine and its efforts to plunge the Ukrainian people into darkness as the fall here sits upon us and as winter approaches.
As the President has said, Russia will never succeed in Ukraine, and the spirit of the Ukrainian people will never be broken.
We’re going to continue to lead that coalition of more than 50 countries in providing much-needed military equipment for Ukraine. That certainly includes air defense systems and interceptors, which proved so critical in helping defend Ukraine against these attacks. And they need them every day.
We’re also surging energy equipment to Ukraine to repair what Russia has damaged and to strengthen the resilience of Ukraine’s energy grid.
As President Biden told President Zelenskyy on Friday when they spoke, our support for Ukraine is unshakable, and the United States will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine as they defend their homeland against Russian aggression.
Finally, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is on his way to Beijing as we speak — he’s literally in transit — for meetings which will include meetings with the PRC Foreign Minister, Communist Party Politburo member, and Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission, Wang Yi. Those meetings will take place over the course of two days, the 27th through the 29th.
This trip marks the fifth meeting between Wang and Mr. Sullivan. The channel between the National Security Advisor and the Director has played an important role in responsibly managing the competition and the tension between our two countries.
Mr. Sullivan’s trip to China was discussed by the two leaders, President Biden and President Xi, at the Woodside Summit last November. And a lot of planning and scheduling went in since then, and they’re now executing it.
In Beijing, Mr. Sullivan will discuss key issues in the U.S.-China bilateral relationship, including advancing counternarcotics cooperation, military-to-military communication, and AI safety and risk discussions — all outcomes of the Woodside Summit.
You can expect that he will also take the opportunity to talk to Mr. Wang about our concerns, from a security perspective, all throughout the Indo-Pacific — tensions rising in the South China Sea, tensions across the Taiwan Strait, and a range of other issues including unfair economic practices. All of that will be on the table.
And now we can start taking some questions.
MODERATOR: First up we’ll go to the line of Aamer Madhani.
Q Hey. Thank you both. John, I just wanted to ask just about the ongoing talks in Cairo, just how they’re working. Who’s leading these working-level talks? How long are they expected to last? And can you offer any detail on the broad areas these technical talks will be focused on?
And then secondly, just with — over the weekend, with this fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, has that had any impact on the talks? And is there broadly a concern that the window for completing these negotiations will eventually — or will soon close? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Aamer. So, the working groups are meeting now in Cairo. Brett McGurk stayed in Cairo an extra day to get them kicked off, and he’s there now, but he’ll probably depart relatively soon and leave the discussion and the work to the working group members. I don’t have a list of names of all the people that are going to be represented there, but all parties will be represented, including Hamas, in those working group discussions.
And as for how long they’ll take, I think that remains to be seen. We expect that these working group discussions will at least take place over the next few days. But whether it goes longer or, you know, could end sooner, I think really is going to be up to those in the room and what they’re able to accomplish.
And then that gets to your other question about, well, what are they working on. I think it’s safe to say that the issues they’re going to be talking about are of a much more detailed, specific nature than we’ve typically been able to talk about.
For instance — and I want to be careful, obviously — but for instance, one issue that will be for the working groups to flesh out is the exchange of hostages and prisoners that Israel is holding. What that exchange looks like, how many, you know, some of the details of exactly who will be released on either side and at what pace, those kinds of things, that’s a good example of some of the things that they’re trying to flesh out now. I think it’s best if I don’t go into more detail than that, though, right now.
And on the attacks over the weekend: No, there was not an impact on the talks in Cairo, and we’re certainly glad to see that. Obviously, as I said earlier, the working groups are now meeting and talking, and so there continues to be progress, and our team on the ground continues to describe the talks as constructive.
So, despite the rocket and drone attack by Hezbollah over the course of the weekend, which Israel did a terrific job defending against, it has not affected the actual work on the ground by the teams trying to get this ceasefire deal in place.
And then, so to your other question about whether the window is closing or not: Look, we’ve had a sense of urgency about this since the get-go. And the President announced this proposal way back in late May, and here we are, you and me, talking in late August. We would have obviously preferred to see this ceasefire in place months ago, right after the President laid forward that proposal that originated in Israel. And so, here we are, still having these talks.
I mean, we’ve never let go of that sense of urgency. We want to get it done as soon as possible. And I think we’re all watching what’s going on in the region writ large. Very, very closely monitoring the situation. Don’t want to see an all-out war, and we’re doing everything we can to try to prevent that.
