MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone, for joining the gaggle and for your patience and flexibility with us as we work through today's glitch.
Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we'll take as many questions as we can.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. As you know, later today, the President is going to be hosting Prime Minister Starmer here at the White House for a discussion about a range of foreign policy issues, which will no doubt include Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, events in the Middle East, a series of challenges across the Indo-Pacific, our deepening economic ties with the United Kingdom, and other areas of shared interest between our two countries.
The second bilateral conversation between President Biden and the Prime Minister. I think you all remember they had a chance to speak during the NATO Summit back in July. And the President, of course, looks forward to continuing to strengthen our close ties to this very important ally and partner.
We will, of course, provide a readout at the end of the meeting, which you'll get as soon as we can get cleared for you.
And with that, we can take some questions.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question will go to Lara with the Wall Street Journal.
Q Hi. Thanks for doing this. Can you hear me?
MODERATOR: Yes, we can. Yep.
Q Excellent. So, there's been a lot of reporting that the coalition, the Western coalition, is going to lift a ban on Ukraine using long-range weapons in Ukraine [sic]. I'm wondering if you can give us a little bit of context of why this is now being seriously considered.
MR. KIRBY: I would not expect there to be any announcements on this coming out of the meeting today. There's been no change to our policy, Lara, with respect to the long-range strike capability inside Russia, and I'd leave it at that.
(Technical difficulties.)
Q Hello? Hello?
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Josh with the AP.
(Technical difficulties.)
Hey, everyone. Sorry about that, but we're back.
Josh, we no longer see you. Apologies. But if you hop back on, we'll try to get back to you.
So our next question will go to Danny with AFP.
Q Hi there. Sorry, there were some audio difficulties there. I didn't really hear the answer to the first question, but my question was basically the same. You know, what do you really expect to come out of this? Are you looking at — will the President be looking at approving just the use of British and French missiles with U.S. technology or navigational aid? Or is there a decision possible for the use of U.S. missiles in the future? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: What I said was — look, I can't speak for the British or the French one way or another. What I said was I wouldn't be looking for an announcement today about long-range strike capabilities inside Russia, certainly anything — certainly by the United States.
(Background noise.)
I can't — somebody — okay.
So, there's no change to our policy with respect to that. And again, I wouldn't expect to see a change to that policy today.
MODERATOR: Danny, we muted you just so you know, but can you confirm to us if you were able to hear the topper?
Okay, we can't hear you, so going to Josh, who we missed in the beginning.
Josh, you should be able to unmute yourself. And also, can you confirm that you were able to hear the topper?
Q I could hear the topper, but at some point during the first question, we couldn't hear.
Thanks again so much for doing this. On the pictures of the North Korean uranium facility, how long has the federal government known about that facility? And how worried are you about it?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not really able to get into an intelligence analysis one way or the other here. I would simply say that we continue to monitor North Korean progression in their — both in their nuclear ambitions as well as their ballistic missile technology and program. And that is exactly why — or one of the reasons why President Biden has worked so hard to revitalize our network of alliances and partnerships in the region.
It is also why he has devoted more, in particular, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets, prioritizing those for the area around — on and around the Korean Peninsula.
And it is why we continue, in a diplomatic sense, to make clear to Pyongyang that we are willing to sit down without preconditions and talk about the denuclearization of the Peninsula.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Michael with the New York Times.
Q Hey, guys. Thank you for doing this, as always. John, I wonder if I could push you a little bit on the issue of the long-range strike capabilities with, kind of, two questions.
One, while you don't — while I'm not asking you to speak for the French or the British, they have clearly indicated their increased willingness to allow that to happen. And I wonder if, from the U.S.'s perspective, the U.S. needs to give, either because of legal or political reasons, their blessing for that, or is that something that they can proceed with on their own, without the U.S.?
And then secondly, back earlier this week, when the President was asked a couple of questions as he got on Marine One, he was asked, you know, will you lift restrictions on the use of long-range weapons by Ukraine, and his answer was, "We're working that out right now," which definitely suggests at least a shift in the discussions. And I wonder if you could talk about what the — you know, kind of what the, you know, place — where those discussions are now, and if, in your view, they are closer to some sort of resolution than they have been.
MR. KIRBY: We are in constant contact with our allies and partners, and particularly the Brits and the French, as you indicate, about all manner of ways in which we can continue to support Ukraine. Of course, these are sovereign countries, and they have to decide what that support looks like in ways that they find amenable to them and to their population, and we respect that.
