VIDEO & TRANSCRIPT: State Department Press Briefing – March 6, 2023 [Excerpt re: Ukraine]

… QUESTION: I’m just wondering after his 10-minute or less-than-10-minute exchange with Foreign Minister Lavrov if there has been any follow-up to that or any conversation at a notable level between you guys and the Russians, or if he left that exchange, that encounter with the idea that there might be in the near future?

[transcript excerpt continues below video]


[NED PRICE, DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON]: Well, we’ve always had the idea that we are prepared and ready to engage when our interests are implicated, when the interests of our partners and allies around the world are implicated. That’s precisely why this wasn’t the first conversation between Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov. It wasn’t even the first since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion against Ukraine in February of last year.

QUESTION: Well, it was the second.

MR PRICE: It was the second. It was the second.

QUESTION: Two —

MR PRICE: But —

QUESTION: Two in —

MR PRICE: But we have demonstrated, and two makes this a consistent pattern, but both in word and we’ve also made it clear – both in deed and we’ve made it clear in word that we are ready to engage when it is in our interest to do so, when it’s in the interests of our allies and partners around the world to do so. The Secretary was clear about the three priorities that he raised with Foreign Minister Lavrov in that meeting. We’ve also been clear that we didn’t – we wouldn’t expect one particular, one specific meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov would lead to a resolution of the issues that he raised, and that of course is putting it very mildly.

We remain prepared, ready to engage if it is in our interest. As you know, we do have lines of communication. We have an embassy in Moscow. The Russians have an embassy here. There are other channels from within the State Department, from within other departments and entities within the Executive Branch. We are going to do – continue to do what is most effective to advance our interests.

We thought that last week because Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov were in the same room, they were in the same place, it was an opportunity for the Secretary to convey very directly, without any room for misinterpretation, the areas that matter a great deal to us. Whether the Russians will in turn act on that in any way, the jury is still out. Again, we harbor no illusions that a single, brief encounter would change their position, but it’s important for us to advocate and to advocate effectively for our interests.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary seen the now-infamous clip on social media in which Lavrov claims that the war was launched by the West against him, his country, and that he is out there to stop it? I was wondering what was the Secretary’s reaction. Was it reflecting the reaction that we have seen from the audience?

MR PRICE: I think, Alex, you can’t watch that clip, you couldn’t have been in the room and heard Foreign Minister Lavrov make those remarks and not to have the same reaction that, apparently, everyone else in that room had. For those who haven’t seen the clip, the room breaks into what can be described as probably uproarious laughter at a statement from Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia was attacked and that was the genesis of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

We’ve heard similar statements, outlandish statements like this, from Russia before. I think it is clear from the reaction in that room the fact that the world is under no illusion about how this started, about who is responsible, and perhaps most importantly of all, who could end it if they – if Russia sought to seek an end to this war today, tomorrow.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if there’s any second thought after seeing Lavrov is denying even basic truth.

MR PRICE: Alex, we’ve observed Foreign Minister Lavrov over the – over the course of the past year. I think the Secretary has used the term that the foreign minister has an adversarial relationship with the truth. We didn’t engage with Foreign Minister Lavrov because we necessarily trust what he has to say or what he has said, for that matter. We engaged with Foreign Minister Lavrov just as we’ve engaged through other channels and through other counterparts because it’s in our interests to do so. And again, we are clear-eyed about the potential for any sort of change, near-term change in the Russian posture on this. The point of this brief encounter was not to seek to effect a reversal in the near term over these core issues that matter a great deal to us and to the rest of the world, but it’s in our interests to engage in diplomacy and to make clear where the United States stands.

QUESTION: Ned, since you’re prepared to comment on that bit with the laughter, what’s your response to the fact that for those of us who were there, that at the beginning of his address at which this thing happened he actually got a round of applause from that same audience when he talked about how NATO was – and the West were encroaching on Russia and going and raising tensions because they’re getting closer? So if you’re going to talk about the laughter at that one bit, I’m just wondering what you make of the applause.

MR PRICE: Well, to say I was prepared to respond to it – he asked a question and I answered it, not that this was —

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know – I don’t – I’m not suggesting it was precooked or anything.

MR PRICE: Correct.

QUESTION: But you were – you did respond to that. So I’m just wondering if you have any concerns at all that that very same audience also seemed to be sympathetic to Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier.

MR PRICE: Matt, there are misperceptions, and we do our best to counter the misperceptions that are out there, whether they are about the United States, whether they are about our Ukrainian partners, whether they are about NATO. And we make clear at every opportunity we have that NATO is a defensive Alliance, pure and simple. NATO has never threatened anyone that in turn doesn’t pose a threat to members of NATO. NATO has expanded as a result of Russian aggression, and it is incumbent on NATO, on the member states as a defensive Alliance, to take prudent steps in response to what they’re seeing from Russia’s very own actions.