As you probably heard from the Pentagon, you know, we’re maintaining a pretty robust force posture there to be able to defend ourselves and defend Israel should it come to that. Hopefully it won’t.
But we want to get this ceasefire deal as soon as possible, so we haven’t let our — we haven’t let our interest in doing that wane. We haven’t taken our foot off the gas. The same sense of urgency exists now as it did months ago.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Jeff Mason.
Q Hi. Thanks very much. John, following up on Ukraine: Ukraine is calling now for the West, including the United States, to lift restrictions on its use of missiles. What, after the recent events, what response does the White House have to that? And is that something that President Biden is giving consideration to?
MR. KIRBY: Our response to what happened over the weekend is, as I said earlier, certainly condemning these attacks. This is a classic play out of the playbook for Vladimir Putin to go after energy infrastructure, particularly as he knows the weather is about to turn and people are going to need heat and power a lot more as things get colder in Ukraine. It’s — again, it’s been a classic move by Putin.
And what we’re focused on, as I said in my opening statement, Jeff, is making sure that they have as robust an air defense capability as possible. Now, their air defense performed really well during these attacks. They didn’t knock everything out of the sky — clearly, some things got through — but they knocked the majority out of the sky. And we got to make sure they can continue to do that.
So we’re focused on looking at interceptors and air defense systems, not just from the United States, but from allies and partners. And I think, you know, as you probably saw back in the NATO Summit, we announced another five Patriot air defense systems.
And I also would point out, again, what I said in my opening statement about working with Ukraine to make sure they’ve got energy infrastructure that’s more resilient. It can’t just be about defending those sites, although that’s a big part of it. You got to make sure that they’ve got resilience, they’ve got backup, they’ve got a supply chain to help keep their energy infrastructure operating, even as it may fall prey to attacks.
And as for our policies with respect to how U.S. weapons are used in Ukraine, I have no changes to those guidelines to speak to today.
Q Can you just respond, though, to President Zelenskyy’s call for that?
MR. KIRBY: This is not a new desire by President Zelenskyy by any stretch. He’s made his concerns known to us privately, and he certainly has made his concerns known to everybody publicly. And we understand why he’s doing that; his country is under attack.
But as I’ve said many, many times, we’ll keep the conversations with the Ukrainians going, but we’re going to keep them private. And I have no changes to our policies with respect to U.S. weapons to speak to today or no guidelines to talk to.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Arlette Saenz.
Q Hi. Thank you for doing this. If I could start with the talks — the ceasefire and hostage talks. With the Hamas negotiating team leaving Cairo yesterday, does the U.S. have any sense yet if Sinwar has received a copy of the latest proposal?
And then, as it relates to the back-and-forth strikes between Israel and Hezbollah over the weekend, were you surprised that this did not escalate into a broader regional conflict immediately? And has the U.S. engaged with Iran in any back-channel communications in recent days to try to prevent this?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any back-channel communications with Iran to speak to. As you know, we have many ways of delivering messages to Tehran, and we use them all appropriately. And throughout this entire process here, we’ve had that ability to do it. But I don’t have anything more to add on that.
I would just say we’re — we obviously monitored these attacks in real time. The President was kept informed by his national security team in real time. And they did not — to my answer to Aamer earlier, they did not have an impact on the ceasefire talks, which is a good thing, and we were glad to see that. Also very glad to see that there was minimal damage and effect on Israel, both in terms of casualties and infrastructure damage. That’s important. And we’re going to make sure that, going forward, Israel can continue to defend itself. We’re prepared to help defend them if we have to.
And as for your first question on Hamas, what I would just tell you is that Hamas continues to be represented as these working group meetings are going on as we speak here and over the next few days.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Aurelia End.
Q Hi. Thanks so much for doing this and taking my questions. Do you expect other attacks by Hezbollah or other Iran proxies in the coming days or weeks against Israel?
MR. KIRBY: Don’t know. All I can tell you is that we’re ready. We don’t want to see that, but I can’t be perfectly predictive. We’re watching it as closely as we can.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Yuna.
Q Hi. Thank you for this. So, also following up on the last question regarding the possibility of an Iranian direct attack on Israel, so what is the current assessment regarding the option that this might happen in the near future?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get into intelligence assessments one way or the other. I can tell you that we have to assume that Iran remains postured and prepared should that be a decision that they make, which is why we continue to maintain a very robust force posture in the region. I think you saw from my colleagues at the Pentagon talking about maintaining that two-carrier presence in the region. We got to make sure we’re postured and prepared, and we are. It’s not something we take lightly. We look at it every day. If we have to make changes, we will. I’m not here to announce any of those changes, but it’s a dynamic situation, and we have to treat it like that.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Alex Ward.
