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.
Jacqui Heinrich (White House correspondent) was first out. Jacqui, in wake of Benjamin Hall’s shooting death, wanted to see how the Biden administration would handle the situation now that Russia seems to be targeting American journalists.
In February, the President stated that the U.S. would take action if Americans are attacked in Ukraine. Brent was, you may recall, killed in the attack on Saturday. My colleague was also injured. We are still waiting to hear if he’s okay. How will that reply look?
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. However, at the moment I do not have any information to give you about next steps and what their consequences might be.
Understandably unhappy with that answer, continued pressing Psaki, 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 NewsMax’s chief White House correspondent James Rosen, and you could tell she immediately regretted it because Rosen really took it to her:
Before February 24, President Obama, NATO Allies, and EU embarked on an EU deterrence program. This was the same word that you, as well other top U.S. Officials, used back then. We can clearly see that the invasion of Ukraine was carried out on the 24th February. Therefore, it is a matter of fact that this deterrence plan failed. Do you think the White House believes that Vladimir Putin cannot be stopped by any number of steps? Or are you open to the possibility that some other steps taken by President Obama and our Allies could have prevented the invasion from happening?
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 stated that she thinks the State Department issued a statement concerning concerns over racism and discrimination on the Poland-Poland border. However, Ateba’s follow-up question was even crazier. He asked Psaki “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.”
White House Press Briefing (via CBSN).
3/14/2022
Eastern, 3:28:37 PMJACQUI HEINRICH: Thanks, Jen. Back in February, President Obama stated that the U.S. would react forcefully to any attack on Americans in Ukraine. Brent was, you may recall, killed in the attack on Saturday. My colleague was also injured. We are still waiting to hear if he’s okay. How will that reply look?
JEN PSAKI: Well let me first say, your colleague, Benjamin Hall, I know there’s not final reports yet. We could wait until your news agency confirms 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. At this time, however, there is no way to predict what would happen in the future or what it will look like.
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. There have been bombings of maternity wards, the use illegal weapons, and children’s hospitals being attacked. President Obama also set a red line for Syria with 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. Because of these steps, the Russian financial system has been on the edge of collapse due to the leadership that the President took. Our military support to Ukraine and its government has been greater than that of any other country. We also provided historic aid to Ukraine more than any year in recent history. And we’re doing that so we can support them in this difficult moment. At this point in time, we are not sitting still. Our efforts have been directed around the world in order to take on every step of President Putin’s escalatory steps.
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. Jacqui – You heard President Putin on Friday say that chemical weapons use would have severe consequences. The world will respond accordingly. 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 how will that look if the rest of the world reacts? 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. Do we think Putin would be a rational person to pay any attention? To invade Ukraine, he didn’t require any provocation. Why wouldn’t we think he would just create a pretext that is fabricated for something like that?
PSAKI: We do. It’s the reason we discussed 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. We are not interested in starting World War III. The U.S. should not send military personnel to Ukraine for the purpose of fighting a Russian war.
(…)
Eastern at 4:02 p.m.
PSAKI: Go ahead, James!
JAMES ROSEN : Jen, thank you so much. There are two questions about Russia and Ukraine. The President and our NATO allies and the EU had been engaged in a deterrence program prior to February 24th. That’s the exact word you and other high ranking U.S. officials used that time. We can clearly see that the invasion of Ukraine was carried out on the 24th February. Therefore, it is a matter of fact that this deterrence plan failed. Are you willing to admit that maybe some additional steps could have stopped Mr. Putin from invading the country?
PSAKI – Ah, you know James. We never imagined that sanctions and consequences could be ineffective or failproof. Because we wanted to make clear the consequences for President Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, that is why we did it. Even though it was something we knew, that was clearly his intention. We have done that since then, implementing those sanctions and imposing those consequences far beyond most people’s expectations about how they would be. It’s impossible to see the future in my rearview mirror, or for that matter predict it. The fact that we were able to take steps to rallie the world against the Putin’s aggressions and have followed through on our promises has been a success.
ROSEN: The President made a key decision early in his presidency to eliminate strategic ambiguity. Although Mr. Putin never really had to be concerned about what the future would bring, the President assured him that he would not face any military intervention from NATO and the United States. He also was informed at the start that all the sanctions against him would consist of economic and diplomatic sanctions. It is a question that many people ask why not more was done to make Mr. Putin aware of the possible consequences.
PSAKI – Because the President of America is the President, he believed it important that the American people were clear about his intentions. His intentions weren’t to send their children, men and women to the Ukraine to wage war against Russia.
(…)
Eastern, 4:09:50
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. While I understand that you provided financial support to Ukraine and Poland, Africans are being prevented from entering Poland. Why isn’t your White House has issued an official statement denouncing racism towards Africans in Ukraine
PSAKI: I think the State Department believes so, but we spoke out against it and voiced concern over any discrimination at the border.
ATEBA: I’m trying to understand what your endgame is in Ukraine. The fact that you aren’t going to Ukraine, and also the fact that there won’t be any military presence over Ukraine, is a clear indication of your intentions. It would be reasonable to assume that these men are being forced to kill themselves knowing full well that Russia is a superpower that will eventually take the city of Kyiv and Kharkiv as well as all other surrounding cities. How do you see the game ending?
PSAKI – The final game is for President Putin. He has completely destroyed his economy. We also provided military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, which enabled them to fight for much more time than was expected by the Russian leadership. He must decide what his path is going to be.
About Post Author