The Secretary almost every opportunity he gets makes the point that President Putin, who I think has done a great deal to not only unite NATO – NATO is now stronger, it is more purposeful, it is more determined – but more broadly than that, President Putin has precipitated just about everything he has sought to prevent. And this goes back to 2014, whether you look at popular opinion of NATO in a place like Ukraine, whether you look at the Wales commitments that resulted from President Putin’s aggressive action in eastern Ukraine, his attempts to seize Crimea in 2014, the defense – the increase in defense spending that we’ve seen in the aftermath of Wales, and now in the aspirations of two additional European countries to join the world’s strongest defensive Alliance.

QUESTION: Okay, fair enough. But you seem to be pleased by the fact that people laughed at him when he made this statement about —

MR PRICE: Matt, I was – I was simply responding to a question.

QUESTION: I know, but – I get that. So I’m asking another question. I mean, does it not cause you any concern that the same audience was receptive to his argument that you reject, obviously? But, I mean, we’re talking about an audience of highly educated people in India, nonaligned country, a country with which you are working to increase opposition to the Russian actions or the Russian war in Ukraine, and yet they seemed sympathetic not to the idea that Russia was attacked, but that somehow Russia was provoked or is threatened.

MR PRICE: Matt, I —

QUESTION: Is that not a cause for concern?

MR PRICE: I think I told you at the outset that we have our work cut out for us.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PRICE: It is a task that we have, that NATO has, and that our allies and partners more broadly have to combat misinformation, to combat disinformation. We know that Russia is sowing disinformation, is sowing lies about the strategic intent of NATO. We believe the best antidote to disinformation and misinformation is information. It’s why we get up here and brief every day. It’s why the Secretary brings reporters with him everywhere he travels. It’s why we do press avails in – when he’s traveling, especially in – within our emerging partners. All of that is part and parcel of it.

QUESTION: Would you say – would you say the same about China?

MR PRICE: Would I say what about China?

QUESTION: About promoting disinformation and trying to —

MR PRICE: I would.

QUESTION: And just you would; that’s it?

MR PRICE: Of course we have seen Russia and the PRC peddle misinformation and disinformation, yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PRICE: Said.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. On the issue of diplomacy, I know that the new American ambassador, Lynn Tracy, only submitted her credentials a couple of months ago and so on. Are there any – so she met with Russian officials and so on. But has Ambassador Antonov been meeting with anyone in the State Department? Has he met with like the Secretary of State or the under secretary of state —

MR PRICE: Well, it wouldn’t —

QUESTION: – or the deputy?

MR PRICE: It wouldn’t be within protocol for the Russian ambassador to meet with the Secretary of State. That’s not his natural counterpart. But yes, without going into details of these engagements, Ambassador Antonov has had contact, including recent contact, including in-person contact, with appropriate State Department officials.

QUESTION: I ask this because I think last month you said he had not met with any American officials in a very, very long time.

MR PRICE: It may not be to the extent, and the cadence of that engagement may not be to his liking, but lines of communication remain open. That is of critical importance to us. And Ambassador Antonov is one element when it comes to those lines of communication.

QUESTION: And one quick follow-up. Secretary Austin said from Jordan yesterday that the fall of Bakhmut is not going to change the course of the war. Can you comment on this? I mean, are you guys now prepared that Bakhmut all but has fallen?

MR PRICE: I’m not prepared to offer that assessment. Of course, our Ukrainian partners in the first instance are going to have the best tactical battlefield update. Our colleagues at the Department of Defense may speak to that as well. But the sentiment that Secretary Austin was putting forward is exactly right, as you might expect. This is a conflict that – a war, an invasion, I should say – whose contours were set in place on February 24th, February 25th, and the days that followed of last year.

It was very clear from the earliest hours of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that whenever this ended, it would end in a strategic failure for Russia. That’s because the Ukrainians made very clear in the earliest hours of this conflict that the goals that President Putin sought to pursue – the fall of Ukraine, the fall of its government, the subjugation of its people, the erasure of its identity, the – essentially the subjugation of the country itself, would not be in the cards.

And so yes, we have been very clear that there are going to be tough days ahead. Fighting, while it has lulled somewhat during the winter months, it has continued to rage, especially in the east, especially in the south. There have been incremental gains by both sides; we expect that dynamic to continue. The only reason a town like Bakhmut, which I believe, as Secretary Austin said, holds very little strategic import, is in the news, is in the headlines, is because the Russians have nothing else to point to over the course of more than 12 months of a brutal invasion, of their own brutal aggression.

Were the Russians in any – had they had any sort of success in this effort, the fall or the fact that a place like Bakhmut is being contested wouldn’t even register halfway around the world. The fact that it is, the fact that people are focused on it, is because the Russians have nothing to point to during the course of their 12 months of brutal aggression against the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainians are, as they have across the country, making a valiant effort. The broader strategic tide of this invasion, we think, is set in stone. This will be a strategic failure for Russia. The Ukrainians have demonstrated that they are in a position not only to withstand advancing Russian forces but to take back territory that has been wrested away from them. That won’t change. …

[post also appeared at state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-march-6-2023/]