Monday’s episode of The Psaki Show featured Fox News’s Jacqui Heinrich and Newsmax’s James Rosen grilling Press Secretary Jen Psaki over the Biden administration showing weakness when dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the lead up to his invasion of Ukraine as well as their reluctance to provide Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with the military support he needs.
The first one out of the gate was Fox's Jacqui Heinrich who, in light of the news her Fox colleague Benjamin Hall had been injured, wanted to know how the Biden administration would respond now that it appears that Russia is now shooting at American journalists:
The President said back in February that the U.S. would respond forcefully if Americans were targeted in Ukraine. Brent as you know was killed over the weekend. One of my colleagues was injured today. We are still waiting to hear if he’s okay. So what is that response going to look like?
Psaki didn’t give an adequate response to Heinrich’s question other than reminding her what actions Biden has already taken towards Russia:
I think you have seen the President lead the world in taking–putting in place consequences, putting in place repercussions and steps in response to the actions of Russia, the brutal actions that have certainly impacted Ukrainian people, and now have certainly impacted Americans. But in terms of next steps or what the consequence would be, I don't have anything to preview for you at this point in time.
Understandably unhappy with that answer, Heinrich continued pressing, remarking how the President has “so far been unwilling to draw a red line” on the “atrocities” that the world is watching unfold in Ukraine. Heinrich reminded Psaki that former “President Obama drew the red line for Syria at chemical weapons. So is there any thought process about what we’re willing to watch happen?”
In response, Psaki snarked that “the President has taken and lead the world in taking has essentially led the Russian financial system to be on the brink of collapse” and that the United States has provided more military assistance to Ukraine “than any other country in the world and more historic assistance than any other year to Ukraine in history.”
After that dodge, Henrich was ready to take the gloves off, pressing Psaki that if the United States doesn’t draw a “red line at something like chemical weapons” wouldn’t it make it easier for Putin or other bad actors to use them in the future not worry about consequences?
In her typical style, Psaki gave Heinrich an attitude claiming that “you heard the President say on Friday that there would be severe consequences and the world would respond if they were to use chemical weapons.”
Later on in the briefing, Psaki called on Rosen, and you could tell she immediately regretted it because Rosen really took it to her:
Prior to February 24, the President, our NATO allies, and the EU were embarked on a deterrence project, that's exactly the word that you and other senior U.S. Officials used at the time. Quite clearly, the invasion was launched on the 24th of February and so, we can say as a factual matter that that deterrence project failed. Is it the view of the White House that Mr. Putin could not be deterred by any set of steps, or are you willing to concede that perhaps, some other set of steps by the President and our allies might have deterred the invasion?
Psaki claimed that the administration “never thought that would be failproof or that would be 100 percent effective.” But rather “because we wanted to lay out the clear consequences should President Putin proceed in invading Ukraine.” She continued to claim that President Biden had “rallied the world” to “stand up to the aggressions of President Putin.”
Rosen’s follow-up question was just as brutal. Rosen argued that Biden and NATO allies never let Putin doubt what consequences he might face if he invaded Ukraine, Putin was told upfront what would happen, so Rosen wanted to know “why a greater effort wasn't made to leave Mr. Putin in doubt about the consequences he might face?”
Psaki responded that the reason why is because Biden is “the President of the United States of America, and he felt it was important to be clear with the American people about what his intentions were and what they were not.”
The last question of the press conference surely left a lot of people scratching their heads, and it came from Today News Africa’s chief White House correspondent Simon Ateba, who asked why the Biden administration hasn’t “condemned racism against Africans in Ukraine.” He clarified that he understands Ukrainians are the victims, but according to Ateba, there have been Africans in Ukraine who were prevented from entering Poland.
Psaki told him she believes the State Department had issued a statement about concerns of racism and discrimination at the Poland border. However, Ateba’s follow-up question was even crazier: “Would it be fair to say that you are pushing these guys to commit suicide knowing that Russia has a superpower and eventually will capture the main city, Kyiv, Kharkiv, and all the cities around them? What is the endgame?”
Clearly confused about this strange question, Psaki said “the end game is really a question for President Putin.”
Click "expand" to read the full transcript.
White House press briefing (via CBSN)
03/14/2022
3:28:37 p.m. EasternJACQUI HEINRICH: Thanks, Jen. The President said back in February that the U.S. would respond forcefully if Americans were targeted in Ukraine. Brent as you know was killed over the weekend. One of my colleagues was injured today. We are still waiting to hear if he’s okay. So what is that response going to look like?
JEN PSAKI: Well let me first say, your colleague, Benjamin Hall, I know there’s not final reports yet. Or we would wait for your news organization to confirm those. But our thoughts, the President’s thoughts, our administration’s thoughts are with him, his family, and all of you at Fox News as well. In terms of specific actions, I think you have seen the President lead the world in taking–putting in place consequences, putting in place repercussions and steps in response to the actions of Russia, the brutal actions that have certainly impacted Ukrainian people, and now have certainly impacted Americans. But in terms of next steps or what the consequence would be, I don't have anything to preview for you at this point in time.