Q Yeah, thanks, John. Briefly, the attack that Hezbollah was preparing that, you know, was preemptively struck by the Israelis, was that the one you were warning about that could come in, you know, days at one point? Is that that specific one?
And I’m wondering, how much time did the Israelis — how much time was between when the Israelis gave you the heads-up that they were planning the preemptive attack to when they did it? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I’ll just tell you we’re in constant touch with our Israeli counterparts and we were throughout the weekend. And that muscle and sinew was in place. And I’d leave it at that.
On the attack itself, we long ago said — I mean, a couple weeks ago; I guess that’s long ago — that we could see something at any time, not just from Iran, but from Iran’s proxies. What Hezbollah launched, you know, into the early morning hours Sunday was certainly a sizable attack, different in scope than what we tend to see on a daily basis between Israel and Hezbollah. This was a sizable attack. You know, several hundred drones and rockets.
And again, without getting into the specific intelligence assessment, it’s safe to say that that kind of an attack, that scope, that size, was the kind of thing that I was talking about when I said we could see an attack at any time.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Akayla Gardner.
Q Hey, guys. India put out a statement today saying that Modi spoke with Biden. Is there anything you can say about what they talked about? And also, does the U.S. sort of welcome India’s sort of (inaudible) position here, backing Ukraine sovereignty?
MR. KIRBY: Yes, it’s true, the President did speak with Prime Minister Modi today, and we’ll have a readout for you. As you know, there’s usually a good time lag between the call finishing and us getting you a readout, but that’s on its way to you all.
I think it’s safe to say they certainly talked about Ukraine and the Prime Minister’s trip to Kyiv and the prospects for moving forward in accordance with President Zelenskyy’s plan for a just peace.
And as I said, I think it was Friday when somebody asked me about this. We welcome any other country that wants to help President Zelenskyy work towards this just peace.
And any country that’s willing to come at that discussion by starting with President Zelenskyy’s perspective, by hearing him out, by signing on to that proposal — and I won’t speak for India and what they’re signing on to or not; that’s for the Prime Minister and his team to talk to — but we certainly welcome any nation that is willing to be helpful and to start that conversation by ascribing to President Zelenskyy’s just peace proposal and getting his perspectives.
And we’ll — again, we’ll have a readout a little bit later that may provide some additional context.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Marek.
Q Thank you so much. Hey, John. The government of Poland said that the Russian drone entered Polish airspace during the latest Russian attack on Ukraine and probably landed or crashed on Polish territory. I’m wondering if you’re aware of that and what’s your response.
And also, is the U.S. still against shooting down Russian missiles or drones over Ukraine’s territory?
MR. KIRBY: As I said before when you’ve asked this question, we’ll leave it to Polish authorities to speak to how they’re going to act in their self-defense, which they certainly have — they certainly have the right to make those decisions.
I’m not tracking the report of a drone landing on Polish soil. So, Marek, what I can do is ask the team to go take a look at that and see if we have anything on it. But this is the first I’m hearing about it.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to James Rosen. James, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Q All right. The great unmuting has occurred. Can you all hear me?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I got you, James.
Q Thank you both. I wanted to ask two questions: one about the Middle East and then one on a broader foreign policy subject.
The first question: Is it the view of the National Security Council that the conduct of large-scale military operations in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces has reached a point of diminishing returns?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we’ve kind of talked about this a little bit ago, with the caveat, of course, James, that I’m not going to speak for the Israeli Defense Forces or what their daily objectives and targets are. That’s for them to speak to.
They still face a viable threat by a terrorist organization that has not changed its views about the existence of Israel. At the same time, there’s no question that they have destroyed an incredible amount of Hamas’s war-making ability. They’ve killed a high number of both senior, at the strategic level and operational and tactical, leaders from Hamas. No question they have diminished Hamas’s ability to resource itself and to man its ranks.
But as I said, they can speak to what they’re doing every day, but clearly, even as we are pursuing these ceasefire talks, I mean, they are still facing an enemy in Gaza that continues to want to destroy the State of Israel.
Q My second question, if you can still hear me —
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I gotcha.
Q Thank you.
The President’s public comportment and the paucity of events on his public schedule, as on this very day, have fostered a public perception that Mr. Biden is increasingly disengaged from the presidency. Time and again, the question I am hearing from members of the general public, and which I put to you here, Admiral, is: Who is running the country?
MR. KIRBY: President Joe Biden.