But there are constant conversations between us about what they're doing, what we're doing, what together we're willing to do to support Ukraine. And I have no doubt that today's discussion will include exactly that — about, you know, supporting Ukraine.
And I — all I can do to answer your second question is to go back to how I answered it before: There is no change to our view on the provision of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside Russia, and I wouldn't expect any sort of major announcement in that regard coming out of the discussions, certainly not from our side. I also leave it to the Prime Minister to decide what he wants to talk about.
But there's just no change to our policy right now with respect to that capability, for all the reasons that we said we weren't in support of it before.
Q And just one last thing, John. On the first question, some people have suggested to me that there are perhaps, in the British and French missiles, that there are American components or that the missiles use American capabilities. So, from a legal perspective, do they need the U.S.'s permission to allow those to be used, given the current — where the U.S. currently stands? Or can they make that decision without the U.S.'s permission?
MR. KIRBY: I would just say that we continue to talk with both those countries and other allied countries about the kinds of capabilities that are being provided to Ukraine. And I'm going to leave it at that.
Q Okay, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yep.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Felicia with the Financial Times.
Q Thanks, John. Two questions. One, should we expect you to at any point say publicly whether you would change — or that you've changed the policy? Because I know there are other moments where you've changed the policy first and then acknowledged it later. You said no major announcements today, but would you announce it at some point if you do make a change? That's one.
And then, separate — secondly, do you consider it to be a separate discussion, granting permission to the Brits and the French to use SCALP and Storm Shadow, as opposed to the U.S. granting permission on ATACMS? Or is it all one decision?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to get into a hypothetical one way or another about what we will or won't say at any given moment. We haven't — I just don't think it's helpful to get into hypotheticals about that.
On your second question, I go back to what I said to Michael. We have and will continue to have meaningful conversations with our allies — in the context of the Ramstein group and, in cases like today, bilaterally — about what we're all doing to support Ukraine, about what can be done, what should be done, the pros and the cons. And that will be a part of today's discussion.
Because we have never — not since the beginning of this war have we ever looked at the support to Ukraine as some sort of unilateral effort or in the sense that what we're doing, what the United States is doing — and, yes, we're leading the world in supporting Ukraine — is somehow divorced from the efforts that other countries are doing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's quite the opposite. I mean, in many cases, there's capabilities that exist in other countries that either we don't have our ability to get our hands on or they simply can — some of the things are just more valuable to the Ukrainians at any given moment.
And our allies and our partners sometimes have complementary capabilities, such as anti-tank missile systems. The Brits have an excellent anti-tank missile that has proven very, very effective on the battlefield.
So, it's all part of an integrated discussion that we have had since the beginning of this war, and that will continue. It will continue today in the context of a bilateral discussion with the British.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Robbie with Politico.
Q Hey, can you hear me?
MODERATOR: We can, yep.
Q Thanks. So, Putin publicly said that Western weapons striking deeper into Russia would, quote, "change the very essence of the conflict." So my question is — and I realize there's no announcement today, so no need to repeat that — but is this prospect of long-range strike weapons, in your view, the red line that Russia has said — that you actually believe constitutes a red line in Russia's eyes?
Do you take Putin at his words that strikes into Russian territory by U.S.- or British- or French-made missiles would actually expand the war?
MR. KIRBY: It's hard to take anything coming out of Putin's face at his word. But this is not rhetoric that we haven't heard from him before, so there's really not a lot new there.
Q So, in other words, you know, in the deliberations about this long-range strike, threats from Putin are not a big factor for you guys in your deliberations on this?
MR. KIRBY: Well, you didn't let me finish the answer, so let me try —
Q Okay.
MR. KIRBY: I never said, nor have I — would we ever say that we don't take Mr. Putin's threats seriously. When he starts brandishing the nuclear sword, for instance, yeah, we take that seriously, and we constantly monitor that kind of activity. He obviously has proven capable of aggression. He has obviously proven capable of escalation over the last, now, going on three years.
So, yeah, we take these comments seriously, but it is not something that we haven't heard before. So, we take note of it. Got it. We have our own calculus for what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not. And I think I'd leave it there.
I would only offer one more thought, and that is: If Mr. Putin is so concerned about the safety and security of Russian sites and cities, the easiest way to alleviate those concerns is to get his troops the hell out of Ukraine and the war.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Nadia.
Q Thank you, Sam. Hi, John. There's reports that U.S. officials are worried about the rhetoric coming from Israeli officials that they might go to war in Lebanon. Can you tell us more about Mr. Hochstein's visit to Israel? And is this in the same light that it could be an escalation between the two countries?