HEINRICH: But we’ve seen the President so far unwilling to draw a red line on the kinds of atrocities that we’re going to watch from the sidelines. We have seen maternity wards being bombed, illegal weapons being used, pediatric hospitals being targeted, President Obama drew the redline for Syria at chemical weapons. So is there any thought process about what we’re willing to watch happen?
PSAKI: Well Jacqui, I think it's important to reiterate as often as we can that what we’re seeing is horrific, what we’re seeing is barbaric. And the steps that the President has taken and lead the world in taking has essentially led the Russian financial system to be on the brink of collapse. We have provided more military assistance to the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian government than any other country in the world and more historic assistance than any other year to Ukraine in history. And we’re doing that so we can support them in this difficult moment. So I would say that at this moment in time we have been hardly on the sidelines. We have been leading this effort around the world to respond to every step and every escalatory step that President Putin and the Russians are taking.
HEINRICH: But isn’t there a concern that if we don't draw the line at something like chemical weapons, that it will make it easier for actors to use them in the future because they'll just go unpunished?
PSAKI: Well Jacqui, you heard the President say on Friday that there would be severe consequences and the world would respond if they were to use chemical weapons. And what we have been doing over the course of the last several weeks if not months is providing as much information to the global community, to the media and to others about what to expect and when you have President Putin suggesting and Russian officials suggesting that the United States and Ukrainians are the ones who are working on a chemical weapons program, it’s clear that this is a pattern that we have seen in the past of them trying to set up a predicate for their own actions.
HEINRICH: But what does that end up looking like if the world responds? Because so far, we’ve heard the President talk a lot about what the U.S. is not going to do in terms of not wanting to trigger war with a nuclear power. But do we believe that Putin is, you know, rational kind of person who, you know, would pay attention to something like that? He didn't need provocation, you know, to invade Ukraine. Why wouldn’t we think he would just create a pretext that is fabricated for something like that?
PSAKI: We do. That's why we talked about it. And I think, Jacqui, what’s important here, and I will move on to get more people, is for any president you have to weigh how you can lead the world, how you can make it very clear that actions are horrific, that they are not acceptable, they’re not aligned with global norms, while also thinking about our own national security interest. And starting World War III is certainly not in our national security interest. Putting U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine to fight a war with Russia is not in our national security interest.
(...)
4:02:28 p.m. Eastern
PSAKI: Go ahead, James!
JAMES ROSEN: Thank you very much, Jen. Two questions on Russia and Ukraine. Prior to February 24, the President, our NATO allies, and the EU were embarked on a deterrence project, that's exactly the word that you and other senior U.S. Officials used at the time. Quite clearly, the invasion was launched on the 24th of February and so, we can say as a factual matter that that deterrence project failed. Is it the view of the White House that Mr. Putin could not be deterred by any set of steps, or are you willing to concede that perhaps, some other set of steps by the President and our allies might have deterred the invasion?
PSAKI: Ah you know James I would say that when we put in place the threat of sanctions and the threat of consequences, we never thought that would be failproof or that would be 100 percent effective. We did that because we wanted to lay out the clear consequences should President Putin proceed in invading Ukraine. Even as we predicted even quite consistently that that was very much his intention. And what we've done since that point in time is implement those sanctions and implement those consequences, far beyond what I think most people's expectations were in the world about what those would look like. I don't think I can look in a rearview mirror or any of us can, and predict what would have been different. What we did is we took steps to rally the world, to stand up to the aggressions of President Putin, and we've implemented them and followed up on what we committed to since that point in time.
ROSEN: One key decision made by the President early on, was to remove strategic ambiguity from this equation. Never really was Mr. Putin forced to wonder what consequences he would face, he was told, at the outset he would never face military intervention by the United States and NATO, that the full range of the punishments he would face would amount to diplomatic and economic sanctions. I think a lot of people wonder why a greater effort wasn't made to leave Mr. Putin in doubt about the consequences he might face?
PSAKI: Because the President is the President of the United States of America, and he felt it was important to be clear with the American people about what his intentions were and what they were not. And his intentions were not to send men and women, their sons and daughters to fight a war in Ukraine against Russia.
(...)
4:09:50 p.m. Eastern
SIMON ATEBA: Jen is there any reason why you’ve not condemned racism against Africans in Ukraine? I understand that Ukrainians are the victims here, they're being bombed by Russia and they’re being killed but Africans are facing racism. I know you have provided financial assistance to Poland and to Ukraine, but Africans have been barred from even entering Poland. Why have you not, officially, the White House issued a statement condemning racism against Africans in Ukraine?
PSAKI: We have and I believe the State Department has but we have spoken out against that and expressed concern about any reports of discrimination or at the border.
ATEBA: I’m trying to understand what your endgame is in Ukraine. You're not going there, you're not sending troops there, there will be no-fly zone over Ukraine. Would it be fair to say that you are pushing these guys to commit suicide knowing that Russia has a superpower and eventually will capture the main city, Kyiv, Kharkiv, and all the cities around them? What is the endgame?
PSAKI: Well the endgame is really a question for President Putin, we have completely crushed his economy, we have provided military assistance, humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainians, enabling them to fight back for far longer than the Russian leadership anticipated. And again, he has to determine what the path forward looks like for him.