Q Is he a ceremonial figure in some sense at this point?
MR. KIRBY: James, now you know better than that. I mean, my goodness, he talked to Prime Minister Modi today. He had calls with leaders in the region and in Europe, President Zelenskyy, last week. He monitored in real time what was going on over the weekend. I mean, come on. The President is on vacation, but you can never unplug from a job like that, nor does he try to. He’s very much in command of making sure we can continue to protect our national security interests here at home and certainly overseas.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Francesca Chambers.
Q Thanks, Kirby. Appreciate it. Two questions. First one on what’s going on with Hezbollah in the Middle East. The President sent the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman there over the weekend on a surprise visit. What does he hope to accomplish with that visit? What does he hope to learn?
And then, secondarily, going back to your opening remarks on Afghanistan, why did the President and Vice President release separate statements today? And why did the White House feel that they did not need to host or attend public events in the way that former President Donald Trump did today? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Well, a couple of things here.
I mean, first, on the Chairman’s trip, it’s always useful when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has an opportunity to visit with and meet with and learn from his counterparts overseas. And obviously, with everything going on in the Middle East and the added force posture that we have contributed to the region, it makes a lot of sense at this particular time for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to go over there and have those conversations.
And I’m sure that — I won’t speak for Chairman Brown, of course, but I’m sure he’s learning a lot, and he’s getting an opportunity to see firsthand what our military readiness looks like and getting a chance to thank the men and women that are deployed over there or serving over there. So, lots of good reasons at this particular time for the most senior military officer to go for a visit.
And then, on your second question, I would say there are many ways that we as a nation and our leaders can observe the third anniversary of Abbey Gate. And Mr. Trump was invited by at least one, I think maybe several, of the families to lay a wreath at Arlington, and that is certainly a way to recognize the sacrifice and the loss. But it was a personal invitation by families, and certainly I’ll let him speak to that and his willingness to do it. But that was a way.
Another way is to continue to work, maybe not with a lot of fanfare, maybe not with a lot of public attention, maybe not with TV cameras, but to work with might and main every single day to make sure that the families of those — of the fallen and of those who were injured and wounded, not just at Abbey Gate but over the course of the 20-some-odd years that we were in Afghanistan, have the support that they need.
And you don’t have to look very far at the President and the First Lady’s track record and the Vice President’s track record over the last three and a half years to see how deeply devoted they are to the men and women of our military and to our veterans and to their families, everything from Joining Forces to the PACT Act and any number of other steps that this administration has taken to make sure that we are meeting, as the President describes, our one true, sacred obligation as a country. There’s an awful lot that goes into that.
And the President, the Vice President, the First Lady, Second Gentleman, they take those responsibilities seriously. You may not see them every day. You may not get a headline on it every day. There may not be a press release. But it doesn’t mean that that work isn’t ongoing, and that the respect and the admiration that they have for everyone who is now or ever has served a uniform remains a paramount priority for them.
MODERATOR: We have time for one more question. We’ll go to Mark Stone.
Q Thank you, Sean. Thank you, Admiral. I wonder if I could go back to Israel, if I can, and just try and get a clear understanding, to the extent that you can talk about it, about what went wrong, why the talks didn’t progress and broke down yesterday, given that at the beginning of the week the President said that he didn’t want to jinx it but he was optimistic. And then, Secretary Blinken said that he believed the Israelis and Netanyahu were completely on board.
So I just — as I say, to the extent that you’re able to articulate it, just give us a sense of why it didn’t progress.
MR. KIRBY: Mark, I got to tell you, bud, I kind of disagree with the question itself. There was no breakdown, buddy.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. KIRBY: There was no breakdown, buddy. They made enough progress that they were willing to or needed to transition to a working group level. So you didn’t need the mediators all there and the leadership there. The talks actually progressed to a point where they felt like the next logical step was to have working groups at lower levels sit down to hammer out these finer details. And I mentioned a couple of them here in an earlier question.
But there’s no truth at all to the fact that they broke down — quite the contrary — as I said in my — I think I said in my opening statement. But the team on the ground, they reported to us this morning, even, that the talks are continuing and that they have been constructive.
Now, I can’t be perfectly predictive, Mark. I can’t tell you that, you know, tomorrow we’re going to have a deal; that’s certainly the desire. But they have been moving forward in such a way that it was now time to turn over the work to these working groups.
MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone. That’s all the time we have for today. If we didn’t get to your question, reach out to the team, and we’ll get back to you. Thanks again.
2:03 P.M. EDT