And I have another question. I don't know if you have an answer for it, but there's some reports indicating that South Africa has actually informed the Biden administration that it will sue them over what they call the support for genocide. Is this any confirmation that you received this message? And are you legally protected from anything that's similar to this in the future, from South Africa or any other country?
MR. KIRBY: I'll take your question on South Africa, and we'll get back to you.
On your first question, Amos's travels are very much a continuation of the diplomacy that he's been conducting now for many months to try to prevent a second front from opening up in the north there, all part and parcel of this administration and this team's efforts to prevent an escalation and a widening of this conflict.
Q That's it? Any more details?
MR. KIRBY: Nope.
Q Okay.
MODERATOR: Sorry, Nadia, cut you off there. You should be able to unmute yourself again.
Q That's okay. I accepted his answer, but since there's no more details, that's fine. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Our next question will go to Neria with Channel 13 Israel.
Q Hi, Sam. Hi, Kirby. Thank you so much for doing this again. I was wondering if you have any news about the hostages deal. I do understand that Hamas sent the response, and that might change and shift a little bit the way the U.S. administration sees the entire situation, and they might have new conversations next week to talk about the deal. Can you elaborate on that?
MR. KIRBY: I would argue that we're still in discussions with Qatar, Egypt, and, of course, the Israelis about trying to find a way through here to get some final text that everybody can agree to.
I don't have additional or more formal discussions, such as next week, to speak to. But I can assure you that we've been actively having discussions, obviously remotely, this week, throughout the whole week, to see if we can't find a way forward.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Fraser with France 24.
Q Thanks, Sam. And thank you, Admiral. British sources tell me that they asked this meeting with the President because they think there's progress to be made on a host of issues whilst Biden is still in office. Why did the President think it was important to have these discussions with the UK this late into his tenure?
MR. KIRBY: There's always time and space to have meaningful discussions, particularly about key foreign policy issues, with your allies and partners. This has nothing to do with the amount of time the President is in office and everything to do with a range of issues that are so important to the two of us. I mentioned a bunch of them at the top. I won't repeat the list for you, but there's an awful lot on the agenda to speak to.
This is a new British government. They are a key ally and a partner, and so it just seems to follow logic that the two leaders would want to have another opportunity to have a discussion.
So, we welcome this chance to have a longer and more substantive discussion with the Prime Minister and his team today, specifically on foreign policy issues. And it's a perfect follow-up to the briefer meeting that they had back in July.
Q Is the President also — does the President also have (inaudible) legacy as well, however, with this meeting?
MR. KIRBY: President Biden is not worrying right now about his legacy. He's worrying about protecting the national security interests of the United States.
Q Thank you, Admiral.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And we have time for one more question. We'll go to Celia with Voice of America.
Q Thank you so much for doing this. I want to go to Venezuela. We know that the sanctions were announced. What is the next step after the sanctions were announced? The government of Maduro, of course, condemned them. Is there possibility or is in the works to go back to the Qatar talks?
And how you see the relationship between Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, as well as China, in the middle of this crisis? Do you believe that Maduro will get closer to them as sanctions get stronger against his government? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Mr. Maduro has got choices and decisions that only he can make. We've made it very clear to Mr. Maduro that the first decision he needs to make is to release all the election data and the results so that the whole world can see how that election unfolded and how and to what degree the Venezuelan people's will was actually met here and seriously considered and reflected in those votes.
We issued sanctions. We're not going to take anything else off the table going forward. Again, there's — the first decision before Mr. Maduro and, quite frankly, the most important decision right now for him is whether or not he's going to do the right thing by the Venezuelan people. He has to make that choice, and if he doesn't, we'll have to make some additional choices of our own.
As for who he's cozying up to and trying to partner with, I mean, he can speak to that. We're focused on making sure that the Venezuelan people's aspirations are met. We're making sure that democratic institutions and democracies is upholded to the best that it possibly can be. And obviously, when it comes to this or any other hemisphere, we're focused on making sure we can meet our security commitments and preserve our national security interests, and that certainly includes in the Western Hemisphere.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Again, that is all the time we have today. Thank you all for your patience and getting on the Zoom and then our little glitch here at the beginning. We'll be sure to send an Otter around so folks have the earlier audio.
If we weren't able to get to get to you, as always, reach out to our press distro. If not, have a great weekend. Thanks.
12:01 P.M. EDT
